Federal Judge Stays Trump's Order to Remove Immigrants, Refugees Here Legally

Executive action targeted travelers from seven Muslim-dominated countries.


Justin Lane/EPA/Newscom

The American Civil Liberties Union has at least temporarily halted President Donald Trump's attempt to turn away refugees and travelers from a handful of selected Muslim-dominated countries.

As Matt Welch wrote this morning, Trump's order banning travelers and refugees from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen included people who had already been approved to live legally within in the United States and had even been here for years. As a result, immigrants and refugees from these countries who were returning home to the United States were being detained at airports after this order was implemented and were unable to enter the country.

The ACLU quickly sued, representing two Iraqis detained at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. This evening a judge ruled in the ACLU's favor, putting a temporary stay on the president's order.

To be clear, the judge's order specifically covers immigrants and refugees from these countries who have already been approved to travel and live in the United States and only those people. The government cannot simply eject people it has already given green cards and visas to without due process, the ACLU argued. The judge found that argument compelling enough that she concluded that it was likely to win, thus helping convince her to grant the stay.

Read the full three-page ruling here. But the relevant conclusion is right below:

Court order

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero responded:

"Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country. Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court."

NEXT: Everything You Need To Know about School Choice and Why It's Growing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 0 - WTF in 7 days.

    A new record?

    1. Reagan went like this.

      How long did it take Reagan to get to work on ending the oil crisis?

    2. what do you mean? There were some fucked up articles.....Do you mean 0 WTF as in 0 nut punches?

      1. Let's comment on the permanently in opposition and outside the mainstream libertarian media rather than the "leader of the free world."

      2. 0 - WTF as in 0 - 60, as in it took Trump 7 days to run afoul of the courts.

        1. Does, does that mean he wins?

        2. A lot of judges are left wing activists in robes.

  2. Excellent.

    Slap his hand when he over reaches.

    That was fast. My confidence in the ACLU is restored. Tomorrow they will file against Obama's EO against lead bullets I am sure.

    1. "Slap his hand when he over reaches."

      Agreed, but it's a shame the slap got lost for the last 8 years.

      1. I was alluding to that. Make no mistake, the ACLU are pinko maggots. Like maggots they can sometimes serve a purpose but don't forget, they are maggots.

        From the ACLU page: "Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008."

        No honest person that has even a passing understanding of the second amendment and its history can make that argument with a straight face. A day after Trump's EO they are in court but ten years later they are still reviewing their stance on the 2nd? These are not principled people. This is anti-Trumpism. Fine, if he gives them an opening they can keep him in line, but let's not start cheering them as civil rights heroes.

        1. Exactly. Fuck them. The ACLU happen to be right in this case and they do sometimes get it right, but what in the damn hell is a "collective right"? They can't come close to calling themselves civil libertarians. They are leftists.

          1. I honestly hope ACLU offices are firebombed and at least a few of their lawyers are made an example of.

            1. Take your violent fantasies elsewhere, asshole

              1. No, no, the imagery of self important pinko lawyers screaming as they run out of their offices burning alive is kind of entertaining. Just picture that and set it to the "Benny Hill" chase music. Then add laugh track.

          2. I would much rather Trump prevail here as opposed to the ACLU winning on ANY kind of Marxian "collective rights" bullshit that could become precedent in case law.

          3. You know the joke about what happens when you cross a gangster with a postmodern critical theorist? You get an offer you can't understand.

            What IS a "collective right"? I don't mean the question rhetorically. I really have no idea what they are trying to say. Is it that states have the right to form militias? Is the ACLU taking the states' right position?

            Cynically, I am tempted to believe that the ACLU doesn't mean anything at all by "collective right", that they have just put two words together and announced that the phrase proves that the Constitution doesn't mean what it plainly does mean.

        2. Hmm- maggot is a bit strong, Otherwise....

          1. In his defense, Suthenboy is given to hyperbole now and then...

            1. Not when I have been drinking! That is when I have my greatest insights.

              1. Smokey Yunick preferred 'shrooms, and the man skull-jobbed some wonderful interpretations of the rules.

        3. How many times did the ACLU take the Obama administration to court for government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders?

          1. I'm sure that ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero kept a running count just as he is now doing with Trump.

          2. It looks like the word "Obama" showed up in at least 25 ACLU cases, but obviously lawsuits could be filed against the administration that don't mention Obama by name, since suits usually name the agency head, not the president: https://www.aclu.org/search/obama?f%5B0%5D=type:case

        4. nice point. Saved for future reference 😀

        5. The second amendment is a collective right that bans federal firearms laws of any type. All of them. Feds can't ban or regulate machine guns or flame throwers because the states might need them.

          The 14th is an individual right that bans many state firearms laws.

    2. The system of constitutional government is not dead. But is it really a requirement to have a white male Republican in the White House for the system to work?

      1. I think the metric is any president who, when elected, causes the doomsday clock to start ticking again.

        1. Obama started the doomsday clock too... Watch any of the recent remy videos? CNN one and some others are prime examples.

          It is just most people want a tyrant state these days.

        2. Does the doomsday clock have more or less weight than the Old Spice Smell-o-meter? Cause Trump made that one go up to Bearglove.

    3. It's a temporary stay normal judicial procedure nothing else changes. Those granted the "STAY" will be watched and will have to abide by the Executive action by the President. This is merely a legal courtesy and to be honest another bottleneck in the system...this means nothing!

      1. Yeah. And the stay only stops "removal", it does not require that entry be granted. Entry can still be denied at land crossings and at foreign airports where US controls approval of boarding flights to the US.

        1. I'm pretty sure that the other side of Customs at JFK is still considered to *not* be the US. You have not entered the US until you pass Customs.

    4. They ought to change their name to the ICLU since all they give a shit about is immigrant rights, not Americans'.

      1. Nice!

      2. Or maybe "Immigrant Collective Law Union".

    5. exactly. Thats why i hate the ACLU it is so partisan. Cato is too but not even remotely comparable.

    6. Slap his hand when he over reaches.

      The ACLU argument is worrisome; it seems to say that entry of non-citizens into the US is a "right" that can only be taken away by "due process". The argument is also a bit hypocritical, given that the massive support for illegal migrants by Democrats has often left legal immigrants stranded in legal limbo outside the US.

      Trump's executive order was politically unwise in this form, not just because it hurt people unnecessarily, but also because it gave the ACLU this opening. It might have been better just to restrict new visas. But, then, what do I know: Trump seems to thrive on creating controversy.

      1. Bert Hoover had a bunch of his Executive Orders overturned by Congress in 1932. This court action was a surprise, especially since judges serve at the pleasure of the president and depending on good behavior. Hoover did remove a judge for the Southern District of NY for insufficient prohibitionist zeal. Can The Don remove this one for insufficient xenophobic zeal?

        1. Lolwut ?

          1. He has a huge boner for Hoover. Seriously.

    7. This shows the wisdom of having Republicans in power. They are much more likely to be held accountable than Democratic administrations.

  3. I'm detecting a souring on pens and phones.

    1. You but, you know, elections have consequences and at the end of the day, he won.

      At this point, what difference does it make?

  4. Ann Donnelly has made her decision, now let her enforce it.


    1. Shit, I'm even more confused now. I thought we were doomed because they're NOT pouring through again.

      1. Let me put it this way for the laypers: think of it as like the aftermath of when that deranged EPA guy in Ghostbusters turns off the power for that big ghost prison. Except elevety

          1. You chose ManBearPig as the destroyer, didn't you?

            1. A fifty foot tall ManBearPig as the chosen form of Gozer, stupid. Why didn't Ray chose the form of a Ford Edsel. That car was unsafe at any speed. Gozer wouldn't have gotten very far without exploding into a fiery ball.

              1. Corvair. The Edsel was quite safe for it's day. What it wasn't was pretty.

      2. Check your neighborhood's kebab level. This will tell you about the horde doom state.

          1. I know it's not appropriate, but the only soundtrack that pic needs is the opening few lines of Zulu song from Disney's The Lion King

              1. Baller. The tumbler of apple juice looks pretty refreshing too ^^;

        1. You can pry my Moby Dick chicken kabob from my dead hands.

          1. I'll not pry anything dick-related from your hands.

    2. Go ask a Yezidi how that muslim horde thing is working out for them. If you can find any that are alive or not sex slaves.

      Or maybe ask a Copt, you know, the descendents of the ancient Egyptians?

      Or maybe try to find one of the few remaining Zoroastrians in Iran. You know, where the religion originated? I bet they'll love to tell you how wonderfully they have been treated.

      1. hell's bells, ask the Germans, French, Swedes, and Danes how well immigration has worked.

      2. This EO got most of it right. It gives precedence to those groups you listed; a policy that we should have had in place since forever. I wonder how many would currently be here raising families instead of residing in a mass grave.

        1. But as of now the EO also prohibits the entry of former Iraqi translators who worked for the US military. Those men and women were tough as nails knowing they could be killed anytime they went home. Some of them worked for us for years despite the dangers and now they are being considered the same as some ISIS asshole. Once again the US is turning its back on people who proved their value many times over. It is disgusting that Trump is doubling down on Obama's abuse of the promises that we made.

          1. It is disgusting that Trump is doubling down on Obama's abuse of the promises that we made.

            It is truly disgusting, on the level of how the government treats our veterans like trash. And in all sincerity, "
            what about Obama" is a horseshit argument just like "what about Bush" was. These people are being fucked in the ass RIGHT NOW.

            1. I absolutely agree with you about how they are being treated now. My only point is that if Obama had done what we promised over 8 years ago then they would not be in a position for Trump to fuck with them now. Trump show honor the promises made by the US Government.

              Why anybody from another would work with the US military baffles me since we have screwed people over since WWII by going back on our promises.

              I also agree with you about how the government often treats veterans.

            2. "And in all sincerity, "what about Obama" is a horseshit argument just like "what about Bush" was."

              It's not an argument against the policies themselves; it's just a reminder that many of the people who hate Trump's positions said absolutely nothing when Obama did the same thing, and that makes them hypocrites.

              These people underwent a massive psychological transformation when Obama first took office: suddenly, war was OK, surveillance state was no big deal, and a powerful chief executive was wonderful. Now that Trump has sat down in the big chair, they've reversed their positions once again.

          2. No. It allowed Iraqis to come in with prior authorization.

          3. It is disgusting that Trump is doubling down on Obama's abuse of the promises that we made.

            So far, all we have is a temporary stay, for the simple reason that the State Department is in turmoil and Trump is trying to put his people in place. Let's talk about policies in a year or two.

    3. Look, if they get through, those bitches in Cologne will be asking for it anyway. It is known.

      Rape isn't real because open borders.

    4. They were never not coming. This order only affected seven countries.

  6. After the left's insanity and nonsense forced me to spend weeks quasi-defending Trump, it does feel good to feel the hate for elected officials flowing through me again.

    1. This. It's definitely refreshing. I've been uncomfortable of having to play pushback for Trump because the left has gone straight mad.

      That said, the "OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING" shriek at everything has to stop. Does this EO wrongfully fuck with some people? Absolutely. Those visas that have already been approved ought to be valid and those visa holders ought to stroll right on through customs and immigration with minimal hassle. Greencards mean something and shouldn't be turned away without specific reason on a case by case basis (as opposed to allowing entry case by case). Those people live here. This is their home. Turning those people away is a load of cheeto covered bullshit, and the judge is right to slap Trump's wrist and stay the portion of the EO which allows for turning people away who've already gone through the legal process of getting a visa or residence here in the US.

      But it's likely ALSO a very good idea to halt any NEW visas so that the immigration system can be re-calibrated. I don't have a problem at all with telling people, "Listen, you're gonna have to wait a couple more months before you can come here. We're evaluating our entry procedures and need to make sure we're getting it right according to our country's needs." Businesses do this ALL THE TIME when they've exchanged hands. There's a new boss, and things need to run his way (within the law). Sometimes that means stoppages or delays in doing the things said company has always done.

      1. And the text of the EO largely says just that. "We're gonna need 90 days to re-tool the shop and come up with new procedures to determine which applications from these 7 places to approve and which to deny."

        It's not a #MuslimBan in any true reading of the EO text. What it does say is that people from these 7 countries are gonna have to wait 90 days for us to review and change our procedures for accepting visa applications. Might it inconvenience some? You betcha. But it's not the end of the world.

        1. I know. So much hyperbole about a temporary minor event. Just wait until Trump issues an order confiscating orogressive's birthdays.

      2. Knowing Trump's overall style and negotiating strategy, I almost think he put the clause pertaining to already-issued visas in the order just to give the left something to latch onto with a quick victory. While they're all crowing about their success in 'stopping Trump', the rest of the order will continue unmolested.

        I mean, his team must have known that would be easy bait for the ACLU and courts. Picking a fight over something relatively insignificant as a distraction is quite frankly a pure Trump move. And handing an opponent a meaningless victory in service of his larger goal is also straight out of Art of the Deal.

  7. Alternate alt-text: This still isn't as crowded as the rows in regular class.

  8. "Federal Judge Stays Trump's Order to Remove Immigrants, Refugees Here Legally"

    Now wait a minute here. Amusingly, I find myself saying that a lot here at H&R lately. Trump is actually removing legal immigrants from the USA, that are actually 'here' now? Damn, this shit gets stranger by the moment.

    1. According to Twitter and facebook, DHS is forcing all foreign nationals to submit to a "Trump loyalty" test .

      "I hope they fail!"


      1. This is actually about criminalizing immigration in order to fill for profit prisons. You heard it here first.

  9. So Trump's just going to attack the judge as a Hillary-loving leftard who doesn't understand the simple fact that these are not American citizens and therefore "due process" doesn't apply to them and the President has absolute authority over immigration and this is a nonsense decision that has no chance of surviving an appeal and this judge knows it. And Trump supporters will echo that lie, ignoring the fact that the Constitution protects anyone subject to the jurisdiction thereof and the APA clearly and repeatedly has said that, while the government has discretion in establishing discretionary benefits, once the benefits have been extended the recipient has a vested property right in the benefit and rescinding the benefit requires due process. You can keep them out on a whim, but once you let them in, you can't just kick them out on a whim. You set the rules for entry, they followed the rules, now you want to change the rules. There are rules for changing the rules, believe it or not.

    1. "You can keep them out on a whim, but once you let them in, you can't just kick them out on a whim."

      I'm very pro-immigration. But you (you being the US government) actually can kick them out on a whim if they are not citizens. It's not typically done, but it definitely can legally be done. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it's just the way it is.

      1. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that "whim" thing - there are procedures that have to be followed. That's that due process.

        1. Really? Our government actually obeys laws that they made? I guess that 'shall not be infringed' stuff is just a funny joke, and you DO really own your own body. So just, I mean especially if you live in a blue state, get up tomorrow and go down to your local law enforcement office carrying an AR-15 while partaking of some 'banned' substances. Can you please film that and give us a link to that stream?

        2. "I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that "whim" thing - there are procedures that have to be followed. That's that due process."

          And I'd like to agree with you, but it all seems to fall within the executive branch, and that seems to grant broad powers to the leader of the branch. See, oh, the EPA.
          Do we have yet one more example of the left establishing the precedent of executive power and now suffering from it?
          Taft and Truman argued about the Korean "WAR" (yes, it was). Taft (and we) lost.

      2. actually can kick them out on a whim if they are not citizens. It's not typically done, but it definitely can legally be done.

        Immigrants and visa holders getting stuck outside the country is hardly a new occurrence. I got stuck for a few days because of screw-ups in visa processing. Others have gotten stuck for months.

        A big part of the problem in the past probably has been the massive workloads created by Democratic policies trying to legalize illegals, so from a legal immigrant point of view, they aren't necessarily the good guys either.

    2. the President has absolute authority over immigration

      /President Barack Obama

  10. Still wondering how a district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction.

    1. Let us know how that turns out for you.

    2. The judge has hair like David Brock, which is the totally not fascist version of Robby Soave level hair?

    3. Here, knock yourself out: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2.....unction-2/

  11. So how many of those countries let in visiting Jews from Israel?

    1. Shut up, you racist bigot monster!

      1. The people being turned away had nothing to do with the foreign policy choices of those govts. These people are fleeing and literally turning their backs on those countries. I don't think it's fair to blame you and Hyper for the actions of the US govt and so I hope you see the error of thinking of this in such generalized terms. We're dealing with flesh and blood individuals not a legal and abstract concept such as a country.

  12. OT, but related in a political manner. The left is STILL trying to excuse the hag for dealing with classified material as if it were her laundry list:

    "Poll: 42 percent of Trump voters say it's OK for Trump to use private email server"

    Yes, the willful or ignorant obfuscation between having a personal email account and using an un-secured personal server for official business is still au courant among brain-deads (are you reading this, turd?).
    FFS, YOU LOST! And you lost because your candidate was worse than the guy who is the subject of this thread!
    How pathetic is THAT?

    1. And you lost because your candidate was worse than the guy who is the subject of this thread!

      which just cannot be repeated enough. A part of me hopes the Dems get their shit together because one party rule never ends well. But at this point, Dems are free falling into Green territory.

      1. "A part of me hopes the Dems get their shit together because one party rule never ends well."

        I live in CA and I approve this message!

        1. I live in Hawaii and approve this message as well. The last legislative session had zero Republicans for most of the session because the one Republican was in the hospital.

          1. Hawaiian senate. The house has a handful of GOP with most being to left of most Dems.

            1. I take it you mean Sam Slom? I worked for him one session.

      2. Free falling???

        No, they are throttles to the wall and flaps down.

        Next round of elections they'll complete their purge of the Blue Dogs.

        Which will make the DC elite/statist wing of the GOP the dominant force for quite some time to come.

    2. And of course they parenthetically note that the pollster has a reputation for rigging their polls to favor Dems, before discussing the results as if they were unvarnished truth.

      1. It's the Chron; expected.

  13. What, those weren't the good terrorists?

    WTF? We didn't arm the right good terrorists? Who could have seen that coming?

    1. Score another win for CIA. Top. Men.

    2. in late November here at PJ Media, Nour al-Din al-Zenki was posting videos of their fighters firing CIA-provided TOW missiles.

      And in the waning hours of his presidency, Obama bombed an al-Qaeda training camp that was jointly operated with Zenki, killing several of their fighters.

      well, at least he gave them shoulder-fired missiles *first* so they had a fair chance

      (tho, unless i'm mistaken, TOW are really anti-tank weapons, right? wire-guided, or something.)

      I have great confidence this will be reported on in detail in tomorrows Sunday Times.

      1. TOW missiles are for use against lions. Where do you think the saying comes from?

        1. i actually went to look for a video clip of "Lion being towed" (as in behind a car), and to my horror all i could find were videos of Tourists being dragged FROM their cars by hungry lions.

          1. If I were in that car, 1) my window would be all the way up, 2) the car would be travelling at a slow enough pace to see things but fast enough to evade the giant predators, 3) there would be layers of duct tape on the exterior handles, and 4) I wouldn't be in that car for any amount of money in the world.

            Fuck that shit. People take pictures and shoot video so I don't have to be anywhere near those things.

            1. Meh, don't buy into CNN sensationalism. You can drive through most of the wild life parks in South Africa in you own vehicle, especially the public ones, and 99.9999% of the time you'll be fine driving around chillin with the windows down. It's pretty fun actually.

              1. 99.9999%. So, you're saying it isnt safe.

                1. Certainly not safe by government bureaucrat, or media sycophant, standards.

          2. That is what happens when you live in a safe insulated world your whole life. Those poor fools didn't understand what they were looking at. They had their windows down? Doors unlocked? Sure, why not. Its just a big fuzzy pussy.

            From the story it sounds like the park is using the visitors to save money on buying meat.

            I vaguely remember someone posting a photo of someone on safari that towed a lion. they tossed it a rope, it bit, they pulled their land rover up a bit, towing the lion. Unfortunately I cant find anything on it.

            1. "That is what happens when you live in a safe insulated world your whole life. Those poor fools didn't understand what they were looking at."

              It's kind of like people who go to national parks in America and try to pet a buffalo.

    3. Once we arm and fund the bad terrorists tey have a vested property right to those and future funds and armaments.
      You set the rules for arming terrorists, they followed the rules, now you want to change the rules. There are rules for changing the rules, believe it or not.

    4. Like a lot of the fuckupery of Obama's tenure, his foreign policy asshatery was too extreme to be an accident. Even Obama isnt that stupid.

      1. I've always questioned the notion that he is stupid or got bad advice or the other usual excuses. When enough things occur out of the norm, you have to consider the possibility that the outcomes were intended. When the rational and usual excuses don't pan out, time to consider the unusual.

        1. Stupidity or cupidity? Go with stupidity; they ain't that smart.

          1. Not with Obama. Too many things have gone badly when viewed through the normal prism. Eventually, you have to conclude that the outcome was his intent all along.

            1. Not buying it.
              If he were that clever, he wouldn't have been busted by the likes of me.

              1. My suspicion is he and his allies actually started to believe the most egregious caricatures of how stupid the Bush administration was, and thought, 'nation building/regime change is probably really easy, if done by smart people like us, instead of those idiots.' And thereby completely failed to learn the primary lesson his predecessor had to offer him.

        2. I think he's a very smart, crafty politician. In other words, he's extremely adept at playing to his base and demonizing the opposition. He was "in" with pop culture more than any other president, and he presented an image that many people found to be hip and youthful. His base basically fell in love with him, so much that it was impossible for them to criticize him on anything.

          I always got truly bizarre reactions from his fans whenever I'd show them undeniable proof that he has fostered some great injustice on Americans. They really don't know what to make of it; it seems like they just nod their heads, but five minutes later, they pretend that the whole exchange never happened.

    5. The al-Qaeda-allied Zenki rebels, who were deemed "vetted moderates" by the CIA, were not only using CIA-provided TOW missiles recently, but according to one report were in active communication with top State Department officials back in September:

      Word on the street is top State Dept officials where fired. Who are these whackos going to talk to now? Maybe John McCain? Maybe he can send an aid over to discuss things.

  14. I've banned all muslins from importation!

    1. We need extreme vetting for shatnez !


  15. "To be clear, the judge's order specifically covers immigrants and refugees from these countries who have already been approved to travel and live in the United States and only those people. The government cannot simply eject people it has already given green cards and visas to without due process, the ACLU argued."

    Like I wrote in the other thread before the stay, I think this is right.

    Trump made a mistake going too big. Establishing the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress, and people who have already met those requirements and achieved residency by way of Congress' rules have due process rights.

    Now, I just hope Trump uses the cover of this controversy to finish dismantling ObamaCare and getting started on repealing Dodd-Frank. Oh, and doesn't he have a Supreme Court justice to appoint?

    1. "Establishing the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress,"

      I'll yield to your knowledge, but a search of INS (and successors) says they are all under the executive branch. Are the rules on how they operate other than, say, the EPA?

      1. I'm just going by Article I, Section 8:

        "The Congress shall have Power . . . to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"

        ----U.S. Constitution


        It's listed there with the power to declare war.

        1. Yeah, traditionally immigration and naturalization have been linked - once you're in the country you're on the proverbial pathway to citizenship, which makes it relevant whether you're attached to the principles of the constitution, as naturalized citizens have to be.

        2. "It's listed there with the power to declare war."

          As mentioned above, that issue was argued between Truman and Taft; Taft (and we) lost. Bush at least got a fig leaf; that fucking fake 'constitutional scholar' Obo flat ignored it and started wars on random Friday afternoons (mostly before holiday weekends).
          So the Dems might have once again handed a power to the executive which should properly be legislative, and now they're griping about it.
          Damn them.

        3. It is important to distinguish deporting people with a green card from letting them back across the border.

        4. Congress tends to delegate most of their power to the Executive Branch in the legislation that they pass. It's a symptom of bloated government.

        5. Then why aren't all these sanctuary cities bowing down to Congress?

          And why isn't Damon Root demanding that these cities stop their un Constitutional affronts to Congress instead of bitching about what Trump is or isn't doing?

    2. If you ask for a yard, you probably get a foot.

      If you ask for a foot, you probably only get an inch.

      1. Trump may be doing some Art of the Deal stuff here, messing with green-card holders so his limits on new admissions will seem less radical by comparison. Still it's a dick move.

        He left some room to save face in his executive order by saying people could be admitted on a case by case basis, so maybe he'll say that he's case-by-casing the green card holders back into the U.S., what's the problem?

        1. Still it's a dick move.

          I don't understand, isn't it a dick move either way?

        2. I rather think this was an implementation issue combined with making it public, and signing before the weekend. If he had just done it on the quiet like Obama did in 2011 nobody would have known any better. More time to get it right without the publicity. The good news is the system worked, and the judiciary stepped in - thus no bureaucrate had to work this weekend,

          IMO The Donald will likely have more trouble like this especially if there is continued resistance from the deep state.

          1. "Getting it right" would be not doing it all.

            1. How can you claim to have done something right by not doing anything at all?

          2. Judiciary don't mean shit if INS is ignoring the order. And they are.

      2. There's something to that.

        When you're negotiating in commercial real estate, you generally want to give the other party something to say "no" to.

        You might demand three things you won't go without and one really expensive thing you don't really care about.

        They're going to say "no" to something--so point them to what you want them to say "no" to.

        1. "Let's impose extra screening on these immigrants and serve them nothing but country ham in the detention centers!"

          "What, pig meat is forbidden!"

          "Tell you what I'll do, I'll have the detention centers serve chicken."

          "That is much better."

        2. I don't know if that's how it's gonna work here though. In politics, the other party isn't someone you're trying to sell something; it's the opposition, which wants any excuse to tear you asunder. By going too far, instead of giving them something to save face with when he is forced to retreat, he may just provoke an emotional backlash, and kill any chance at compromise.

          Look at the media right now, it's going crazy about this; billionaires and celebs are getting angry about it; people are protesting. All of this gives galvanizes Democratic politicians (and not just in Congress; mayors and city councils too are relevant as they can refuse to comply executive orders) to take a fighting position.

          1. They knew there would be an immediate court challenge.

            Before they announced the suit, I called out that part of the order as obviously unconstitutional.

            If I could see it, presumably, so could the people who wrote the order.

            I'm not saying that's definitely the way it happened, but that's standard practice in a lot of contract negotiations. And, again, we're talking about the negotiating with the courts, here.

            It makes sense. They're going to challenge that order. They've had ten weeks to get the order ready. You plan ahead.

            1. If I could see it, presumably, so could the people who wrote the order.

              Why assume that? What do we know about Trump's process in writing these? What evidence is there that he's not just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks? Does the man strike you as a particularly deep thinker on Constitutional issues? Or anything else?

  16. I just had a chance to see Hihn pop in at 4 am to shit all over the abortion thread last nigh. What an unhinged piece of shit. I'm drunk and ready to comment again, do you want to come here and comment now ou be a giant pussbag and wait till no one is around again? You grundle licking piece of smegma.

    1. Oooh, heading over there right now to check that out. Thanks for the tip.

      1. You'll wish you hadn't.

        1. Congratulations to Password:Pode$ta for making Bully of the Week!

          1. ANOTHER GOOBER!!!!!!

        2. Hey! I made his list! I made the list!

          This calls for a celebration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsHld-iArOc

          I'd like to thank Daryl Hall and John Oates.

    2. grundle

      That's the second time in two days I hear that word. Is that in your glossary, or did you also watch this video?

      1. Grundle has been in my vocabulary since at least middle school, which was... HOLY SHIT 17+ years ago.

        1. You're a mere hatchling. I was in sixth grade 30 years ago.

          Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go kill myself.

          1. Grundle is my second favorite childhood insult to FUPA.

  17. "1 Corinthians 15:26King James Version (KJV)

    26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death"

    I'm all in, but can Hillary kick the bucket first? Or else, what did we achieve?

    1. Hillary has already kicked the bucket as far I'm concerned. May she not rest in peace.

      1. I'm worried that some sick asshole has her backed up on a thumb drive.

        1. I think I missed that Weiner had some kind of ass STD.

      2. "Hillary has already kicked the bucket as far I'm concerned."

        I bet she just lays around in her bra and giant panties all day drinking scotch and binge watching old episodes of The West Wing.

        1. she just lays around in her bra and giant panties all day

          *pours scotch straight into eyeballs*

          1. i don't know ANY women who lounge around with their bra on, and i'm sure Cankles is no exception. So, she undoubtedly would be wearing the big ugly cotton jobs for undies, but she probably would be going floppy "up there". Hope that completes the picture for you.

  18. this is very good

    of course it actually came out like 6 years ago but whatever, still news to me

    1. Good stuff. Had not heard of these guys.

  19. I can consider many reasons to disagree with Trump on this move, but here's one that ain't getting a lot of attention:

    "Trump Travel Ban Would Keep Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi From Oscars"

    I really hope they let the guy in and then do a camera-sweep of the crowd after his speech. I'll be looking for Neil Patrick Harris to join the standing O.
    Sevo/family have a gay Iranian friend about whom we worry every time he returns to Iran to visit his family. Braver than I would be.

    1. My good friend from high school's family are Iranian Jews. They certainly are braver than most when they visit home. They get treated like shit at both the Iranian and Israeli borders.

      In my experience American Persians are model citizens, I really don't understand them being on a list while terrorist factories like Saudi Arabia are not.

      1. I would say the same. I've known a number of Persians, all stand up people. There is a great deal more western attitudes and outlook within Iran than is commonly reported here. I feel sorry for them that they haven't been able to break through the shackles of that fucked up Islamic rule that they have had to endure.

        1. *by "here" meaning the mainstream media.

        2. Iranians (that is, Iranian people, not the government) actually have unusually high opinions of Americans. Historically, Iran was among the more advanced and westernized Muslim countries.

          1. Not surprising when you consider their general attitude towards Arabs.

      2. I have had bad experiences with Persians.

        I don't think they are terrorists. Just bad people.

        Makes me happy that the Greeks won.

      3. I live in Los Angeles now. Lots of Persians.

        I had to get my garage door fixed. The first words out of the guy's mouth were "fucking Persians." He proceeded to curse how terrible and cheap they all were. Trying to barter with him on the cost of replacement parts. Then he refused to give my neighbor his card until I convinced him he was French instead of Persian.

        Only Persian I've met out here myself so far is a doctor who went to Harvard and did his residency at the Mayo Clinic. So... different strokes, I guess.

    2. My wife is a Persian Jew. Smoking hot. Her family ended up here for a reason. She has a gay cousin or 2. I'm keeping an eye on my kids, and I have Jesse on retainer to tell me what I missed.

      1. Some of the most beautiful women I've ever seen were Persian.

        The Persian community in LA/Glendale/Westwood, whathaveyou, must be the single most successful immigrant group in American history.

        What other group of immigrants became that wealthy and that prominent that quickly?

        They were already wealthy and prominent 20 years ago--and that was after they'd only been here for 20 years!

        1. P.S. Glendale is dudebro country. All Armenians.

    3. Yeah, my heart bleeds for the successful Iranian movie director who won't be able to pick up his Holywood trophy.
      I'm sure Meryl Streep will be happy to speak on his behalf. But that $25k gift basket doesn't pick itself up, you know.

      Also feeling terrible for those non-citizens stuck enduring what amounts to an airport winter storm delay in processing their immigration credentials.

      The world surivived a 2 week flight cancellation from that Icelanic volcano, but its certain that all human life will go extinct if people in Yemen have to jump thru another immigration hoop for the next 90 days.

      1. If you insist on putting things in context, recall the cancelled flights after the 9/11 religious sacrifices. I had to drive the mizzus to the airport that week and it looked like Normandy Beach. But after that all through 2002-3 the courts in Sanantone deported some 360 people a week for each of the major Latin languages. I'm surprised they can even find foreigners to deport.

  20. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this...You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer...I'm Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  21. I am watching Night Manager on Amazon. It's very good. Hugh Laurie shines as usual.

  22. Global Outrage?

    the body of the story doesn't really cite what the headline refers to.

    Its shit like that which makes me care less and less about his douchebag petit-authoritarianism. because somehow the chattering class discovered 'global outrage' over this.... yet somehow decided not to survey their mythical 'global opinion'-source on topics like this, or this

    1. Its shit like that which makes me care less and less about his douchebag petit-authoritarianism.

      Don't let the progs win. Defy authority eternally. They are hypocrites; they will shove us in the ovens if they have a chance, but Trump is president now not Obama. Continue resisting.

      1. Continue resisting.

        you're drunk, aren't you.

        1. I've already admitted this!

          1. okay then = Ungawa, comrade. together we will tear the system down.


            1. *shakes booty*

              Why should we concede tearing down the system to the commies?

        2. I'm running on fumes. No, not like that.

          1. did you not get freaked out by the EPA website going down for 4 days? I mean that's pretty much Hitler invading Poland, right? Plus i hear Trump pisses all over MLK's bust whenever he walks by it

            my attitude is = read the news with a Yaketty Sax soundtrack, because it makes much more sense that way.

      2. Both coalitions of dunces and morons are about equally bad. There is opportunity for libertarians to persuade and lead by example. Ku-klux nationalsocialists are a dwindling lot and will be tossed under the wheels when they repel more votes than they bring in. If the Dems had cojones there would be a backlash against their commie masters once they realize they've been duped. But their anti-nuclear tantrums increased dependence on oil, and no meltdowns, casualties or glowing mutant zombies. Likewise their exploitation to block our access to freon did not change the bozone layer for a second. It just killed people from food poisoning. If they haven't tumbled to those frauds they're too stupid to see through the warming scam even Trump can see and grok it.

  23. I keep coming across this album, and every time i do, i laugh. it never gets old.

  24. The San Bernadino shooters had green cards. The Boston bombers had green cards and then citizenship.

    So I don't see an automatic reason to ignore refugees from Syria just because they already have a green card. They aren't citizens.

    1. Who said "ignore"? I thought this was about due process.

      1. There is no due process at the border.

          1. I mean, you can say "the Supreme Court was wrong," it often is, but you don't get to make conclusory statements as if yours is the only view on the subject.

            1. That case also says that the court won't define due process for aliens. And I can't find the ultimate resolution of the case.

              So in this case the due process might be no more than "yep, he is from Syria."

    2. the purpose of trump's action was to fuck with moozies because he said he would.

      he's ticking off a campaign promise. its not supposed to be based on any practical reality.

      also = as noted multiple times earlier... this shit has been done before. for better reasons

      thirdly? oh, its all probably entirely legal. completely pointless and capricious, but legal nevertheless. including the ones stuck in the airports who were already vetted. but the press and the courts will pretend this is the most egregious thing since (and including) the japanese internments for the next week or so. Because the Outrage Monkey needs its fix.

      1. Whataboutism!

        1. I think its close, but not quote; i'm actually crediting Obama for at least having some better optical justification for the same call.

          what i think is absurd is the feigned outrage. we've slow-pedaled refugees going back almost 2 decades.

          They introduced a bill in congress a while back (*i spoke about it at length) trying to get the state dept to speed up the process for Iraqi refugees. then they snapped the door shut on them quickly afterward because Obama was terrified of "looking soft"

          is it wrong to point out that they do the same shit for pretty much the same reasons?

          Advocates say that the administration is ignoring a directive from Congress to draft a contingency plan to expedite visas should those Iraqis who worked for the United States government, especially interpreters for the military, come under increased threat after American forces are drawn down at the end of the year.

          "This is not a priority right now for anyone in the government," said Becca Heller, who runs the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center in New York. "Not enough people in the Obama administration care about this topic."

          The flow of Iraqis to the United States this year could be the smallest since 2007, when the Bush administration was facing an uproar for not effectively addressing the refugee crisis.

          1. It's not wrong to point it out its just irrelevant. Hence whataboutism.

            1. irrelevant

              I'd love to see what you'd cite as relevant precedent

              1. The only thing relevant is the current actions of the state. They are either right or wrong on their own merit. What the state has done in the past is irrelevant.

                1. what the state has done in the past is irrelevant.

                  tell me about it

                2. But but... whutabout the Doctrine of Staring Decisively? Or was that about the statue of Isis after she peeked at Medusa?

      2. Yeah but we found out in November that the Outrage Monkey is now powerless and blind.
        It still screeches but it been put on ignore by most.

  25. So Reason --- 2 of my friends were discussing politics, 1 a prog and 1 an independent. The prog tried to say we are in a patriarchy, the other friend challenged him, and the prog used the classic line : "well what do *you* know about oppression?" .... see you can't judge someone on their statement alone, you need to know WHO said it before you know if it's valid or not. What the hell is that?

    Yet it never works the other way. I imagine the prog would lose his shit if my friend responded "well you are not a woman so you are not allowed to talk about feminism"

    seriously though --- when you evaluate a statement or an argument, it should be as if you were reading text from an anonymous source. Progs don't believe that though, it has to be from the right person with the right beliefs (a woman who voted for trump is disqualified, etc)

    1. What the hell is that?

      the logical extension of identity politics. if you don't have a victim-platform from which to speak (or an self-awarded "ally" card which grants you permission), you can just STFU because we're not listening, White Man

      1. yes, it's all about victim points as currency. If you don't have enough victim points, or don't feel oppressed or don't play the victim game, then to hell with you.

        That's like saying all of you here on reason need to STFU on the ADA because none of you are disabled and I have Cerebral Palsy. What the hell does that have anything to do with it? If you have a reasoned argument...

        wait now get this. since he's a prog I should start arguing against the ADA, and say well I have a disability to you can't talk about it. I suspect I won't have the 'right' opinion on it, so he will still invalidate my opinion and use only listen to his own anyway

        1. he's a prog I should start arguing against the ADA

          Sorry = he's retarded and therefore an expert on that subject

        2. I certainly see this in my proggy white feminist acquaintances. Most of them seem to sense that they can't play the game properly as white women (too many black feminists can tell them to shut up and they have to sit back and take it, under the rules, and making 'ally' noises isn't always enough), so they start adding in 'invisible' ways they're part of the victim/oppressed class: mental illness, bisexuality, etc. Gotta get a couple more points and feel properly victimized!

          So I see these poor souls basically pleading that they are too! oppressed, and those meanie gays and lesbians don't respect the proper LBGBT order of things and aren't recognizing that bixexuality is oppressed, damn it!

          But what is always so ironically funny to me is that if the Revolution ever came that they seem to want, none of them seem to quite understand that their invisible victimhoods don't mean diddly, and as white women, they're second in line in the Oppression Olympics to be put up against the wall and shot. "But, but, I'm depressed! Like, a lot! You can't do this to meee!"

    2. I'm guessing the independent friend is a cis white male, in order to have all that oppressor-privilege.

      OK, then, obviously if he's a cis white male then he would know if there was a patriarchy looking out for him and making sure he get all the best jobs and that the wimminz have to defer to you all the time.

      So he can't be reproached for a lack of knowledge. Instead, he should be called out for concealing all that privilege he got with his Patriarchy Privilege Card.

    3. "well you are not a woman so you are not allowed to talk about feminism"

      The best response (OK, not the best, but one of the funnest) would be to say, "how do you know I'm a woman? What evidence do you have?"

      1. "how do you know I'm *not* a woman?"

        1. so what is female to the progressive? obviously it isn't have 2 X Chromosomes.

        2. Gender fluid. Right now, I id as a woman. In 5 minutes, who knows.

      2. But "You make me feel like a natural woman!"

    4. I've also had more than a few discussions with lefties where they try and pull the oppression card. Collectivists are gonna collectivize. It's weird. The strength of the argument should stand on the strength of the argument.

    5. Here's what you do: assert that men are oppressed by women. Point out that women live, on average, longer, more comfortable lives, commit suicide less, are homeless less, incarcerated less, get lighter sentences, are murdered more, etc. Basically, in every area except gross average income and frequency of occupation of public office, men are analogous to black people and women to white people.

      If your friend is a woman, tell her her privilege blinds her to the Matriarchy. If a man, accuse him of false consciousness. Ultimately, hammer away until they get the point that any group can claim to be oppressed and declare that non-oppressors are incapable of perceiving oppression. It's basically collectivist subjectivism. In the end, group must demonstrate, by objective standards, not their own feelings (plenty of men and white people feel oppressed, they're easy to find on the internet) that they are oppressed.

      Then, he/she lists the ways in which women are worse off than men, and from here on it's easy, since pretty much every way women are supposedly oppressed in America is in fact due to their own life choices, biological differences, or otherwise the economic consequences of only one gender being able to get pregnant or lactate, not due to 'the patriarchy.'

      1. "pretty much every way women are supposedly oppressed in America is in fact due to their own life choices, biological differences, or otherwise the economic consequences of only one gender being able to get pregnant or lactate, not due to 'the patriarchy.'"

        I've tried to point this out to "progressives" before, and in the instances where it hasn't given them a magnitude 8 triggering and completely short-circuited what little rational faculties they had left, they basically told me that men and women are equal, so if there are inequalities due to women's personal choices or biology, we have to compensate for these inequalities because men and women are equal and there are no inequalities that would justify ever treating a woman differently than a man.

  26. Fuck the Pro-Bowl.

    And fuck the NHL all-star game, too.

    Shittiest sports weekend of the year?


    1. Shittiest. Agreed.

    2. No; all those summer weekends where there's only baseball.

  27. minorities and women are pissed 0ff

  28. its time to strike with messages of liberty. it may never come again.

  29. I tried in my own household but got unceriousmoniously shut down

    1. You banned Syrians from your household and got shut down?

      Let me guess...you are married to a Syrian.

  30. DHS will continue to enforce ban:


    1. Interesting: From the article:

      "Under Trump's order, it had appeared that an untold number of foreign-born U.S. residents now traveling outside the U.S. could be stuck overseas for at least 90 days even though they held permanent residency "green cards" or other visas. However, an official with the DHS said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump's order had been prevented from entering the U.S."

      1. Hey, that fake news doesn't just write itself.

        Somebody has to do it.

      2. However, an official with the DHS said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump's order had been prevented from entering the U.S.

        I guess this is technically true in the sense that the green card holders who were immediately detained upon arrival are being detained inside the country and thus can be said to have been allowed to enter.

        1. The "prevented from entering the US" part is done by the airlines for the most part (some countries have departure-side US border control pre-screening), and the airlines probably figured a green card is about as valid a travel document as you'll get.

  31. Seems to me that unless there was some threat of imminent attack then the judge did Trump a favor by simply addressing an extremely small but potentially messy detail concerning travelers in transit.

  32. "Executive action targeted travelers from seven Muslim-dominated countries."

    Fake news, Welch. Trump's EO does no such thing. While it does mention Syria, the US Congress and Obama's Department of Homeland Security singled out these countries by way of the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.

    (via Instapundit): http://tinyurl.com/zr2xn7a

    1. Things you won't see on Facebook.

      1. I have a placed a temporary travel restriction on myself from visiting Facebook. Probably for the best.

        1. Good call. I only have it for pics of granddaughter. Otherwise I wouldn't go on it.

  33. So to recap: Trump literally called up Rudy Giuliani and asked him to form a commission to ban Muslims but do it legally. This is literally what Giuliani said on Fox last night.

    An EO was drawn up and then given to Trump to sign, which he did with zero input from the State Department or any other agency.

    All of this was done with zero warning or instruction given to DHS despite taking immediate effect.

    This might very well be remembered as the most staggering example of incompetence in a modern presidency. It took Team Trump less than a week to make Obama look like a sage model of efficiency.

    1. Okay, this interview confuses me, mostly because Trump's EO does not ban entry based on religion. Trump's EO is addressing "countries of concern" as defined by Obama's DHS in 2015. Other countries with populations that are almost exclusively Muslim are left off the list. The ban amounts to a 90 day "Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern," until the new administration may review the process. All of this is line with Trump's campaign promises.

      So, my question is: Is Rudy reliable? I don't follow him, so I don't know whether to take this story of his on face value, or to regard his interview as a ham-fisted and artless attempt to insert himself into a news story.

      1. I would trust Rudy as far as I can drop-kick him.

    2. It was efficient, very few people involved and done quickly

      You might not like it but it was efficient.

      1. I suppose hurried and incompetent could be considered efficient, sure. The goal is to be as embarrassing as possible, right?

        1. I'm not embarrassed and I am surprised you can be embarrassed.

      2. It was mind-blowingly stupid, but efficient.

        1. Sorry, they're here to stay.

      3. So, you're one of those big-government conservatives who doesn't care how shit gets done or how much it costs, so long as the trains run on time.

        That's worked out so well in history. Let me know how it goes.

        1. Unfortunately (or fortunately) Trump's administration is unmasking a lot of "libertarians" who believe exactly that.

          1. The Trump administration is certainly unmasking a lot of "libertarians".

            1. It's all well and good when we're talking "freedom for me". Let people find out that some asshole they don't like gets as much freedom as them, and it all breaks down. "No! The bad guy has to lose. It's not enough for me to win, the guy I don't like has to lose! That's how it works!"

              1. Open borders or a welfare state. Pick one.

                Oh wait, your choice has already been made.

                Suck it up and deal with it.

    3. This is what has been worrying me about this order.

      The hopeful narrative was sure, Trump is an oaf but Pence and his advisors will distill things into quasi-reasonable policy.

      That doesn't appear to be the case here. Maybe it will be better when his full slate of appointees are in place, but I don't have high hopes.

    4. "...the most staggering example of incompetence in a modern presidency. "

      Last night I was accused of being given to hyperbole. Me. Can you believe that? That is the most outrageous accusation since a youtube video maker was accused of causing the attack in Benghazi.

      1. This need not have been the clusterfuck it turned out to be. Bush and Obama weren't amateurs, they at least had qualified political hacks that could tell them how to do X thing without it triggering such a backlash.

        Whenever Obama signed an illegal executive order it took time for it get slapped down by the courts. This is DOA due to its vagueness and overreach.

        1. Oh, I agree. It was clumsy. I think what he wants to do might be very difficult to do legally. I certainly would have done it differently. Forgetting to exempt people already approved to be in the country is a silly oversight...unless of course it wasn't an oversight.

          1. What we are seeing here is one of the advantages of electing Trump over Clinton; Trump being scrutinized and held to account.

    5. This might very well be remembered as the most staggering example of incompetence in a modern presidency.

      No way.

      Nobody got killed or maimed -- the sum total of the damage is that a couple of people got detained for a few hours.

    6. "An EO was drawn up and then given to Trump to sign, which he did with zero input from the State Department or any other agency."

      Other than all that "input" from the Obama administration.

      1. I am not sure if your comments are meant to be taken seriously or are sarcasm. Are you suggesting something in the report is "fake?" If so, would you please enlighten me with the truth and a citation. If not, I apologize for not turning my sarcas-o-meter up higher.

        1. okay, this comment was attached to your fake news statement above. Not sure what it is doing here. Sorry for confusion.

        2. I was alluding to the seven nations being chosen by the Obama admin.

          So, sarc.

  34. I'm really happy that Trump is reminding Americans from all walks of life that there are limits on executive power, and that there are limits to what the government can do, Constitutionally. I want more of it. I want more protests, more rulings, more limits.

    I just wish this all wasn't going to be forgotten the next time a Democrat is elected.

    1. This is all part of the Donald J. Trump crypto-constitutionalist hyperdrive 5-D chess game meant to ultimately roll back executive overreach.

  35. I was unaware that the president had the power to throw darts at a map and say, "You're in, you're out, you're in, you're out."

    I'm gonna suggest that presidents shouldn't have that power.

    1. "darts at a map"

      Russia and sea creatures hardest hit.

    2. They probably shouldn't, but Congress gave it to them.

    3. I was unaware that the president had the power to throw darts at a map and say, "You're in, you're out, you're in, you're out."

      He does. In fact, the list of countries that Trump chose... were simply countries that Obama had already singled out in his immigration orders as being of particular concern.

      I'm gonna suggest that presidents shouldn't have that power.

      Why not? It's basically foreign policy and does not affect any constitutionally protected rights.

  36. Once again Reason is upset we are not spending more tax money to import more refugee tax consumers

    1. That's some impressive lack of reading comprehension.

      1. I read it and realized that once again Reason left out the costs of the Refugee Program and who pays them

    2. They deeply regret not freaking out back when Obama did something similar, so this time they are giving it the full college try.

      Funny how the 'libertarians' at Reason only go to the mattresses over positions they share in common with the left.

  37. Fake news and all that, but CNN has details on the confusion the executive order caused:

    The policy team at the White House developed the executive order on refugees and visas, and largely avoided the traditional interagency process that would have allowed the Justice Department and homeland security agencies to provide operational guidance, according to numerous officials who spoke to CNN on Saturday.
    Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Department of Homeland Security leadership saw the final details shortly before the order was finalized, government officials said.
    Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.

    1. The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.
      There had been some debate whether green card holders should be even allowed to board international flights. It was decided by the Department of Homeland Security they could fly to the US and would be considered on a case-by-case basis after passing a secondary screening.
      But the guidance sent to airlines on Friday night, obtained by CNN, said clearly, "lawful permanent residents are not included and may continue to travel to the USA."

      Before the President issued the order, the White House did not seek the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that interprets the law for the executive branch. A source said the executive order did not follow the standard agency review process that's typically overseen by the National Security Council, though the source couldn't specifically say if that included the decision to not have the order go through the Office of Legal Counsel.

      Setting aside the Steve Bannon panic (who knows how involved he really was/is), this was so poorly planned that it was inevitably going to fail.

      1. So, a bunch of people assumed they knew what the order said. But it turns out the order didn't really say most any of that.

        Incompetence or malfeasance?

        1. Read The Art of the Deal sometime. This was just Trump's way of negotiating the issue. He is using the media to negotiate the immigration policy with not only our government, but the world. He is on a different level, bro.

        2. Incompetence or malfeasance?

          It's the government, so incompetence is always the first choice. This, however, seems to be a different level of incompetence, one that could have been avoided, but hey, media dumb epic troll muslims bad who cares lol obama did it first war on terror lol rights lol the law lol congress.

        3. Bureaucracy. Does anything think i would have gone down any differently if Obama or Bush had sprung something like this on the agencies? This is why it normally would take a year to implement something like this, with all the relevant parties consulted, signed off, memorandums produced and most importantly, asses covered.

          1. That's the thing. Obama or Bush wouldn't have sprung this on their agencies.

            1. No, they wouldn't. Because they cared a lot more about the political fallout.

              1. I guess that really depends on whose fallout you value more.

                Because, for better or worse, I really don't think Trump is going to suffer over this.

      2. Those quotes are from CNN, right?

        Their source of information is a person familiar with the matter, a number of officials, and one official.

        If CNN told me the sky was blue I would go look out the window to check.

        1. Conversely, if Trump said the sky was blue, Politifact would give him two Pinocchios, because the sky is made of air and air is usually invisible, and that whole blue thing isn't the sky per se but just the light going through a whole bunch of air so that it looks blue.

          1. They would give him "pants on fire" because the sky turns black every single night, and it may be reddish-purple at dusk/dawn and grey during stormy weather.

          2. So, how big were the inauguration crowds, Drumpfista? And have they managed to round up the three million illegals who voted for Killary without which Drumpf won the popular vote?

            When you have to make up ("sky is blue" mispresentation), you know you are a Drumpfista, right?

  38. Over at Legal Insurrection, a roundup of the many falsehoods and misconceptions connected with Trump's EO are discussed, analyzed, and refuted (with citations): http://tinyurl.com/grrkxxt

    1. Thanks. Honest, grateful thanks for not making us wade through 43 MSM articles, sift through their sixty tons of self-generated bullshit and flailing to figure out what the simple facts are.

      1. no problem, my dude. This site is pretty good for just this type of summary.

        1. As long as you read it"
          To be clear, the judge's order specifically covers immigrants and refugees from these countries who have already been approved to travel and live in the United States and only those people. The government cannot simply eject people it has already given green cards and visas to without due process, the ACLU argued. The judge found that argument compelling enough that she concluded that it was likely to win, thus helping convince her to grant the stay

          Well, now you have.

  39. OT: I sometimes discuss political issues with a relative who is pretty far to the left. He frequently makes the argument that a ton of regulations are necessary because "a business owner can make an LLC and then disappear overnight, and nobody has recourse for damages done".

    Is this really true? I know that limited liability corporations can only be sued for an amount equal to the initial investment, but I find it dubious that someone can form a company, defraud people in all kinds of ways, then just dissolve the corporation on paper and walk away scot-free.

    1. It's not true.

    2. It's called piercing the corporate veil, and certainly can be done. In some states, single-member states are considered to be kinda worthless for protecting you from that.

      1. Particularly if there is evidence of intent to defraud. Then your limited liability tends to get greatly limited.

  40. As I explain in this post, not only are the reaction to this executive order completely hysterical, but the hypocrisy of liberals in that affair is truly baffling. Overall, the charge of hypocrisy doesn't apply to libertarians, but I'm not sure I can say the same thing about the charge of being hysterical.

    1. Because Drumpf signing an EO and continuing to enforce it despite a court order is "liberal hypocrisy"

  41. The left is so full of bullcrap. It never ceases to amaze me.

    Everyone is pointing to the fact that Obama temporarily banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months to the outrage of nobody. But why even go that far back? Obama ended wet foot dry foot mere weeks ago, making life difficult for Cuban refugees, No wailing and gnashing of teeth?

    Watch how quickly they point to the low probability of terrorism by refugees and rail against additional vetting - but they buy into fantasy that America is a wild gunland and no constitution busting gun background checks is off limits.

    Trump made some mistakes with his EO - the kind that would be overlooked entirely if made by Obama.

    1. The left is full of bullcrap because Drumpf signed an EO, and is refusing to follow it despite a court blocking it?

      Drumpfista libertarians are indeed amusing.

  42. Wow! No blaming Obama for setting the precedent Drumpf is setting by refusing to follow the federal judge's stay?

    Libertarians at reason.com no longer concerned about the Constitutional separation of powers?

  43. The judge, and all the judges who have ruled in the case will have a hard time dealing with the actual law. "section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952." It says, "Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

  44. SCOTUS


    An alien immigrant, prevented from landing by any such officer claiming authority to do so under an act of congress, and thereby restrained of his liberty, is doubtless entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to ascertain whether the restraint is lawful. And congress may, if it sees fit...authorize the courts to investigate and ascertain the facts on which the right to land depends. But, on the other hand, the final determination of those facts may be in trusted by congress to executive officers; and in such a case, as in all others, in which a statute gives a discretionary power to an officer, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, he is made the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, is at liberty to re-examine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted.

    It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by congress, are due process of law.

  45. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.