Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

So why were you lying?

He's had nineteen months to keep his promise that he'd release his tax returns if he ran for President. Keeping his promises doesn't seem to be high on his agenda.

Aww. One out of an amazing list of kept promises is your excuse to say such a false thing?

Well, when a man has spent nineteen consecutive months breaking a promise which he could keep by making a two-minute phone call, it is obvious that keeping promises as such is not something he cares about, and that if he does sometimes keep other promises it must be out of some other motive than fidelity to his word, which he could obviously not care less about.(In the same way if you could find a couple of women he hasn't slept with, that wouldn't prove that it's important to him to not commit adultery. Or if you could find a couple of people he hasn't swindled, that wouldn't prove that he cared about financial rectitude.)But do tell us, what has amazed you so much?

You neither know or care about the Constitution. Despite the fact that several judges have ruled otherwise, each providing their rationale, you have provided nothing but assertions to support your belief.You admit for other questions that doing research is too much trouble even when that research involves simply reading text at the same link you've posted. So why should anyone accept your position on Trump's ban?

The little-noticed bombshell in Trump's immigration order

quote:

---

But immigration lawyers who have read the order carefully are now increasingly concerned that one of its provisions could have much wider repercussions, affecting literally every foreign visitor to America, from tourists to diplomats.

​

The little-noticed section, appearing immediately after the travel ban, calls for the government to develop a uniform screening standard and procedure for all individuals seeking to enter the United States. As written, it appears to require all visitors to go through the same vetting measures, regardless of where they come from or how long they intend to stay.

​

If interpreted as broadly as it’s written, It would basically shut down tourism, said Stephen Legomsky, the former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Obama administration.

---

{emphasis added}Noting like running the country by the worst and the dumbest. [/quote]

The actual experts with years of experience and education who have been hired to determine those very things may very well disagree with you. As much as conservatives like to talk about adhering to the US Constitution, they sure seem to forget that it has a 3rd Article.As with many of these types of decisions, the EO has been suspended until its constitutionality can be determined, which is the right decision. It becomes unconstitutional when people's visas are not honored because of their religious affiliation. Trump et al. have openly stated that this is a Muslim ban, and that is going to come back to haunt them in court.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

But you don't have freedom of religion. Secular laws have always trumped religion when there is conflict. You cannot stone people to death for working on the Sabbath. You cannot sacrifice humans to your gods. Native sacred sites were never respected. Those who considered King George III to be their ruler by divine right were excluded from politics and described as traitors at the beginning of your national history. You have long operated immigration restrictions against followers of the "last great religion", Marxism.Those who are arguing against Trump on freedom of religion grounds might end up defending people who believe that their god would want them to fly aeroplanes full of people into skyscrapers full of people.Mohammed, like Moses, was firmly against religious freedom. Trump, if he was smart enough, could point that out.

Playing Devil's Advocate ?Religious freedom has never been about giving a carte blanche to the religious. It has always been about not being persecuted or suffering unequal treatment for believing the "wrong" things. So there is an issue there, and Trump's tweeting about a ban on Muslims could come back to bite him.

Not quite right. Freedom of religion is the right of a person to believe according to their conscience and not forced into a covenant by a majority in governance. That right has never been the freedom to act on those beliefs outside the secular law. You can believe all you want in the righteousness of stoning disobedient children. You just cannot actually stone the kid without serving a rather lengthy sentence in jail before they strap you onto the gurney.That may seem a fine distinction in what some consider a right and somewhat pedantic, but then all rights are similarly restricted when the exercise of such a right causes grave harm to others. You still have the right to believe as you will, and to act on those beliefs within limitations, without the force of government dictating your conscience. You have freedom of religion as practiced by secular societies. Any other definition of freedom of religion is anathema to a free society.Further, if we can defend the right of the NAZI to believe that all jews should be baked to a crisp then defending a radical moslem who believes their god would want them to fly airplanes full of people into skyscrapers full of people is equally within our American ideal (understanding that such actions are not allowed in this society). Defending the right of conscience is not the same as defending an abhorrent action. In Trump’s case the First Amendment bars the government from treating people of some religions with different rights, privileges and restrictions of/to government action then any others.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

How is the latter achieved without doing the former? U.S. immigration and citizenship policy has never been about giving a carte blanche (or verre) to all beliefs equally, as I pointed out in the first post.The Islamic god doesn't encourage the equal treatment of people who believe the "wrong" things, either. Quite the opposite.

Freedom of religion is a secular law. The courts have been quite clear that you can't discriminate against people based solely on their religious beliefs. Trump et al. have been quite clear from the beginning that this is a ban based on religious beliefs and not on a secular law.

quote:

---

How is the latter achieved without doing the former?

---

By NOT doing things like having Quakers whipped out of town or banning Catholics from holding political office. if you can't tell the difference between those and banning human sacrifice you have a problem.The key phrase is Freedom of Belief.

That is true. However, I think the question is irrelevant. To the extent that immigration policy is used to ban Muslims based on their religion, the policy is unconstitutional. No Abrahamic religion treats people who believe the wrong things equally.

The U.S. will have been discriminating against believers in certain sub-sects of Islam for some time in its immigration policy. Where were the courts?