I am sure there are a lot of opinions out there about President Trump's decision and the 9th District Court's Decision. As you might have guessed, I have my own opinion.
I like to form my opinions from different angles than most other people. The original decision has at least two elements to it.
The first is harm to people in Washington state that can not be compensated by waiting until there is a final court decision or 90 days. The other is that letting possible terrorists into the United States is not as bad as damage to foreigners in Washington state who can not travel in or out of the United States for the next 90 days. Here is an example. There is a person with a green card from one of the 7 designated countries who is pregnant and is expecting to deliver with in the 90 day period and wants to deliver her child in the United States so that it would be a citizens and make it easier for her to get a permanent visa. It is clear that if this person is kept out of the United States for the next 90 days, she will loose for ever having her child a natural born citizen, like Obama. With the clarification that President Trump has made regarding people with green cards, there is no damage that needs to be protected. The only people that the decision helps are people who don't have green cards. This is stupid!
The second seems to be that President Trump made a bad decision about the risk of terrorists getting into the United States. This is clearly a second guessing by the judge who has never seen any of the confidential security briefings that the President has gotten. The law is clear that the President has the authority to make such decisions and there is no requirement that he "justify" those decisions to anyone.
From a legal standpoint to bring an action in court, you must have "standing" and in this case, it is a stretch for the state of Washington, which brought the action, to claim they are directly affected.
Here is another example. Think about a situation where there is a line of people waiting at the border to get into the United States and there is a person at the head of the line who appears to be a terrorist and the agents are doing paper work needed to make a decision. Those farther back in the line wait their turn which might be as long as 90 days. Some in the line may have green cards that need to be checked to see if they are valid. While the agents are dealing with the possible terrorist, do they need to go back thru the waiting people in the line and bring some to the front of the line? That is what the judge is saying that the agents need to do.
Is the judge saying that the President needs to have "multiple" lines, one for terrorists and one for people with green cards? I think you can see how stupid the judges decision was. Since the original decision by President Trump, he has issued a revision that allows people with green cards to come to the head of the line. Given that is the case, what is it that the state of Washington is complaining about? Why is there any need of a trial?
I like to form my opinions from different angles than most other people. The original decision has at least two elements to it.
The first is harm to people in Washington state that can not be compensated by waiting until there is a final court decision or 90 days. The other is that letting possible terrorists into the United States is not as bad as damage to foreigners in Washington state who can not travel in or out of the United States for the next 90 days. Here is an example. There is a person with a green card from one of the 7 designated countries who is pregnant and is expecting to deliver with in the 90 day period and wants to deliver her child in the United States so that it would be a citizens and make it easier for her to get a permanent visa. It is clear that if this person is kept out of the United States for the next 90 days, she will loose for ever having her child a natural born citizen, like Obama. With the clarification that President Trump has made regarding people with green cards, there is no damage that needs to be protected. The only people that the decision helps are people who don't have green cards. This is stupid!
The second seems to be that President Trump made a bad decision about the risk of terrorists getting into the United States. This is clearly a second guessing by the judge who has never seen any of the confidential security briefings that the President has gotten. The law is clear that the President has the authority to make such decisions and there is no requirement that he "justify" those decisions to anyone.
From a legal standpoint to bring an action in court, you must have "standing" and in this case, it is a stretch for the state of Washington, which brought the action, to claim they are directly affected.
Here is another example. Think about a situation where there is a line of people waiting at the border to get into the United States and there is a person at the head of the line who appears to be a terrorist and the agents are doing paper work needed to make a decision. Those farther back in the line wait their turn which might be as long as 90 days. Some in the line may have green cards that need to be checked to see if they are valid. While the agents are dealing with the possible terrorist, do they need to go back thru the waiting people in the line and bring some to the front of the line? That is what the judge is saying that the agents need to do.
Is the judge saying that the President needs to have "multiple" lines, one for terrorists and one for people with green cards? I think you can see how stupid the judges decision was. Since the original decision by President Trump, he has issued a revision that allows people with green cards to come to the head of the line. Given that is the case, what is it that the state of Washington is complaining about? Why is there any need of a trial?
