The President Trump Immigration Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Lelliott8

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 25, 2016
    250
    18
    Crawfordsville
    Free trade eliminates immigration issues. As it stands now, however, I don't see a problem with asking questions and turning people away. If you want to be an American citizen, you should have some base level of objective morality and a desire to be free among a free people.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,290
    113
    SW IN
    Had Trump ignored the ruling of the Seattle District judge, there would no doubt be calls for impeachment for lawlessness (Rep. Waters didn't read the memo to "wait", lol).

    So the question is what to do with a District Judge who ignores the precedent of a higher court? Isn't that judge equally lawless as the hypothetical TRO-ignoring Trump?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Nope. Impossible. I've been told that terrorists never enter the U.S. from anywhere.

    Well, in the recent past, its mostly been via their mother's womb. From what I see on TV, that's beyond reach of any statute.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,614
    149
    Valparaiso
    From my extensive reading of Tom Clancy novels I have gleaned that we would be unwise to assume that because a foreign terrorist hasn't successfully pulled off an attack recently, they are not here.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    From my extensive reading of Tom Clancy novels I have gleaned that we would be unwise to assume that because a foreign terrorist hasn't successfully pulled off an attack recently, they are not here.

    As you and I both know, there is no more compelling evidence in the court of law than a Clancy reference.

    Granted, Cardinal of the Kremlin is about as exciting as the Restatement of Torts, 2d, so they are almost interchangeable.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    As you and I both know, there is no more compelling evidence in the court of law than a Clancy reference.

    Granted, Cardinal of the Kremlin is about as exciting as the Restatement of Torts, 2d, so they are almost interchangeable.

    I NEVER thought I would see the words, "Restatement of Torts, 2d," on this forum. Ever.

    Also, those words have the same effect on me as does the term "tax law" . . . I'm kind of drowsy from even typing them! :)
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    As much as the libs are crying about this, just think what this conversation would have been had the election gone the other way?
     

    amboy49

    Master
    Rating - 83.3%
    5   1   0
    Feb 1, 2013
    2,293
    83
    central indiana
    As I understand it the state of Washington attorney general filed the lawsuit against Trump's executive order on immigration. I am wondering what the rationale was for the Washington AG to file this suit ?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    As I understand it the state of Washington attorney general filed the lawsuit against Trump's executive order on immigration. I am wondering what the rationale was for the Washington AG to file this suit ?
    I think I posted upthread a link to the briefs.

    Briefly (pardon the pun), the Washington (and Minnesota) AG argues that caught up in the implementation of the "suspension" were people employed by various Washington institutions who had a vested interest in being allowed into the country, and the inability of those people to enter the country was harming not only those people who held the vested interest, but corporate/educational entities who were residents of Washington. Several big name tech companies have joined the litigation expressing the same sentiment.
     
    Top Bottom