SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the what-separation-of-powers department:
The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. 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. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
The NY Post adds:
The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:55AM
The problem is everything else that you don't know.
The law does not exist in a vacuum.
Its modified by other laws.
And since you didn't even find that statute yourself, I'm pretty sure you have zero idea what other laws apply.
But you know who probably does know? A judge. Or maybe 2 judges. Or even 4 of them.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:15AM
Is it? Show me where. I provided a citation for my claim, can you do the same?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:35AM
Ah, you're so cute. I literally just said I'm deferring to the experts, you stomp your little princess foot and demand that I not.
Tell you what, I'll play chicken with you. You go find the rulings from those four judges and tell us all what's wrong their legal determinations.
Not just blindly cite a single statute that you don't really understand, read the rulings and tell us how they fall short.
Once you've actually put the work in that you demand of me, then I'll do the same for you.
Of course you won't, because your an idjit whose only skill is motivated reasoning.
But maybe I'm wrong. If I am, its easy enough for you make me look like a fool.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:57AM
You're doing that fine by yourself. I cite very definitive supporting law and you back your position up with... what? Rhetoric?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:10PM
Surprise, ya wussed out.
So what if you cited something?
Its not applicable to arguments presented in those courts.
I may be an anonymous coward, you are an intellectual coward.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:44PM
Name calling now? How juvenile can you get in an effort to not have to back up your assertions?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:07PM
You have yet to address any of the points raised in the FOUR rulings, but I'm the one not backing my assertions.
That kind of intellectual dishonesty invites name calling.