Wee Willie Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, Sooky said: So despite having a diplomatic passport, the former Prime Minister of Norway was taken in for questioning because he visited Iran a few years back. A fine example of what a fucking mess this is.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran?CMP=share_btn_tw Kjell Magne Bondevik, who served as prime minister of Norway from 1997-2000 and 2001-05, flew into the US from Europe on Tuesday afternoon to attend this week’s National Prayer Breakfast. The daft bugger deserves tae be questioned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deplorable Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 11 minutes ago, Sooky said: So despite having a diplomatic passport, the former Prime Minister of Norway was taken in for questioning because he visited Iran a few years back. A fine example of what a fucking mess this is.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran?CMP=share_btn_tw Nothing to do with Trump's order. He was stopped due to a policy that dates from the Obama years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 He was held for an hour after customs agents saw in his diplomatic passport that he had been to Iran in 2014. Bondevik said his passport also clearly indicated that he was the former PM of Norway. “Of course I fully understand the fear of letting terrorists come into this country,” he told ABC7. “It should be enough when they found that I have a diplomatic passport, [that I’m a] former prime minister. “That should be enough for them to understand that I don’t represent any problem or threat to this country and [to] let me go immediately, but they didn’t.” “I was surprised, and I was provoked,” he said. “What will the reputation of the US be if this happens not only to me, but also to other international leaders?” Presumably he travelled as a private individual but he still considers himself as an international leader. Bondevik said Dulles officials told him he had been detained because of a 2015 law signed by Barack Obama that placed restrictions on travellers from those seven countries, or travellers from elsewhere who had recently visited those countries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanburn Dave Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Lighten up guys Trump hasn't issued a "shoot on sight" executive order........ yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Deplorable said: Nothing to do with Trump's order. He was stopped due to a policy that dates from the Obama years. Incorrect. Diplomatic passports were exempt from the legislative changes from 2015. He shouldn't have been stopped. That said, the word "held" is a bit exaggerated. He would have been asked to sit in a waiting room for an hour, and then questioned. Utterly un-necessary, but at the same time, hardly an ordeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Savage Henry said: Incorrect. Diplomatic passports were exempt from the legislative changes from 2015. He shouldn't have been stopped. That said, the word "held" is a bit exaggerated. He would have been asked to sit in a waiting room for an hour, and then questioned. Utterly un-necessary, but at the same time, hardly an ordeal. Fair do's but he was only being treated the same as everyone else who had recently visited those particular countries. And for him tae complain because he was being treated the same as the hoi polloi is a bit much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, Wee Willie said: Fair do's but he was only being treated the same as everyone else who had recently visited those particular countries. And for him tae complain because he was being treated the same as the hoi polloi is a bit much. Yes. There is a distinct touch of that about it. As someone who is in that situation and who visits the US on a yearly basis, more or less, I can guarantee he'll have been met at his departure airport by a DHS agent, asked a few routine questions and then allowed to board the flight. The immigration guy at his destination would have made the call about interviewing him again; that was purely because they didn't receive any kind of advice when the EO was rolled out. Having said that, a diplomatic passport ought to be worth something, and he shouldn't have been questioned. If everyone who has traveled to these countries has to be interviewed, then it is a bit of a joke. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 26 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: Yes. There is a distinct touch of that about it. As someone who is in that situation and who visits the US on a yearly basis, more or less, I can guarantee he'll have been met at his departure airport by a DHS agent, asked a few routine questions and then allowed to board the flight. The immigration guy at his destination would have made the call about interviewing him again; that was purely because they didn't receive any kind of advice when the EO was rolled out. Having said that, a diplomatic passport ought to be worth something, and he shouldn't have been questioned. If everyone who has traveled to these countries has to be interviewed, then it is a bit of a joke. Having said that, a diplomatic passport ought to be worth something, and he shouldn't have been questioned. I'm curious as to why he has a diplomatic passport as he is an ex-pm of Norway and no the current one. If everyone who has traveled to these countries has to be interviewed, then it is a bit of a joke. Mibbe so but those are the rules and the agents who implement them are only following those rules. Much ado about nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Deplorable said: People with mental health problems that could make them violent are already supposed to be on the list of people who will not pass background checks. It is said that there are gaps in reporting, but that's an issue of implementation rather than policy. Obama's order made it so that anybody on Social Security or Disability that had a designated trustee for their finances would be put on the list of people who would fail. I'm not sure how being able to control your finances correlates with violent behavior for people who have never committed a crime or been committed to a mental institution. What's amazing is how often Mr. Danger is wrong, misinformed, or completely misleading in his posts about Trump and American politics. It's quite the skill. I have a mentally disabled uncle. He's not on Disability because he works, but he would easily qualify if our family tried. He can't live on his own mainly because he's incapable of understanding finance, along with his eating habits if food is not prepared for him. He occasionally goes hunting for small animals with a guy from his church. In an alternate world where he was signed up for Disability, he would be among those banned from buying guns. A judge in Boston just before this cleared the Executive Orders in another ruling. Supposedly this Seattle judge recently declared "Black Lives Matter" from the bench during a police case, drawing gasps from the audience. Hopefully he's just a liberal activist who will be overturned. I haven't seen the basis of the ruling from Seattle, but I did see that the ACLU was arguing in other cases that the EOs were unconstitutional based on the Establishment Clause. Any judge who buys that deserves to have his head examined. I'm not sure how we can extend the Bill of Rights to non-citizens residing in other countries. Citizenship and immigration is clearly a federal issue. How many countries would have 40% favoring immigration from Somalia? 10? Then he'd get put on a list of those who couldn't buy a gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: Then he'd get put on a list of those who couldn't buy a gun. Well spotted, but presumably his wife could? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairn Terrier Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Deplorable said: Nothing to do with Trump's order. He was stopped due to a policy that dates from the Obama years. Just out of interest, where in America do you live and what is your job? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 These are a couple of comments from Fox News A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States. …And the judge is a Bush-appointed one. I guess that means a lot in America. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Just out of interest, where in America do you live and what is your job? Is the answer 1923 and being a dick? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Just out of interest, where in America do you live and what is your job? It's Swampy and he lives in Texas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, bob the tank said: It's Swampy and he lives in Texas Texas Ranger? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Thanks to the on going heroic work of Frederick Douglass the Bowling Green Massacre is remembered today. #neverforget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 11 hours ago, Savage Henry said: Incorrect. Diplomatic passports were exempt from the legislative changes from 2015. He shouldn't have been stopped. That said, the word "held" is a bit exaggerated. He would have been asked to sit in a waiting room for an hour, and then questioned. Utterly un-necessary, but at the same time, hardly an ordeal. 11 hours ago, Wee Willie said: Having said that, a diplomatic passport ought to be worth something, and he shouldn't have been questioned. I'm curious as to why he has a diplomatic passport as he is an ex-pm of Norway and no the current one. If everyone who has traveled to these countries has to be interviewed, then it is a bit of a joke. Mibbe so but those are the rules and the agents who implement them are only following those rules. Much ado about nothing. 10 hours ago, Wee Willie said: These are a couple of comments from Fox News A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States. …And the judge is a Bush-appointed one. I guess that means a lot in America. Fox News: Trump calls judge’s halt on immigration 'ridiculoushttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/04/trump-calls-judge-s-halt-on-immigration-ridiculous-says-will-be-overturned.html Justice Department lawyers say about 100,000 visas -- not 60,000 -- had been revoked. The State Department clarified that the higher figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were actually exempted from the travel ban, as well as expired visas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deplorable Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 20 hours ago, Cairn Terrier said: Just out of interest, where in America do you live and what is your job? Northern West Virginia. Right now: Drive a cab, deliver Chinese food, own a few rental properties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deplorable Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) So, it looks pretty certain that the Seattle judge will be overruled and the Boston judge which upheld Trump's travel ban made the right call. This is an article from Dan Abrams' website. He's been NBC's go to guy for law questions since I can remember and used to have his won show on MSNBC. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/ Cliffs: 1. Both judges seemed to reject any Constitutional issues with the Executive Order. No problems with freedom of religion or due process. 2. Both judges seemed to reject any statutory basis for overturning the EO. No problems with the 1965 Immigration Act. 3. The Seattle judge ruled based on "rational basis." Basically a law has to bear some relationship to a legitimate public purpose. For instance, you can't ban Russians from the US in order to stop the growth of cricket. Russians don't play cricket very much and stopping the growth of cricket isn't a legitimate public purpose. While stopping terrorism is a legitimate public purpose, the Seattle judge seemed to say that because the government couldn't prove terrorism was coming from these countries there was no "rational basis." The Boston judge noted that the Supreme Court has stated that rational basis "is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices." 4. The Boston judge's ruling was detailed and cited a wide range of precedents. The Seattle ruling contained almost no precedents. Edited February 5, 2017 by Deplorable 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 10 hours ago, Wee Willie said: Fox News: Trump calls judge’s halt on immigration 'ridiculoushttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/04/trump-calls-judge-s-halt-on-immigration-ridiculous-says-will-be-overturned.html Justice Department lawyers say about 100,000 visas -- not 60,000 -- had been revoked. The State Department clarified that the higher figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were actually exempted from the travel ban, as well as expired visas. This sort of thing will be the main reason Trump won't see out a term as President. He'll realise that he simply can't govern on a whim and the amount of red tape, overturned decisions and ultimately all the Twitter wars he starts will see him walk sooner or later. It's like having a petulant 5 year old in the midst of a temper tantrum running a country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.