BREAKING: Federal Court Issues National Stay of Trump's Refugee Ban

[publicunofficial]

At least one detainee, an 11 month old, is a full-fledged US citizen. Mother is a longtime US resident.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

John McCain says he's against the ban on his Facebook and Chris Murphy said he intends to introduce a bill overturning it this week.  Should be interesting to see how that goes.

[Illiniwek]

CPB is reportedly not letting attorneys visit with detained immigrants at Dulles Airport. Violation of court order.

Court has to hold them in contempt.

[publicunofficial]

CPB is reportedly not letting attorneys visit with detained immigrants at Dulles Airport. Violation of court order.

Court has to hold them in contempt.

Along with whoever ordered them to do so.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Roughly 100.000-150.000 people living in Austria are currently unable to travel to the US because they are either citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Somalia - or Austrian citizens who also hold citizenship/passports of these countries.

And what business or connection do they possibly have here? I have yet to hear a reason as to why the right to immigrate here is apparent universal.

[Beet]

John McCain says he's against the ban on his Facebook and Chris Murphy said he intends to introduce a bill overturning it this week.  Should be interesting to see how that goes.

That would certainly be better than it being struck down by the courts. The latter would allow Trump to say, "I tried, but was foiled by the corrupt globalist establishment." Followed by him packing the courts with rubber stampers. Let the representatives of the people vote on this.

[publicunofficial]

Roughly 100.000-150.000 people living in Austria are currently unable to travel to the US because they are either citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Somalia - or Austrian citizens who also hold citizenship/passports of these countries.

And what business or connection do they possibly have here? I have yet to hear a reason as to why the right to immigrate here is apparent universal.

Why not ban travel from Canada? Or Iceland? Those people have as much a right to visit/immigrate to the US as Somalis or Iraqis do.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump’s Border Patrol Defies Judge, U.S. Senator at Dulles Airport as His First Constitutional Crisis Unfolds


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/trump-s-border-patrol-defies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html

[publicunofficial]

Syrian human rights activist Radwan Ziadeh has lived in the US since 2007, his three children are all US citizens. He's currently trapped in Istanbul.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Roughly 100.000-150.000 people living in Austria are currently unable to travel to the US because they are either citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Somalia - or Austrian citizens who also hold citizenship/passports of these countries.

And what business or connection do they possibly have here? I have yet to hear a reason as to why the right to immigrate here is apparent universal.

Why not ban travel from Canada? Or Iceland? Those people have as much a right to visit/immigrate to the US as Somalis or Iraqis do.

They don't have the right to just walk in either, but they can also be trusted. Considering most people who enter from Canada usually return within a couple days, added on top of the fact that Canada has no real history of terrorism besides the recent Parliament shooting and the long gone FLQ, then you'll see that the travel ban has no practical purpose in regards to those nations.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Roughly 100.000-150.000 people living in Austria are currently unable to travel to the US because they are either citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Somalia - or Austrian citizens who also hold citizenship/passports of these countries.

And what business or connection do they possibly have here? I have yet to hear a reason as to why the right to immigrate here is apparent universal.

Immigrate? The ban also applies to those who simply want to travel to the United States.

That includes visiting family, doing business, going on vacation, etc.

Immigrate, seeking asylum, travel, etc, all the same. No one has aright to enter any country unless they are citizens (which many affected by this are-I've made it clear that this order was poorly thought out).

[The_Doctor]

I dont like Trump. I dont hate Trump.

Remember when you were a child and you were non-political and George Bush was some stiff old guy in a suit your parents would argue about. And you were totally uninterested.

That's me.

If Donald takes Kim Jun-Un's head off, i will be impressed.

I am only here at Atlas to find out about your opinions on Trump, US politica etc.

I find the whole process fascinating, and in a way, like Trump, i find the news media in Australia a fake show.

So this site is my news website.

The only drawback is that the Snowflakes are higher in number and louder than the Republicans.

Hence getting a handle on current US opinion on this issue is difficult.

I thought about your answer and I'd like to reply.

The "snowflakes" you mention here are emblematic of the Left. And American politics. The Left has been adept at taking down Republican politicians and Presidents. I think, dating to the 1960s, they've defeated or tarnished the reputation of every President except Ronald Reagan. They took down Nixon, Bush 1, destroyed Bush 2's presidency, and beat Ford.

The surprising thing is that how they do it. They organize in year 1, protest, and are written off as futile. The GOP wins in years 1-4. Then in years 5-8, the Left begins to make an impact and shift the terms of debate and destroy that presidency. Nixon and Bush saw this happen to them; I suspect, Trump will have a much shorter period of destruction if simply because ...

Donald Trump, to put it simply is the best foil and the dream caricature of the GOP that the Left has in its mind. He lacks an interest in details, wants to fight constantly, is an authoritarian, and has never been in politics, preferring to rip off people from their money in his former business. And lost the popular vote by 2%. There is very little here that the Left couldn't have asked for if they HAD to have a opposition president who they wanted to beat.

Sure, the "snowflakes" may lose in year 1-2, but stuff like this says the Left will successfully stereotype Trump in the public's mind and Trump will never become a unifying figure in the public's mind for the duration of his presidency. Which will limit his legacy enormously and the impact he makes beyond his own times.

[The_Doctor]

Additionally, Ronald Reagan succeeded because he had a 10% point landslide and a mandate to succeed and followed twenty years of divisive turmoil that dated to the death of John F. Kennedy. The man was also an experienced Republican pol who had dealt with the protests in California and survived two terms as Governor. Trump has none of that kind of background to contend with the left. It may be why Reagan alone is the only Republican President to successfully rewrite the rules and walk away from the presidency regarded well and realigned the system to his ideology.

Compare Reagan to Trump and you quickly see that while Trump may have a lot of short term victories, his long term political prognosis remains difficult.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's a list of Republicans in Congress who have taken a position, either for or against, on Trump's travel ban:

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/29/14427466/republican-congress-silent-trump-refugee

[publicunofficial]

CBP is confirmed to be turning away attorneys.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Additionally, Ronald Reagan succeeded because he had a 10% point landslide and a mandate to succeed and followed twenty years of divisive turmoil that dated to the death of John F. Kennedy. The man was also an experienced Republican pol who had dealt with the protests in California and survived two terms as Governor. Trump has none of that kind of background to contend with the left. It may be why Reagan alone is the only Republican President to successfully rewrite the rules and walk away from the presidency regarded well and realigned the system to his ideology.

Compare Reagan to Trump and you quickly see that while Trump may have a lot of short term victories, his long term political prognosis remains difficult.

Reagan did very, very, very little. He was a front man for a shadowy cabal of advisers who were largely interconnected with Vice President Bush and the Republican establishment. It's also seriously under-estimated how similar the level of hatred for Reagan from the contemporary press and left matched if not even exceeds what Trump faces. Reagan of course "did this all" while in reality doing very little of consequence on his own initiative. The reality of Reagan as opposed to the narrative of Reagan sounds to me to be very similar to the "worst case scenarios" imagined for Trump.

Reagan's success was based in his amiable personality and charisma. People, for the most part, generally liked and trusted him-actually, kinda like Obama was generally viewed. He came to office at a time of calm after two decades of chaos. That is what made him teflon. On the other hand, Trump is taking office in the fifth year of our own "twenty year storm" that is underway. Trump's teflon is his bully pulpit and force of personality. Expect Trump to mobilize the masses in a way that is unprecedented, governing more in tune with Margaret Thatcher than Reagan in terms of his divisive style. Lastly Reagan had eight years as Governor and two presidential campaigns ('68 and '76) by the time he took office, and that was even still not enough to make him any more prepared for the role than Trump is.

[Suburbia]

Both sides do it. It's just the bottom line. I hope Democrats would care about the security of the United States than the feelings of refugees and immigrants. I am so proud to be a centrist today.

[Fusionmunster]

Both sides do it. It's just the bottom line. I hope Democrats would care about the security of the United States than the feelings of refugees and immigrants. I am so proud to be a centrist today.

Your not.

[The Other Castro]

There is a constitutional crisis in the making here with the CBP. This could get very bad very quickly. Also, bronz is trolling so don't bother.

[publicunofficial]

Both sides do it. It's just the bottom line. I hope Democrats would care about the security of the United States than the feelings of refugees and immigrants. I am so proud to be a centrist today.

Meanwhile, actual centrists:

[OneJ]

Both sides do it. It's just the bottom line. I hope Democrats would care about the security of the United States than the feelings of refugees and immigrants. I am so proud to be a centrist today.

Yeah because all of those immigrants are hidin' somethin' suspicious and we HAVE to back Trump on this...

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a nutshell, you just cited the Left's stereotype of Ronald Reagan. This is hogwash, to put it kindly.

Read Lou Cannon's "President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime." And then try "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War" by James Mann. Both will (with citations and well grounded facts) demonstrate your assertions to be false.  

Anyway, let's take your positions and break them down.

1. Reagan did very, very, very little. Nonsense. Reagan cut taxes, held domestic spending down (outside defense), led a successful arms race that neutralized the Soviet Union and led them to negotiations, negotiated the nuclear arms deals, and then wound down the Cold War. He also began to shift the Court to the right, appointing O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. Not to mention the lower courts. And he sped up the deregulation that began under Jimmy Carter. And oh, he got Vice President Bush elected President in his own right.

Most of all, Reagan was a realigning President that shattered the New Deal coalition, and inaugurated a new conservative era. The 1994 Republican Congress took their "Contract with America" from Reagan's 1985 State of the Union. His Administration was the most conservative since the Coolidge Administration and was consequential in how it ended the string of liberal presidencies (and alignment) between Roosevelt and Carter.

Anyway you add it up, the 40th President was a very consequential president. We can't say anything about the 45th because Trump has been in office a week.

2. He was a front man for a shadowy cabal of advisers who were largely interconnected with Vice President Bush and the Republican establishment. lol no. Reagan was their bete noir. Let's start with the fact he started out as a speaker for Barry Goldwater in "A Time for Choosing." From the start, Reagan was aligned with the conservative National Review - Goldwater wing of the party, as evidenced by his 1966 gubernatorial run (his other primary challenger was a more moderate Republican).

Reagan's talk about the arms race and then pivoting to negotiations ran contrary to the Republican establishment's wishes at the time. Nixon and Kissinger had fathered detente, which Reagan blasted in the 1976 primaries. Then as President, Reagan launched an arms race to force the Soviet Union to come to the table. His spending and tax cuts were also far more draconian than anything attempted by Nixon, Ford, or Eisenhower. And then, in the late 1980s, he negotiated with the Commies, which again was opposed by Nixon, Ford, and company. In fact, President Bush 41 suspended relations with the Soviet Union in 1989 because the establishment didn't trust Reagan.

Reagan was very much his own man. James Sears, his 1976 campaign manager, tried to control him, and was linked to the more moderate wing of the GOP. He was fired in 1980 for trying to dominate Reagan. In the White House, Reagan led the ideological charge, while his aides tried to temper him. He was nothing like that a puppet figure, from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1989. Even James Baker couldn't control Ronald Reagan and ended up being Treasury Secretary after he was burnt out. It was said in the Reagan White House that there existed a committee, where his advisors held 3 votes and Reagan held 4. It was very true. (And Reagan very much stuck to his guns even if his advisors told him to not do x or y).

3.  It's also seriously under-estimated how similar the level of hatred for Reagan from the contemporary press and left matched if not even exceeds what Trump faces. Certainly. The difference being of course, the Left had just lost power and the New Deal era had just come crashing down in 1981. The Left in 2016 has lived for 36 years under Reagan's shadow.

They hated Reagan but were powerless because the Reagan realignment was broadly supported by the country. Trump, elected with 46% of the vote and facing middling approval ratings, has nothing of the armor that Ronald Reagan had, namely that he had the popular will of the electorate behind him. It's why he was considered the Teflon President, because he had that popular goodwill throughout his entire presidency, even through Iran Contra.

4. The reality of Reagan as opposed to the narrative of Reagan sounds to me to be very similar to the "worst case scenarios" imagined for Trump. Not sure what you mean by this, so I won't respond to this yet.

5. Reagan's success was based in his amiable personality and charisma. Yes and no. Of course, Reagan was amiable and charismatic. But no, Reagan's real power was this - he had a broad electoral mandate and he was deeply popular in the country, having lifted the GOP to the Senate majority and given the GOP extra House seats. For most of his presidency, there existed an effective conservative coalition (GOP majority in the Senate, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans in the House). Congress would have treated him like they did Nixon if he hadn't won the election by ten points and maintained huge reservoirs of popularity in the districts of Congress.

This is something Donald Trump doesn't have that Reagan did. Trump ran behind most GOP members of Congress and completely lost in Democratic districts. This means that the GOP members of Congress has to fear a primary challenge but Trump may not be as helpful in the General election as they like. And the Democrats have no incentive to cooperate with Trump, given his approval ratings.

6.  He came to office at a time of calm after two decades of chaos. That is what made him teflon. On the other hand, Trump is taking office in the fifth year of our own "twenty year storm" that is underway. Trump's teflon is his bully pulpit and force of personality. I don't think this was a time of calm. When Reagan was elected, stagflation and the Misery Index were major issues, as was the Iran hostage crisis. In fact, the "period of calm" you refer to did not begin until the economic boom of 1982 that lasted (with minor recessions) all the way to 2000 (and the economic expansion went all the way to 2008). Trump is taking office in the 15th year of a period of discontent that began under George W. Bush and has continued to this day. You can point to the divisive 2000 election as the beginning of the "twenty year storm," and very much, Trump is part of that storm, not the solution.

As for his bully pulpit and force of personality, I think they are great assets but I don't think he will be a successful presidency because of the galvanized opposition he has. He has that sort of opposition that ultimately brings down presidencies - outright opposition from some 48-50% of the country. He will never convince the coastal areas and the urban areas to back him, and they comprise about 45% of the country, at least.

I expect Trump to govern with a blunt hand, without much regard to uniting the country as much as he wants to placate his supporters. This is a serious mistake if he wants to maintain a legacy that isn't simply overturned by the next Administration. He and Obama are pretty similar in this regard. For all Obama's song of post-partisanship and bipartisanship and what not, Obama governed as a partisan Democrat who catered to his urban and coastal Democratic base and ignored the heartland. Now Trump governs in a manner that ignores the coastal areas and urban areas and governs straight to the heartland GOP base.  I do think this is all why we end up with a new realignment in the next Presidency (after Pence, anyway) that unites the coastal areas and the heartland behind a new coalition.

Trump is highly unlikely to repair the division or to lead a new alignment like Thatcher. You'll remember Thatcher's 1979 election results was a victory by 7 points, and she had a continual reservoir of support for her Conservative government. There was actual broad support for the Iron Lady method of governing; Trump's 46% and the intense (and crucially) broad opposition to him suggests otherwise.

7. Lastly Reagan had eight years as Governor and two presidential campaigns ('68 and '76) by the time he took office, and that was even still not enough to make him any more prepared for the role than Trump is. And this is the last point I want to address. This is completely fictitious. Cannon's book on Reagan's governorship very clearly lays out how Reagan grew from being just an actor to an effective politician during the governorship. Reagan dealt with protests in his first term. He did welfare reform in his second term as CA Governor, and learned to negotiate with the legislature. The Presidential runs and the CA governorship prepared Reagan for the rigors of the Presidency and enabled him to be an effective spokesman for the conservative Right. (In fact, Reagan had been a spokesman for the Right since the 1950s, with his Speech that he used in  General Electric. The CA Governorship honed his talent and made him more than just an actor; it made him an effective politician).

Trump, however, comes to the office with zero experience. As I said in another thread, Presidents are usually state governors, senators, or military generals or what have you. They're experienced in dealing with the federal bureaucracy. Trump has zero in overseeing a bureaucracy, dealing with politicians as colleagues, or marshaling support for a public agenda. Obama learned to speak to "red state residents" in his Senate bid in 2004, for example. Bush 43 learned about immigration as Governor of Texas. Etc etc. Trump, in his prior career, had no real connection to the issues of his day.  He has no preparation for the Presidency, which is very much in contrast to Ronald Reagan.

[publicunofficial]

Both sides do it. It's just the bottom line. I hope Democrats would care about the security of the United States than the feelings of refugees and immigrants. I am so proud to be a centrist today.

Meanwhile, actual centrists:

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:

Will Hurd:

[The Other Castro]

16 AGs from CA, NY, PA, WA, MA, HI, VA, OR, CT, VT, IL, NM, IA, ME, MD, and DC have released statements against the executive order.

[7,052,770]

Any chance states try to nullify it? I realize that states can't actually nullify federal executive orders, but the court case designed to force them into compliance could instead throw out the EO permanently