The premise in that article was the Free Exercise Clause. As an atheist, I don't like government favoring religions over others, but the reason for the ban is to prevent terrorism. Are you going to be obtuse and tell me with a straight face that Europe doesn't have a problem?.
comparing European and the American immigration is ignorant. Europe has refugees flooding in by land and sea due to geography, the US does not and can not have that same problem. immigrating as a refugee from the seven countries that the Traitor in Chief tried to ban is literally the longest and most difficult route to get to the US. reality is that our current system of extreme vetting works and Trump isn't able to easily improve it.
if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
Sorry, but our vetting doesn't work 100%. There have been attacks or thwarted attempts from Muslims allowed here. Ironically, I've seen it claim that a very small portion of refugees are war-aged young men, and most are elderly or women. Why not young men? Who knows with foresight how their offspring will grow up? So considering the US's small Muslim pop, there is a significant problem. I don't mind a small refugee pop coming here, but it would have been much better policy for Western leaders to have gotten together and paid Muslim nations to take them. What Europe has allowed to happen is incredibly stupid.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11410/complete-list-radical-islamic-terror-attacks-us-james-barrett
The premise in that article was the Free Exercise Clause. As an atheist, I don't like government favoring religions over others, but the reason for the ban is to prevent terrorism. Are you going to be obtuse and tell me with a straight face that Europe doesn't have a problem?
Once the plaintiffs provide evidence that a facially neutral law or regulation may have an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose, the government has the burden of proving that it would still have adopted the policy in question even in the absence of any illicit motive. As the Judge James Robart put it in the oral argument held before he issued the order suspending enforcement of the order, the government must, at the very least, prove that its policy is “grounded in fact instead of fiction.” The administration is highly unlikely to be able to do that because the security rationale for the order is laughably weak.
That's the default position, but something can be stupid and constitutional, you know.
That argument is weak and lame. The US doesn't have that much Muslims to begin with (with many coming from other countries who did carry out attacks or were thwarted before doing so), and just because it's partial, doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. If gun laws don't encompass everything, does that mean it's without reason? Many of the people arguing against this ban for this reason have no problem with a half-***** gun ban.
no vetting is perfect, but the simple fact that we haven't had any terrorist attacks by people from those seven countries shows just how good the current vetting is. there will always be thwarted and successful attacks, both Islamic and Christian.
Not only has not one single, solitary American been killed by a domestic terrorist from one of those countries since 9/11, not one single, solitary citizen or former citizen of those countries has even been arrested for attempting a domestic terrorist attack. This means the argument is basically that this order is necessary to protect the United States from a type of terrorism that hasn't happened even a single time in more than fifteen years without the order. It's hard to imagine a weaker case than that so even ignoring the 1st amendment problems this should probably be thrown out for being irrational.
Nope, that argument basically shows why this order is stupid and why people defending it aren't thinking logically. It's an order designed to stop and prevent something that wasn't happening anyway
and it works to stop it in the most ham-handed, costly way possible.
Every law and regulation has costs and (supposed) benefits. Empirical research into the effects of gun control show it is effective in reducing gun deaths, meaning that you're getting a clear benefit for those costs. It's going to be hard to reduce the deaths from terrorism here below their current number of zero.
lol Why is the "both sides are equal" canard appealing to so many people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus,_Ohio_shopping_mall_bombing_plot
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/...er-in-minnesota-mall-after-8-are-stabbed.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/us/defendant-offers-details-of-jeep-attack-at-university.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/us/active-shooter-ohio-state-university.html
it has nothing to do with "being equal" and has everything to do with the very simple fact that Trump completely ignores all non Islamic terrorism. Republicans as a whole are guilty of this and it comes across as ignorant white people scared of anyone different, while ignoring those that they have familiarity with.
1 - Arrived in US as a refugee before the September 11 attacks when vetting was presumably quite different
2 - Arrived in the US at the age of 2.
3 - Arrived in the US at the age of 2.
4 - Left Somalia for a refugee camp in Pakistan at the age of 9.
Seem like you're arguing for a permanent ban on these refugees unless you have a better way to vet 2 year olds.
It's a common argument to act as if Christianity and Islam are the same in that regard, which is how your statement read.
I'm not sure what point you were rebutting then. I'm not a Trump supporter and don't like how they're putting their heads in the sand on the white supremacist and right-wing terror acts.
Yeah, I'm fine with a permanent ban. There are billions of other people in the world who won't pose such issues.
1 - Arrived in US as a refugee before the September 11 attacks when vetting was presumably quite different
2 - Arrived in the US at the age of 2.
3 - Arrived in the US at the age of 2.
4 - Left Somalia for a refugee camp in Pakistan at the age of 9.
Seem like you're arguing for a permanent ban on these refugees unless you have a better way to vet 2 year olds.