Immigration Ban

Atbone95 said:
There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.
Click to expand...
It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair -- everybody was persecuted, in all fairness -- but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."
Click to expand...
So, Trump says Christian refugees will be prioritized.
Now, it doesn't seem that has happened yet. But it's worth stopping the ban and taking this to court at the very least to show Trump he won't be allowed to implement his plan to prioritize (or stop) immigrants based on religion.

Now all of that said, something being illegal or not shouldn't determine whether you think it's right. That's a silly reason to be for or against something.

I've heard from multiple people that "Obama did the same thing." No. He didn't. He had vetting of Iraqis looked at because of an incident and slowed down the entry for Iraqi holders of one type of visa. This never at any time applied to green card holders. People work towards green cards for years and years. I have a friend who's been here 6 years and *almost* has her green card. I have a co-worker who just got his after 6 years.

In relation to what I said about right and wrong, it doesn't matter what Obama did. He's not president anymore, and people who are against one thing Trump does are not for every single thing Obama did. Not sure that's the precedent you mean but it's the one cited most often.

Last but not least, anyone who thinks this will still be a temporary ban if even 1 American is killed in the U.S. by a Muslim of Arabic descent is most likely mistaken.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Atbone95 said:
There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.
Click to expand...
It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
Click to expand...
And the EO bars entry from 7 countries identified as potential terror threats to the US.

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

 
Atbone95 said:
Moiraine said:
Atbone95 said:
There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.
Click to expand...
It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
Click to expand...
And the EO bars entry from 7 countries identified as potential terror threats to the US.
The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
Click to expand...
Read the quote from Trump. Also watch where Giuliani said Trump asked for a Muslim ban. Then read what I said about how this should go to court even if it winds up failing so Trump doesn't even think of prioritizing them based on religion, like he wants to do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking of, if you'd like to compare 81 years to 90 days... meh, I'd suggest you just find a better argument. Probably a rabbit hole there.

 
Giuliani's little oops made the intent behind the ban pretty clear. I'm no legal expert, but wouldn't intent be an important part of the battle in court? I'm not sure what the plaintiffs would have to prove in court to get the ban permanently overturned, but I'm glad Giuliani screwed up like that.

The overarching point is that it's incredibly unfortunate that Donald Trump, who's never faced any serious level of discrimination in life due to the fact that he was born into such wealth and status, is now using his power to discriminate against others. To discriminate against the disabled. To discriminate against 5 year old little girls and little boys by detaining them away from their parents. To discriminate against babies needing medical care here in the US.

Those fighting against the ban in court just punched Trump in the nose. He's not used to that. Let's see how he handles it.

Heads over to Twitter

giphy.gif
s

Edit: Oh, and to Landlord's point, we've got critical thinking skills for a reason. Sometimes, legality =/= right. Pot is still a Substance I substance "with no currently accepted medical use" per the government, and that's incredibly stupid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atbone95 said:
Moiraine said:
Atbone95 said:
There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.
Click to expand...
It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
Click to expand...
And the EO bars entry from 7 countries identified as potential terror threats to the US.
The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.

The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
Click to expand...
"This system violates the basic principle of American democracy -- the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country." (Johnson, Lyndon B., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 1037-1040.)

President Johnson, speaking of the old country-of-origin immigration system rebuked and dismantled in 1965.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember when Obama voiced mild disapproval of a SCOTUS decision and the Republican Party had a conniption over it?

Separation of powers. The Executive Branch is not there to interpret law. The two troubling incidents so far that I know of aren't even about monumental SCOTUS decisions -- one was the acting AG making a call on whether the EO was defensible, and the other is a court stay.

There are normal ways to express opposition to either of these things. Ways that are conscious of the different roles the branches are meant to play. The President can advocate; he does not dictate in all things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top