Poll, how do you feel about Trump's entry ban on select nationals

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

billvon I have a question about the EO. You are saying it is illegal. I thought there have been precedents set as far as restricting immigrants from other countries. Can you tell me where the illegal part comes in?

The primary reason is due to the The Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965 (codified as 8 U.S. Code 1152) says: "No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

Congress could change the law, of course - but they have not yet done so. So until they do, discrimination against immigrants based on their nationality, place of birth or place of residence is illegal.

A secondary (and less clear) reason is due to the First Amendment's guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The EO states that the US will:

". . . 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."

That means non-Muslims based on the country list.

This is less clear because the administration is claiming that they are not Congress and so it doesn't apply to them, and since they didn't actually state a specific religion it shouldn't matter anyway.

[Rick 67]

billvon

Quote

billvon I have a question about the EO. You are saying it is illegal. I thought there have been precedents set as far as restricting immigrants from other countries. Can you tell me where the illegal part comes in?

The primary reason is due to the The Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965 (codified as 8 U.S. Code 1152) says: "No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

Congress could change the law, of course - but they have not yet done so. So until they do, discrimination against immigrants based on their nationality, place of birth or place of residence is illegal.

A secondary (and less clear) reason is due to the First Amendment's guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The EO states that the US will:

". . . 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."

That means non-Muslims based on the country list.

This is less clear because the administration is claiming that they are not Congress and so it doesn't apply to them, and since they didn't actually state a specific religion it shouldn't matter anyway.

thanks that is what I was looking for

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[gowlerk 2,191]

SivaGanesha

***The world is in an uproar, or at least a lot of the world outside America is. I keep seeing FB posts denouncing it, but few from American friends, and even some in support.

So I am wondering, how do Americans feel about it?

Are you arguing for American immigration regulations to be enforced evenly against all nations? I wonder how Canadians would react if the US decided to be less selective and demanded that all visitors go through the full rigours of a consular visa interview before being considered for a US visa--including Canadian visitors.

Now if we are merely talking about supporting the Muslim community then it is fairly simple. Focus on Quebec City where your support is desperately needed. Not on Washington DC where your support is unwelcome.


No I am not arguing that. I am asking how Americans feel. That is all.


I am on the road this week in Mississippi right now. Otherwise I would have joined my wife last night when she attended a service at a local Mosque to show support to the Muslim community after the recent act of Christian terrorism in Quebec city.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[TriGirl 318]

billvon

A secondary (and less clear) reason is due to the First Amendment's guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The EO states that the US will:

". . . 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."

That means non-Muslims based on the country list.

This is less clear because the administration is claiming that they are not Congress and so it doesn't apply to them, and since they didn't actually state a specific religion it shouldn't matter anyway.

1 -- POTUS expressly said that part was for Christians. I thought the EO said that, but if not, at least the president actually said the intent was to cover Christians. (incidentally, he also said it was "nearly impossible" for Christians to get in, but Muslims were being admitted in droves. True numbers were 38,000 and change to 37,000 and change, Muslim to Christian).

2 -- There are Muslim sects in those countries that are minorities, and are persecuted because of it. Try being Yazidi in those areas. I'd be interested to see whether Yazidi refugees (outright slaughtered by ISIL in Iraq) would be allowed to come in.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[ryoder 1,590]

Now the Spicer is objecting to the media using the word "ban": http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-to-spicer-if-you-object-to-ban-label-you-shouldnt-use-it/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

TriGirl

2 -- There are Muslim sects in those countries that are minorities, and are persecuted because of it.

I blame the media on this one, right, left, center, the whole of it for in the last 15 or so years being unable to educate the American people. Hell, most people in the US would not be able to tell you the difference between Shia and Sunni. As far as most people in the US are concerned, every Muslim is the same.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>Now the Spicer is objecting to the media using the word "ban"

The media is not allowed to use the word "ban!" Only Spicer and Trump are allowed to do that. The media must use the politically correct term "temporary inconvenience."

[ryoder 1,590]

NY AG joining federal suit against Trump’s travel ban "temporary inconvenience": http://nypost.com/2017/01/31/schneiderman-joining-federal-suit-against-trumps-travel-ban/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[TriGirl 318]

quade

***2 -- There are Muslim sects in those countries that are minorities, and are persecuted because of it.

I blame the media on this one, right, left, center, the whole of it for in the last 15 or so years being unable to educate the American people. Hell, most people in the US would not be able to tell you the difference between Shia and Sunni. As far as most people in the US are concerned, every Muslim is the same.
And Yazidi is some kind of pasta dish with tomato sauce.

Bah'ai is an island nation in the South Pacific

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[DJL 235]

billvon

>Now the Spicer is objecting to the media using the word "ban"

The media is not allowed to use the word "ban!" Only Spicer and Trump are allowed to do that. The media must use the politically correct term "temporary inconvenience."

Queue Tapper: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-to-spicer-if-you-object-to-ban-label-you-shouldnt-use-it/

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,991]

And now the lying liberal media has the gall to call demonstrators "demonstrators!" They are delicate, unique snowflakes that the media may not even look at, much less report on.

==========
1000s gathered in DC to stand up for life & adoption and @CNN refers to them as "demonstrators" - Spicer
=========

[jakee 1,489]

DJL

Queue Cue Tapper: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-to-spicer-if-you-object-to-ban-label-you-shouldnt-use-it/

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Phil1111 1,149]

I particularly like the idea that trump had to cancel a photo op at the Harley Davidson plant. Here was another chance for a campaign stop in the heartland of the remaining believers.

A chance to speak in the mike "everything is going GREAT". "Its so SAD that HRC has to watch our tremendous success". Forgetting his promise of course to "lock her up". I wonder if that EO, to lock her up, hasn't gotten lost on bannon's desk.

I guess the HD officials, as the meeting was cancelled at their request. Didn't want 5-10,000 protestors at the doors of their plant.

Canceled, so SAD.

[kallend 2,027]

Lots of outrage of the right wing sites because Starbucks announced 10,000 jobs world wide for refugees. Lots of calls for a boycott, and claims that the stock "plummetted" because they are not hiring American veterans.

The alt-right seems to overlook that Starbucks already has a program in place to hire veterans and has hired thousands. Starbucks also has other veterans support programs in place.

Just more lies to fire up the true believers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DJL 235]

jakee

***Queue Cue Tapper: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-to-spicer-if-you-object-to-ban-label-you-shouldnt-use-it/

That was killing me. I even looked it up and thought, "Still doesn't look right but fuck it."

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jakee 1,489]

DJL

******Queue Cue Tapper: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-to-spicer-if-you-object-to-ban-label-you-shouldnt-use-it/

That was killing me. I even looked it up and thought, "Still doesn't look right but fuck it."

To be fair, since Tapper is part of a looooong line of people waiting to tear Spicer/Trump a new one over this, you could make an argument for queue being correct!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nolhtairt 0]

kallend

Lots of outrage of the right wing sites because Starbucks announced 10,000 jobs world wide for refugees. Lots of calls for a boycott, and claims that the stock "plummetted" because they are not hiring American veterans.

The alt-right seems to overlook that Starbucks already has a program in place to hire veterans and has hired thousands. Starbucks also has other veterans support programs in place.

Just more lies to fire up the true believers.

I've never cared for Starbucks at all. It's a waste of money buying overpriced coffee from them. Who cares if they want to hire all those refugees?

[brenthutch 444]

https://www.facebook.com/foxandfriends/videos/1300010726753187/

What he said.

[wmw999 2,446]

I just find it interesting that so many conservatives appear to be more scared than liberals. Scared of Muslims, scared of foreigners, scared of minorities, scared of, I guess, losing what privileges they think they have.

The braying about filibuster-proof majorities and the like reminds me of the bully who figures that the best defense is a good offense, but who hasn't figured out that the best way to get ahead is not to fight at all.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

The braying about filibuster-proof majorities and the like reminds me of the bully who figures that the best defense is a good offense, but who hasn't figured out that the best way to get ahead is not to fight at all.

I think that for many people the point of the exercise is as much about the fight as it is about the policy. Just winning the policy debate is not nearly as sweet as cramming it down the opposition's throat and then rubbing their face in the mud. Notice how some people here in SC cannot make even the most reasonable point without wrapping it in insulting comments about SJWs, snowflakes, etc.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wmw999 2,446]

Reminds me of divorcing couples who go into serious debt getting a divorce just to piss the other party off. It's even worse when there are children involved.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 362]

wmw999

Reminds me of divorcing couples who go into serious debt getting a divorce just to piss the other party off. It's even worse when there are children involved.

Wendy P.

I've seen otherwise good people get caught up in the emotion of the divorce and behave in unexpectedly vicious ways. The situation around Trump feels different to me. I get the impression that intrinsically ugly people (on the inside) have been given carte blanche to show their true nature. How else are we to interpret and environment where even basic civility is mocked as "political correctness"?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[brenthutch 444]

GeorgiaDon

***Reminds me of divorcing couples who go into serious debt getting a divorce just to piss the other party off. It's even worse when there are children involved.

Wendy P.

The situation around Trump feels different to me. I get the impression that intrinsically ugly people (on the inside) have been given carte blanche to show their true nature.

Don

Are you talking about Berkeley?

[normiss 800]

They have an administration in control of the country?

[wmw999 2,446]

Interesting how you see protesters you disagree with as childish bullies (at least that's what I infer from your comment). You apparently don't see the gerrymandering of districts across America (Project Red State) as childish bullying.

Did you think the Tea Party protests were all for a good cause? While the Women's March on Washington and the Million Man March (etc) were all childish?

Consider people and their behavior on their own merits, not based on a filter that drives you to a previously-determined conclusion. People who damage others' property willfully are wrong. People who bully others are wrong. People who intentionally offend others are wrong. There may be a greater wrong they think they are addressing, but that's only a balance -- it doesn't make the offending behavior right, it just provides some reason and context.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)