Started By
Message

re: The travel ban EO is done. It's over. Time to learn from it and move on.

Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:48 am to
Posted by Old & Wise Tiger
Slidell
Member since Aug 2004
60 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:48 am to
I know nothing about the law up front.

A state just sued and a federal judge says they have standing over immigration laws in the country. Doesn't this by default make sanctuary cities unlawful. if a state has standing over immigration laws don't they have a duty to enforce them
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22072 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:49 am to
quote:

Jjdoc


If it's your assertion that it can only be a Muslim ban by affirmatively saying "no Muslims" rather than by saying "only religious minorities will be let in from these countries" (which just so happen to be Muslim-majority) then you're pretty slow.
Posted by BestBanker
Member since Nov 2011
17558 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:49 am to
quote:


It's a dipping toes in the water ban of the group.



You're absurd. What does this even mean?!

Eta: I'm going to add use of the term, unhinged, for you.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 9:50 am
Posted by Ag Zwin
Member since Mar 2016
20227 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:50 am to
quote:

Where it bans citizens from Muslim-majority countries and includes a specific exception for religious minorities...in Muslim-majority countries.

This country has always held out asylum as an option for religiously persecuted refugees. This is nothing new. We have also done it for political refugees.

So, yes, Muslims are indeed affected here, and it is because they are Muslim. That is NOT the same thing as saying this order was written to TARGET Muslims. If we had a similar order against refugees from Greece, would that make us anti-Orthodox?

This is where the left loses the logic argument. Just because a group is more negatively impacted by a ruling or law, and that impact is due to their belonging to a suspect class, DOES NOT mean that this ruling or law was enacted to target them. Saying that it is is only more examples of trying to be cast as a victim.

Disproportionate outcome does not EQUATE to targeted implementation. If you think it does, you have bad logic skills.
Posted by STEVED00
Member since May 2007
22404 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:50 am to
Actually I think what he is saying is that it can't be a Muslim ban if will still let the overwhelming majority of them into our country.

Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41870 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:53 am to
It's not over. Stay tuned for more winning.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22072 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:53 am to
quote:

Muslims are indeed affected here, and it is because they are Muslim.


And that's why it's illegal and will be struck down.
Posted by germandawg
Member since Sep 2012
14135 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:04 am to
quote:

Where it bans citizens from Muslim-majority countries and includes a specific exception for religious minorities...in Muslim-majority countries.

Are you pretending you don't understand this, or are you really that slow?





It is the basic requirement for following a cult....pretending reality is not what it is. Anyone who suggests that the travel ban is simply a ban on anyone from those countries and that the majority religion of those countries has nothing to do with it is either lying or insane. Of course it is a Muslim ban....that is how it was sold originally and how it was sold just a few days ago until the idiots found out you couldn't do that as easily as banning immigration for everyone.


You have to understand that the majority of people on the right are dishonest and the proof is in their pretending to believe in fairy tales and magic (only an insane adult truly believes in such shite). Once they openly embrace that lie it is all to easy for them to accept any lie that makes them warm and fuzzy.

The left is not immune to this either. There are plenty of lying motherfrickers on the left who pretend they believe in God so they will be accepted by whoever they are seeking acceptance from. Deep down though, left and right, if you ain't crazy enough to strap a bomb to your arse and detonate it in a marketplace you aren't crazy enough to be a true believer....'cause a motherfricker who can be lead to believe that a God wants them to do such a thing is devout....sane people would say WTF????? and as such aren't really believers because they aren't insane
Posted by Lou Pai
Member since Dec 2014
28200 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:04 am to
quote:


If it's your assertion that it can only be a Muslim ban by affirmatively saying "no Muslims" rather than by saying "only religious minorities will be let in from these countries" (which just so happen to be Muslim-majority) then you're pretty slow.


See, BamaSJW, there is historical precedent for this (P-2 program used for Jews, Christians in the USSR, etc.). There is also international precedent, as other Western countries have called for the prioritization of Christians in Syria and Iraq, as many of them are victims of religious genocide.

You're a sick frick.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 10:06 am
Posted by BestBanker
Member since Nov 2011
17558 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:06 am to
Kuwait says good morning.
Posted by FutureRATeammember
Member since Jan 2015
3769 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:09 am to
There are 5 pillars to us law granting refugee status to foreign born people. They are persecution based on religion, race, nationality, and I forget the other two.

My point, it's US law to give prefetence to persecuted religous minorities, not trumps eo. The law was written this way after the holocaust.

Some Of yall don't even relize your own ignorance.
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
73531 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:11 am to
quote:

wanting lower taxes


Well, I'd like to think everyone wants this.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22072 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:11 am to
quote:

Well, I'd like to think everyone wants this.


I'm okay with paying a bit more to help benefit my fellow man, but I understand that's not the majority opinion here...
Posted by Ag Zwin
Member since Mar 2016
20227 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:15 am to
quote:

And that's why it's illegal and will be struck down.


Honest question, and I am trying to understand a key point in your position.

Are you saying that the very fact that Muslims are more negatively impacted is why it should be shut down? The legal analogy here is called "strict liability". If that is your position, I would ask you to do a quick Google on this term (if you are not already familiar with it) just so we can be on the same page. No snarkiness intended. Just an important logic construct.

Or, are you saying that the EO itself was conceived and drafted to target ALL Muslims, regardless of whether they are indeed radicalized jihadists?



For the record, I am one of those that believe even the radicalized jihadists are not truly Muslim warriors. I believe the vast majority are manipulated and brainwashed into believing they are acting in the name of Allah, and this has been by leaders who see this brainwashing as a means to a political end. Think Charles Manson.

Do Islam and the Koran pave a path for the "Infidel"-shrieking zealots to rampage on Allah's behalf? Yes. Does the Old Testament (and, by extension, the Torah)? Yes. You can find whatever you want in both books to justify either peace or rage. I have known and spoken to Muslims in several countries that disavow all this and can sit with you all day and discuss the intersections of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. In and of themselves, none of these faiths are founded in killing the others. They have been bastardized by evil people with political aims, just the same as with the Inquisition and the Crusades. I realize this will set some Christians off, but so be it. I am a Christian, too, with a sister-in-law that lived with us while she got her Ph.D. in Old Testament studies. We talk about this stuff a lot. Doesn't make me any kind of expert, but I can look at it dispassionately enough to be honest about the history and motivations of hijacked faith.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 10:18 am
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
111802 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:17 am to
quote:

I'm okay with paying a bit more to help benefit my fellow man, but I understand that's not the majority opinion here...


Feel free to donate a bit more.

You won't because you're a giant hypocrite who wants to virtue signal.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
111802 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:18 am to
quote:

I am trying to understand a key point in your position.


I'll help you. Immigration bans by Republicans are racist and xenophobic. Immigration bans by Democratics are pragmatic and realistic.
Posted by shinerfan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
22710 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:20 am to
quote:

There are only so many cases any one state atty general can fight. Force these law fare goons to file lawsuit after lawsuit. Break their wills and their budgets. Tie the ACLU up in knots.



Good morning, Mr. Alinsky.





(Not criticism, his tactics were sound.)
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 10:21 am
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22072 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:23 am to
quote:

Feel free to donate a bit more.


I donate my time, my talents, and my treasure quite a bit. Can't really say the same for Trump, can we?
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
111802 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:24 am to
quote:

I donate my time, my talents, and my treasure quite a bit. Can't really say the same for Trump, can we?


I'll guarantee you don't give 5% of your gross income to charity. Your talents exist only in your fetid imagination.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22072 posts
Posted on 2/4/17 at 10:24 am to
quote:

Are you saying that the very fact that Muslims are more negatively impacted is why it should be shut down?


No, I'm saying that it was written in such a way to specifically target a specific religion in these 7 countries and bar them from entry, in direct opposition to the INA of 1968.

first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram