4 ms·

> an informal, non-confirmable role, created to house someone who stood a decent chance of washing out of Senate confirmation This is a good argument. Many of

> an informal, non-confirmable role, created to house someone who stood a decent chance of washing out of Senate confirmation This is a good argument. Many of these White House roles need to be confirmed; even if they are mostly advisory, because the law assumes that the President's advisors influence his decisions. If people want to say "Steve Bannon needs to be confirmed by the Senate", that's something I could probably be convinced of. To be clear, there are probably some good arguments against the executive order. In particular: * It affects green card holders, who are legally allowed to travel to the US. * There are rumors of people being asked to voluntarily renounce their green cards, which if not illegal is at least immoral. * The order probably shouldn't include Iran. I think the list of countries was based on one that's already in law? * Maybe they should've given people a week or a couple days to get back into the US, rather than immediately banning them. It's only saving grace is that it only lasts for 90 days, so it was intended to be temporary while they write up some actual reform. And I know of at least one other case where the court has allowed something unconstitutional because it was temporary to solve a specific problem(Affirmative Action). It'd be nice if there was a "Stefan Molyneux of the left". As it is, it's hard to read through all the fear to find the arguments.

tptacek 10y ago
I'm having a hard time understanding the argument you try to make as you confirm all the arguments your selected opponents are making. "It only lasts for 90 days" is a rebuttal, but it's an awfully weak one to hang your entire rhetorical outfit on.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  The only part I actually agree with is that people holding green cards shouldn't be stopped from traveling. They've gone through extensive vetting already. The administration should intervene immediately to stop applying it in those cases, but I agree with the rest of the order. I think Sec. 3 (c) is the part of the order that covers this? The rest of the order is partially fulfilling his campaign promises, and the broad idea is what's expected of him.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  It looks like the language in that part of the executive order was specifically intended to trigger this section in the law. So it seems legal, and means I can't even say it was incorrect for him to include Green Card holders: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 > Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President" > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. I don't think anyone here explicitly said it was illegal, but I've seen a lot written that seemed to indicate that it was, which was the basis for me singling out the green cards in my other comments.
dllthomas 10y ago
> It affects green card holders, who are legally allowed to travel to the US. This is understating the case. Green card holders aren't just "allowed to travel to the US" - that's true of any visa holder. Green card holders live in the US and aren't allowed to come home.

tptacek 10y ago

I'm having a hard time understanding the argument you try to make as you confirm all the arguments your selected opponents are making. "It only lasts for 90 days" is a rebuttal, but it's an awfully weak one to hang your entire rhetorical outfit on.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
The only part I actually agree with is that people holding green cards shouldn't be stopped from traveling. They've gone through extensive vetting already. The administration should intervene immediately to stop applying it in those cases, but I agree with the rest of the order. I think Sec. 3 (c) is the part of the order that covers this? The rest of the order is partially fulfilling his campaign promises, and the broad idea is what's expected of him.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
It looks like the language in that part of the executive order was specifically intended to trigger this section in the law. So it seems legal, and means I can't even say it was incorrect for him to include Green Card holders: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 > Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President" > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. I don't think anyone here explicitly said it was illegal, but I've seen a lot written that seemed to indicate that it was, which was the basis for me singling out the green cards in my other comments.

dllthomas 10y ago

> It affects green card holders, who are legally allowed to travel to the US. This is understating the case. Green card holders aren't just "allowed to travel to the US" - that's true of any visa holder. Green card holders live in the US and aren't allowed to come home.