Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Canada Girl Guides restricting scout unit travel to USA


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#141 ianwilkins

ianwilkins

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 233 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:18 AM

Just seen this linked from the BBC...

 

http://www.macleans....scout-in-syria/

 

Scouting in Syria looks like fun, I mean, apart from lessons in how to shelter from missiles. Looks fairly familiar too. Good to see a little light in the dark.


  • 1

#142 Back Pack

Back Pack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 691 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:35 AM

...until ISIS get a hold of them.
  • 0

#143 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2928 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:38 AM

Article is from Macleans.

 

More

http://www.macleans....ness-is-a-myth/


  • 0

#144 CalicoPenn

CalicoPenn

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3175 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:08 AM

But the Courts in question, lefties all, ignored the order they were barring.  The  Executive Order didn't ban Muslims.  It applied special vetting to all travelers from Obama's six countries, Muslim or not, - countries holding 15% of the world's Muslims, leaving 85% of the world's Muslims with unabated access.

 

The court decisions blaze new trails in judicial legislation - "Don't care what it says, it means something else that it does not say and may be applied contrary to its express words because the President is a bad guy, so ...."  

  

 

This is not quite correct - the order did not apply special vetting to "all" travelers from six countries (tossing Obama in there is just a red herring - has nothing to do with anything other than to re-iterate that these 6 countries were already facing "enhanced screening").

 

Read it more carefully - the order applies to "certain" travelers from those six countries - and never defines which "certain" travelers.  If the order(s) applied to ALL travelers from those countries, it  probably wouldn't have been frozen.  But because it applies to "certain" travelers and doesn't then define what that means, the Courts must rely on the statements of the people involved.  Those statements are undeniably opposed to one specific class of people - Muslims - and though the Executive Order doesn't use the word Muslim, it doesn't have to in order for the courts to conclude that "Certain People" is a euphemism for "Muslim". 

 

Agree with the court or not, this is what happens when an administration tries to be cute and hide their intentions - someone will always see right through it.  The administration had a second chance to get it right - they blew that one too - Trump should be looking for new advisors and lawyers at this point - people that would tell him to simplify and issue an order stating that travel to the US by citizens from those 6 (now 5 apparently) countries are banned for ALL travelers, no exceptions until such time as the President is confident that the vetting process is satisfactory.

 

The courts don't operate in a vacuum and don't operate only on what's on paper - and they never have (which means there is no new trails being blazed in the judiciary).  The courts have relied on intent countless times in the past - its when the intent is muddied that the courts struggle.  There is no muddying here - without a definition of "certain people", the court relied on past statements by this administration and determined the intent is clearly against one specific religion.

 

As for the use of judicial legislation - the judiciary does not legislate - that kind of nonsensical terminology is only used by people that don't like the way a court case has gone and aren't mature enough to handle it.


  • 1

#145 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Robert E. Lee - Patriot

  • Members
  • 1415 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:46 AM

Read it more carefully - the order applies to "certain" travelers from those six countries - and never defines which "certain" travelers.  If the order(s) applied to ALL travelers from those countries, it  probably wouldn't have been frozen.  But because it applies to "certain" travelers and doesn't then define what that means, the Courts must rely on the statements of the people involved.  Those statements are undeniably opposed to one specific class of people - Muslims - and though the Executive Order doesn't use the word Muslim, it doesn't have to in order for the courts to conclude that "Certain People" is a euphemism for "Muslim".


My God, you ask someone to "read carefully" and then you make the leap that a term "certain people" means Muslims instead of it meaning terrorists. Did you even read what you wrote before you wrote it.
 
How about this: While the text refers to the term "certain people", could it perhaps mean people from ISIS strong holds in those countries? People with family or organization ties to ISIS? People who are on a watch list? No, of course not. Trump's a racist so naturally he meant Muslims, when, being the rampant racist he is, he's not touched immigration for the other 87% percent of Muslims in the world.
 
Or perhaps there's no need to define who the "certain people" are because the definition resides in the "existing screening and vetting procedures" referred to in the Executive Order. But of course, let's show ISIS exactly how we are vetting people so they can learn the play book and go around our security. Think about that next time you're on a plane. :rolleyes:  
 

The courts don't operate in a vacuum and don't operate only on what's on paper - and they never have (which means there is no new trails being blazed in the judiciary).  The courts have relied on intent countless times in the past - its when the intent is muddied that the courts struggle.  There is no muddying here - without a definition of "certain people", the court relied on past statements by this administration and determined the intent is clearly against one specific religion.


Again, "certain people" can mean terrorist too. But it is so much easier to think it means Muslim. It could mean left-handed people, why did you leave them out? Seriously, if this is all you have you are as wrong as the court.
 

As for the use of judicial legislation - the judiciary does not legislate - that kind of nonsensical terminology is only used by people that don't like the way a court case has gone and aren't mature enough to handle it.


The Executive does not "legislate" either, but that's what Executive Orders are. But let's take your assertion that these courts are not legislating.
 
The basis for the states' (Maryland and Hawaii) are that the travel ban "unfairly discriminates against Muslims". Yet no where is the wording "ban Muslims" in the EO. Nor does it exist in any of the vetting procedures documents according to the FBI and Justice Department. So by issuing a TRO against implementation of the ban, the court is prohibiting the exercise of Executive powers enumerated in the Constitution and other areas referenced in the EO.


  • 0

#146 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2928 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:52 AM

This is not quite correct - the order did not apply special vetting to "all" travelers from six countries (tossing Obama in there is just a red herring - has nothing to do with anything other than to re-iterate that these 6 countries were already facing "enhanced screening").

 

Reply:  It means the previous administration selected the countries.subject to the enhanced screened provided in the order.  That is relevant to the claim that the current administration selected these countries, home to 15% of the World's Muslims, solely because they are predominately Muslim - leaving 85% of the World's Muslims unaffected - because they too are predominately Muslim?

 

Read it more carefully - the order applies to "certain" travelers from those six countries - and never defines which "certain" travelers.  If the order(s) applied to ALL travelers from those countries, it  probably wouldn't have been frozen.  But because it applies to "certain" travelers and doesn't then define what that means, the Courts must rely on the statements of the people involved.  Those statements are undeniably opposed to one specific class of people - Muslims - and though the Executive Order doesn't use the word Muslim, it doesn't have to in order for the courts to conclude that "Certain People" is a euphemism for "Muslim". 

 

Reply.  I read it more carefully. The original order of January 27, 2017 did not contain the word "certain," yet it was found unconstitutional, not on it's face but because of the Court's findings to the President's alleged  motivation in issuing the Executive Order, a basis which Alan Dershowitz finds to be contrary to all previous permissible judicial analysis.  

"Well, I think the president makes a mistake going after judges. He quoted me correctly, I do think he will win [at]... the United States Supreme Court. It will be an important decision because it will be the first time a court has really handled political statements during a campaign and be used to strike down a facially constitutional statute. 


I hope the president doesn't misinterpret my statements to say I support the order. I don't support the order. I don't think it's necessary for the safety of the United States. I'm opposed to it. But I think there's a difference obviously between not supporting an order on policy grounds and finding it unconstitutional. I do not think it's unconstitutional. I think the Supreme Court will uphold it even if Gorsuch is not yet on the Supreme Court. But if he does make it there in time then it will be a clearer victory for the Trump administration in the Supreme Court."

 

The Order of March 6, 2017, does contain the word "certain"  It then goes on to explain what that means.

"Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing, I am imposing a temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in section 3 of this order. [qv.]

 

 

 

Agree with the court or not, this is what happens when an administration tries to be cute and hide their intentions - someone will always see right through it.  The administration had a second chance to get it right - they blew that one too - Trump should be looking for new advisors and lawyers at this point - people that would tell him to simplify and issue an order stating that travel to the US by citizens from those 6 (now 5 apparently) countries are banned for ALL travelers, no exceptions until such time as the President is confident that the vetting process is satisfactory.

 

Reply: You assume a hidden intention that the express language of the order contradicts.  If the purpose of the order is to bar Muslims, why exclude 85% of the World's Muslims from its reach and then provide other exceptions for members of the 15%?  He's a bad guy so it MUST be so?

Yoru argument assumes it's conclusion.  Professor Dershowitz disagrees, and he's not alone.

 

The courts don't operate in a vacuum and don't operate only on what's on paper - and they never have (which means there is no new trails being blazed in the judiciary).  The courts have relied on intent countless times in the past - its when the intent is muddied that the courts struggle.  There is no muddying here - without a definition of "certain people", the court relied on past statements by this administration and determined the intent is clearly against one specific religion.

 

Reply: Even those few legal scholars who agree say it's blazing new trails in judicial review.

 

As for the use of judicial legislation - the judiciary does not legislate - that kind of nonsensical terminology is only used by people that don't like the way a court case has gone and aren't mature enough to handle it.

 

Reply:  All my life, courts have felt  compelled to make new law when the legislators keep "kicking the can down the road" on critical issues  To take the position that the courts have not made new law is beyond myopic and contrary to express "liberal" legal philosophy, at least when applied to new common law that they like. I find the entire "liberal" philosophy of a "living Constitution," as most recently expressed by former President Obama, troubling as it can amount to no more than changing the Constitution without amendment as a matter of convenience - or even attacking the court when, as it did several times, it rules contrary to HIS view of what the Living Constitution" provides.


Edited by TAHAWK, 30 March 2017 - 10:52 AM.

  • 2

#147 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2928 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 11:02 AM

The posture of all Executive Orders is that the President is exercising authority given him by the Constitution or under Acts of Congress.  In this case, both the Constitution implicitly and an Act of Congress explicitly  provide clear authority for his orders. 

 

"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."

 

8 U.S.C. 1182(f). 

 

"8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) clearly grants the President broad discretionary authority to control the entry of aliens into the United States. Section 1182(f) grants the President the discretion to act to exclude aliens “as he deems necessary.” Pursuant to this power, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12324 authorizing the interdiction of illegal aliens at sea. HRC concedes that the President’s order is not reviewable under the APA. They argue that the President’s subordinates are not carrying out his directive and that their failure to do so is subject to judicial review. . . .

 

Congress has committed to the President broad authority to control the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens when he determines that it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The President may suspend or restrict the entry of aliens for the period he deems necessary and impose the restrictions he deems appropriate. Id. Pursuant to this broad grant of authority, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12324."

Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1507, 1510 (11th Cir. 1992), accord, Sale v. Haitian Centers Council (1993) 509 U.S. 155, 187–88 ( Justice Stevens found for 8 members [all save Justice Blackmun] that 1182(f) allows the President to deny Haitians entry, simply based on their nationality).

 

Our "liberal" jurists would reverse the Supreme Court and the clear language of Congress by adding to the law: "Unless I think the President acted for bad reasons, in which case it is subject to MY review, not as to its terms but as to those motives."


Edited by TAHAWK, 30 March 2017 - 11:10 AM.

  • 1

#148 qwazse

qwazse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6826 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 06:10 PM

[quote name="TAHAWK" post="453274" timestamp="1490893328"]The posture of all Executive Orders is that the President is exercising authority given him by the Constitution or under Acts of Congress.  In this case, both the Constitution implicitly and an Act of Congress explicitly  provide clear authority for his orders. 
 ...
Congress has committed to the President broad authority to control the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens when he determines that it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The President may suspend or restrict the entry of aliens for the period he deems necessary and impose the restrictions he deems appropriate. Id. Pursuant to this broad grant of authority, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12324."
[\quote]
Centralized decisions ... best thing since sliced bread ... Until you don't like the guy holding the knife!
  • 0

#149 Stosh

Stosh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 12429 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 06:52 PM

We've played this partisan politics game in the past.  It didn't turn out well.


  • 0

#150 ianwilkins

ianwilkins

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 233 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 02:07 AM

...until ISIS get a hold of them.

 

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine! :)


  • 0

#151 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 3001 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 05:10 AM

I was not aware there are US Border agents working pre-clearance to US at Canadian airports (currently 9). The procedure is also in effect at the Port of Vancouver, at Vancouver’s train station and on some B.C.-Washington ferry routes.

Pre-clearance is expected to be introduced at Montreal’s train station for Amtrak’s Montreal-New York City route later this year.

 

http://www.rcinet.ca...ards-in-canada/

http://www.rcinet.ca...ards-in-canada/

 

An  international agreement with the US in 2015 permitted U.S. border agents to operate on Canadian soil, in airports, rail, bus and other terminals. This was to create “pre-clearance” to reduce delays at US entry points.

 

Now a new federal proposal, Bill C-23 would give U.S. agents on Canadian soil, even more powers, including the power to detain Canadians, conduct strip searches of Canadian travellers, and to carry sidearms.

 

“A Canadian going to the U.S. through a pre-clearance area [on Canadian soil] can say: ‘I don’t like the way [an interview is] going and I’ve chosen not to visit your country.’ And they can just turn around and walk out,” says Calgary immigration lawyer Michael Greene, the national chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s citizenship and immigration section.

 

“Under the new proposed bill C-23, they wouldn’t be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw,” Greene says.

 

 

A survey released today by the polling firm Angus Reid Institute shows Canadians are becoming more uneasy about giving American authorities more powers on Canadian soil.

 

IMO, very odd, sounds like the movie Casablanca. :confused:


  • 0

#152 Back Pack

Back Pack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 691 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 06:23 AM

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine! :)


Sorry. Just wanted to point out to the Canadians that there are countries wHere their girls wouldn't have basic human rights to put their indignation about the USA in perspective.
  • 0

#153 Back Pack

Back Pack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 691 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 06:24 AM

The USA has had border and customs agents living inside countries for years. Most of the time aligned with the embassy.
  • 0

#154 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 3001 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 06:39 AM

The USA has had border and customs agents living inside countries for years. Most of the time aligned with the embassy.

Having them at the US Embassy (US soil) is different from having them at a Canadian airport (Canadian soil). If I was a Canadian, I would not allow a foreign government police powers on Canadian soil. I would be ok with the US pre-screening and Go/No-go but detaining should be a matter for solely for RCMP or Canadian police.


Edited by RememberSchiff, 31 March 2017 - 06:40 AM.

  • 0

#155 Back Pack

Back Pack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 691 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 07:28 AM

Having them at the US Embassy (US soil) is different from having them at a Canadian airport (Canadian soil). If I was a Canadian, I would not allow a foreign government police powers on Canadian soil. I would be ok with the US pre-screening and Go/No-go but detaining should be a matter for solely for RCMP or Canadian police.


I should be clear. Aligned with embassies meaning they report there, but working at POEs. I know they are at Munich airport as I recently ran in to them there.
  • 0

#156 Ankylus

Ankylus

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 09:04 AM

Stupid is as stupid does. If they don't want to come to the US, fine. They can stay in Canada. There is plenty to keep them occupied in Canada. Ever been to BAMF? They have wonderful resources for their program in Canada.


  • 0

#157 Peregrinator

Peregrinator

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 700 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 08:02 PM

Ironically, Canadian immigration law is probably more restrictive than American.


  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users