Trump

[Mike]

[Ronster]

I would dare to politely disagree about the lawfulness or unconstitutionality of the recent Executive Orders. Here's why:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Source: 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

[Mike]

You are absolutely correct there, however under American law, intent makes a huge difference. If it can be shown that this action was purely motivated by concern for American safety, then it is absolutely lawful and proper.

On the other hand, during the campaign, Trump specifically promised that he would work to ban Muslims from entering this country. He talked about banning Muslims and said he might be in favor of religious tests and loyalty tests. Those are his words... on record... on video. The advisers who helped him put the order together are on record as saying that they are in favor of banning Muslims from our country. Rudi Guilliani has also said (on the record... on video...) that Trump called him and said, "Rudi, I want to do a Mulsim ban. Show me how I can do it 'legally'." Guilliani explained how he helped shift the focus from religion to safety in order to make it legal.

So if it can be shown that the intent of this was simply finding a way to ban Muslims, and it wasn't really about the safety issues that the administration claims, then the justification you state above no longer applies, and this is absolutely unlawful and unconstitutional.

[poorpete]

We'll see how this goes through the courts. But religious persecution is against the Constitution, and the Constitution trumps US Code.

[TheMaster]

I (and many others) are perfectly fine with banning Muslims from the USA. Banning them is in the best interest of our country and the safety of it. No, not all Muslims are terrorist or even bad citizens, but it has been shown time and time again that most (if not all) terrorist ARE Muslim. If Christians were running around killing people in the name of Jesus, I sure would hope someone would start looking at us (Christians) more closely. Even to go as far as banning them from entering the country. It isn't about religion, country, or color, it is about the safety of this country. We can not knowingly separate the good Muslims from the Bad Muslims, But we can effectively separate all Muslims. And until we can decipher the Good from the bad, this is the best we can do. That is all Trump is doing. trying to figure out a way to separate the two.

[Mike]

Doesn't matter who's fine with it if it's illegal. I'm fine with me not paying taxes. The government has other ideas.

Christians HAVE run around this country killing people in the name of their version of Jesus. It has happened regularly throughout my lifetime. (killings at abortion clinics, Oklahoma City, etc). But we never decided as nation to restrict the rights of all Christians to protect the nation. We decided to hate extremism and target extremists.

[akiva]

[TheMaster]

White Males are profiled. Every race and nationality is. It is how they catch bad guys. There are profiles based on LOADS of different things. Look at any Criminal Minds Episode and you will see that. (I know this is based off a fictional show, but they are using REAL science and psychology)

[Mike]

There's a difference between professional psychological criminal profiling and the generic "racial profiling" of treating all members of a group differently because of a personal belief that they are more likely to be criminals. You shouldn't confuse the two, and you certainly shouldn't take your cues from TV procedurals. Because I guarantee that no matter what crime investigation show you are watching... it doesn't work like that AT ALL.

[Ronster]

[poorpete]

[TheMaster]

Oh, you're right. That only happens in Saudi Arabia. Our bad. Continue on with your echo chamber.

[Mike]

[Mike]

And please, if we can refrain from arguing in sound bites and "gotchas". I like when we make points and provide evidence for those points, without resorting to insults.

[poorpete]

Apologize for the gotchaness of my statement.

OK, here's the breakdown

On Advocate's and Trump's list
Iran
Iraq
Somalia
Sudan
Yemen

On Advocate List, not on Trump's:
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Mauritania
United Arab Emirates

On Trump's list, not on Advocate's list
Libya
Syria

I want safety for all LGBT, in our country and internationally, and don't understand how keeping people seeking refuge in our country assists that.

Nice to see The Advocate also has a whole section on the Resistance. http://www.advocate.com/resistance

As for echo chamber, I knew Saudi Arabia was not on the list, and that Saudi Arabia has terrible rights for LGBT and women and Christians and Jews and... So I said something about it. When I've heard Saudi Arabia mentioned lately about the muslim ban it's in terms of "the 9-11 attackers were from there" and "they have oil." But arguing that is arguing for an additional nation to be added, not that, in my opinion, the whole muslim ban is inhumane, no matter who is and isn't included.

Question, big assumption, that in ~115 days these restrictions will be lifted, what exactly will have changed? Will the background checks be extra extra vigorous? Is there evidence that they are doing an honest review?

[akiva]

[TheMaster]

I have no hate in my heart for any human. Nothing impairs my thoughts towards a person, apart from action. This EO by Trump is only a Stop Gap Measure that is meant to give us time. It would be my desire that nothing bad ever happens anywhere, but, in reality, it cant be done (at this time). We have to keep Americans first. We are not a Nation without a boarder. We cant have a border if we just let anyone in. When we can figure out a way to keep our boarders secure from the threats from those nations (that came from Obama), then we can open them back up. If a year from now Trump still has a ban on these countries (or possibly more) with no end in sight, I promise you that I will be marching and protesting right beside you.

[poorpete]

I'm extremely skeptical that there was thought beyond fear and racism that went into this order, and that the result of this will be a more humane and safe immigration system, but I'll be very very happy to be wrong.

[Mike]

We DON’T let just anyone in. We have the strictest vetting process of any nation in the world. Even these refugees that so many people worry about have to go through at least two years of paperwork and heartache before we let them in. Who is slipping through those cracks that you are so worried about? Where are the people from these seven nations who have committed or tried to commit attacks on our country in the years since we stepped up our vetting process.

Seriously, we are the hardest western nation in the world to get into already. What danger does this added step protect us from, and is it worth all that we trade for it in international goodwill, lost talent, lost trade, not to mention our national character in becoming a nation that refuses to help the neediest people of the world out of fear.

Cars kill tens of thousands of people each year. We don't ban them, because they are so useful. Guns kill tens of thousands of Americans each year. We don't ban them, because guns have valuable uses and are part of our American culture and character. Tobacco kills how many? Dogs kill 20 Americans a year, and we don't ban them. Foreign refugees are responsible for less than 10 American deaths per year. Far less than are killed by American citizens... even per capita citizens kill more people than refugees. So what are we gaining, and at what cost?

Do we as a nation seriously value the contributions of dogs more than that of immigrants? What if we had felt that way when YOUR people hopped on a boat to find a better life in America?

[Eliahad]

This video sums up my feelings on immigration:



We are creating hardship for people that do not deserve hardship for any other reason that they come from a country and worship a God that our current president does not believe in. (I do not believe he believes in any God, but I have no proof of that.) If he were truly trying to protect us, why is the ban not extended to those countries where those that have caused harm on our soil actually come from? In addition... How is this travel ban going to prevent those who actually wish us harm from harming us? They will find different ways.