Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[Underhill]

I guess that's what I'm not clear about. If Trump's order was against the law, then which law did it violate?

What made it illegal wasn't the law, but the exceptions built into it. By giving christians a higher priority than muslims it is unconstitutional. If it were just a ban on people from those countries it would be worthless and stupid, but not illegal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've looked at the information you provided in response to me, and at the EO wording -- and have not been able to find wording in the EO, specifically, or implicitly, that suggests an intention or requirement, to expel Refugees without cause. Actually, I don't see reference to the expulsion of refugees that have already arrived at all.

From what I see, it seems there is wording allowing for exception of certain provisions regarding entry that would apply to refugees that show up on our shores/doorstep -- providing the refugee is not posing a danger -- like a Cuban boat refugee, or similar type of re. (My highlighting.)

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

Sec.5 (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

Here's the thing: their international obligations would require them to admit virtually every refugee, but the statements by the Administration don't suggest that this is how the order would actually be implemented.

I also think it's fishy that it says the US would follow existing agreements as long as doing so "would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States." The Refugee Convention already allows states to expel refugees when they pose security threats and to take measures to protect their own security, so I'm worried that "security or welfare of the United States" is going to be interpreted very broadly in order to justify violating international agreements.

 

[Curious George]

I guess that's what I'm not clear about. If Trump's order was against the law, then which law did it violate?

Do you see how the EO would disfavor muslims and favor non-muslims?

 

[esmith]

I don't think you understand what I've been asking.

Since you apparently can't be bothered to read what you're replying to, I don't know any way to explain myself to you.

That isn't what we're talking about, but yes.

You asked the question:

Exactly how do you think the US's treaties on refugees violate the Constitution?

I answered this question by stating that in the case of a treaty that usurps the Constitution powers of the President then that portion of the treaty is invalid. Now US Code gives the President powers over who can and can not be admitted to the US and the US Code is the law of the land as long as it is in accordance with the Constitution.

 

[Jainarayan]

Here is a little truth for you. There is no solution.

I know you don't want to hear that. But we have plenty of evidence that terrorist can come from anywhere. We've seen them that were French, British, American, Saudi, Egyptian, German, Canadian... you name it, there is crazy everywhere.

How many have made attacks on America from any of those non-Muslim countries compared to radical Islamics? There is a history, you know.

I know you don't want to hear this, but we have a right and obligation to protect ourselves and our interests. We are under no obligation to suck up, cow-tow, or placate the rest of the world, despite the liberals' whining and hearts-a-bleeding. These immigrants will have their chance to come into the country when the waiting period is over. They are not being permanently banned or denied. The problem is this doesn't sit well with liberals. Too bad, suck it up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You asked the question:


I answered this question by stating that in the case of a treaty that usurps the Constitution powers of the President then that portion of the treaty is invalid. Now US Code gives the President powers over who can and can not be admitted to the US and the US Code is the law of the land as long as it is in accordance with the Constitution.

So you fundamentally misunderstand either the situation or basic logic. Fair enough... and not worth my time to correct.

 

[Stevicus]

What made it illegal wasn't the law, but the exceptions built into it. By giving christians a higher priority than muslims it is unconstitutional. If it were just a ban on people from those countries it would be worthless and stupid, but not illegal.

Okay, that makes sense. I think Trump's complaint was that the acting AG should have gone to court and argued for its constitutionality, but she didn't even want to try.

If nothing else, I think Congress is going to have its work cut out for itself. They sometimes move too slow and get hampered by disagreements and gridlock - and an impatient Trump tweeting from the White House will probably shake their cage even more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, that makes sense. I think Trump's complaint was that the acting AG should have gone to court and argued for its constitutionality, but she didn't even want to try.

Her statement said that she would hold off on enforcing it until she could confirm that the order was legal.

Effectively, it was a total and complete shutdown of enforcing the Executive Order until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.

It's ironic - and telling, IMO - that Trump and his supporters take this sort of behaviour from someone else as obstructionist and not as a mere temporary delay.

 

[Jainarayan]

By giving christians a higher priority than muslims it is unconstitutional

Did you read the EO? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0 Search the words 'Christian', 'Islam' and 'Muslim'. You will not find them. And please do not say "but that's what he intended". Try that in a court of law and see how fast it's struck from the record as speculation.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution

 

[Jainarayan]

Do you see how the EO would disfavor muslims and favor non-muslims?

Because non-Muslims are religious minorities in those countries. The EO explicitly refers to religious minorities. There is no mention of Christian, Muslim or Islam.

 

[1137]

He has done what any other employer will do. They are suppose to follow a chain of commands. And whomever breaks that command, should be relieved from their duties. And Abraham Lincoln had fired many Generals for not obeying his command. But until General Grant had came along. The one that has given Abraham Lincoln's wife Mary her husband's pension and which the next president after Lincoln did not wanted to give her after her husband's death. That was trying to make a whore out her her.



Misconduct MC 255
Insubordination

This section discusses eligibility issues arising when the claimant was discharged because of alleged insubordination. What is commonly termed "insubordination" generally falls into one of the following four categories:

• Disobeying an employer's order or instruction
• Disputing or ridiculing authority
• Exceeding authority
• Using vulgar or profane language towards the supervisor Misconduct MC 255 - Insubordination

So you buy the defense that the Nazi's were "just following orders" then, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because non-Muslims are religious minorities in those countries. The EO explicitly refers to religious minorities. There is no mention of Christian, Muslim or Islam.

So you agree that the Executive Order is discriminatory in its effect?

 

[Curious George]

Because non-Muslims are religious minorities in those countries. The EO explicitly refers to religious minorities. There is no mention of Christian, Muslim or Islam.

I certainly understand that there is no mention but that there is no explicit mention does not mean we are not dealing with an EO that doesn't discriminate. The question was: do you see how the EO would favor Muslims and disfavor Non Muslims?

 

[Jainarayan]

So you agree that the Executive Order is discriminatory in its effect?

No. It's within the POTUS's rights under USC 1182.

 

[Jainarayan]

I certainly understand that there is no mention but that there is no explicit mention does not mean we are not dealing with an EO that doesn't discriminate. The question was: do you see how the EO would favor Muslims and disfavor Non Muslims?

See post Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It's within the POTUS's rights under USC 1182.

I didn't ask whether you thought the discrimination is legal; I asked you whether the law has a discriminatory effect. It seems like you've said that it does; have I understood you correctly?

 

[Jainarayan]

I didn't ask whether you thought the discrimination is legal; I asked you whether the law has a discriminatory effect. It seems like you've said that it does; have I understood you correctly?

No it does not have a discriminatory effect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it does not have a discriminatory effect.

That's not what you said earlier when you acknowledged that the EO would favour non-Muslims:

Do you see how the EO would disfavor muslims and favor non-muslims?

Because non-Muslims are religious minorities in those countries.

 

[metis]

No it does not have a discriminatory effect.

Even according to Trump himself, it does. He stated that he would use a different system of vetting for Christians and other minority religions coming from a country like Syria. He also asked Giuliani how the banning of Muslims could be done legally, according to Giuliani himself. And yesterday they repeated said that Trump never used the word "ban" when it's on recordings that he did.

 

[Jainarayan]

That's not what you said earlier when you acknowledged that the EO would favour non-Muslims:

Enough. Stop with the word games. You know where I stand on it and what I think. I've said it enough times.