logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The 'Muslim Ban' that isn't, What is it, then?
Julian
post Jan 31 2017, 06:17 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



At the end of last week, very shortly after meeting with British PM Theresa May, President Trump issued an Executive Order suspending immigration of Muslim from seven 'majority-Muslim'* countries.
The affected countries are:
  • Syria
  • Iran
  • Sudan
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Yemen
  • Iraq

All these countries are also, coincidentally or not, currently or recently affected by major civil or military conflicts that have displaced many ordinary people from their homes by the simple expedient of those homes having been levelled, and have also forced many others to flee in fear of harm.

Eyebrows have been raised (to say the least) that several prominent 'majority Muslim' countries - citizens of some of which have, in the last two decades, directly attacked US citizens on US soil** and, coincidentally or not, where Trump businesses have active interests - have been excluded from the bar on travel. Those countries include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

On Sunday, after a barrage of criticism, Trump issued the following statement:
QUOTE
America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion ó this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.


He is, of course, technically correct that this is not a 'Muslim ban' because not all Muslims from all countries are banned. Just all Muslims (and, pointedly, nobody else) from these seven countries.

From the coverage I have seen and read, despite Pres. Trump having trailed a 'Muslim ban' in his election campaign, the actual issuing of it has proven more divisive and controversial than anything else he has done in office so far. Some of his Republican supporters have looked very uncomfortable defending it, while others are cheering it on or even saying it doesn't go far enough. Opponents, perhaps predictably, are incensed at what they see as an unconstitutional act, or even the early stages of a coup d'etat, and are talking impeachment or worse.

There are all sorts of subtleties and nuances to this, on both sides of the argument, such as the obligations of the universal declaration of human rights on the treatment of legitimate refugees, the knock-on effects of the acting Attorney General's refusal to implement the Order in the name of constitutional propriety and her subsequent sacking for so doing, and of course Trump's (perhaps) legitimate enactment of a widely known campaign pledge***.

*If these seven countries are 'majority Muslim' and not just 'Muslim', America is 'majority Christian' and the UK is 'majority agnostic/apathetic'.
**No citizens of countries which are on the exclusion list have directly attacked US citizens on US soil in the same period. It's important to emphasise the 'on US soil' because the ban is on travel to the USA. US citizens who are not Muslims are still free to come and go as they please (subject to the normal visa and travel rules of both ends of the journey)
***It's certainly legitimate to the extent that he said he'd do something like this, gained some of his support because of it, and now he's in office has done what he said he would, or at least made a start on it. The legality and morality are open to argument at this point.

By all means reference these subtleties and nuances in your replies, but the questions for debate are:

What does President Trump hope to achieve with this Executive Order?
Is this Order constitutionally valid, in your opinion? Please give reasons for your answer.
Who gains and who loses from this Order?
What happens next? Both what should happen, and what you think will happen?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 50)
entspeak
post Feb 7 2017, 05:46 PM
Post #41


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 7 2017, 10:43 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Feb 6 2017, 01:53 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 6 2017, 10:44 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 6 2017, 07:05 AM) *
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 5 2017, 11:02 PM) *

...
... The next time the newspapers mention a Muslim ban get them to word search "Muslim" in the executive order. ...
...

I see, if a word/phrase doesn't appear in a document, then the document does not address the ideas that word/phrase represents. ...
...

Well, yeah. The absence of the word "Muslim" in the EO does indeed serve as a pretty good clue thereof. Especially when combined with the following facts:

1. The EO would have the same effect on both the Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of the 7 countries in question.

2. The EO would not affect any of the remaining 87% of Muslims in the world (be they citizens of any of the remaining 43 Muslim-majority countries, or citizens of any of the remaining 200 countries).

There is, of course, one additional thing required in order to reach the conclusion that the EO in question is not a "Muslim ban": the application of reason.

Well, let's not be totally disingenuous here. We all know that the President wanted a total Muslim ban. He just wasn't going to Constitutionally get a total Muslim ban, so, according to Giuliani, he asked his advisors to come up with something that they could argue was legal. So, this is a kind of partial Muslim ban. ...
...

I wanted an Aston Martin, but the car loan people told me to come up with an alternative that I could argue was feasible. So I bought a Honda. What determines to what degree, if any, my Honda is "a kind of partial" Aston Martin? The fact that I wanted an Aston Martin? Or the fact that my Honda is a ... Honda?

Seriously? You are really arguing that, despite the fact that it doesn't feature the word "Muslim" AND the fact that it would treat non-Muslims from said 7 countries the same as Muslims AND the fact that it would not affect the remaining 87% of Muslims in the world, the EO still constitutes "a kind of partial Muslim ban" because of Trump's campaign rhetoric? Wow.




EDITED TO ADD:

QUOTE
...
WASHINGTON (AP) ó The federal judge who halted President Donald Trumpís travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trumpís order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.
...
In addition to the cases from last fall, for instance, two men from Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2011 and convicted on charges that they plotted to send money and weapons to al-Qaida.
...
All told, Kurzman said, 23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.
...

Link: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/n...ravel-ban-nope/

Did you create the Honda?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Feb 7 2017, 06:42 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 7 2017, 01:43 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 7 2017, 09:23 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Feb 6 2017, 11:49 PM) *
Well, I never said it was a quote of his; that was simply what I thought he was referring to since the language he used was similar to what is proscribed by law. But, I can see now how he might be saying it's too narrow.

Yep, especially by not including Saudi Arabia as a targeted nation to ban travel from there to here.


When is the last time Saudi Arabia was "a targeted nation to ban travel from there to here"?

If this were intended to be a ban on Muslims, that's where they would start isn't it? The land of Mecca and Medina?


If this were intended to be a ban on foreign hostiles masquerading as legitimate foreign visitors, that's exactly where you'd start. The land of 15 of the 19 9-11 terrorists? Followed closely by Egypt, the UAE and the Lebanon (the other nationalities of those 19). But if it's not really about that, and is instead either cack-handed policy-making on the fly to attempt to honour an off-the-cuff campaign pledge and play to your base, you wouldn't. Neither would you if it is, in fact, a more subtle power play about weakening the judiciary and their standing in the eyes of the public, or a big part of it, in preparation for as-yet-unknown plans that would otherwise be held to closer scrutiny.

My sig shows I'm still more of a fan of incompetence as a root cause than conspiracy, but I cannot see how this EO can be construed as a good idea without some really quite impressive contortions.

By the way, I'm no fan of the Speaker of the House of Commons over here, and his posturing ban on Bush speaking at Westminster Hall during his upcoming state visit to the UK is more akin to some trendy college no-platforming placard-waver might do than it is to the kind of behaviour expected of the elected Speaker of the Mother of Parliaments. Besides, you can't boo and throw rotten fruit at someone who isn't there. *

* That's not (just) because I bear President Trump any ill-will, more because I want Pres Trump to be so disgusted by his treatment during his first official visit he'd rather walk across hot coals than give the UK favourably trading terms, which might make our bloody-minded, blinkered, self-referential fool of a Prime Minister see a little more wiggle room in her determination to pursue a hard Brexit, thus wrecking the British economy, breaking up the Union, and trashing perfectly fine public institutions, all off the back of one single referendum where the winning margin was barely above the margin of error and the turnout was below the levels of most General Elections in recent history.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Feb 7 2017, 07:18 PM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(entspeak @ Feb 7 2017, 12:46 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 7 2017, 10:43 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Feb 6 2017, 01:53 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 6 2017, 10:44 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 6 2017, 07:05 AM) *
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 5 2017, 11:02 PM) *

...
... The next time the newspapers mention a Muslim ban get them to word search "Muslim" in the executive order. ...
...

I see, if a word/phrase doesn't appear in a document, then the document does not address the ideas that word/phrase represents. ...
...

Well, yeah. The absence of the word "Muslim" in the EO does indeed serve as a pretty good clue thereof. Especially when combined with the following facts:

1. The EO would have the same effect on both the Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of the 7 countries in question.

2. The EO would not affect any of the remaining 87% of Muslims in the world (be they citizens of any of the remaining 43 Muslim-majority countries, or citizens of any of the remaining 200 countries).

There is, of course, one additional thing required in order to reach the conclusion that the EO in question is not a "Muslim ban": the application of reason.

Well, let's not be totally disingenuous here. We all know that the President wanted a total Muslim ban. He just wasn't going to Constitutionally get a total Muslim ban, so, according to Giuliani, he asked his advisors to come up with something that they could argue was legal. So, this is a kind of partial Muslim ban. ...
...

I wanted an Aston Martin, but the car loan people told me to come up with an alternative that I could argue was feasible. So I bought a Honda. What determines to what degree, if any, my Honda is "a kind of partial" Aston Martin? The fact that I wanted an Aston Martin? Or the fact that my Honda is a ... Honda?

Seriously? You are really arguing that, despite the fact that it doesn't feature the word "Muslim" AND the fact that it would treat non-Muslims from said 7 countries the same as Muslims AND the fact that it would not affect the remaining 87% of Muslims in the world, the EO still constitutes "a kind of partial Muslim ban" because of Trump's campaign rhetoric? Wow.




EDITED TO ADD:

QUOTE
...
WASHINGTON (AP) ó The federal judge who halted President Donald Trumpís travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trumpís order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.
...
In addition to the cases from last fall, for instance, two men from Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2011 and convicted on charges that they plotted to send money and weapons to al-Qaida.
...
All told, Kurzman said, 23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.
...

Link: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/n...ravel-ban-nope/

Did you create the Honda?

If I had, would you acknowledge it as a Honda? Or would you say something like "Well, I remember you saying that you wanted to create an Aston Martin, so it really is a kind of partial Aston Martin"?

Anyway, no attempts at sophistry can obscure the fundamental reality that what determines whether said EO constitutes a "Muslim ban" of any kind is what's actually in it. Not Trump's campaign rhetoric, or the Left/Lib/Prog/Dem's current rhetoric.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 7 2017, 07:25 PM
Post #44


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 7 2017, 09:43 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 7 2017, 09:23 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Feb 6 2017, 11:49 PM) *
Well, I never said it was a quote of his; that was simply what I thought he was referring to since the language he used was similar to what is proscribed by law. But, I can see now how he might be saying it's too narrow.

Yep, especially by not including Saudi Arabia as a targeted nation to ban travel from there to here.


When is the last time Saudi Arabia was "a targeted nation to ban travel from there to here"?

If this were intended to be a ban on Muslims, that's where they would start isn't it? The land of Mecca and Medina?

Sure, that makes sense. It also makes sense that Saudi Arabia should be on the list because of 9/11 and dear old dead Osama bin Laden. You know, if the EO is supposed to protect us from terrorists coming in from places that are known to have bred them, maybe even encouraged them, specifically to attack the USA.

Kinda indicates that SA has special deals with the USA, while those other nations don't. Which probably makes it impossible for Trump to ban all Muslims for any length of time.

If I were as paranoid as some media commentators, I'd even suspect that the real reason to do this EO is to push the Judiciary out as that anachronistic and unnecessary part of government that should be either eliminated or ignored in order that Trump can MAGA (Make America Great Again). But I'm not that paranoid, nor do I think this admin is smart enough to dream up such a complex scheme. No, attacking the Judiciary is a slop shot, and it's pretty obvious to me that this is the admin's MO. Now to see if it wins the game or not. Well, this play in the game anyway. Lots more to do before MAGA can happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Feb 7 2017, 08:47 PM
Post #45


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Julian @ Feb 7 2017, 02:42 PM) *
If this were intended to be a ban on foreign hostiles masquerading as legitimate foreign visitors, that's exactly where you'd start. The land of 15 of the 19 9-11 terrorists? Followed closely by Egypt, the UAE and the Lebanon (the other nationalities of those 19).


I guess we're discounting attacks in Europe and everywhere else for this exercise?

It has been pointed out (probably more than once) this "immigration danger list" isn't notably different from the last administration's list of dangerous countries. And that list is only different from the previous administration's list in that it expanded.
How about Canada? That would seem to be a level-headed enough country unsullied by "cack-handed policy-making on the fly to attempt to honour an off-the-cuff campaign pledge and play to your base" or, "a more subtle power play about weakening the judiciary and their standing in the eyes of the public" and so forth.
Where do they consider the worst places in the world to travel?
Where on the globe does the Canadian government recommend its citizens avoid due to highest level risk?
Well, here is a handy dandy color chart.

Notice which countries are in the red, and which are not.

Edited to add: Sorry, you'll have to click on the link to the map to bring up the map with color chart.
The only country I noticed that was in the yellow (not red) but on the Trump list is Iran.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Feb 7 2017, 08:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Feb 7 2017, 11:27 PM
Post #46


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 6 2017, 06:05 AM) *
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 5 2017, 11:02 PM) *
What happens next will involve protests. The next time the newspapers mention a Muslim ban get them to word search "Muslim" in the executive order. If they continue in their perfidy, then simply ask why is okay to have numerous agencies legislate against citizens of largely Muslim countries and be given free reign to war with them? Is the war against the governments or the people? If war against a particular selection of countries has occurred consistently for 16 years in a row wouldn't a robust vetting system be prudent follow through? Where is the greater moral obligation?

I see, if a word/phrase doesn't appear in a document, then the document does not address the ideas that word/phrase represents. Okay, where does Executive Order appear in the Constitution? Well, it doesn't and yet it exists. How about that. It's as if some ideas come through despite strict interpretations of documents.

For the past 16 years we haven't been at war against countries but against terrorists. I suppose it can be argued that we are against governments that either tolerate or promote terrorism, which explains part of the reason why protests are taking place: Our list of these countries is wrong in that it excludes major terrorist-tolerating/promoting countries. Another part of the reason is that we have a POTUS who promised to ban specifically Muslims before gaining power and now appears to be attempting to fulfill that promise. Finally, people are protesting because Trump & Co. generally sucks, from the protesters' POV. In this sense, every EO that Trump issues will be protested, much like Obama's EOs were. Except the current protests are being done by regular people rather than whiny little britches in Congress. And this is due to the nature of the travel-banning EO of interest in this thread. It was impacting people directly and negatively; it was directly and negatively impacting business too, and so far the courts think it's a bad EO.

This EO should not have been made -- seems to be the lesson to be learned by President Trump and his crew. But hey, they're still pretty green at this, tender little feet, babes in the woods and all that. Maybe they were born this way.


The protests themselves are hypocritical because they are not consistent. This is democracy only for my tribe approach. They [the protestors] are holding one administration to one standard and the prior to another. This debate is about discrepancy and as I've said before the No Homer's Rule is in effect.

Again, I'll reiterate, the EO should have encompassed all peoples until a set policy took effect. However what was done was not illegal.

If every EO is protested based either on prior comments or media distortions, are we not condemning based of preference and opinion and not evidence? When do concrete actions enter the mix?

QUOTE(entspeak)
People keep claiming that Obama had a similar ban (this "pause"), but this simply isn't true. If you go to the article you cite and the link in that article about the "pause," you'll see that what their calling a "pause" was actually just a slowing down of the process. Iraqi refugees still received visas during this time period.

Nor does any of the previous action provide precedent. I certainly wouldn't argue that the President couldn't slow down the process of issuing visas to immigrants from these countries or some form of more stringent vetting for them, but a blanket ban that includes those who currently hold valid visas and currently reside and work in the US is a violation of the Constitution. Without some evidence that an individual with a visa is tied to terrorism, not allowing a person with a valid visa to go through customs and forcing them to go back to their country of origin when they have a job, a house or apartment, a family here... that is a violation of their due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

I would also add that no amount of vetting would've prevented the Orlando attack, or the knife attack by the Somali who came to the US at the age of 2 - or even the Somali who came here after 7 years in Pakistan. Vetting can't prevent radicalization of someone already here. Basically, we're fighting the wrong fight. This is a war of ideas and we're not going to win it by alienating and discriminating against the people we actually need to be on our side (the majority of Muslims). Welcome the people and push back and resist the ideas.


Yes I acknowledge the message of the above link slowed more than stopped the flow which is why the entire discussion is about really about bias and hyperbole. Some are putting the cart before the horse and taking an absolutist position.

I'd say there is precedent. The concept of retribution will always present itself as a security concern so long as the wars last. Prior administrations have blocked various ethnicities in the past. The time for welcoming new nationalities is past when the foreign policy is out of control. You can't bomb the daylights out of a people and welcome the remnants in with open arms. Does not work. Massive gap in logic. Either you follow the rules or war or you do not war. To do otherwise is pathological altruism.

The Conservative Review through CRS report highlights past actions since Reagan and establishes precedent. I'm taken aback by how common it is to interrupt and limit immigration which weakens the protestor's moral arguement substantially. Remember Trump has stopped nothing at this point.

QUOTE(Conservative Review)
According to the report, here are the number of times each president, since Reagan, has limited immigration to specific groups of people:
  • Ronald Reagan - Five times
  • George H. W Bush - One time
  • Bill Clinton - 12 times
  • George W. Bush - Six times
  • Barack Obama - 19 times
Not included in the CRS report is that Hillary Clinton's State Department, without a presidential action, suspended all refugee applications from Iraq for six months in 2011.


To answer if this EO is a violates an existing amendment limits or hampers the arguement to those with citizenship only. I'd say the issue is bigger than that. The refugees are exerting a pressure of their own and the Democratic party has taken up their fight because it knows it will scoop up the demographic entirely.

First Politico argues from a legal perpspective the courts tend to side with the administration on matters of immigration, both on those with citizenship and those without.

QUOTE
One Muslim-rights group, the Council on American Islamic Relations, said it planned a new federal lawsuit Monday charging that Trump's order is unconstitutional because it amounts to thinly veiled discrimination against Muslims. That suit could face an uphill battle because courts have rarely accorded constitutional rights to foreigners outside the U.S. However, foreign citizens who are permanent U.S. residents generally have a stronger claim to recourse in the courts. In addition, legal experts say U.S. citizen relatives of foreigners could have legal standing to pursue a case charging religious discrimination.

Still, presidents have broad discretion over the nation's immigration and refugee policy. A 1952 immigration law gives the chief executive the power to bar "any class" of immigrants from the country if allowing them is deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States."



Second, the Congressional Research Service states the president has wide birth in these instances.
QUOTE(The Congressional Research Service)
Over the years, Presidents have relied upon Section 212(f) to suspend or otherwise restrict the entry of individual aliens and classes of aliens, often (although not always) in conjunction with the imposition of financial sanctions upon these aliens. Among those so excluded have been aliens whose actions "threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya"; officials of the North Korean government; and aliens responsible for "serious human rights violations."

Neither the text of Section 212(f) nor the case law to date suggests any firm legal limits upon the President's exercise of his authority to exclude aliens under this provision.


I think the difference between our views could be summed up by approach, if you want to limit domestic extremism you don't continue to have an aggressive foreign policy. One results in the other. I'm saying it is time to stop adding buckets to the leaky roof and fix the leaky roof rather than add another bucket.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Feb 7 2017, 11:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Feb 7 2017, 11:52 PM
Post #47


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Julian @ Feb 7 2017, 02:42 PM) *
If this were intended to be a ban on foreign hostiles masquerading as legitimate foreign visitors, [Saudi Arabia]'s exactly where you'd start. The land of 15 of the 19 9-11 terrorists? Followed closely by Egypt, the UAE and the Lebanon (the other nationalities of those 19).

A lot has changed during the past fifteen and a half years or so.

Heck, a lot has changed just during the past nine and half years or so, i.e. since sundry Congressional Democrats (e.g. then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then-U.S. Senator John Kerry) traveled to Damascus, Syria and, upon their return, assured us that Assad (the current one, not his daddy) was a "reformer" kinda guy.

Double heck, a lot has changed just during the past five and half years or so, i.e. since then-U.S. SecOfState Hillary Clinton's "We came, we saw, he died" quip upon hearing that Libya's Qaddafi had been killed.

Triple heck, a lot has changed just during the past three years or so, i.e. since then-U.S. President Barack Obama's dismissal of ISIS as a "JV team".

Etc.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 7 2017, 03:47 PM) *
...
I guess we're discounting attacks in Europe and everywhere else for this exercise?
...

Well, yeah! Everybody knows that what's been happening in Europe over the last several years should not be of any concern to the U.S., for the simple reason that the "bad eggs" among the refugees that they've been trying to deal with have no interest whatsoever in coming here. Where have you been getting your info? Sheesh!

This post has been edited by akaCG: Feb 8 2017, 12:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Feb 8 2017, 03:15 AM
Post #48


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Trouble)
The Conservative Review through CRS report highlights past actions since Reagan and establishes precedent. I'm taken aback by how common it is to interrupt and limit immigration which weakens the protestor's moral arguement substantially. Remember Trump has stopped nothing at this point.

Did you actually look at the nature of these other instances? If you did you would see immediately the massive difference between what previous Presidents have done and what Trump has done. It's glaringly obvious. I hope you'll at least take a look at the table in the report you cited.

I completely agree with you about the effect of an aggressive foreign policy. It's one of the many reasons I wasn't a fan of Clinton.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Feb 8 2017, 03:17 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Feb 8 2017, 05:16 AM
Post #49


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Trouble)
I'd say there is precedent. The concept of retribution will always present itself as a security concern so long as the wars last. Prior administrations have blocked various ethnicities in the past. The time for welcoming new nationalities is past when the foreign policy is out of control. You can't bomb the daylights out of a people and welcome the remnants in with open arms. Does not work. Massive gap in logic. Either you follow the rules or war or you do not war. To do otherwise is pathological altruism.


Think about it. Are we at war? No, we are not. The war is as fictitiously exaggerated as the threat of the enemy. War on Terrorism; War on Drug, its just jargon for the simple. I'm sure you've seen the statistics that show you have more of a chance being killed by a toddler with a gun than an "Islamic Extremist" in 2015. The threat is there, yes. At any point some random Muslim, and lets face it any Muslim that kills is a Jihadi at this point, may decide to take the life of another. So that threat is real to that extent. But the fact that the number of death attributed to this great evil on our soil amounts to less than death by 3 year olds should not be lost. You are hundreds if not thousands times more likely to be killed due to the American proliferation of firearms. Now do you ever hear of a "war on firearms".

Now I'm not trying to change the subject or digress in the debate, just taking a cue from Mrs P and bringing a little perspective on what we are looking at. Both in terms of the "war" and the "threat".

In terms of constitutionality, both sides make good arguments, so I have no clue and I don't have any clue on why any of you think you could know. It comes down to an opinion of the arguments presented here. The President has the Constitutional authority to do what he did on the face of the EO. The President is trying to use the previous administration actions to camouflage a Muslim ban, which is unconstitutional.

Looms said it either in this debate or another, something to the effect "He is just keeping his campaign promises" and I notice that too. We all notice it! Now are we honest enough as a nation to acknowledge that this is the intent, to keep a promise made which was to ban Muslims. Unfortunately, yes. Yes many of you are going to pretend and maybe the judges will too. Are we a nation that will allow our constitutional tenets to be violated for obvious "plausible deniability"? Well yeah, of course we are.

I was looking at the movie "hidden figures" and I just thought, especially because of the current times, how is it that the Whites and law makers of pre civil rights\post-slavery era not see their own moral deficiencies? I just couldn't get my head around the fact that most White conservatives could not see(because they were not taught) that it was morally wrong to make Blacks drink from separate water fountains and use separate bathrooms. You see I KNOW we can't compare things to yester-years, cause that was a different time. And we sure can't compare it to Hitler, Nazi, Mussolini, etc. So I won't. I will just say there is a moral deficiency arising again in this generation of White conservatives in this nation. The hypocrisy, the intellectual dishonesty, the xenophobia, the delegitimizing of the press, the delegitimizing of our court systems, the praising and uplifting of all the authoritative figures, the devaluing of human life, the devaluing of human dignity, etc.

I will not compare you all to another group of another era or another country. I will only compare the inability to see the moral decay in the politics and beliefs of modern conservatism to that of previous groups of previous times. I wish there were "moral compasses" we could all buy on Amazon, but there isn't and right now the "situational morality" of modern conservatives gives them invincibility against shame.

We all understand that this EO is an attempt of Trump to make good, at least in part, on a campaign promise to ban Muslims. Nothing else makes sense, because there was no new threat.

This post has been edited by droop224: Feb 8 2017, 01:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 8 2017, 11:54 AM
Post #50


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 8 2017, 01:16 AM) *
We all understand that this EO is an attempt of Trump to make good, at least in part, on a campaign promise to ban Muslims. Nothing else makes sense, because there was no new threat.

I'm fairly certain that this is what the courts will go on -- intent/motivation. Trump tweeting trash against a GWB-appointed judge does not help his cause either, so the EO looks destined to fail.

But then it might stand up to judicial review, thereby irritating a lot of former Trump supporters and probably a lot of former GOP voters who have been or will be impacted due to stranded family members. I really don't see how this thing cannot backfire. Ergo, this EO should have never been signed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Feb 10 2017, 03:29 AM
Post #51


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Court of Appeals decision on the immigration ban.

Above is a PDF of the decision. It covers why the Government may fail to prove their case. While making no definitive ruling itself, its analysis shows why the ban may violate the Constitution. Worth a read.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 18th, 2018 - 04:53 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.