
Federal judge stays deportations of travelers in Trump immigration order - anarazel
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316714-federal-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide
======
jseliger
The ACLU is also reporting that the stay was granted:
[https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680](https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520404777287680).

Many of you are probably watching the horror show unfold and wondering what
tangible thing you can do. Joining or contributing to the ACLU is one small
but important, specific way to help: [https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-
freedom-fighter-join-a...](https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-
fighter-join-aclu-7).

[https://twitter.com/seligerj/status/825529092414046208](https://twitter.com/seligerj/status/825529092414046208)

~~~
knz
Is it possible to anonymously donate to the ACLU?

As a PR in the process of obtaining citizenship, a small fear of mine is that
USCIS will start penalizing applicants that support organizations opposed to
Trump. Today just proved that anything is possible and I'm sure we've all seen
the stories about CBP asking to see the social media feeds of travelers in the
past.

~~~
yhager
I'm replicating @nnf's response - never donated till now, figured I'll do $10
monthly, but bumped it to $15 for you.

~~~
m_fayer
That donation has also been on my to-do list for a few days, you guys just
kicked me into pulling the trigger. Replicated.

~~~
knz
Awesome. Thanks!

------
tabeth
I'm sorry to report that it's not over yet:

> Stay covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit. Doesn't
> change ban going forward. Prev unclear tweet deleted

[https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/825525603491278848](https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/825525603491278848)

> Important clarification. This does _not_ prevent Trump admin from blocking
> new travelers.

[https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/825525917602693120](https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/825525917602693120)

~~~
joatmon-snoo
Link to the current stay:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3TahZ_WEAAzGAK.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3TahZ_WEAAzGAK.jpg:large)

EDIT: better link

[https://www.scribd.com/document/337807824/Darweesh-v-
Trump](https://www.scribd.com/document/337807824/Darweesh-v-Trump)

~~~
eternalban
[https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-
challeng...](https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-challenge-
trump-immigration-ban)

------
jayess
No one seems to be talking about that fact that Trump can do these things
because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. It
seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some
situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion.

And the list of countries is from Homeland Security's list of "countries of
concern" compiled during the Obama administration. _And signed into law by
Obama himself._

[https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-
administration-m...](https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-
administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/)

Of course some will blast me as supporting Trump or supporting this ban. Not
true.

~~~
theGimp
I'm an Iraqi Canadian with a Muslim name, so I know a little more than the
average person about this issue.

I can tell you that what Trump is doing is unequivocally worse than what Obama
did. One of the things Obama did when he became president was make it easier
for nationals of several Arab countries (including Iraq) to travel into the
United States.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration required travellers from a
number of Arab countries to disclose their travel plans at entry. It also
placed limitations on their movement within the US. Obama and the Democrats
waived that requirement. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of this law,
and I couldn't find it now. If you can find it and comment with the name, I'd
greatly appreciate it. (see update below)

What Obama did in 2015 might have been negative for Arabs who come from the
nations affected, but he still left the process better than he had received
it.

Also, he didn't campaign on banning Muslims from entering the US, didn't
thoughtlessly keep out Green Card holders and dual citizens, didn't say "Islam
doesn't like us".

There is no comparison between Obama and Trump.

Edit: it was NSEERS. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-
Exit_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-
Exit_Registration_System)

I should point out I'm not criticizing your opinion, which is entirely valid.
Just pointing out how I see it myself.

~~~
justthefacts
6 of the 7 countries facing a temporary ban, are happy to enforce a permanent
ban on Israeli Jews from entering their lands.

~~~
vivekd
well thank goodness we don't penalize innocent individuals for the abhorrent
laws of their nation's governments - especially when many of those people come
from nations in which the people have no say and no control over their
government and its actions.

------
woofyman
CNN is reporting that the White House over ruled the DHS when it came to green
cards.

>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 who with lawful permanent
residence, generally referred to as green card holders. 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.

~~~
problems
I've seen a few references to this applying to people with dual citizenship
too - is that true or is this only effecting permanent residents?

~~~
tempestn
Dual citizenship with one of the listed countries and another country
(including close allies like UK and Canada), not dual citizenship with the US.

~~~
problems
Ah okay, that makes much more sense.

------
moflome
FYI, Chris Sacca is matching grants to ALCU up to $150K...

[https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825475296614707200](https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825475296614707200)

------
a3n
A little OT, I guess, but the WaPo's story about this repeats a map I've seen
that shows the seven countries.

Conspicuously absent are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon, which is where
the people who hijacked the 9/11 planes, the worst, and most logistically
complex, terrorist act against the US ever, were from. Where's the logic?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI)

I don't at all think that this order should be in effect, but I don't see the
logic in its implementation.

~~~
Laforet
Not that I agree with the EO, but the logic behind it was that 6 of those 7
countries have ongoing insurgencies involving the IS, and Iran was dragged in
there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in
Syria and Iraq.

If this was entirely driven by religion they'd better put Bosnia and Albania
on the list too.

~~~
ardit33
Albania is actually mostly atheist/agnostic country. It has three religions on
paper but most people are not religious at all. It is a staunch US ally and
part of NATO as well.

That logic doesn't hold water. If the rule was banning any country that has
any muslims then it would ban 98% of European countries, as all have a
%percentage of practicing muslims.

This rule seems more like a childish fit, to appease to the base voter that
voted out of fear of muslims in general.

~~~
a3n
Yeah, there was an article on HN today from a Venezuelan writer (which HN
flagged away ...) describing Chavez's and Trump's tactic, which is to paint a
group with the bad guy label, and whip people up to hate that group, and in
turn love the guy who says only he can save them.

------
75dvtwin
I personally support the executive order in its motif.

Radicalization of US-born or US-admitted Muslims by clerics, relatives, social
media -- is real, eg [1] (Fort-hood terrorist), San-Bernardino terrorists [2].

Therefore, the argument could not just be about questioning if any visa/green
card holder for the initial list of 7 'banned-county -->to--> Muslim terrorist
perpetrating killing on US soil'.

It is a preventive measure, _with a time limit_ . Very appropriate for this
period of time, given the war with ISIS.

I am not, however, impressed with the execution or the preparation that went
into this particular order. I would like to see a different level of scrutiny
and reduced personal inconvenience afforded to US green card holders.

Appreciate that majority on this forum, including highly respected scientists,
will disagree with me. But please allow the expression of, at-least partially
informed dissent.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/12...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904422.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Mal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik#Marriage_and_entry_into_United_States)

~~~
aclissold
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

~~~
ryanx435
Not all terrorists are muslims, just a majority of them in our current time.
This is due to the destabilization of the region more than their religion,
although the more radical versions of the religion certainly play a part.
Similar things occured in Ireland back in the day: terrorism created by
destabilization and fueled by radical religious zeal.

Edit: my auto correct sucks

~~~
542458
> Not all terrorists are muslims, just a majority of them in our current time

In terms of terrorism in the US, that's not actually true by most counts. The
US has seen more far-right terrorists than radical Islamic terrorists.
Casualty counts for the Islamic terrorists are typically higher, but there are
both more events and more individuals involved in far-right terrorism.

It's still worth noting that in terms of actual risk-per-individual both are
astonishingly rare, and if your goal is to save lives that might otherwise be
lost to violence there are far, far better ways of doing it.

------
anthony_romeo
This is an embarrassment.

Even if you completely agree with what the order does, it's impossible to
claim that the implementation of this was anything other than a complete and
utter disaster. No warning, no clear way to enforce the order, widespread
protest, and getting the courts involved within 24 hours.

This is going to have ramifications for years to come. We want to encourage
the world's best and brightest to come here, and a precedent of unannounced,
widespread, severe changes to enforcement of the laws will cause people to
reconsider.

This is utter negligence and I'm ashamed of my country.

------
philangist
I think the title of this post is wrong. Here's another post -
[http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-
hal...](http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-halts-trumps-
immigration-ban) \- that states that "The court specifically ruled on Darweesh
and Alshawi’s petition; the ACLU will have to include all other similarly-
affected immigrants as part of a class action to have it apply more broadly."

~~~
anarazel
I think it's fairly unclear for the moment. Some ACLU affiliated account
twittered "stay is national":
[https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809](https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809)

~~~
sveiss
The wording of the ruling looks like it applies nationally to me:

"WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert
or participation with than, from the date of this Order, are

ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing
individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders
of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the
United States."

------
pmoriarty
Trump and the Republican Congress are going to appoint many judges during his
term, including Supreme Court judges. That could be Trump's most enduring
legacy.

~~~
bluejekyll
Unless the dems block all those nominnees. If they do, we could actually see
some bipartisan work to appoint moderates.

~~~
sdenton4
Given the Republican commitment to popular bipartisan work over the last eight
years, I wouldn't hold my breath.

~~~
bluejekyll
I'm not even holding my breath for the dems to put up a fight :/

~~~
freehunter
When Democracts decided to vote "yes" on some of the more ridiculous
appointments, even though they would have been appointed even if those
Democrats voted no, it was done for them. I can't take a single thing a
Democrat congressman says seriously when opposing Trump if they couldn't even
say no to Ben Carson being appointed as HUD secretary.

Grow a spine. What do they even stand for these days?

~~~
tempestn
This article speaks directly to your point: [http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/1/27/14397448/de...](http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/1/27/14397448/democrats-trump-cabinet)

Basically, the standard practice used to be for most cabinet appointments to
be easily confirmed with bipartisan support. Obama's appointments saw
unprecedented levels of push-back from republicans, but still received
significant numbers of republican votes. Democratic opposition to Trump's
nominations has been, again, unprecedented.

My opinion: perhaps, given the fact that their votes are purely symbolic
anyway, some democrats are choosing to 'pick their battles', and vote yes to
the picks they feel are halfway reasonable, saving opposition for the cases
where (again, in their opinions) it matters most.

------
hackuser
More precisely, it only blocks part of Trump's order:

"Judge Ann Donnelly of the US District Court in Brooklyn granted a request
from the ACLU to stay deportations of those detained on entry to the United
States following President Trump's executive order."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-
issues/refugees-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-
issues/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-challenge-trumps-executive-
order/2017/01/28/e69501a2-e562-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)

------
daodedickinson
The text of Trump's temporary order is mostly copy-pasted from temporary
orders enacted by Obama that have withstood scrutiny, so I wouldn't get hopes
up for a full reversal.

~~~
general_ai
It's quite telling that when Obama had summarily banned Iraqi refugees for 6
months in 2011 we have heard nary a peep from the press.

~~~
themooingpig
Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States.
This is notably different.

~~~
coldtea
Yeah, but Obama also bombed their countries first, which is notably worse.

As a foreigner, for me this looks like a hypocrisy theater of crocodile tears.
But then again, this is par for the course for politics in general, and US
politics in particular.

~~~
mikeash
That bombing was extensively reported and widely criticized.

This attempt to dismiss complaints as hypocrisy is really tiresome. Obama
bombed some countries so who cares if Trump fucks over law-abiding American
residents for no reason.

Also, I'm fairly sure Obama didn't bomb Iran.

~~~
coldtea
> _That bombing was extensively reported and widely criticized._

Really? Did taxi drivers stop serving the airport? Company leaders asking
others to "take a stand"? Liberal media unanimous against it? Judicial
intervention?

Because it seems this has 10x or 100x the scale those "widely criticisms" of
the bombings had under Obama (during Bush, and for the Iraq war it was only
slightly better).

> _This attempt to dismiss complaints as hypocrisy is really tiresome. Obama
> bombed some countries so who cares if Trump fucks over law-abiding American
> residents for no reason._

Well, that's the hypocrisy though. What's worth protesting "law-abiding
American residents" who are denied entrance is not for non-Americans from the
same countries who are bombed.

Is the world tiring US with all these demands for consistency?

It's like that Mel Brooks quote: “Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is
when you fall into an open sewer and die.”

> _Also, I 'm fairly sure Obama didn't bomb Iran._

No (though Bush did several covert military action and internal meddling
there), but he did the same thing Trump did:

"The State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011,
federal officials told ABC News [in 2013] – even for many who had heroically
helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets."

~~~
mikeash
Why do people keep bringing up this Iraq refugee thing as if it were
equivalent? I'm not going to defend that action, but it's not at all the same.
Screwing with legal US residents is a whole different level.

------
thinkcomp
Docket: [https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33xszihl6/new-york-
eastern...](https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/33xszihl6/new-york-eastern-
district-court/darweesh--et-al/)

Order PDF:
[https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=242131326...](https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=242131326&z=4584f490)

Related Cases: [https://www.plainsite.org/tags/trump-muslim-immigration-
ban-...](https://www.plainsite.org/tags/trump-muslim-immigration-ban-
executive-order/)

------
tonyztan
> "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to assure compliance with the Court's order, the
> Court directs service of this Order upon the United States Marshal for the
> Eastern District of New York, and further directs the United States Marshals
> Service to take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and
> prohibitions set for in this order."

Is the U.S. Marshals Service part of the judicial or executive branch?

(Source: [https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-
decisio...](https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decision-and-
order?redirect=legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-order))

~~~
cderwin
Executive. It is part of the Department of Justice.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service)

~~~
rayiner
Its in a weird situation where it is technically part of the DOJ, but its
primary statutory duty is to carry out the orders of the judicial branch: 28
U.S.C. § 566.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It's part of the power separation. Congress makes laws, can impeach the
executive, and confirms judges, judiciary interprets laws, orders, and
constitution, executive nominates judges, vetoes or signs laws, and enforces
them.

------
jackmott
Please donate to the ACLU

~~~
jhwhite
Joined today!

------
AdmiralAsshat
I was at the solidarity rally at the Dulles International Airport in Herndon,
VA for a few hours, although I had left by the time this story broke. I'd
wonder if it got announced to the crowd.

------
benmorris
Donated to the ACLU for the first time today. I also plan to call my
representative on Monday.

------
coldcode
I hope this is true. At least we still have a (mostly) independent judiciary.

~~~
bjshepard
No, you don't.

~~~
umanwizard
Based on what?

------
rdtsc
What is the authority chain usually here. Can a Federal judge block other such
executive orders? Is this used often

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The USA has clear separation and balance of powers, and the judiciary gets to
rule on matters of law and constitution interpretation, so ya. It's like Rock
Paper Scissors.

------
DanBC
For the people who support the ban: do you realise it was catching people in
transit, who had no intention of staying in the US?

Here's one woman who was flying from Costa Rica to Scotland. Her initial
flight transited through the US, where she was told her transit visa was no
longer valid.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-
west-38788116](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116)

------
pandaman
And the DHS has responded to this ruling already:
[https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-
secu...](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-
response-recent-litigation#)

 _No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States,
has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand
immigration benefits in the United States._

~~~
macrael
What do we do when the executive branch starts ignoring the orders of the
judiciary?

~~~
MisterBastahrd
It's Congress' responsibility to impeach him.

------
mhneu
While many Trump stories should be flagged, some are important for society and
for HN to discuss.

This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in
the sand about these anti-muslim actions.

Please do not delete this story. The American and global tech community needs
to discuss this. Trump and his advisors win when HN deletes stories like this.

~~~
zeroer
I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of
the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life
for themselves here and people already mid-flight?), the people of any nation
have the right to self determination and have to have complete control over
who comes into their country. Trump did not hide his intentions about what he
was going to do once in office. He said it loudly and repeatedly. And he still
got roughly half the votes.

~~~
matt4077
Two issues:

Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a
competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal
relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not
subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any
administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors.
To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white
house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new
administration be required to pay me?

Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy:
"Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These
limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual
rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why
Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could
probably get the electoral college votes for it.

That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of
"democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is
sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".

~~~
zeroer
I agree with you. I wonder if Trump did this in the most inflammatory way he
could manage on purpose.

------
woofyman
So Tump ignores the court and we have a constitutional crisis.

~~~
noobermin
Let's wait for that to happen. Seriously, if this occurs (and we are all damn
well aware Trump is capable of it), this will approach a whole new level of
madness.

~~~
dheera
Some part of me wants Trump to make this mistake, and make more big mistakes
of the non-lethal variety quickly so that there is grounds to impeach him
before he starts a war.

~~~
umanwizard
You are more optimistic than I am about the prospect of a GOP-controlled
congress impeaching a GOP president.

I think they would only do so if he did something that was obvious to everyone
to be a serious existential threat to the US's existence as a country.

I mean, it'd have to be something even more beyond the pale than ignoring the
Constitution and transforming the US government into an authoritarian regime
without the rule of law. Like, nuking China for no reason, or something.

~~~
filoeleven
According to Robert Reich[0], the republicans' whole plan is to use trump to
ram through their unpopular agenda and then impeach him when he's no longer
useful:

Him: They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation,
military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on
Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want
to take credit for everything. Me: And then what? Him (laughing): They like
Pence. Me: What do you mean? Him: Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is
out of his mind. Him: So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps
over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he
will ... Me: They impeach him? Him: You bet. They pull the trigger.

[0][https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1445206565491935](https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1445206565491935)

------
pizza
Does anybody have experience with the logistics involved in organizing
strangers against such actions?

~~~
dvt
From what I've read, most of today's protests have been ad hoc. Most just
famous or political people saying "Show up at JFK" or "Show up at LAX".

The fact that so many people gathered (at so many airports) without any kind
of major force behind them shows that this order was clearly misguided.

------
gdulli
If the ban goes to the Supreme Court and is struck down because Trump didn't
wait to fill the vacancy with a loyalist first, he'll have essentially failed
the marshmallow test.

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2V-XWcVIAAoel4.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2V-XWcVIAAoel4.jpg)

~~~
NhanH
Contrary to (common?) belief, I'm not convinced that someone like Scalia would
have let the ban stay.

~~~
chc
Yeah, Scalia was certainly conservative and had some literal-genie
interpretations of the Constitution, but he wasn't exactly a lapdog. It seemed
like he had a fairly libertarian interpretation of the first amendment and
probably wouldn't have approved of thinly veiled religious discrimination.

~~~
rayiner
Although not relevant here, Scalia and Stevens dissented in _Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld_. The majority issued a weak sauce opinion that admitted the
possibility of detaining a U.S. citizen with some due process short of a trial
under some circumstances. Scalia and Stevens pointed out that the government
must try a US citizen in regular court unless it suspends habeus corpus.

------
wslh
Wow, it seems like US is a 24-hour reality show now.

~~~
Delmania
What do you expect when a reality tv star is elected president?

~~~
jkelsey
We fucked up. We got too confident and comfortable. For one, I'm sorry.
There's a lot of other Americans out here for think and feel the same way.

To everybody that warned us about Trump, We cannot express to you how
regretful we are. We've really got a lot to make up for.

------
_andromeda_
I'd like to know why anyone thinks America owes anyone anything?

The ban is absolutely necessary. You Americans have a great country but you're
going to ruin it if you don't take your time to listen to Trump.

There is no way that unchecked immigration is a good thing for any country in
the world let alone America.

I've heard what has been said about how immigration made America what it is
today - great. However, immigration should be based on whether the immigrant
will add value to your country. If an immigrant is coming to set up a
business, do further studies and other positive things like that, then by all
means provide them with a way to come in.

However, if there's a threat of terrorism from the immigrant or if they aren't
adding value but will instead be recipients of welfare all I can ask is, WHAT
THE HELL IS GOING ON?

How can you sustain this? You cannot save everyone in the world. You just
can't. The best you can do is help them from a camp in their own country and
even then, it's your choice as a country that has fair elections.

Why did you even have these elections if you're going to disallow the
president that you yourselves chose in FAIR elections to do his jobs. Is there
anything new that Trump is doing that he did not promise his voters he would
do? If not, then you're saying that the majority of the people that chose
Trump don't deserve to be heard and that only your views matter.

And don't even get me started on that business of, 'we didn't vote for
him...he didn't get the popular vote'.

Why is it okay for previous presidents who won in the electoral college to be
legitimized but not Trump? This is absolutely UNFAIR and selfish of anti-
Trumpians. Remember, you take away California and Trump actually wins the
popular vote anyway. To me, this is a clear indication that one state wants to
bully the rest of the country into doing things their way and their way only.
So UNFAIR.

Without getting into my country of origin, I will tell you this; we too are
building a wall to stop illegal aliens from a neighboring Muslim country from
getting in. These fundamentalists are really terrible human beings. We have
lost so many lives to their suicide attacks. Friends and families losing their
loved ones to these actions. I remember a time we were so scared of the
attacks that we had to close offices in the daytime when working and verify
you knew who was knocking on the door before letting them in. It was a
terrible time and with a recent attack, last week to more precise, the fear is
coming back. I just wish we had finished putting up our wall by now and that
it was as strong as the proposed American one.

People have to be responsible for their own country. They have to build their
own countries and stop the fundamentalism.

~~~
danso
In what way does the U.S. have "unchecked immigration"?

Edit: also, you have a bizarrely pessimistic view of immigrants' and refugees'
potential to contribute to their host country. My parents were part of the
flood of refugees that came after the fall of Saigon. Like the incoming
Syrians today, they were taken in by American families and lived off of
welfare for years. Now they, and their children, contribute to the nation's
bottom-line, never mind the goodwill that America incurs by taking in people
of need.

~~~
_andromeda_
I am against indiscriminate immigration policies.

There are always trade-offs. For every good immigrants such as your folks,
there are those who are utterly destructive. This is just a fact. Therefore,
you cannot be careless about who comes into your country. Some people just
don't want the same things that you do. They prefer chaos because after death,
they will meet their maker and get rewarded for their fundamentalism.

It then becomes a question of, do you accept the downside if the upside is as
mundane as perceived goodwill. I think not.

I repeat, not all can be saved and for that matter, not all want to be saved.
Some of them actually hate America and as soon as they are in, they will hurt
Americans on purpose.

------
known
Can US survive without "importing" OPEC Oil? bloom.bg/1O04ymn

~~~
problems
Note that he didn't ban Saudis who have a fairly well known record for state
sponsored terrorism.

They also have lots of oil.

------
refurb
If anyone thinks that this ruling is a surprise to the Trump administration,
think again. I have no doubt that he conferred with his AG about his executive
order and discuss possible outcomes such as a judge blocking his order. Maybe
he expected this outcome?

Regardless, we'll see what his next move is.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Maybe he expected this outcome?

If you subscribe to the "provoke outrage to cover something else" theory, this
might be it: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-
holds-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-holds-calls-
with-putin-leaders-from-europe-and-
asia/2017/01/28/42728948-e574-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)

Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council, and demoted
the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff from it to make room.

~~~
jacquesm
> Trump added Breitbart's Bannon to the National Security Council

That's pure madness. That guy shouldn't even be close to a baseball bat, let
alone sitting in on the NSC.

~~~
ue_
Out of curiosity, why? What things has he done? I'm quite ignorant on the man.

