quote:Islam itself is ideologically terrorist. Period.
The last time a conservative blowhard said, "Period," after their emphatic statement, it was an obvious and blatant lie.
Are you sure you want to join him, Faith?
Because what you said is a lie.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
My understanding is that it dates back to at least Marx referring to the political positions of the establishment.
But at any rate, the meaning is clear: The staking out of a position for the political cachet it gives regardless of the actual belief or concurrence with that position. Your reference says as much. It is what allows conservatives to vote against their own interests such as those who are now seeing that Trump really is trying to take away their health insurance, that the tax system in Kansas is actually destroying the state, etc. Because to do otherwise would mean they are "liberal" and it would be politically incorrect to be "liberal."
In current usage by conservatives, it is usually a signal that the person is about to or has just said something they know to be stupid and cruel and are upset that they are getting called out on it. For example, it used to be OK to use racial slurs in "polite company." Now, it is somehow "politically correct" to refrain from doing so. It is based upon the idea that we all really want to "say the truth" but are somehow "stifled" due to the blowback for saying such things. It is used to suggest that those who would find such things bigoted are hypocrites...that they know that such disparagement is "true" and cannot handle the political fallout of being seen as bigoted.
It never occurs to them that that position is the "politically correct" viewpoint. It is a prime example of the irony of the modern conservative viewpoint: To fight against bigotry is to engage in bigotry against bigots. To fight oppression is to oppress the oppressors. To denounce unfairness is to be unfair to those who deny equality. We see this, for example, in the complaints of those who seek to deny marriage equality. They insist that somehow they are being denied their right to treat gay couples as less than...as if they ever had that right in the first place.
Now, indeed, they were able to disparage gay couples and not get any blowback from society at large. The laws did allow for disparate treatment based upon sexual orientation. But, the law has changed and now those actions are no longer allowed, both legally as well as societally. The same people who insist that being unable to deny services to gay couples is "oppression" would seemingly blanch at the idea of denying those same services to racial minorities.
The "political correctness" is clear: They don't like being thought of as racist and thus they cannot accept racist behaviour. But, they don't mind being thought of as homophobic and somehow feel themselves put upon for not being allowed to express such bigotry openly with no consequences. They don't actually understand the position of anti-bigotry. The political consequences of being seen as racist are more dire than of being seen as homophobic. Thus, they decry the "political correctness" of not being able to make gay people's lives miserable while not understanding this means their disdain of racism is just as "politically correct."
The escape, of course, is to understand that the two go together. To discriminate against people is bad. The attempt to seek out a justification for treating people poorly is the problem. We don't use slurs on the basis of race or sex or sexual orientation or religion or national origin etc. out of some sense of political fear but because we understand that it is morally wrong to do so. We wouldn't want it done to us, so we don't get to do it to others. We don't treat others poorly because it is wrong to do so. We wouldn't want it done to us, so we don't get to do it to others.
The idea that "political correctness" is a lefty attempt at suppressing conservative thought is nothing but a massively ironic use of political correctness by the right. Conservatives seem to have a desperate need for the "safe space" they so deride in those they see as "liberal." They want to be allowed to express their views without comment and treat others as they see fit without consequences.
The irony is astounding.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Very much so a lie. You are engaging in the logical error of a double standard.
quote:109 verses in the Koran calling for fighting and killing for Allah
And even more so in the Bible.
Deuteronomy 17:
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
There are 90 admonitions to kill in Deuteronomy alone. God routinely orders people to kill those who don't believe.
"But that's the Old Testament!" I hear you cry. The hypocrisy in that statement alone disqualifies it, but let's not pretend that the New Testament doesn't also call for the death of apostates:
Galatians:
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
And Luke:
19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
If you are going to claim that "Islam itself is ideologically terrorist," then you are going to have to claim that Christianity is profoundly more so.
The mere threat of condemning someone to hell simply for not believing is, in and of itself, terrorism. Your god is ideologically a terrorist, Faith.
quote:iif jihadist actions all over the world today don't convince you.
And the Christian jihad doesn't count why? We called it the "Crusades" for a reason.
I think the Native Americans will have something to say about Christian methods of "converting" people to Christianity.
The Inquisition really did happen.
The Irish "Troubles" really did happen.
And at the risk of Godwinning out: The Holocaust really did happen. And carried out by Christians.
Thus, you show your double standard.
And thus, your claim is a lie. In order for it to be true, then you necessarily claim that the 2 billion Muslims in the world are all terrorists based upon your interpretation of verses you have never read (let's be honest, Faith...you haven't read the Koran. I have.) But somehow, those very same admonitions to kill apostates that are found in Christianity don't automatically condemn the 2 billion Christians in the world as being terrorists.
Because...?
Oh, that's right. Because *you're* a Christian and it would violate your political correctness to consider the terrorist activities that you support. Because only brown people are terrorists.
Textbook political correctness.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Re: PC in America is Cultural Marxism and an attack on freedom of speech
Faith responds to me:
quote:Political Correctness" has a well-established application, referring to Leftist/Marxist/Communist ideology, which is formulaic, canned, pedantic, and used to intimidate.
So when conservatives do it, it doesn't count? When they carry out their formulaic, canned, pedantic actions used to intimidate others, it doesn't count? Citizens of countries where Fascism took over experienced what it means as they had no freedom to speak without worry about who was listening and what consequences they might have to endure from the state if they happened to say something that could be construed to be against the state or Fascist doctrine.
That was always the context. The use of "political correctness" by the right has always been a smokescreen to distract from their own political correctness. It's why people such as yourself complain about "cultural Marxism" as if that were a real thing. It's why people such as yourself cannot handle the fact that the mission of universities is to challenge your way of thinking so that you can understand why you think the way that you do. Instead, you seek them to become politically correct and refuse to allow any questioning of the formulaic, canned, pedantic dogma coming out of conservative spokespeople.
My god, Faith, you just admitted here that you don't know what to think about the Muslim ban until a conservative tells you what to think.
Look at your reaction here: In response to your actions being accurately described as racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on, your response is to declare all such discussion to be "politically correct" rather than to engage in actual debate.
And it is for the precise effect that you are decrying: To shut people up who don't agree with your fascist agenda. Say the wrong thing to you and you scowl and upbraid us for our "sensitivity." Happens every time you post, happens every time whenever you encounter a liberal opinion. It's what is operating right now to keep you from even mentioning the problems that Europe actually has with terrorism. Hint: It's right-wing terrorism that is the largest source of terrorism in Europe...but what would Interpol know about terrorism, right? They're a bunch of Socialists, right? But no, they can't talk about it for fear of being branded "politically correct" and forced to resign.
Modern conservatism is nothing but an exercise in political correctness.
Take DOMA, for example. To hear conservatives tell the story, this was something that was carried out by Democrats. But that conveniently ignores the actual voting.
Indeed, DOMA would not have passed if the Democrats had all voted against it. And indeed, it was signed by a Democratic President.
But who voted against it? Out of all the Republicans in Congress, how many voted against it?
That's right: One.
Steven Gunderson of Wisconsin.
The gay one.
So yes, the majority of Democrats voted for it...but only Democrats voted against it.
Take a look at the ACA.
Not a single Republican voted for it.
Even though it is the Heritage Foundation's plan from when the Republicans suggested it in the 90s and that Romney implemented in Massachusetts to good effect (such that he campaigned on it).
But because Democrats were now supporting it, it was the devil incarnate. To the point that they lied about it ("death panels"? "rationing"?)
Modern conservatism is nothing but political correctness. There is nothing similar on liberalism. It is all a conservative invention.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Did you bother to read my post, Faith? Here it is again, since you ignored it the first time.
Deuteronomy 17:
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
There are 90 admonitions to kill in Deuteronomy alone. God routinely orders people to kill those who don't believe.
"But that's the Old Testament!" I hear you cry. The hypocrisy in that statement alone disqualifies it, but let's not pretend that the New Testament doesn't also call for the death of apostates:
Galatians:
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
And Luke:
19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Are you saying those passages don't exist in the Bible?
Is lying for Jesus not a sin? And since that last passage is supposed to be something that Jesus said, is lying about Jesus for Jesus not a sin?
quote:Bible descriptions of violence do not address readers.
So when Deuteronomy 17 says that those people are to be put to death, it doesn't mean they're supposed to die? That's strange because it directly tells who is supposed to carry out the killing:
17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
The Bible directly orders people to kill.
Simply for not believing in the Bible's god.
It's like you've never actually read the Bible, Faith. It's like you let someone else tell you what it says.
How Catholic of you...pre-Vatican II, of course.
quote:The Inquisition was CATHOLIC
And Catholics are Christian.
Of course, since Martin Luther wouldn't be born until a couple centuries after the Crusades, it's not surprising that you don't find many Protestants involved.
It hadn't been invented yet.
It's like you don't know anything about your own religious history, Faith. It's like you let someone else tell you what it is.
How Catholic of you.
it KILLED PREDOMINANTLY BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS.
And that simply isn't true. Well, it isn't true if we're taking your logic. The Crusades were primarily for the retaking of the Holy Lands from the Muslims, but it had a secondary attempt to conquer the Eastern Church.
You know...those Orthodox.
But by your logic, they're not Christians. If Catholics aren't Christian, then neither are Orthodox.
quote:I guess you just don't read much around here do you?
The irony is strong in you, isn't it?
You literally didn't read my post and are complaining about reading comprehension?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:The PC is thick on this very thread, aimed against me, who else?
You're the one laying on the political correctness thick and meaty as if you would die without it.
If you don't like having your comments analyzed and commented upon, perhaps you should reconsider what and where you are saying it. If you prefer, perhaps you should find a "safe space" where you can be the "special snowflake" you know you are lest you get "triggered" by having a differing opinion presented to you.
The irony is strong in you, isn't it?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:I'm sorry, I've answered this stuff so many times I'm just weary of it.
No, you haven't. You may have written words after clicking the "Reply" button, but you have never "answered" this stuff. That requires actually reading the material and making a logical response that has something to do with the argument that was presented to you rather than going off on tangents and responding to things you wish had been said but never were.
And it most certainly requires that you actually read what the other person wrote.
So once again, I ask you directly:
Are you saying that Deuteronomy 17 doesn't exist? Galatians 1 doesn't exist? The Bible routinely directs people to kill others for any number of offenses...one of which is simply not believing in god. The New Testament routinely admonishes entire towns and condemns them for destruction for having the temerity to turn away those that would preach Jesus.
It's part of the reason why the groups who commit most acts of terrorism in the United States and Europe are right-wing groups. They are religiously motivated to kill in the name of god.
quote: The Bible passages are HISTORY.
Two problems:
First, the Bible is piss-poor history.
Second, you're making a double-standard. Somehow the Bible gets a pass when it commands people to kill in the name of god but the Koran does not.
quote: It is not talking to the reader of the Bible
It most certainly is. Not one jot, not one tittle of the Law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.
Has all been fulfilled? If not, then you are still bound by the Law.
Perhaps that's the problem: The world did end, this is hell, and that's why you're so cranky.
quote:t is an instruction for the elders of Israel to apply to specific circumstances.
Nope. It is instruction for all to apply to any circumstance they may find themselves in. That's what Jesus keeps saying. Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.
quote:Deuteronomy is also instruction to ancient Israel.
Just as I predicted:
"But that's the Old Testament!" I hear you cry. The hypocrisy in that statement alone disqualifies it, but let's not pretend that the New Testament doesn't also call for the death of apostates:
Galatians:
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
And Luke:
19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Are you saying those passages don't exist in the Bible?
Is lying for Jesus not a sin? And since that last passage is supposed to be something that Jesus said, is lying about Jesus for Jesus not a sin?
You need to read the posts you're responding to before you respond, Faith. Otherwise, you look like a fool.
quote: NO, THE BIBLE DOES NOT ORDER ANYONE TO KILL.
Except it does...which you would remember if you had actually read my post:
So when Deuteronomy 17 says that those people are to be put to death, it doesn't mean they're supposed to die? That's strange because it directly tells who is supposed to carry out the killing:
17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
The Bible directly orders people to kill.
Simply for not believing in the Bible's god.
It's like you've never actually read the Bible, Faith. It's like you let someone else tell you what it says.
How Catholic of you...pre-Vatican II, of course.
Are you saying Deuteronomy 17:7 doesn't exist?
The Koran DOES give instructions TO THE READER, to attack and kill people NOW.
As does the Bible. And much more frequently. It's part of the reason that the groups who perform the most acts of terrorism in the United States and Europe are right-wing Christians.
quote: You could learn something if you took what I'm saying seriously.
All I have learned is that you don't actually read before responding. If you took this conversation seriously, you could learn something.
All you are doing is regurgitating bigoted dogma.
The irony is strong in you.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:I guess it was on the other thread that I acknowledged your information and thanked you for it.
You haven't apologized for your repeated ignorance of the state of things regarding the Trump administration and immigration policy.
And did you just argue that because you acknowledged a fact on another thread, that should have no bearing on your posts in this one? Things are only true on the thread that they are posted on? Trump is in charge of ICE in the other thread but Obama's still in charge here?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:the Supreme Court precedent is that laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act are constitutional.
Technically true, but misleading. The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943 and the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 did away with national origin quotas.
The Executive does not have the authority to override the Legislature.
As was pointed out in the Washington case, one does not need to discriminate against everyone in order to be guilty of discrimination. The choice of the specific countries is not connected to the justification given for why they should be restricted. Given that Trump specifically campaigned upon a ban on Muslims and specifically contacted Giuliani on how one could carry out a Muslim ban, given that the Department of Homeland Security report indicates that the countries chosen have no connection to terrorism and that such a ban on those countries would be counterproductive, given Trump's financial interests in neighboring countries that are not on the list, given that Iraq was taken off the list because it threatened to retaliate in kind and thus impact the financial interests of American contractors, the spirit and effect of the order cannot be overlooked.
It's a Muslim ban.
It's very much like the Dover claim: The creationists insisted that because they did not use the word "creationism," that somehow means that "intelligent design" isn't creationism. Because they never identify the "intelligent designer" as "god," that means it isn't religion. And yet, we all know it is. And it's still unconstitutional.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:The idea that we can't discriminate against NONCITIZENS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY on the basis of anything we like, including "religion" is crazeeeeee.
Someone hasn't read the Constitution, apparently.
Your right to "due process" is guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, let's not play dumb and pretend that means that an Italian can refer to the US Constitution when filing a claim against the Italian government. No, it means that when dealing with the US government, they are entitled to due process.
And that is precisely what the Muslim ban denies.
Your libel against Islam is noted, by the way.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:Not misleading at all. There is clearly an enabling statute that gives the president the power to do ban anyone from any country from entering the US. The question is whether the Trump's EO is a constitutional application of that statute.
I don't deny that. But that isn't what we were talking about. It was specifically this statement:
the Supreme Court precedent is that laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act are constitutional.
That is true, but misleading because that Act no longer exists. The law you're talking about is something completely different. This is part of the problem with Trump's original EO: It seemed to think that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 hadn't been altered by the Act of 1965.
And it's precisely the same fight then in 1952 that we have today. Truman vetoed the Act, saying:
Today, we are "protecting" ourselves as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic. ... We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries—on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again....These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.
In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.
And remember, this was right after WWII and the Holocaust. We still couldn't understand the unmitigated evil of denying people freedom simply because we were scared.
But, Congress overrode the veto.
So, back to my point: It may be that the current Supreme Court, should it be presented with something like a "Muslim Exclusion Act" would fall back on precedent set by the Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889) case where they said:
the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution.
I personally think the religious aspects of this particular scenario would give them pause but in the end, that is irrelevant.
The law as it currently stands states that:
No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of nationality.
So even if it is constitutional to ban Muslims, the Executive doesn't have the power to do so because the law prohibits him from doing so. In order to do that, the Immigration and Nationality Act would need to be amended.
As I said: The Executive does not have the power to override the Legislature. That's precisely the same problem we had with Iran/Contra: The President did something that the law expressly forbade him doing.
quote:The reasons for not allowing Chinese folks to enter were about as odious as they come, which supports the conclusion that given an enabling statute, there is no Constitutional issue.
Again, irrelevant.
No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of nationality.
That's what the law is.
And despite what Nixon said, if the President does it, it's still illegal.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:But as I understand it from previous discussions of this point, that promise of due process is only for those already in the country.
Nope.
Now, I had already asked you nicely to please not play dumb and pretend that the due process protections of the US Constitution apply to people outside the US dealing with non-US governments.
And yet, here you are doing precisely that.
The promise of due process (mentioned in Amendments 5 and 14) is a right for all "persons." You will note that it does not restrict it to mere "citizens."
What this means is that any person that has any dealing such that they are subject to US jurisdiction...like...oh...I don't know...immigration...then they are entitled to due process.
We have a process for immigration. That process, then, requires the application of due process to those seeking to immigrate. And, of course, those seeking to immigrate would necessarily be non-citizens (since citizens don't "immigrate" to their own country).
The law as it is right now states:
No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of nationality.
Thus, if you are immigrating to the US and find that you are being discriminated against due to your nationality, you have a claim regarding due process.
It's like you don't understand what "due process" means.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
