Im not sorry for coming up with some personal embellishment of literary bullshit. I know how much you all love your alternative facts. And yes I do realize how you all are crying over your sensitivity to people not holding your hands, especially the press, but you can just run along to your safe spaces.
You forgot Obama. Obama temp-banned Iraqi refugees in 2011.
OMG, the projection.Im not sorry for coming up with some personal embellishment of literary bullshit. I know how much you all love your alternative facts. And yes I do realize how you all are crying over your sensitivity to people not holding your hands, especially the press, but you can just run along to your safe spaces.
You never explained yourself. At all.
What, specifically, it in the code that you cited makes you believe Trump's action against immigration is illegal?
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, 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.
That says no person... what about blocking a whole country?
I'd argue there's no discrimination against persons or individuals but against whole nations.
Surely there's legal precedent for when such blocks were previously established before. Though I'm not aware of their legal defense.
That says no person... what about blocking a whole country?
I'd argue there's no discrimination against persons or individuals but against whole nations.
Surely there's legal precedent for when such blocks were previously established before. Though I'm not aware of their legal defense.
b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minorityreligion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
...
What that paragraph says is that exceptions will be made for religious persecutions, nothing wrong with that, except, it goes one step further and specifies that the persecuted religions must be a minority religion of that country. Since the countries listed are predominantly Muslim, the EO does in fact ban Muslims since their religious persecution won't be an exception like other religions would be.
That is a clear violation of the constitution and existing immigration laws.
But this has been vetted! Surely his staff is not incompetent to a degree as to let him sign something illegal?
Let me help you out.
The part that has the potential to make this EO unconstitutional is the paragraph below, specifically the bolded.
What that paragraph says is that exceptions will be made for religious persecutions, nothing wrong with that, except, it goes one step further and specifies that the persecuted religions must be a minority religion of that country. Since the countries listed are predominantly Muslim, the EO does in fact ban Muslims since their religious persecution won't be an exception like other religions would be.
That is a clear violation of the constitution and existing immigration laws.
Let me help you out.
The part that has the potential to make this EO unconstitutional is the paragraph below, specifically the bolded.
What that paragraph says is that exceptions will be made for religious persecutions, nothing wrong with that, except, it goes one step further and specifies that the persecuted religions must be a minority religion of that country. Since the countries listed are predominantly Muslim, the EO does in fact ban Muslims since their religious persecution won't be an exception like other religions would be.
That is a clear violation of the constitution and existing immigration laws.
OMG, the rubber and glue.
You just argued that majorities need protection from persecution? Does not compute...
norseamd has been turning out to be a real sad sorry soulless husk now hasnt he?
yes.Are people calling this a muslim ban for the sake of hyperbole? Are thread titles allowed to be wrong in an inflammatory way now? How can anyone expect to converse if every sentence is designed to piss off the 'other side'?
Lol did you just inadvertently try and say all Muslims are the same and practice their religion the same? I think you did. Oops!
If you want to make that argument then I suppose you could win extra recognition for different sects.
Which case it'd be a very interesting day to follow, to see what Trump would do to comply with a court order.
Be it accept more groups under that exception... or to deny all.
Considering seeing you turn from some enigmatic anti-authority preacher to some frothing Trump fascist fanatic, I dont know whether or be laughing or laughing at you talking about real sad sorry soulless husks.
Anti-authority preacher? A little delusional there aren't you?
But yes, watching lefty's ignore executive overreach for years - thus setting a mountain of precedent for future (aka, present) POTUS while simultaneously diminishing the power of minority political dissent in congress, only to have it turn around and rip them a new one repeatedly, why yes that is quite satisfying if you must know.