You are focusing solely on one aspect of the issue. That is the narrow view.

There are laws on the books that may prevent banning people based on nationality, and the Constitution prevents government from making decisions based on religion, which the EO might (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/28/trump-christian-refugees-priority/97175800/). See my edit - your source does not seem to be considering all of the facts. That makes sense, because it is so recent.

Nothing can be certain about the legal situation yet, which is why Trump should not have done this.

At this point it looks like your looking to anything that can fit your view point. Based on what I read on the immigration act of 1965, I think your wrong. It talks of banning quotas based on national-origin. Considering the vast majority of Muslims are still free to immigrate here, even under this order, I'm pretty sure that would have no impact.

The author of this article: "was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years."

I think he has a much better understanding of the immigration law than either of us...

Because it's the only point of this issue that really matters when discussing if the EO was not only legal, but if the President has the right to do something. We can sit here all day talking about how people were impacted, or how other countries will view us. All of that is insignificant to the first point. I concede people were negatively impacted, this does change anything though.

We come back to the age old truth, entering any country when not a citizen is a privilege not a right.

Religion appears in no part in the EO... as far as I am aware. Muslim, Islam, etc does not appear in the EO. So you can say he might be favoring certain people, but the EO itself does not. That is an entirely separate matter.

I agree nothing can be certain about the legal situation, I never said it wouldn't be overturned... I said it would be hard to do. Either way it will likely be a drawn out fight.

However, saying the President of any country should not do what he (or she) feels is in the best interest of the country is asinine. Whether you like it or not, Trump IS the President, and he has a duty to carry out what HE believes to be right. This was nothing new, he has been saying what he way going to do ever since he ran for President. The problem is people did not take him seriously, writing him off as him not getting anything done that he wanted to do.

And as I pointed out before, based on polls and available data most of the country supports these type of actions...

Becoming a permanent resident does, in fact, grant the right of residence and entering the country. That's the whole point of it. It seems like you are willfully ignoring immigration law at this point.

Section 5 of the EO:
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

That is a potential problem, and also Trump has openly admitted that this is for Christian refugees from majority-Muslim countries.

Which polls, how was the data gathered, what was the question wording, etc? These all matter a lot.

At this point, I am kind of wondering if you are really putting much thought into this subject.

It seems like you didn't even read the EO or an analysis of it, otherwise you would have known about the religion clause.

And you are continuing to insist on things that are simply not true about immigration law. The President does not have the sole right to determine who comes into this country, and has potentially ignored established law on this point. That is the whole basis of the court cases.

Furthermore, you are objectively wrong on the duty of the President. The President swears to uphold the Constitution and the law of the land and defend the nation. That is their duty. Imposing their personal vision is the opposite of what they are supposed to do! Trump being the second coming of Andrew Jackson is bad.

At what part of "permanent residents" are being granted waivers is not understood? Them having permanent resident's does not mean they can't be subject to additional screening. Also green cards and the such can be revoked for various reasons. This is still not a right, they are being granted the privilege. If it was a right, then it couldn't be taken away.

I said as far as I am aware, I read what it overall entailed... I did not do a line by line reading.. I was referring to a specific religions, not the overall use of the word religion. But I stand corrected. However... the EO clearly says to the extent permitted by law. All this says is certain people who are being persecuted based on religion will be given priority in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. It does say they will be banning certain religions from gaining refugee status. Also when it comes to the constitution and non citizens it is not a clear as people think.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

I never said he has a sole right to determine who comes into the country... I said based on established laws, he has a right to determine who can enter the country... such as in the matter of national security. Whether that law holds up or if congress passes a bill to change this another matter. You are construing the point.

Quite a few Presidents have banned certain countries from coming to the US over the yeas, history and the supreme court have always sided with the President. So Trump is not unique here, and I don't see history changing based on precedence.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

Exactly, defend the nation, which this would full under... considering the EO's intention is to prevent terrorism. Again read the what I linked above, it's not a simple matter as your want to make it out to be. I didn't think I needed to spell it out that he has a duty to carry out what HE believes to be right (while in the context of the Constitution, local laws, etc). I figured that would be a no brainier.

Given the context it looked like you were talking about his opponents and then referred to them as the far left. Apologies if that was not your intention. However I judge him on all his actions, I'm looking at the bigger picture. However, his fixation on the crowd size is weird. Mentioning that his crowd was smaller was a simple statement of fact, it's the fact that he's repeatedly trying to contradict this that's worrying. Why does he care so much?

I don't think he's incompetent, I think he's unstable.

The man spent the better part of his entire life concerned with ratings and self image. I would be more concerned if he didn't care honestly. Some people are simply that type of people. Doesn't really reflect the type of President he may or may not be. Good or bad.

Ok. Better question, why is he lying about it? Does he honestly believe his crowd was bigger or is he just too petty to admit it?

I don't think it was a lie... I think the entire thing got misreported, which I've explained before based on what Spicer actually said. Was this because he simply had the wrong info, was this because he misspoke, or wasn't clear enough... possibly.

I mean we are talking to 2 days before it clarified his point... which happen over the weekend. The media was the one that started this crowd size comparison, which we know they do this to paint Trump in a negative light. I think you can be a hardcore liberal and admit that happens.

There are defiantly certain things I disagree with Trump on, but from crowd sizes to voter fraud to this immigration ban this crap has been blown way out of proportion at it's only week one. Wanting your President to fail is like wanting your pilot to crash your plane.

So you aren't reading primary sources, and don't really know what the EO does. Gotcha.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this to an adult in this day and age, but you can't trust regurgitated news. Use a wide variety of sources, and always read the actual documents in question or put big disclaimers that you might turn out to be totally offbase.

Trump so far appears to be ignoring laws, the Constitution, advice from security officials, etc. Why are you excusing this?

Also, you still haven't responded to anything about the 1965 immigration law, which afaict is highly relevant to this issue and might make the EO flat out illegal instead of questionably illegal pending court review.

I did respond to it. Also so why was President Jimmy Carter able to do this in 1980 against Iran? Again your are ignoring facts... is your hatred of Trump that strong?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

The media was not the one to keep talking about the crowd size. There was one article about it, which is standard for all inaugurations I've seen, along with all kinds of large events like concerts, etc. People are curious about their fellow humans. But Trump simply couldn't let it go. He keeps pushing and pushing, then flat out lies about it. Of course the media kept publishing articles about it, the President wouldn't shut up about it, it was great for their bottom line because he'd get all outraged and send them tons of viewers.

At this point it's a punchline because of how shameful and petty Trump was about it. His own behavior has caused this mess.
LOL. If I think Trump is a bad president of course I have to personally hate him.

I don't hate Trump. I think he has done and will continue to do a terrible job as President.

As for Carter, I don't support that either, but it was not the same as Trump's ban for several reasons.

1) It was not enacted immediately or in this hasty and foolish way. How things are executed are very important for the executive branch!
2) It was for a nation that we were in the middle of active tension with, not a religion-based or possibly violating treaty/convention expectations. They had stormed our embassy.
3) It was ruled unconstitutional by at least one judge! So there was serious questions whether even Carter's much smaller ban was allowable.
4) It was part of a standard diplomatic approach, and only resorted to after other approaches failed.

Aside from the direct issues, in the broader view, Trump's ban has jeopardized US security by handing jihadists major ammunition for recruitment while we're currently engaged in trying to decrease recruitment (very different from Carter's era), and weakening our ties to allies who can warn us of danger (also different - the Carter ban was at least justifiable because of direct Iranian hostilities). It's also weakened our economic stability by being so broad that it sweeps up permanent residents, the rulers of our allies, etc. So it's highly irresponsible in a way that Carter's ban was not.

He may have had much better reasons for doing it, but I think the point you are refusing to acknowledge is how he had the power to do so (like other Presidents). This was my only point, I really don't have an opinion either way in the "broader view". It was never a reflection on if it was a good or bad choice.

The best thing we can do is wait until it works it way through the court system and see what happens, because as of right now it is the law of the land. I hope you haven't taken this discussion personally, but at-least you defended your points (even if I disagree). Have a good day. :)

I think there are a lot of better questions that need to be asked about the whole issue.
For example:
1) Why was it appropriate for the National Park Service to Tweet such an unflattering image in the first place. Camera shots taken from what appear to be intentionally an unflattering/deceiving angle. If I were to make a Social Media post on a company platform which was not approved and cast my company in poor light, I'd be fired.
2) Why did virtually every media presence feel it was fair news to re-print that obviously deceiving photo?
3) Why is it any sort of issue in the first place that Trump's crowd was smaller than a truly historic event when the first black President was elected in a country where slavery and civil rights have been a major issue? It's not a fair comparison at all. How is this even news at all?

All of this occurred before Trump said a word. Inappropriate actions by a government employee and a large number of media outlets which apparently decided to throw fairness and political balance out the window.

As to Trump, I agree, he didn't need to argue about it. He had a large crowd and his inauguration might have been the most viewed in history if one counts TV and the Internet which allows worldwide reach. (To be fair, if conditions were the same as today, the historic nature of Obama's inauguration would still undoubtedly surpass it)

But all in all, I feel the issue is trivial. I think it's kinda silly to portray him as unstable just because of this non-issue especially when the media was obviously playing politics.