U.S. court to hear arguments Tuesday on Trump's travel ban

By Daniel Levine and Dustin Volz
  • L
    Larry G
    I'll agree this is not a Muslim travel ban--not even majority of Muslims on
    planet are effected!---but, and a HUGE ONE----
    WHY IS SAUDI ARABIA (least we forget 9-11, born, raised, funded by Saudi's)
    NOT ON THE LIST ?????
    ok, check countries don-the-con has business in =yep, Saudi Arabia-surprise!
    A little education for the Iran haters (Iran is ISIS worst nightmare, look back at
    when ISIS advance stopped, when Iranian "militia" showed up) --OK they are
    the biggest "state" sponsor of terror--HezBS in Lebanon, BUT and another
    HUGE ONE, Saudi's, private $, just like the Bin Laden family, are the world's
    largest sponsor of terror, ie: who do you think has been funding HAMAS?

    To get the correct spin recommend THE KINGDOM, I know a movie, etc,
    but the basic spin is right on.---home of radical fundamentalist Islam -
    that have supported terrorist for decades.
  • T
    Trigger Warning
    Federal Judge in Boston ruled that the EO is legal and Constitutional and refused to issue a TRO. Judge in Washington disagreed and issues a TRO. 9th Circuit will rule on Tuesday. I predict they will uphold the TRO and the appeal will go to the Supreme Court where the 9th will be reversed yet again.
  • R
  • T
    Trigger Warning
    8 USC 1182 gives the President the authority. Regardless of whether the judges agree with it or not, their job is to rule on the LEGALITY of it. The judge in Seattle rules based on whether it is a good idea and whether the administration can justify it by past terror attacks. NONE of that is required by the law. The temporary ban is based on National Security concerns and all the arguments against it are based in economic, social or humanitarian concerns. National Security trumps (sorry for the pun) all of those other issues.
  • O
    The President doesn't need a reason to shut down immigration into the USA and he sure doesn't have to justify his actions to a court that refused to use any legal precedent to put a stop to the ban. The judges that have been against the ban have given no legal reason for doing so.
  • J
    I live in Upstate NY about 2 miles from the Canadian border. Homeland security does a good job of screening potential entrants into the US at traditional border crossings. Thousands of extremists from all over the world enter our country illegally from Canada over the thousands of miles of a patrolled border. Some are apprehended, but others get through and live in the US undetected for years. It seems that for our safety it would be better to allow people in through conventional channels. This way at least people are being tracked and we have an idea of who poses a danger rather than not know. A good friend of mine is a retired Border Patrol Agent and says the ban makes their job more difficult. Terrorists will find a way in no matter what. This ban seems to be counter productive
  • M
    The White House will be stormed by patriots carrying torches in the near future.
  • C
    I love how the press just keeps putting up women and children in the pictures even though the vast majority of the people coming in are males that are in the combat age. Just like when Trayvon Martin was shot they never posted an updated picture of him just the one taken 4 years earlier because it doesn't fit the liberal press narrative to do so.
  • S
    Sam A.J.
    Liberals say out loud, "We welcome in more muslim refugees". However, in their minds they're saying, "Just not next door to me"
  • V
    I understand Arabs, blacks, Hispanics…, even homosexuals and all other freaks, but I do not understand normal white people to work for the destruction of their society and their country. This is policy of “soft” genocide against white population of the US, social engineering, changing demographics beyond recognition. Why are so many traitors among whites? Others do not have so many of them.