O
4th Circuit appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
humanity is inherently not equal and when you artificially force equality via man-made laws and institutions you go against nature itself to catastrophic outcomes
i believe in individualism, meritocracy, liberty, capitalism, and if i had to pick a type of government, minarchism
i believe in individualism, meritocracy, liberty, capitalism, and if i had to pick a type of government, minarchism
some things can be voted on, but some things should not even be up for a vote. the majority should not be able to vote my money or property or safety away from me.
"“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.
If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it’s done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong)—how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered."
"“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.
If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it’s done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong)—how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered."
Not everything needs to be voted on. Some things should be left alone and not called for a vote. Example: poor people are dying and you call for a vote to have tax increased on the rich. Of course majority would vote to have a few rich people taxed and that would be democracy. But just because more people voted for it does not make it moral. In this case the matter should be left alone and not voted on.
Additional examples: there are some things a government should simply do, like deport illegals
or not do, like not accept refugees
because they are correct, and not put it up for a vote.
Notice: in all 3 of my examples, no CITIZEN'S freedom is ever infringed.
Additional examples: there are some things a government should simply do, like deport illegals
or not do, like not accept refugees
because they are correct, and not put it up for a vote.
Notice: in all 3 of my examples, no CITIZEN'S freedom is ever infringed.
Please tell us who gets to make these decisions. And please tell us who decides who gets to make the decisions and how is this decided upon?
Paper, rock, scissors?
Who makes those decisions, and who decides who gets to make the decisions, currently?
To be clear, i don't agree with most of metal_aug' s philosophy, but you are fooling yourself if you think that our current system avoids these pitfalls.
My vision of a perfect society will not be realized anytime soon (I engage in political talk just for intellectual masturbation anyway), but I'm not gonna leave my home (which is the USA not Canada) because I don't like the governmental system, but work with it and try to fix it as much as I can. While making money and fucking bitches
Nobody, not even the majority, should be able to make decisions for everyone and have the government enforce it against the will of the minority (which could be millions of people, but it would still be immoral if it were just a few). People should be left alone to act in their own self-interest, and what happens happens. The government should only step in if violence or theft takes place.
WASHINGTON — When a federal judge blocked President Trump’s first attempt to impose a travel ban on seven majority-Muslim nations, Mr. Trump warned of “death & destruction” from dangerous people who “may be pouring into our country.”
“Courts must act fast!” he implored on Twitter.
But in the 128 days since, the president’s administration has exhibited little urgency of its own.
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have moved slowly in responding to legal challenges to the White House’s initial and revised travel bans. And immigration experts say the administration has not taken steps it could have — even while the latest ban is tied up in the courts — to achieve the restriction’s stated goal: to tighten the vetting of people trying to get into the United States.
The result has been that almost halfway through his first year in office, Mr. Trump has made few changes to the way people enter the United States from the countries he has deemed the most dangerous, despite his frequent campaign promises to institute “extreme vetting.”
“President Trump is more interested in trying to win a rhetorical victory,” said Gregory Z. Chen, the director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “The question is really, what steps have they taken to make sure that vetting can happen effectively, rather than clinging to a ban that has suffered terrible losses in the courts?”
Administration officials say they are handcuffed because of vetting restrictions imposed by one of the federal judges who put a hold on the revised travel ban. The officials say they have done what they can to tighten the borders, including by announcing this month that some visa applicants will be required to provide more biographical information and reveal their social media postings.
But critics say the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies have always had — and continue to have — plenty of authority to evaluate threats from any country and impose tougher vetting on visa applicants.
When Mr. Trump signed an executive order to impose his first travel ban just seven days after taking office, he said the government needed a 90-day “pause” on entry from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to evaluate the dangers of letting people visit from those countries.
“We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” Mr. Trump wrote at the time on Facebook.
But after the ban was blocked and an appeals court refused to reinstate it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers slowed down the legal fight, asking for more than a month to draft a second version of the ban rather than continue to fight over the first one.
When Mr. Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban — no longer covering Iraq and deleting references to religion — was blocked by federal judges, the government asked for another month to draft its legal arguments. And this month, the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to take up the case — not on an expedited basis, but four or five months from now, as part of the court’s regular calendar in the fall.
“The manner in which they have been pursuing the legal case undercuts the argument for the urgency of the executive order,” said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued over the travel bans.
But as the rules for admitting people from the six countries covered by the latest travel ban have remained almost entirely unchanged, officials have blamed a ruling by a federal judge who, in blocking the revised order, also prohibited the government from evaluating the risks of letting people enter from the affected countries.
Critics note that the administration faced no such judicial restrictions after the first travel ban order was issued, and that it could have completed the 30-day review of vetting procedures for the seven countries that had been called for in that initial order. Officials said they began the review but did not finish it.
“From the beginning, the administration has said the travel ban has been about the effective vetting of people coming to this country,” said Leon E. Panetta, who served as defense secretary and C.I.A. director under President Barack Obama. “They should stop with this attack on the courts with the silly ban and get on with doing a thorough assessment of the vetting process, if that’s the purpose.”
Some counterterrorism experts said the government never needed a 90-day travel “pause” to examine vetting systems, because it already had a number of effective programs intended to prevent criminals and national security threats from entering the country.
“We have gotten much more robust since 9/11 in our vetting of individuals seeking to come here,” said John C. Cohen, a counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security under Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush.
The department has nearly 2,000 people in about 80 countries working to combat international terrorism, including running screening programs that target high-risk travelers.
Unarmed, plainclothes customs officers in the Immigration Advisory Program discreetly help airline and foreign security employees with reviews of passenger reservation and ticketing data on flights bound for the United States. These officers also help foreign countries examine documents for fraud and provide training for airline and foreign security personnel.
Under a separate visa security program, Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents are stationed at diplomatic posts around the world to help State Department officials prevent ineligible applicants from receiving visas. These agents investigate applicants, examine documents submitted with applications and conduct interviews.
The State Department also has counterterrorism personnel who investigate visa and passport fraud and screen visa applicants for ties to terrorism, drug smuggling and human trafficking.
The New York Times
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and RON NIXON
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...g-revamp-grinds-on/ar-BBCsEWW?ocid=spartandhp
The usual lazy, half-assed, lying pos shit job being done by the Trump administration!
“Courts must act fast!” he implored on Twitter.
But in the 128 days since, the president’s administration has exhibited little urgency of its own.
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have moved slowly in responding to legal challenges to the White House’s initial and revised travel bans. And immigration experts say the administration has not taken steps it could have — even while the latest ban is tied up in the courts — to achieve the restriction’s stated goal: to tighten the vetting of people trying to get into the United States.
The result has been that almost halfway through his first year in office, Mr. Trump has made few changes to the way people enter the United States from the countries he has deemed the most dangerous, despite his frequent campaign promises to institute “extreme vetting.”
“President Trump is more interested in trying to win a rhetorical victory,” said Gregory Z. Chen, the director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “The question is really, what steps have they taken to make sure that vetting can happen effectively, rather than clinging to a ban that has suffered terrible losses in the courts?”
Administration officials say they are handcuffed because of vetting restrictions imposed by one of the federal judges who put a hold on the revised travel ban. The officials say they have done what they can to tighten the borders, including by announcing this month that some visa applicants will be required to provide more biographical information and reveal their social media postings.
But critics say the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies have always had — and continue to have — plenty of authority to evaluate threats from any country and impose tougher vetting on visa applicants.
When Mr. Trump signed an executive order to impose his first travel ban just seven days after taking office, he said the government needed a 90-day “pause” on entry from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to evaluate the dangers of letting people visit from those countries.
“We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” Mr. Trump wrote at the time on Facebook.
But after the ban was blocked and an appeals court refused to reinstate it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers slowed down the legal fight, asking for more than a month to draft a second version of the ban rather than continue to fight over the first one.
When Mr. Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban — no longer covering Iraq and deleting references to religion — was blocked by federal judges, the government asked for another month to draft its legal arguments. And this month, the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to take up the case — not on an expedited basis, but four or five months from now, as part of the court’s regular calendar in the fall.
“The manner in which they have been pursuing the legal case undercuts the argument for the urgency of the executive order,” said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued over the travel bans.
But as the rules for admitting people from the six countries covered by the latest travel ban have remained almost entirely unchanged, officials have blamed a ruling by a federal judge who, in blocking the revised order, also prohibited the government from evaluating the risks of letting people enter from the affected countries.
Critics note that the administration faced no such judicial restrictions after the first travel ban order was issued, and that it could have completed the 30-day review of vetting procedures for the seven countries that had been called for in that initial order. Officials said they began the review but did not finish it.
“From the beginning, the administration has said the travel ban has been about the effective vetting of people coming to this country,” said Leon E. Panetta, who served as defense secretary and C.I.A. director under President Barack Obama. “They should stop with this attack on the courts with the silly ban and get on with doing a thorough assessment of the vetting process, if that’s the purpose.”
Some counterterrorism experts said the government never needed a 90-day travel “pause” to examine vetting systems, because it already had a number of effective programs intended to prevent criminals and national security threats from entering the country.
“We have gotten much more robust since 9/11 in our vetting of individuals seeking to come here,” said John C. Cohen, a counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security under Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush.
The department has nearly 2,000 people in about 80 countries working to combat international terrorism, including running screening programs that target high-risk travelers.
Unarmed, plainclothes customs officers in the Immigration Advisory Program discreetly help airline and foreign security employees with reviews of passenger reservation and ticketing data on flights bound for the United States. These officers also help foreign countries examine documents for fraud and provide training for airline and foreign security personnel.
Under a separate visa security program, Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents are stationed at diplomatic posts around the world to help State Department officials prevent ineligible applicants from receiving visas. These agents investigate applicants, examine documents submitted with applications and conduct interviews.
The State Department also has counterterrorism personnel who investigate visa and passport fraud and screen visa applicants for ties to terrorism, drug smuggling and human trafficking.
The New York Times
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and RON NIXON
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...g-revamp-grinds-on/ar-BBCsEWW?ocid=spartandhp
The usual lazy, half-assed, lying pos shit job being done by the Trump administration!
Your perfect society sounds like fascism.My vision of a perfect society will not be realized anytime soon (I engage in political talk just for intellectual masturbation anyway), but I'm not gonna leave my home (which is the USA not Canada) because I don't like the governmental system, but work with it and try to fix it as much as I can. While making money and fucking bitches
