Go march in the streets because of this decision. Play that racist card.
Where is this world wide statute that everyone from anywhere can go to anyplace they want? I, as a USA citizen, can't go anyplace that I want. Nations are allowed to decide travel restrictions.
Let's spoon.
Let's spoon.
Slam dunk, uncontested. "Does the President of the United States have Constitutional authority to restrict ingress to the United States, in the interest of national security?... Who wants to take this one?"
You buy the pizza and I'll bring the wine.
Obama's list.
Slam dunk, uncontested. "Does the President of the United States have Constitutional authority to restrict ingress to the United States, in the interest of national security?... Who wants to take this one?"
So when does President Trump send US Marshals to take those activist judges in Hawaii, Wasington State and the 9th Circus into custody for usurping executive authority?
The '65 Immigration and Nationality Act amended it's 1952 predecessor. 'One of the act's components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.' The '52 law has still been used to bar certain segments of foreign nationals, but Trump's multi nation blanket ban has no precedent. The closest thing to it would be Carter's ban on Iranian citizen visas, but that was not a "security measure", it was a sanction prompted by the holding of U.S. citizens as hostages by a specific foreign government.
The Supreme Court recognizes this when open borders nuts like you do not
The ACA and The 1965 Immigration Act should be textbook examples as to how liberals lie to get legislation passed and why Conservatives should never trust them.
Can we try to dispense with this labeling? I think it's at least the third time you've flung this false, baseless shit at me and I'm weary of it, as I'm sure you would be of being repeatedly mislabeled by me. I am most definitely not an "open borders nut", let alone an "open borders advocate". You've also claimed I was a Sanders supporter at least three times, which I most assuredly was not. So again, maybe try losing the false and inflammatory labeling. Fair enough? It certainly doesn't do a thing for your credibility.
With your implacable antipathy towards liberals you can't seem to prevent yourself from asserting, in pavlovian fashion, that these "examples" you provide boil down to nothing more than premeditated "lies". Meanwhile a great many highly esteemed analysts look at them from far broader, logical and complex perspectives. For instance, re the '65 act, the primary focus was having it be an adjunct to other anti-discrimination laws that were sweeping the nation at the time, and long long overdue in doing so. The fact they didn't always pan out just as they'd been envisioned doesn't mean they weren't well intended, or that they were based on "lies".
as an side: if I wanted to point out all the times conservatives have lied to get legislation passed I'd be sitting here typing for years.