Gilozard: Becoming a permanent resident does, in fact, grant the right of residence and entering the country. That's the whole point of it. It seems like you are willfully ignoring immigration law at this point.
At what part of "permanent residents" are being granted waivers is not understood? Them having permanent resident's does not mean they can't be subject to additional screening. Also green cards and the such can be revoked for various reasons. This is still not a right, they are being granted the privilege. If it was a right, then it couldn't be taken away.
Gilozard: Section 5 of the EO:
(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. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
That is a potential problem, and also Trump has openly admitted that this is for Christian refugees from majority-Muslim countries.
Which polls, how was the data gathered, what was the question wording, etc? These all matter a lot.
At this point, I am kind of wondering if you are really putting much thought into this subject.
It seems like you didn't even read the EO or an analysis of it, otherwise you would have known about the religion clause.
I said as far as I am aware, I read what it overall entailed... I did not do a line by line reading.. I was referring to a specific religions, not the overall use of the word religion. But I stand corrected. However... the EO clearly says
to the extent permitted by law. All this says is certain people who are being persecuted based on religion will be given priority in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. It does say they will be banning certain religions from gaining refugee status. Also when it comes to the constitution and non citizens it is not a clear as people think.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html Gilozard: And you are continuing to insist on things that are simply not true about immigration law. The President does not have the sole right to determine who comes into this country, and has potentially ignored established law on this point. That is the whole basis of the court cases.
Furthermore, you are objectively wrong on the duty of the President.
The President swears to uphold the Constitution and the law of the land and defend the nation.
That is their duty. Imposing their personal vision is the
opposite of what they are supposed to do! Trump being the second coming of Andrew Jackson is
bad.
I never said he has a
sole right to determine who comes into the country... I said based on established laws, he has a right to determine who can enter the country... such as in the matter of national security. Whether that law holds up or if congress passes a bill to change this another matter. You are construing the point.
Quite a few Presidents have banned certain countries from coming to the US over the yeas, history and the supreme court have always sided with the President. So Trump is not unique here, and I don't see history changing based on precedence.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html Exactly,
defend the nation, which this would full under... considering the EO's intention is to prevent terrorism. Again read the what I linked above, it's not a simple matter as your want to make it out to be. I didn't think I needed to spell it out that he has a duty to carry out what HE believes to be right (while in the context of the Constitution, local laws, etc). I figured that would be a no brainier.
