Banning immigrants from "certain" countries

[outkicked1]

That doesn't make sense to me the guy isn't very good at being racist of he has black, Jewish, Muslim friend.

Regardless of what trump said, a TEMPORARY restriction on a geographic area isn't a ban on a religion or it would affect all people of that religion, not just a small fraction of people in very specific areas.

People of other religions from those areas are restricted as well. If it's were against Muslims it wouldn't include restriction on other religions from those areas, it does. It's a geographic area, not a religion.

It isn't my interpretation, the courts that shot down the TEMPORARY restriction are very liberal.

 

[ronin17]

They aren't strangers to you. They are strangers when leaving their country of origin and coming here. I watch suicide bombers driving vehicles into crowds all the time.

So on one hand you are saying our president is causing people to join Isis by conducting bomb raids, but at the same time you're saying the people coming here aren't strangers.

You are saying our country creates terrorists by bomb raids, then you say strangers aren't coming in.


Look, you stand in a kiddie pool, I'll dump a hundred snakes in there for you to play with. Don't worry only one of the snakes is deadly, should be fine.

None of your analogys make any sense.

 

[ronin17]

The federal courts have never said the president cannot place travel restrictions on immigrants to the country. What they have said though is that the president cannot discriminate against a religion with his travel restrictions.

You can't reason with any of these guys.

They are so uninformed they sit here and say it's not a Muslim ban! When there are hours of video footage of Trump promising he will ban muslims.
He promised to get keep evil muslims out of the country. He campaigned on it.

Now his defenders say "no, it's not a Muslim ban".

I guess Trump was lying then.

95% of his supporters know nothing about him. Have barely watched him speak. No nothing about his business dealings. It's a waste of time.

You can't educate people who don't want to be educated.

 

[outkicked1]

Pretty straightforward, a majority of people coming in don't want to cause problems, some do.

I don't want my countrymen dead because the majority immigrating here are nice, and only a few are terrorists

 

[outkicked1]

You can't reason with any of these guys.

They are so uninformed they sit here and say it's not a Muslim ban! When there are hours of video footage of Trump promising he will ban muslims.
He promised to get keep evil muslims out of the country. He campaigned on it.

Now his defenders say "no, it's not a Muslim ban".

I guess Trump was lying then.

95% of his supporters know nothing about him. Have barely watched him speak. No nothing about his business dealings. It's a waste of time.

You can't educate people who don't want to be educated.

I didn't vote for trump.
I still think a TEMPORARY restriction is smart.

I support our president, in that I hope he does a good job since I live in the country he's in charge of. I didn't vote for him.

Big surprise, I'm discussing, you give up, and start with the ad hominem insulting.

 

[outkicked1]

And it's know nothing

You put "no nothing"

Probably just autocorrect

 

[outkicked1]

I guess I just have a problem calling something a Muslim ban when it doesn't affect over ninety percent of the Muslims in the world and it does affect people of other religions from those GEOGRAPHIC areas.

 

[Docd187123]

That doesn't make sense to me the guy isn't very good at being racist of he has black, Jewish, Muslim friend.

Regardless of what trump said, a TEMPORARY restriction on a geographic area isn't a ban on a religion or it would affect all people of that religion, not just a small fraction of people in very specific areas.

People of other religions from those areas are restricted as well. If it's were against Muslims it wouldn't include restriction on other religions from those areas, it does. It's a geographic area, not a religion.

It isn't my interpretation, the courts that shot down the TEMPORARY restriction are very liberal.

Pretty straightforward, a majority of people coming in don't want to cause problems, some do.

I don't want my countrymen dead because the majority immigrating here are nice, and only a few are terrorists

I guess I just have a problem calling something a Muslim ban when it doesn't affect over ninety percent of the Muslims in the world and it does affect people of other religions from those GEOGRAPHIC areas.

If it doesn't make sense to you than you're not thinking it through logically. To quote:

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable," wrote Watson, an appointee of President Barack Obama. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise."

Another point to consider is that trump himself has also said he wants to make minority immigration from Muslim majority nations a priority. For example, he wants to make it easier for Christians to immigrate here from Muslim majority nations. That negates your argument that it's not against a religion bc it's towards everyone from those countries.

Finally, you're basing your argument off a false premise bc even DHS has said citizenship isn't a reliable indicator of the likelihood to carry out a terrorist attack. Of the 82 people who carried out attacks here who the government determined were inspired by a terrorist group, more than 50% were born in the US. The rest of the attacks were carried out by people from 26 other other countries, mostly from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Cuba to name a few.

So while I respect the fact that you seem to have no animous towards anyone in particular and you really just want to see your countrymen safe, your argument crumbles from a false premise and trump's intentions, words, and actions.

 

[outkicked1]

Watson's quote is opinion.

Here's the law.

Federal immigration section 1182 (f)

Whenever the president finds that the entry 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.

As you said Obama appointee, heavy liberal bias. Judicial overreach plain as day.

You say DHS lists homegrown terrorists more likely, that doesn't mean do nothing about foreign threat. Just because we have murderers and rapists here doesn't mean we should potentially import more.
TEMPORARY TEMPORARY TEMPORARY restrictions to evaluate vetting is not only fully within the presidents authority, it's smart considering the main Isis/Islamic extremism exists in the middle east.

 

[outkicked1]

Note it say "whenever The president finds that entry"

It doesn't say liberal appointed judges in Hawaii

 

[outkicked1]

Trump may have said he wants to make minority immigration priority, that isn't what the TEMPORARY travel restriction he attempted to enact does.

At least wait until he actually attempts to do it, don't shoot an executive order that isn't doing that because you think he will later.

 

[outkicked1]

Also thanks for making intelligent points instead of calling me "uneducated" or "uninformed" or any other personal attacks.

I enjoy viewpoints that differ from my own. Gets the brain cells poppin.

 

[XKawN]

If it doesn't make sense to you than you're not thinking it through logically. To quote:

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable," wrote Watson, an appointee of President Barack Obama. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise."

Another point to consider is that trump himself has also said he wants to make minority immigration from Muslim majority nations a priority. For example, he wants to make it easier for Christians to immigrate here from Muslim majority nations. That negates your argument that it's not against a religion bc it's towards everyone from those countries.

Finally, you're basing your argument off a false premise bc even DHS has said citizenship isn't a reliable indicator of the likelihood to carry out a terrorist attack. Of the 82 people who carried out attacks here who the government determined were inspired by a terrorist group, more than 50% were born in the US. The rest of the attacks were carried out by people from 26 other other countries, mostly from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Cuba to name a few.

So while I respect the fact that you seem to have no animous towards anyone in particular and you really just want to see your countrymen safe, your argument crumbles from a false premise and trump's intentions, words, and actions.

Here is a couple contradictions. I could find many more, but I'm sure my point will be made.

""The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise."

Affirmative action. Where in California, minority groups were given special advantages to so called even the playing field. In essence, white people were given disadvantages.

"Another point to consider is that trump himself has also said he wants to make minority immigration from Muslim majority nations a priority. For example, he wants to make it easier for Christians to immigrate here from Muslim majority nations. That negates your argument that it's not against a religion bc it's towards everyone from those countries."

Obama had said on multiple occasions that Obamacare was "not" a tax. When Obamacare was before the Supreme Court he was asked to change his stance to it "is" a tax so that he had a legal authority to apply the law. How could trumps words as a citizen be used against him for his case, but Obama' words be changed as a president. It's all politics that's why.

 

[Roco Bama]

How many Americans actually flew overseas and participated in the war? Then ask yourselves how many Americans there are and when you see it was a small percentage of Americans that did that then you will realize it wasn't Americans that did that. Well, that's the exact way we're expected to view Muslims even though they are marching from village to village taking over countries and beheading anyone who doesn't think like they do preaching anti American rhetoric. Just because it's a percentage of them doing the fighting that doesn't mean that's the only ones that feel the same way they do. There are problems with this on so many levels. No one should stand by and watch men, women and children being slaughtered. Folks are saying stay out of their business yet one the same hand say we should he obligated to take them in our country and be responsible for them. I would much rather spend resources to better their lives by helping them get a hand of their own country rather than bring them here and risk bringing in those that mean to do us harm. We are not obligated to bring "anyone" here. It is a privilege to come here not a right.

We aren't actually affected with influx Muslim refugees. Europe is. Most of immigrants coming here come from Mexico and Asia. Our country has gone backwards with its dictatorial mentality. We are the ones funding chaos in the Middle East since the money comes from our tax payment. How come we never say anything about it. Where do you guys think the weapons isis and all other terrorist militias (wanting to overthrow Assad) are using come from. The US wants to set up radical Islamist regimes by destabilizing the Middle East in order to have a better control of their oil. that's why the US has a good relationship with Saudi Arabia being the most radical religious dictatorship in the world. Many of you guys are saying that Muslim hate western culture and some of them do so how bout we let them live in peace in their motherland. Remember, there was no alqaida before USA put them in power. There was no terrorism in Iraq before USA invaded it. There was no extremists in Libya before USA overthrew Gadafi, there was no isis before USA armed them to go against Assad. USA is also heavily involved in Somalia having some oil reserves in the sea lol.
Guest who will keep paying for the fatal expense of American imperialism ?

 

[outkicked1]

We aren't actually affected with influx Muslim refugees. Europe is. Most of immigrants coming here come from Mexico and Asia. Our country has gone backwards with its dictatorial mentality. We are the ones funding chaos in the Middle East since the money comes from our tax payment. How come we never say anything about it. Where do you guys think the weapons isis and all other terrorist militias (wanting to overthrow Assad) are using come from. The US wants to set up radical Islamist regimes by destabilizing the Middle East in order to have a better control of their oil. that's why the US has a good relationship with Saudi Arabia being the most radical religious dictatorship in the world. Many of you guys are saying that Muslim hate western culture and some of them do so how bout we let them live in peace in their motherland. Remember, there was no alqaida before USA put them in power. There was no terrorism in Iraq before USA invaded it. There was no extremists in Libya before USA overthrew Gadafi, there was no isis before USA armed them to go against Assad. USA is also heavily involved in Somalia having some oil reserves in the sea lol.
Guest who will keep paying for the fatal expense of American imperialism ?

You say some hate western civilization, then say let them live in peace. The extremists that want us infidels dead aren't going to say,

oh well they're leaving us alone and letting us live in peace now, nevermind let's not kill the infidels now.

That's just wishful thinking. Islamic extremism dates back to 600ad (kharijites), the US didn't supply them with weapons, or destabilize their lives since the US didn't even exist until over a thousand years later.

There was extremism before US 600ad.

 

[outkicked1]

We are affected by the influx, not to the extent Europe is.

We are affected though, that's what this debacle in our nation is about, refugees, Muslims, how many, where, rights, safety, vetting, who's at fault, etc.

 

[outkicked1]

You also say there wasn't extremism in Iraq until USA invaded.

Saddam Hussein was committing major human rights violations since at least 1979 (murder, rape, genocide etc.), we didn't invade the first time until over a decade later in 1990.

 

[Docd187123]

Watson's quote is opinion.

Watson's quote is the opinion of the judicial branch of government, a branch of government tasked with keeping executive powers in check. Hence checks and balances. The judicial branch is also tasked with the burden of interpreting laws including their legality.

Here's the law.

Federal immigration section 1182 (f)

Whenever the president finds that the entry 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.

Yes, the law from 1952 that have the president vast powers over immigration and entry. Then there's the Constitution. There's the Equal Protection Clause, there's due process, and there's the 1st amendment....

As you said Obama appointee, heavy liberal bias. Judicial overreach plain as day.

And you don't think trump has a heavy bias lol??? Try executive overreach on for size.

You say DHS lists homegrown terrorists more likely, that doesn't mean do nothing about foreign threat. Just because we have murderers and rapists here doesn't mean we should potentially import more.
TEMPORARY TEMPORARY TEMPORARY restrictions to evaluate vetting is not only fully within the presidents authority, it's smart considering the main Isis/Islamic extremism exists in the middle east.

Like you said yourself....potentially. The federal courts have decided that the travel ban is BS basically bc the DOJ wasn't able to make the case for it's necessity or a reduction of attacks in the US. None of the 4 countries from where 9/11 attackers came from are on that list. More than half the attacks here that were influenced by terrorist groups were born here. Etc etc etc. You make the case for protection of countrymen and I have nothing against that but, as I stated before, you're operating under a false assumption that this travel ban will increase security. It's a false premise. House of cards brother.

 

[Docd187123]

Note it say "whenever The president finds that entry"

It doesn't say liberal appointed judges in Hawaii

Note that aforementioned liberal appointed judges in Hawaii are the judicial check to an overreaching executive.

 

[Docd187123]

Trump may have said he wants to make minority immigration priority, that isn't what the TEMPORARY travel restriction he attempted to enact does.

At least wait until he actually attempts to do it, don't shoot an executive order that isn't doing that because you think he will later.

You tried to argue that it's not a Muslim ban bc it doesn't affect Muslims worldwide. Then I provide evidence that it is a Muslim ban bc other minorities from those same nations would receive preferential treatment. You want me to wait until he does another unconstitutional thing before I speak up?

The executive order was shot down and rightly so. You tell me not to shoot it down but I would say to you, don't prop it up bc you believe his lies over the evidence.