|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Infowars commentator says the court simply usurped the role of the President; the law is crystal clear that the power is the President's. Some person said what you said. Excellent analysis.
Another commentator at Infowars is saying the Constitution itself defines the jurisdiction of the President as covering immigration and national security, another fact that puts the court in the wrong. Some other person already said something else you said. Well that helps a lot!
I give these reports as a public service to information-challenged liberals/leftists. Thanks, I hadn't realized other people were saying some things. I thought it was just you. Opinions are all well and good. It's only useful and interesting if it is backed up with some kind of reasoning. Is this in Trump's power? What gives him that power? Why do the alleged constraints on his power not constrain this action?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I find it hilarious that you aren't sure exactly what the conservative reasoning is, but you are sure that you will agree with it once you find it. Who acts like that? Classic liberal lies. Clearly Faith is looking for something that she agrees with so that she can call it Truly Conservative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
They could just ban all religions if it can be reasonably demonstrated that more than 25% of adherents believe in the killing of apostates. It'd be safer to ban all social and political groups that do this, rather than 'religions'. But sure - this could be *tried*.
Effectively singling out Islam without doing so technically. The courts are aware of de facto vs de jure. They often rule that 'de facto' illegal discrimination is still discrimination. Antonin Scalia famously declared, for instance:
quote: As Faith might point out, Mohammed was a religious terrorist in his later life. So what does that make the followers? Mohammad's actions aren't really relevant for three reasons: 1. Modern day Muslims are not members of Mohammad's supposed terrorist organisation. 2. One has to be aware that the organisation one belongs to is a terrorist organisation. ("unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;") 3. Islam has not been declared a terrorist organisation.
Many of the Islamic attacks have been committed by people who are not members of "terrorist organisations", unless following Mohammed counts. So what? Almost all Muslims are not covered in section h of US Code 1182. If the US wants to change the law, they can go right ahead and do that. But until Islam is declared either a terrorist organisation or a social group that promotes terrorism - my point stands.
You'd never ban any group on that basis, unless it was very small. Most neo Nazis aren't murderers. What percentage of the modern KKK have actually lynched someone? Neo Nazis and the KKK are permitted entry into the US, as far as I'm aware.
The thing is, about the threat to life angle, how many lives does that mean? It's not quantified, any given argument is judged on its merits.
You could probably find interesting prison stats from here in the U.K. I'm sure you could. About 50% of them are Christian. (all these numbers are self-declared)About 15% are Muslim. About 60% of the UK are Christian.5% are Muslim. But what does that tell us? That Muslims are more likely to commit crime because of their religious views? Or that Muslims are more likely to be socio-economically deprived? That they get stopped and searched more regularly than non-Muslims? That first and second immigrants of any group have disproportionate offenders amongst them for a variety of reasons not related to their religion?
Not a right wing source But that, surely, is discrimination "because of the religion alone". If certain types of killing are amongst the tenets and historical practices of a specific religion, they are part of it. No, since the actions are not the religion. If you were discriminating based on actions, it is not on the basis of religion alone. Religion is just beliefs. Actions are actions. If the specific religion espoused terrorist actions, it would be the espousing of terrorist actions that justifies the discrimination.
Mohammed would be on the banned list, if he was still around. But not those, apparently, who are members of his organisation. If we're going to play this game, I'll simply retort that like Jesus - I doubt Mohammed would recognize many people today as actually following the religion as he understood it. If he was here today, and acted in the way you think is problematic - then only people that were in his actual organisation would be banned. It would be absurd to include Abdolkarim Soroush in this ban, unless he completely reversed all of his views and joined this hypothetical Mohammed's modern day organisation of terrorism. Of course, present INA laws aside - Mohammed, being from modern day Saudi Arabia, would not be covered by Trump's Executive Order
No. More like "have killed" and "are killing", as a group. Well shit, as an atheist and a Briton - I'm guilty of lots of questionable acts of killing too. Good old guilt by association, eh? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Hint: "Political correctness" was coined to describe the right, Faith, not the left. Pretty sure it was coined against the Communists.
quote: source Perhaps you are aware of an earlier use?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you do act beyond what is reasonable you may be able to mitigate your sentence by demonstrating that 'he started it' or 'I lost my temper and couldn't control myself' etc But you're still guilty of assault or worse.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Provocation is mitigatory.Self-defence is exculpatory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Since provocation is an integral part of a self-defence claim, the two can not be separated. Sorry, I thought you were having a legal argument, not a semantic one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You do not mention the much-discussed 8 U.S. Code 1182(f) Rrhain did, in fairness say:
quote: 1182(f) was enacted as part of the 1952 act.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024