|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Are any of the Admins going to do anything about Faiths constant lies and attacks on people who disagree with her?
I'm using the way that Faith behaves in this thread, as a kind of barometer on the way that core Trump supporters are thinking. Yes, I know she is only one person. But other indicators seem to suggest that what we are seeing here is similar enough to what other core supporters are saying. I think it is useful to have this kind of "barometer".Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That doesn't make them "entirely blameless" This discussion takes place within a context. That context was the kinds of crimes and associations that would warrant immediate exclusion from the visa or refugee acceptance process to the United States of America. If you want to strip it of the context of this discussion, then I would be surprised if you could find anybody who is 'entirely blameless'.
you don't need to shift from "almost all" to "most". It's not a shift of position, just a change of wording to avoid repetition, using different words in your argument is something you are surely used to when using English. "Almost all" Muslims, is as a matter fact 'most' Muslims. You seem to be looking for reasons to be pedantic, and it is utterly needless for the purposes of this debate.
If around 1/3 do believe that ex-Muslims should be put to death, that alone would give any western country reason for heavy vetting on immigration. And of course, heavy vetting is already in place, and is not the issue that is being complained about in the 'wacko liberal response'.
People can be both oppressors and oppressed. I was suggesting taking in those who don't support the oppressive ideology, rather than importing those who do. You can try - but it would be a problem if the details of your policy resulted in accepting visas of conservative Jews, who support oppressing women, Muslims and even other Jews, and Christians who support oppressing a variety of people. Hindus, Russians, and also atheists too, who may support oppressing groups in their own ways. That's when you've moved clearly into the religious discrimination territory. And if your policy does cover all of this, you might run into all sorts of other issues such as the amount of vetting required and the amount of people subject to this scrutiny becomes so onerous so as to be impractical and would likely have an impact on the economy that far outweighs the problems you were trying to overcome. One of the key problems we face with religious violence is education and culture. We can't do much about this, unless those people are within our sovereign jurisdiction.
I do, despite your efforts to import an ideology that wouldn't allow me to. I make no such efforts. I do however, want to help people fleeing warzones, even if I think they're social ideas and cultural notions are misguided or even wicked. I do want to show them an alternative way of living. Preferably I'd rather not have destabilized the region resulting in a huge amount of people fleeing, but we are where we are. I'd sooner help religious conservatives, even ultra-conservatives, live - than put their lives in mortal danger - because of political, cultural and philosophical disagreements and differences of opinion about how best to live.
I'd face legal challenges for having been born in the wrong country to be President, interestingly, considering the 1965 act. The INA doesn't say anything about being President. That's covered in the document that takes primacy over any law passed in the 60s - except the three amendments to that document passed in that time, which are irrelevant to this question.
And I'm sure that you're right on that. I might stand a good chance in France, though. When people make cases to French courts over Presidential actions you hypothetically take in France, you can bring it up then, I suppose.
I think what I started on was the point that the freedom of religion challenge to Trump is weak, but you may well agree with that. More than 'weak', you argued it could backfire in some fashion:
quote: quote: it isn't a simple case of 'religious discrimination is unconstitutional', it is only unconstitutional if it is done with insufficient reason. That is, because of a threat to other rights that take priority over religious ones.
I don't know if you got the impression that I was arguing in favour of Trump's directive as a good thing, but I wasn't. I just don't get your argument as to why the religious discrimination angle is problematic. My argument as to its weakness is because it doesn't de jure discriminate against Muslims and contains a disclaimer regarding 'as long as it is lawfully done'. Yours seems to be more on the grounds 'but we do discriminate against people'. But this doesn't hold water, it isn't just discrimination that is the strict issue, it's the nature and reasons for the discrimination. It is fine to imprison someone for sacrificing a human life to their blood god - this is well established in US law regarding balancing life and freedom. Just as there are constraints on the freedom of speech (such as causing panic with the the old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or incitement to violence). You haven't commented on this, which is in fact my main counterargument to your initial argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As for the main topic, I agree with you on some things. Like, for example, that sovereign governments should be able to deny entry to anyone they want to for whatever reason. Sovereign governments CAN deny entry to anyone they want for whatever reason. Pretty much by definition. The issue here is that Donald Trump is not a sovereign government. He is the head of a single branch of a government. And that sovereign government has instituted rules regulating what they and their agents can do with regards to accessing the United States. In summary - the President can only act within the powers he has through Congress, and whether or not he is so doing is decided by the judiciary. A rewrite of the INA, an amendment to the Constitution could both give him the power to exclude Muslims or gays or people that don't like Trump's hair - as long as the Judiciary declares it kosher given the state of the laws at that time. In short - the United States of America doesn't presently will the exclusion of gays or Muslims or Hindus or women or Chinese people. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: No comment on the topic? I am on the topic. No, the person, the poster, is not the topic.
I'm pointing out, in my own sweet way, that you have much more in common with people from the conservative religious cultures that you want to ban from entry than most people in this thread. Again, I, the poster, is not the topic. Also, that is a lie. Perhaps you don't know it is a lie but you should if you've followed anything I've said about Islam. It is false to compare Christianity with Islam in any way at all, even if there are superficial similarities. The religions are the exact opposite of each other in just about every way.
Faith writes: Just lies about me personally? What lies? You know how to quote, so why not do it? See above. Basically what you are suggesting is that I move to a country where I would be subjugated, subjected to violence and probably death. "Lie" may not be quite the right word for such a hateful suggestion. Of course I don't believe you had that in mind but you should have because that's the likely thing that would happen.
Faith writes:
Nothing to say about the video I posted perhaps, or any of the other references I gave in that same post? The guy making the video asks the wrong question. He should be asking why, if the Iraqi army had recently invaded America and killed a lot of people, might it be difficult for Iraqi soldiers to walk around an American town freely in the aftermath without being lynched. For the sake of answering that ridiculous idea I wish he had asked it in a way to clarify that too. But I suspect he KNEW the reason and it had nothing to do with anything that actually happened, it's about the ideology of jihad and he knew it. The problem is that you like so many others know nothing about the history of Islam so you project western attitudes on them. Except for their proclivity for beheading people they object to of course.
Faith writes:
I have walked around many Arabic towns, surrounded by Muslims, and I'm fine. But, unlike the marines, I was unarmed, and hadn't been involved in killing whole swathes of the local population.
I think you really should go visit that Iraqi town the Marine was talking about. I'm sure you'd enjoy it. I'm sure there are different towns in different parts of the Middle East and they differ from each other in their proclivity to violence against Americans. But I should have made it clear he's an ex-Marine who stayed in Iraq as a contractor. I saw a headline somewhere earlier that said he's been evacuated from the country because of death threats since the video. And the question he asked was how an AMERICAN would be treated, not a Marine.
BG writes: As for the main topic, I agree with you on some things. Like, for example, that sovereign governments should be able to deny entry to anyone they want to for whatever reason. Hooray.
However, if members of the population disagree, they've every right to campaign for change. That's fine with me, as long as it is done legally, and as long their "campaign" doesn't involve beating people up and breaking into buildings and setting fires.
I also think that the argument about Trump's directive being unconstitutional on the freedom of religion basis is probably wrong, but then I'm no expert on American law. You're right, it's wrong, and thanks.
I also think his ban is clumsy. I'd be much more interested if he actually did try to do what he said he would while campaigning, and temporarily ban all Muslims, not because I think that's a good idea, but because it would be interesting to see what happened then, constitutionally speaking. I don't have an opinion. I assumed he was doing whatever he COULD do to fulfill his promise.
If he did try it, it wouldn't last for long, for practical reasons. Remember, America does a hell of a lot of trade with the Muslim world, and Trump knows this, and he will not want to damage the U.S. economy. I don't know.
The rather futile gesture he has made may just be to please his voters, and you should be aware, Faith, that he may not really be interested in doing what you really want, just appearing to do something. I've had time to be convinced the man is sincere. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sovereign governments CAN deny entry to anyone they want for whatever reason. Pretty much by definition. The issue here is that Donald Trump is not a sovereign government. He is the head of a single branch of a government. And that sovereign government has instituted rules regulating what they and their agents can do with regards to accessing the United States. In summary - the President can only act within the powers he has through Congress, and whether or not he is so doing is decided by the judiciary. A rewrite of the INA, an amendment to the Constitution could both give him the power to exclude Muslims or gays or people that don't like Trump's hair - as long as the Judiciary declares it kosher given the state of the laws at that time. In short - the United States of America doesn't presently will the exclusion of gays or Muslims or Hindus or women or Chinese people. Trump was acting under a law that is about as simple and clear as it is possible to get, that gives the President, nobody else, the President alone, the power to restrict the entry of any alien or aliens as he -- he and only he -- determines the need for the sake of national security. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Trump was acting under a law that is about as simple and clear as it is possible to get, that gives the President, nobody else, the President alone, the power to restrict the entry of any alien or aliens as he -- he and only he -- determines the need for the sake of national security. That's basically what I said: The President has the power, but it is limited by the Constitution and the Legislature (for example INA 1965) and the interpretation of those limits is arbitrated by the Judiciary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's basically what I said: The President has the power, but it is limited by the Constitution and the Legislature (for example INA 1965) and the interpretation of those limits is arbitrated by the Judiciary. In the case of an established written law, it has already been through whatever input is legally required for a law to become law; there is no further input required. There is no further limit to be considered. The law says the President has the power, and that's it. No other input is required, and the attempts to interfere with his action are NOT Constitutional, they are illegal, serving only the narrow political interests of Leftist ideology. There is nothing to discuss about this. The law is simple and clear and all the interference is nothing but political obstruction, Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In the case of an established written law, it has already been through whatever input is legally required for a law to become law Well, yes.
there is no further input required This is, true. But further input can in fact occur. The Judiciary exists to check and balance the actions of the legislature. It is possible for the legislature to enact a law that is unlawful - for instance if it turned out to be unconstitutional.
The law says the President has the power, and that's it. In your opinion he has the power to do what he has done. Other people disagree. And its the Judiciary's role to arbitrate this disagreement and make a decision. This is the same system that Obama - and every President - existed under, and the courts did the same to one of Obama's immigration laws too.
No other input is required, and the attempts to interfere with his action are NOT Constitutional, they are illegal, serving only the narrow political interests of Leftist ideology. It is illegal to seek redress? It is illegal to appeal to the courts? It is unconstitutional to ask a judge for injunctive relief? What nonsense are you trying to pull here? Please cite your legal justification for your statement.
The law is simple and clear Which law? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Obama acted under the same law concerning the same nations. Objecting to Trump's action is just disgusting political obstructionism and all the hairsplitting talk talk talk about this that and the other only serves the same purpose. The law is clear. If the judiciary did not override it for Obama, to do so for Trump is just proof of their corruption and the demise of this nation if you ask me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Obama acted under the same law concerning the same nations. Sure, but the acts were different. Obama's action did not interfere, for example, with student visas. Trump's does. Obama's action didn't cover all people just BECAUSE they were from Iraq.
The law is clear. Is it?
quote: quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined: |
Soros is a billionaire Jew, no? One that you constantly accuse of paying people to do stuff that amounts to a conspiracy. Hence his 'Jew-gold'. Believing a specific Jew to be involved in conspiracies does not make anyone an anti-Semite. Using that belief to justify hatred against ALL Jews would. Dr A did not accuse you of the latter only the former. In other words, he didn't imply you are an anti-Semite, just a conspiracy loon.
The reason I find it so funny is that you only believe the half of the conspiracy that is against you. The Jew-spiracy holds that wealthy Jews control and command both sides of politics. But that doesn't suit your point of view, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And it is still a fact the George Soros was only born in 1930.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In the case of an established written law, it has already been through whatever input is legally required for a law to become law; That is not sufficient to tell us whether Trump's order is constitutional. Whether or not an application of a law is constitutional depends on the circumstances of the action taken under the law. It is certainly possible for some actions under the law to be constitutional while others are not. In particular, the argument here is that at least for some folks, (i.e. green card holders and folks returning to the country on a visa), that due process is required. Unless that specific issue has been litigated, then this particular application of the law has not been vetted. In general, with the exception of things like the first amendment, Courts do not have the jurisdiction to examine hypothetical constitutional violations. So no matter how long a law has been on the books, it is possible to enforce that law in ways that are unconstitutional. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Soros is a billionaire Jew, no? One that you constantly accuse of paying people to do stuff that amounts to a conspiracy. Hence his 'Jew-gold'. Believing a specific Jew to be involved in conspiracies does not make anyone an anti-Semite. Using that belief to justify hatred against ALL Jews would. Dr A did not accuse you of the latter only the former. In other words, he didn't imply you are an anti-Semite, just a conspiracy loon. The reason I find it so funny is that you only believe the half of the conspiracy that is against you. The Jew-spiracy holds that wealthy Jews control and command both sides of politics. But that doesn't suit your point of view, does it? Soros is well known among conservatives to be funding globalist and leftist politics. This has nothing to do with typical conspiracies about the Jews, this is specifically about Soros. What made the remark an accusation of anti-Semitism was that vulgar phrase: "Jew Gold." Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If it's just a matter of resolving the status of green card and visa holders why is it taking so long?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024