Oh look another one who can't read or follow a conversation where did I say Muslim ban?
I asked the mods to correct the title yesterday....apparently they're OK with it as it is and don't care that such a blatant lie appears in a thread title. Speaks volumes imo.Trump hasn't banned muslims.
I asked the mods to correct the title yesterday....apparently they're OK with it as it is and don't care that such a blatant lie appears in a thread title. Speaks volumes imo.
I asked the mods to correct the title yesterday....apparently they're OK with it as it is and don't care that such a blatant lie appears in a thread title. Speaks volumes imo.
I asked the mods to correct the title yesterday....apparently they're OK with it as it is and don't care that such a blatant lie appears in a thread title. Speaks volumes imo.
I asked the mods to correct the title yesterday....apparently they're OK with it as it is and don't care that such a blatant lie appears in a thread title. Speaks volumes imo.
Trump hasn't banned muslims.
I'm going to take the word of the now-former AG who said it was not in line with the Constitution -- that thing Trump swore to uphold and protect.
Good distinction. My original response was to HumblePie saying it looked legal TO HIM.FWIW: May or whatever her name is did not say it was unconstitutional. She said that she could not currently ascertain its constitutionality, and so ordered that no federal agency recognize this act until further investigated, which is exactly what you do with an incompetent group of nazis start drafting signing papers after intentionally leaving out the groups that are required to vet these things.
This is shear incompetence on display. It is exactly what 70-80% of the public knew would happen, and is why some 30%+ of trump "voters" are a bit confused as to what is happening.
There is no Muslim ban and it's clearly not the goal of the Executive Order...that's a bald-face lie. If there was intent to ban Muslims in general, then there would be at least 48 other countries on the EO list. The level of dishonesty here is incredibly blatant and abjectly pathetic...which iirc happens to be your MO. It's partisan opinion that this EO somehow constitutes a 'Muslim ban', and it's in no way an actual fact...it's an 'alternative fact' that just happens to fit a highly partisan false narrative. It's an 'alternative fact' that completely ignores the actual wording of the Executive Order which makes zero mention of religion aside from giving elevated refuge status (once the moratorium ceases) to those persecuted by their county's religious majority.That's because the thread title is accurate. You have to remember that the mods aren't here to enforce your personal viewpoint, they are here to make sure titles are accurate. In this case this travel ban was made with the explicit goal to prevent Muslim immigration to the US, so the thread title is perfectly reasonable.
I'm not surprised to see you try and defend this though, as this is a perfect example of a 'who, me?' from Trump, which is kind of your MO.
Historically, the mods here have aggressively enforced factual thread titles. I'm merely pointing to the double-standard and hypocrisy here.Ahh so you're the guy going around asking for titles be changed? Why? You going to ask someone to correct post next? Sorry but that's just lame.
There is no Muslim ban and it's clearly not the goal of the Executive Order...that's a bald-face lie. If there was intent to ban Muslims in general, then there would be at least 48 other countries on the EO list. The level of dishonesty here is incredibly blatant and abjectly pathetic...which iirc happens to be your MO. It's merely partisan opinion that this EO somehow constitutes a 'Muslim ban', and it's in no way an actual fact...it's an 'alternative fact' that just happens to fit your highly partisan false narrative. It's an 'alternative fact' that completely ignores the actual wording of the Executive Order which makes zero mention of religion aside from giving elevated refuge status (once the moratorium ceases) to those persecuted by their county's religious majority.
The countries listed in the EO are the EXACT same countries Obama placed travel restrictions on a year ago...where was you outrage and dishonest cries of a "Muslim ban" on visa waivers then? The fact of the matter here is that our current administration needs assurance that immigrants and refuges from these countries are getting thorough and effective vetting (a campaign promise made in light of FBI consternation expressed last summer) since these countries have been profoundly affected by jihadist violence or are under the control of jihadist governments that are hostile to our country....countries which also happen to be predominantly Muslim. Bottom line...as if actual facts mattered...there is no Muslim ban. The mods here should be embarrassed to allow such blatantly partisan dishonesty imo.
Squawk!! Squawk, Squawk Squawk. Squawk!!!
The context clearly being Muslim dominated nations significantly affected by Muslim jihadist violence or under the control of Muslim jihadist governments that are hostile to our country. The level of hysteria and intellectual dishonesty here is truly epic!Except of course that Rudy Giuliani said Trump asked him how he could enact a Muslim ban legally and this was his suggestion. While trying to lie your way around this you even admit that the order gives preferential treatment to non-Islamic religions. Oh let me guess though, that was just a total coincidence too.
Again, this is a classic DSF 'who, me?', just in executive order form. You know how everyone makes fun of you when you do that? It's because you are just as transparent as these clowns are.
Your attempt to equate Obama's action to Trump's action is a bald faced lie, the level of dishonesty here is blatant. Please refrain from these kind of obvious lies in the future.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
If facts mattered we know the following: Trump stated he wanted to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US and asked Rudy Giuliani how to do it. Giuliani told Trump that he could legally ban Muslims by focusing on perceived danger instead of their religion, which is the tack Trump chose. Trump also carved out an exception for religions other than Islam in his order. It is obvious to any rational and objective person that the goal here is to prevent Muslims from immigrating to the US.
The context clearly being Muslim dominated nations significantly affected by Muslim jihadist violence or under the control of Muslim jihadist governments that are hostile to our country. The level of intellectual dishonesty here is epic!
Obama’s cruel policy reversal on Cuban refugees
For some fifty years, the US has had a policy of welcoming refugees fleeing the brutal communist dictatorship in Cuba. In the 1990s, the policy was changed to “wetfoot, dryfoot,” under which Cubans who succeeded in reaching the United States would be allowed to stay, but those unfortunate enough to be caught at sea were barred. On Thursday, President Obama ended the wetfoot, dryfoot policy and made Cuban refugees “subject to removal,” like undocumented migrants from other countries. They might still gain official refugee or asylum status and be allowed to stay by proving that they have been personally targeted by the government on the basis of their political speech, religion or some other characteristics. But that is extremely difficult in most cases. For most Cubans, like other victims of communist governments, the main injustice they suffer is the everyday oppression meted out to all the regime’s subjects.
There is absolutely no justification for Obama’s new policy. It is gratuitously cruel towards Cuban refugees, without creating any meaningful benefits. Despite some modest economic reforms, Cuba remains a repressive communist dictatorship whose people suffer massive oppression and poverty brought on by over fifty years of totalitarianism. Indeed, repression of dissent has actually increased since President Obama began to normalize relations with Cuba in December 2014.
here's the operative portion of the order:
greencard holders have "immigrant" status. so yes, greencard holders ARE caught up in this. the only prior visas still good are the diplomatic ones listed.
here's the out:
but just because we "may, on a case by case basis" issue "immigration benefits" (which includes coming into the country) to greencard holders, doesn't mean they're not swept up or not covered by this.
Trump requested a muslim ban specifically...
100% Illegal. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
-snip-
Okay. This is simple enough.
Premise: A Muslim ban means all Muslims are banned from entering the US.
Premise 2: Muslims can still enter the US from most countries.
Conclusion: This is not a ban on all Muslims.
This, my friends, is simple logic. Either refute premise 1 or 2, prove that the conclusion doesn't follow, or accept the conclusion.
I heard an attorney discuss this. He said Presidents from FDR to Obama have imposed similar temporary "bans". Also said many were litigated and in every instance the "ban" was upheld by the courts.
If the lawyer is correct you're so wrong it hurts.
Fern
Basic logic.
Premise 1: A Muslim ban means a ban intended to target Muslims.
Premise 2: Muslims are the clear target of this ban and we have explicit statements from the parties involved in creating and implementing this ban that the intent was to target Muslims.
Premise 3: An effort to ban Muslims from entering a country does not suddenly stop being one if it doesn't target every single one. (which would be unconstitutional, hence this workaround)
Conclusion: This is a Muslim ban.
Do you feel safer?Yet Muslims can still immigrate.
Yet Muslims can still immigrate.
Yes it does. If you're targeting Muslims from particular countries than your target is a combination of two things considered to be risky: a religion that has had trouble with terrorism, coming from a country that has had trouble with exporting terrorism.
Can Muslims still immigrate or not?
In essence you reject my first premise - that a Muslim ban means all Muslims are banned. You say instead that some Muslims are banned. Is that correct?