Re: as is usual in Trump article comments here...
Steve 124 - you asked:
Section 1182(f), which states: “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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”
Where in that is there any confusion as to whether or not he has the legal leg to stand on?
The pertinent section here is 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'.
Herein lies the reason for Donald to hop around because his legal leg has been removed. What grounds are there to ban these specific countries when there are so many more that have not only threatened but made good on those threats - Saudi Arabia and all the rest mentioned previously, including the UK. If the ban is because they would be detrimental then where is the proof, and why such a selective group of people?
You could also look at your internal right to bear arms. After all that hasn't inspired terror with how many people killed by guns each year - not even having to go into the atrocities where children get killed, but that's OK so long as you still have the right to inspire terror at whim by deciding to go to a school and terrorize everyone by shooting people at random - it's in the constitution.
Ultimately it was a badly thought out, badly imposed EO. Why can't you people just admit that and sort it out. If you want to ban people with justification that is your right, but that justification should be imposed evenly, not just as a means of grabbing a headline then whining because Trumpy boy isn't getting his own way, and it's not fair.
Here's a thought - why not use that massive multi group intelligence set up you have to target those people who may be a problem and just ban them. Of course you might actually have to have some intelligence in your intelligence services rather than just blanket ban a large number of people for the hell of it. But if you used that intelligence you might actually have some support for it, especially if you let the people implementing it know exactly what you want to do rather than leave them to try and work it out for themselves with the resulting chaos it causes.
America - land of the free, home of the brave - the only country to actually have sarcasm in it's national anthem.