Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 655 of 993 (799485)
02-10-2017 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by Faith
02-10-2017 1:32 PM


Re: One Conservative Opinion
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 1:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 661 of 993 (799493)
02-10-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 659 by NoNukes
02-10-2017 3:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 3:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 662 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 4:08 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 665 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 4:31 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 679 of 993 (799516)
02-10-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by bluegenes
02-10-2017 4:42 PM


Re: Let's have apostate immigration
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:
"A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews." Ante, at 5. The yarmulke tax would not become less of a tax on Jews if the taxing authorities really did wish to burden the wearing of yarmulkes. And the fact that many Jews do not wear yarmulkes--like the fact that many women do not seek abortions--would not prevent a finding that the tax--like petitioners' blockade--targeted a particular class.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by bluegenes, posted 02-10-2017 4:42 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 688 of 993 (799527)
02-10-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 683 by Rrhain
02-10-2017 7:02 PM


PC
Hint: "Political correctness" was coined to describe the right, Faith, not the left.
Pretty sure it was coined against the Communists.
quote:
I first heard the phrase "politically correct" in the late 1940s and early 1950s in reference to the political debates between Socialists and members of the United States Communist Party (CP). These debates were an everyday occurrence in my neighborhood in the Bronx until the McCarthy committee and HUAC silenced political talk on the streets. Members of the CP talked about current party doctrine as the "correct" line for the moment. During World War II, the Hitler-Stalin pact caused many CP members considerable pain and often disgrace on my block, which was all Jewish and mostly Socialist. The "correct" position on Stalin's alliance with Hitler was considered to be ridiculous, a betrayal of European Jewry as well as Socialist ideas. The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in equalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.
--Herbert Kohl
source
Perhaps you are aware of an earlier use?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 7:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 8:53 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 717 of 993 (799592)
02-11-2017 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by ringo
02-11-2017 11:16 AM


Re: jurisdiction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by ringo, posted 02-11-2017 11:16 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 1:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 721 of 993 (799638)
02-12-2017 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by ringo
02-12-2017 1:22 PM


Re: jurisdiction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 1:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by ringo, posted 02-12-2017 1:53 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 778 of 993 (802029)
03-11-2017 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by NoNukes
03-10-2017 11:02 PM


Re: It looks like five States will now sue
You do not mention the much-discussed 8 U.S. Code 1182(f)
Rrhain did, in fairness say:
quote:
It seemed to think that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 hadn't been altered by the Act of 1965.
1182(f) was enacted as part of the 1952 act.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2017 11:02 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 779 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2017 11:23 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024