Chump for President

[marshallnoise]

That 1952 law was overwritten by a later law iirc. I keep seeing it referenced when its outdated and no longer useable.

Source?

[Wschnitz]

The ammendment to the original law in 1965 basically said the US should not discriminate based on country of origin, their nationality, or religion.

So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill thirty years ago next month, on Oct. 3, 1965. The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today's immigration law. And, contrary to the president's assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.

Despite modifications, the framework established by the 1965 act remains intact today. And, while the reform proposals now being discussed in Congress, the administration, and the Commission on Immigration Reform would reduce the total number of legal immigrants, they would maintain the fundamentals of the 1965 act — family reunification and employment preferences. So it behooves us on this 30th anniversary to look at the act and the expectations its sponsors had for it.

Under the old system, admission largely depended upon an immigrant's country of birth. Seventy percent of all immigrant slots were allotted to natives of just three countries — United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany — and went mostly unused, while there were long waiting lists for the small number of visas available to those born in Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.

The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria, supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to the United States. The new legislation (P.L. 89 236; 79 Stat. 911; technically, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) substituted a system based primarily on family reunification and needed skills.

is a short synopsis.

Law makers and judges find it odd that Trump is using the pre-amendment law to support his argument for banning those countries. Thats the whole argument from that point.

[marshallnoise]

The ammendment to the original law in 1965 basically said the US should not discriminate based on country of origin, their nationality, or religion.

So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill thirty years ago next month, on Oct. 3, 1965. The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today's immigration law. And, contrary to the president's assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.

Despite modifications, the framework established by the 1965 act remains intact today. And, while the reform proposals now being discussed in Congress, the administration, and the Commission on Immigration Reform would reduce the total number of legal immigrants, they would maintain the fundamentals of the 1965 act — family reunification and employment preferences. So it behooves us on this 30th anniversary to look at the act and the expectations its sponsors had for it.

Under the old system, admission largely depended upon an immigrant's country of birth. Seventy percent of all immigrant slots were allotted to natives of just three countries — United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany — and went mostly unused, while there were long waiting lists for the small number of visas available to those born in Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.

The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria, supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to the United States. The new legislation (P.L. 89 236; 79 Stat. 911; technically, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) substituted a system based primarily on family reunification and needed skills.

is a short synopsis.

Law makers and judges find it odd that Trump is using the pre-amendment law to support his argument for banning those countries. Thats the whole argument from that point.

Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W and Obama all used the same law at different times to ban immigration temporarily. What is going on is a lot of editorializing and not a lot of transparency from the media.

http://klewtv.com/news/nation-world/past-presidents-set-the-precedent-for-trumps-immigration-ban

Apparently, Trump isn't allowed to use the law because detractors fear he will outright ban all Muslims. Despite their fears and concerns, those fears and concerns have no bearing on the legality of his actions. Just looking at the 7 countries, everyone from those countries are banned unless there are extreme cases of religious persecution. If it was a Muslim ban, then its a shitty way to start it out as only 13% of the world's Muslims would be temporarily banned.

This is not directed at you Schnitz:
This whole thing is a fucking joke and it is really, really starting to piss people off. The whole premise that we have to allow everyone in, no matter what, is a concoction of the left. It is not based in any sort of reality nor is it even remotely wise. No other country on the planet allows people across their borders just willy nilly. Yet this is what the left demands of our nation. Its fucking disgusting and perverse.

[Wschnitz]

No other country on the planet allows people across their borders just willy nilly. Yet this is what the left demands of our nation. Its fucking disgusting and perverse.

I don't think we allow them to cross willy nilly? If you are talking about legally, Europe has pretty much open borders if you are an EU citizen. If Illegally, you need to really look into the numbers, they are not climbing, they are falling.

This situation has a lot of similarities to the 'Guilded Age'. In which immigrants flocked to the US in mass and received similar discrimination.

I honestly don't get the obsession people have with race, immigration, borders, and nationalities.

[Massive Lee]

And the three judges clearly mentioned that Trump's lawyer was NOT unable to prove any detriment emigrants could cause... 3-0

[marshallnoise]

And the three judges clearly mentioned that Trump's lawyer was NOT unable to prove any detriment emigrants could cause... 3-0

Those three judges belong to the most liberal court in the country and have no problem getting overturned by the supreme court, which is what will happen.

The whole point of this exercise is that he doesn't have to have any reason other than he said so.

[Wschnitz]

I just think some people are feeding of trumps Xenophobia, his ideas that America should be for 'Ideal Americans'.

Dont worry fam he will just keep pumping out new Executive Orders to get his way. Not like he criticized Obama heavily for that same thing.

[marshallnoise]

I don't think we allow them to cross willy nilly? If you are talking about legally, Europe has pretty much open borders if you are an EU citizen. If Illegally, you need to really look into the numbers, they are not climbing, they are falling.

This situation has a lot of similarities to the 'Guilded Age'. In which immigrants flocked to the US in mass and received similar discrimination.

I honestly don't get the obsession people have with race, immigration, borders, and nationalities.

Again, all of that is unimportant to the discussion of the legality of Trump's EO. There is no obsession over race, immigration, borders or nationalities. As a matter of not being fucking retarded, we should know who is coming across the border. Simple as that.

[marshallnoise]

I just think some people are feeding of trumps Xenophobia, his ideas that America should be for 'Ideal Americans'.

Dont worry fam he will just keep pumping out new Executive Orders to get his way. Not like he criticized Obama heavily for that same thing.

Dude, pumping out an executive order stating what he is legally allowed to do. Why can't you see that? The executive branch enforces laws. He is the sheriff of the USA. He isn't legislating.

I don't think you know what Xenophobia is or how to apply it.

[decay]

Dude, pumping out an executive order stating what he is legally allowed to do. Why can't you see that? The executive branch enforces laws. He is the sheriff of the USA. He isn't legislating.

I don't think you know what Xenophobia is or how to apply it.

i don't think *you* understand what the founders intended when they created a system designed around a distributed balance of power, because it really does sound like you're arguing for his right to be a despot here. you should probably change that avatar you're rockin', bud; you are ignorant of what it really means.

the 9th circuit's decision is a beautiful example of how democracy is supposed to work, and do you really want drumpf to be your sheriff? i mean for fuck's sake, his response was to go all-caps-tantrum on twitter about it.

[nando]

Awww, little Kim had a caps-lock tantrum. :p

I hope they confirm Gorsuch, it sounds like he might have enough of a backbone to stand up to this fool of a "president".

[marshallnoise]

i don't think *you* understand what the founders intended when they created a system designed around a distributed balance of power, because it really does sound like you're arguing for his right to be a despot here. you should probably change that avatar you're rockin', bud; you are ignorant of what it really means.

the 9th circuit's decision is a beautiful example of how democracy is supposed to work, and do you really want drumpf to be your sheriff? i mean for fuck's sake, his response was to go all-caps-tantrum on twitter about it.

Did you read the law that was passed in 1952? It very clearly gives the president authority to do what he did. Ignoring that is very intentional on your part. The courts argued there is no reason for him to invoke the law, which is not hat the judiciary is supposed to do. The case should have been thrown out immediately.

Instead, what you view as a wonderful example of democracy, is pure tyranny of the courts. If the EO banned Muslims specifically, then they would have basis for stopping it. But it didn't.

And, again, you cucks ignore all of the other times it has been used just because you are petty and don't like Trump. Of course, you were ignorant of when Bush used it otherwise you would have spilled your Cheerios then too.

[z31maniac]

And the three judges clearly mentioned that Trump's lawyer was NOT unable to prove any detriment emigrants could cause... 3-0

Double negative, argument ignored.

*ad hominem*

[nando]

And, again, you cucks ignore all of the other times it has been used just because you are petty and don't like Trump. Of course, you were ignorant of when Bush used it otherwise you would have spilled your Cheerios then too.

oh look who's using a white nationalist / racist term now - "cucks". At least you're being honest with yourself now..

[decay]

And, again, you cucks

cucks? dude, whose lady is your pathetic ass running game on? please. you're not a bad-ass because you live in a city that has a bunch of Marines in it.