Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

The actual law is on Trump's side...

Posted on: January 31, 2017 at 22:18:41 CT
Spanky KU
Posts:
146272
Member For:
20.99 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
1
Federal immigration law includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” .

Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Yates was right - Tesla MU - 1/31 21:59:21
     no on the law, no on her professional response: - 90Tiger MU - 1/31 22:40:05
          i wonder how nap thinks that order "should have" - gmmm98 MU - 2/1 06:00:38
               he thinks it should have been more clear, as I posted. (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 2/1 08:47:42
     The actual law is on Trump's side... - Spanky KU - 1/31 22:18:41
          uh, the First Amendment trumps your citation and the SC - Doc James USA - 1/31 22:25:00
               People outside of the US do not have 1st Amendment rights - Spanky KU - 1/31 23:02:21
                    The president has to abide by the Constitution, however. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 1/31 23:06:50
                         See John F. Kerry et al. v. Fauzia Din, - Spanky KU - 1/31 23:37:26
                         Please cite what he is violating. - Spanky KU - 1/31 23:20:54
                         Didn't he swear an oath to defend the Constitution? - Doc James USA - 1/31 23:16:30
                              You are unclear what treason means - Spanky KU - 1/31 23:36:19
               Yates can exercise her 1st Amendment rights all she wants - Tigrrrr! MU - 1/31 22:30:52
                    Why would she want to work such a person? Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 1/31 22:58:55
     She deserved to be fired just like the lady in Kentucky - bcoop199 KC - 1/31 22:18:02
          Kim Davis was her name (nm) - TigerwTLP MU - 1/31 22:20:19
     she was right to stand up for what she believes in - TigerwTLP MU - 1/31 22:13:56
     no - FootballRefugee MU - 1/31 22:10:38
     No she wasn't. The President's XO was completely within his - Tigrrrr! MU - 1/31 22:09:29
     Yates is a hero(nm) - Danny Whizzbang USA - 1/31 22:09:26
          So, back to Kim Davis...is she a hero to you? (nm) - Sarazen MU - 1/31 22:57:21
               Kim Davis made her decision out of hate - TigerwTLP MU - 1/31 23:13:19
                    That's rich. (nm) - Sarazen MU - 2/1 14:14:39
               Davis disobeyed the law. Yates upheld it. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 1/31 23:03:57
                    please cite how it's illegal or unconstitutional - blake1771 KC - 1/31 23:32:55




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard