CAIR to Announce Constitutional Challenge to 'Muslim Ban' Executive Order

ElaineA · Jan 29, 2017

I enjoy the academic exercise of trying to determine in Bannon actually knows what he's talking about when he calls himself a Leninist (and what that actually means to various people), but if there's one thing I think we've learned the first week of this presidency, it's that we better take these guys at their words. They've done EVERYthing they've said they wanted to do. Now Bannon, a political hack with a White Supremacy agenda that's clear for all to see, is sitting on the National Security Council. That's never happened before. George Stephanopoulos was run out of the room when Clinton had him sit in. Now it's the Joint Chief of Staff and the DNI who will be "sitting in" (according to Reince Priebus, they're invited if they want to attend--as observers), and Bannon is an official member.

He is quoted as saying, “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Whether he understands Lenin or not doesn't really matter at this point. We're going to be hip-deep in the rubble in no time if he keeps it up. The "Muslim Ban" has already been made use of by ISIS. It's in Bannon's interest to provoke some sort of attack, from within or without, to achieve his stated goal.

Whether he understands the fine points or not, I take him at his word. He has given us no reason not to.

Introversion · Jan 29, 2017

Donated to CAIR this morning, and to the ACLU. It feels feeble, but I guess it's better than nothing.

Lyv · Jan 29, 2017

Introversion said:
Donated to CAIR this morning, and to the ACLU. It feels feeble, but I guess it's better than nothing.

So far from feeble .You are funding the hard, productive work they are doing. Thank you.

Maze Runner · Jan 29, 2017

I was so touched watching those airport scenes last night. I am so encouraged by the protests and the lawyers who lined up to help these people.

I am so proud to be an American today.

Lyv · Jan 29, 2017

So, with DHS insisting that the Executive Order is in effect despite court rulings, where are we? What happens now?

In a statement issued in the early hours of Sunday, the Department said: "President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."

It added that the department will "continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people."

That's not reassuring to me.

Cmalone · Jan 29, 2017

Introversion said:
Donated to CAIR this morning, and to the ACLU. It feels feeble, but I guess it's better than nothing.

I don't know if the max ($100K) has been reached yet, but if you tweet sia a receipt of your ACLU donation, it will be matched. There were several others matching ACLU donations last night too. If a tweet can effectively double your donation, it might be worth it. With so many people needing help right now, every penny is worth it, so I don't think your efforts are as feeble as you think.

ElaineA · Jan 29, 2017

We're depending on the judges and the lawyers first. We should be relying on the Senate, but McConnell, craven worm that he is, said this on ABC This Week just this morning: “It's hopefully going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far.”

He won't take a stand against Trump/Bannon, even though it's pretty clear there's some form of coup in motion. Bottom feeder.

raburrell · Jan 29, 2017

Impeachment, IMO.
You have a rogue executive who thinks he and his advisors are outside the law. I don't see any other way this ends, frankly. The sooner the better.

cornflake · Jan 29, 2017

It's full-on fucking insane, honestly. There are going to be more rulings, and hopefully it'll just tip over at some point and they'll start complying before some judge has to send in cops and there's a standoff or some idiocy.

The ban is illegal. It's not a shades of grey thing; it's flatly, obviously illegal on its face. You can't select by country. The religious test is an entirely other level of wtfery, as is denying people without due process, especially visa holders, green card holders, etc. However, the order, as written, just won't stand.

In addition to the protesters and the valiant lawyers on the (literal) ground -- some were tweeting requests for person-to-person replacements into the wee hours last night, btw, unwilling to leave until they were sure they were replaced -- shout out to NY Gov. Cuomo who not only directed the NY DOS and his council's office to do anything possible to help the detainees, but who ordered the Port Authority Police (the cops in charge of transit points like airports and bridges), who had shut down the JFK Airtran (train to and around the terminals) to protesters, to open it back up and let protesters flood the airport, because they had a right to be heard, and block the shit out of the place, if they so chose.

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 29, 2017

Lyv said:
So, with DHS insisting that the Executive Order is in effect despite court rulings, where are we? What happens now?

That's not reassuring to me.

Report is that the new guy picked a portrait of Andrew Jackson to put in his office.

president Jackson was, of course, famous for his response to the Supreme Court ruling that he couldn't steal the Cherokee nations' land and wealth and force them on a death-march to the western deserts.

In response Jackson said, in effect, "You and what army" and did it anyway.

Lyv · Jan 29, 2017

raburrell said:
Impeachment, IMO.
You have a rogue executive who thinks he and his advisors are outside the law. I don't see any other way this ends, frankly. The sooner the better.

I agree. And I know we get Pence, who is a nightmare. But it still has to happen. How best to direct our efforts?

ElaineA · Jan 29, 2017

cornflake said:
It's full-on fucking insane, honestly. There are going to be more rulings, and hopefully it'll just tip over at some point and they'll start complying before some judge has to send in cops and there's a standoff or some idiocy.

Don't you think that's what they want? An excuse to crack down militarily? If the Border Patrol continues to respond to HSA's order to keep detaining and checking, it's not inconceivable there will the a face-off between local cops and National Guard in a situation where a judge orders enforcement.

cornflake · Jan 29, 2017

I'm fairly sure that's what Bannon wants, as much as he wants anything specific -- I think, honestly, he's just a giant troll who has little firm idea of anything specific policy-wise, and is just sitting around happily giggling at chaos, as he mostly revels in other people being riled up -- but I don't know that everyone in those departments, or on the ground, is willing to go that far once it becomes clear which way it's going to go.

There are already filings requesting contempt orders.

rugcat · Jan 29, 2017

raburrell said:
Impeachment, IMO.
You have a rogue executive who thinks he and his advisors are outside the law. I don't see any other way this ends, frankly. The sooner the better.

Unfortunately, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and by and large they like what Trump is doing.

Those that do not like him, especially in the house, are terrified of angering his supporters. The tea party managed to primary out a great many establishment Republicans -- if you'll remember, Eric Cantor lost his seat to an unqualified tea party candidate, mostly, in many political watchers' opinions, because he wasn't tough enough on immigration.

In conservative districts, which are now the majority, a vote to impeach Donald Trump would be political suicide. And although I think most of these legislators do actually care about what happens to America, (although their views on this differ from my own )their concern pales next to the worry that they personally might be out of a job if they were to take action.

The only way impeachment would occur is if something unexpected came to light that is unequivocably and provably criminal. I'm not talking about shady business deals or even ordinary crimes – it would take something like actual pedophilia, underage sex with children caught on tape.

Of course, perhaps there really is that Russian tape . . .

cornflake · Jan 29, 2017

"As a New Yorker, I am an immigrant; my people were refugees, who came from Italy... As a New Yorker, I am a Muslim; as a New Yorker, I am Jewish; as a New Yorker, I am Black, I am gay, I am disabled, I am a woman seeking to control her health and her choices, because as a New Yorker, we are one community...

We will find that which unites us and it is more powerful than that which divides us, and we have to remember that today." - Gov. Cuomo, announcing a new bill to protect transit workers from discrimination and hate crimes (after a Muslim airport worker was verbally abused), and a phone hotline that people can anonymously call for legal help if they were waiting for people meant to be a plane bound for the U.S. who haven't shown up.

raburrell · Jan 29, 2017

RC - yeah, I don't think Republicans are 'there' yet, but my sense is that outside the hardcore base, there's a growing sense of horror at all of this. (Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but it's my read of the zeitgeist). I think that once that starts to percolate, we might see them turn on him. Hopefully before the mushroom clouds (literal or figural) start to appear.

Roxxsmom · Jan 29, 2017

Does anyone else notice that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both countries that have produced terrorists that acted in the US, aren't included in the ban?

Not that I advocate a blanket ban on people from any country, but he really isn't being consistent, is he?

I don't think impeachment is likely at this point. The only thing I see uniting GOPs in congress against Trump would be if he gets serious about that congressional term limits amendment he talked about while campaigning.

If he actually proceeds with that at some point and is smart, he'd include a grandfather clause, which will be very much to the GOP's advantage. Still, they'd need a 2/3 majority in both houses, which seems unlikely. My guess is he'll go for it it when he needs a diversion.

cornflake · Jan 29, 2017

Yes -- those countries have Trump-branded hotels or golf courses. So...

Roxxsmom · Jan 29, 2017

cornflake said:
Yes -- those countries have Trump-branded hotels or golf courses. So...

Excluding countries with which he has business ties? Trump? :e2faint:

DancingMaenid · Jan 29, 2017

ElaineA said:
I enjoy the academic exercise of trying to determine in Bannon actually knows what he's talking about when he calls himself a Leninist (and what that actually means to various people), but if there's one thing I think we've learned the first week of this presidency, it's that we better take these guys at their words. They've done EVERYthing they've said they wanted to do. Now Bannon, a political hack with a White Supremacy agenda that's clear for all to see, is sitting on the National Security Council. That's never happened before. George Stephanopoulos was run out of the room when Clinton had him sit in. Now it's the Joint Chief of Staff and the DNI who will be "sitting in" (according to Reince Priebus, they're invited if they want to attend--as observers), and Bannon is an official member.

He is quoted as saying, “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Whether he understands Lenin or not doesn't really matter at this point. We're going to be hip-deep in the rubble in no time if he keeps it up. The "Muslim Ban" has already been made use of by ISIS. It's in Bannon's interest to provoke some sort of attack, from within or without, to achieve his stated goal.

Whether he understands the fine points or not, I take him at his word. He has given us no reason not to.

I agree with all of this, but I think it does serve a useful purpose to call people out for applying disingenuous labels to their political views. We've seen throughout history, and in this election, that people are often influenced by how someone presents themselves as much as what they actually say and do. "Leninist" sounds a hell of a lot better than "Nazi" or "Stalinist."

ElaineA · Jan 29, 2017

DancingMaenid said:
I agree with all of this, but I think it does serve a useful purpose to call people out for applying disingenuous labels to their political views. We've seen throughout history, and in this election, that people are often influenced by how someone presents themselves as much as what they actually say and do. "Leninist" sounds a hell of a lot better than "Nazi" or "Stalinist."

Very true. They're masterful propagandists.

MaeZe · Jan 29, 2017

I found this article of interest: Six other times the US has banned immigrants

Each instance reveals the racist/bigoted mentality that swept the country at the time from Chinese laborers to HIV infected persons.

The Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned "skilled and unskilled labourers and Chinese employed in mining" from entering the US for 10 years, was the first significant law restricting immigration to the country. It came at a time when the US was struggling with high unemployment and, although Chinese made up a very small segment of the country's workforce, they were nevertheless scapegoated for its social and economic woes.

As millions of people became refugees during World War II, US President Franklin D Roosevelt argued that refugees posed a serious threat to the country's national security. Drawing on fears that Nazi spies could be hiding among them, the country limited the number of German Jews who could be admitted to 26,000 annually.

Sounds much too familiar.

The Internal Security Act of 1950 - also known as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 or the McCarran Act - made it possible to deport any immigrants believed to be members of the Communist Party

Self explanatory, most people are aware of the Red Scare and the McCarthy Era.

American President Jimmy Carter cut diplomatic relations with and imposed sanctions on Iran. He also banned Iranians from entering the country.

Under President Ronald Reagan, the US Public Health Service added Aids to its list of "dangerous and contagious" diseases. Senator Jesse Helms' "Helms Amendment" added HIV to the exclusion list. ...

The laws were influenced by homophobic and xenophobic sentiment towards Africans and minorities at the time, as well as a false belief that the HIV virus could be spread by physical or respiratory contact. Former US President Barack Obama lifted it in 2009, completing a process begun by President George W Bush.

This one was particularly odd:

In 1903, the Anarchist Exclusion Act banned anarchists and others deemed to be political extremists from entering the US.

In 1901, President William McKinley had been fatally shot by Leon Czolgosz, an American anarchist who was the son of Polish immigrants.

The act - which was also known as the Immigration Act of 1903 - codified previous immigration law and, in addition to anarchists, added three other new classes of people who would be banned from entry: those with epilepsy, beggars and importers of prostitutes.

I know very little of this history. I never imagined anarchists as any particular ethnic or national group.

As for the illnesses, there are many medical travesties in history. Including people with epilepsy with two social criteria is an interesting juxtaposition.

Lest we Progressives get too smug, the article misses the 6 month ban on Iraqi refugees implemented by Obama.

Did President Obama ‘Ban’ Iraqi Refugees?

Obama’s administration did stop processing all applications for Iraqi refugees for a six-month time period....

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

... his action was limited to refugee resettlement (certainly, it didn’t affect green card holders, for example). However, Obama’s pause in Iraqi refugee admittance had consequences for some people and was driven by a terrorism case involving refugees, ...

Not saying the current Executive Order is in any way equivalent, but we should be familiar with what will certainly be brought up as a tu quoque as Trump already has.

Trump raised the Obama situation in a January 29 statement defending his immigration executive order. He wrote, “My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the executive order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

Cmalone · Jan 29, 2017

MaeZe said:
I found this article of interest: Six other times the US has banned immigrants

Each instance reveals the racist/bigoted mentality that swept the country at the time from Chinese laborers to HIV infected persons.

Sounds much too familiar.

Self explanatory, most people are aware of the Red Scare and the McCarthy Era.

This one was particularly odd: I know very little of this history. I never imagined anarchists as any particular ethnic or national group.

As for the illnesses, there are many medical travesties in history. Including people with epilepsy with two social criteria is an interesting juxtaposition.

Lest we Progressives get too smug, the article misses the 6 month ban on Iraqi refugees implemented by Obama.

Did President Obama ‘Ban’ Iraqi Refugees?

Not saying the current Executive Order is in any way equivalent, but we should be familiar with what will certainly be brought up as a tu quoque as Trump already has.

Someone in my household just this morning was insisting that the Muslim ban is business as usual because "Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Carter did it too" and "it's only temporary while the new administration transitions." :rant:

MaeZe · Jan 29, 2017

Cmalone said:
Someone in my household just this morning was insisting that the Muslim ban is business as usual because "Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Carter did it too" and "it's only temporary while the new administration transitions."

Well hopefully I've given you some amo with the historical perspective on past bans. Surely we don't want to go back to the McCarthy era.

Yay, Seattle:

What We Know About Last Night's Detentions and Protests at Sea-Tac (Including the Temporary Light Rail Service Halt)

Not so much in the national news about SeaTac Airport but there was a decent sized protest here. And, it's apparently still going on. :Thumbs:

Michael Wolfe · Jan 29, 2017

Alessandra Kelley said:
British Olympian gold medalist Mo Farah

Turns out Farah's not included in the ban after all.

CAIR to Announce Constitutional Challenge to 'Muslim Ban' Executive Order

All about that action, boss.

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!

I meant to do that.

I meant to do that.

All about that action, boss.

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

practical experience, FTW

Sophipygian

I meant to do that.

All about that action, boss.

practical experience, FTW

Lost in the Fog

practical experience, FTW

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Beastly Fido

practical experience, FTW

Beastly Fido

New kid...seven years ago!

All about that action, boss.

Jambo Bwana