Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Partially addressing the somewhat more difficult question regarding refugees, there probably is not a constitutional question there. However there may be a treaty obligation, and of course, ratified treaties are also a source of federal law not to be ignored.The 1951 Refugee Convention leaves plenty of room for a president to decline to accept refugees for security reasons, at least where incoming refugees not already processed are concerned. The Convention does not give rights with regard to international travel although it does say that refugees should be treated like citizens for domestic travel.There may also be some statutory provisions, and the president cannot be able to contravene statutory provisions of law without the cooperation of Congress. Apparently, there aren't any serious statutory protections for refugees with respect to due process upon re-entry to the US, or even gaining entry in the first place.

I think we can say a bit more than that. We might distinguish between a list of countries for which we scrutinize its citizens upon entry, and a list of countries from whom we don't even allow green card holders to return to their families and from which we don't allow folks we've already scrutinized, sometimes for years. Obama never had a list of countries, for which the citizens of those countries were not allowed to return to university after a Christmas break.

THE EVIDENCE is that it is lies intended to smear Trump and his supporters when the ACTUAL INCIDENTS OF HATE CRIMES ARE KNOWN to be ALL in the other direction. You are doing exactly the same thing to me with your insinuation that I just have some need to see it as I do when the facts bear me out and you refuse to recognize the implications of that. There is NOT ONE known incident of Trump supporters attacking their opponents, not one, ALL the known incidents are the opposite. But absurdly you go on to emphasize that nhevertheless "hate crime attacks are up" since the election, which implies that it's somehow Trump's fault when the exact reverse is true.Since it's been Trump haters attacking Trump supporters EXCLUSIVELY, that adds weight to the likelihood that the attack on the mosque was a false flag. Trump supporters have no reason to attack anybody since he won. There has been an amazing sense of relief among us because of his win, not any kind of desire to attack anybody. The hate is ALL from the Left, ALL OF IT.I've had enough of people here equating Islam with Christianity. It's the same sort of thing. Islam is the violent religion, Christianity is the exact opposite, but there is this need to deny the reality just as in the incidents mentioned above. Nothing I say matters. The truth is on my side on all these things but none of it matters, I'm the one who gets made into the villain every time, so why waste my breath.

Edited down but just to show the terms I'm referencing here. Hate crimes are not crimes where one person hates another. Murder is not necessarily a hate crime, nor assaulting a person who supports Trump (necessarily).Here is the FBI's take on it:

quote:

---

Hate crimes are the highest priority of the FBI’s Civil Rights program, not only because of the devastating impact they have on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country

---

quote:

---

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity

---

Attacking someone for just their political views is not a hate crime.They go on to say:

quote:

---

This year’s report {covering 2015 incidents -Mod}, which contains data from 14,997 law enforcement agencies, reveals 5,850 criminal incidents and 6,885 related offenses that were motivated by bias against race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity

---

This includes:

quote:

---

59.2 percent were targeted because of a race/ethnicity/ancestry bias; 19.7 percent because of a religious bias; 17.7 percent because of a sexual orientation bias; 1.7 percent because of a gender identity bias; 1.2 percent because of a disability bias; and 0.4 percent because of a gender bias.

---

From FBI.govCNN reports:

quote:

---

Anti-Jewish hate crimes rose 9%, anti-black hate crimes went up by almost 8%, and anti-LGBT hate crimes increased by nearly 5%, while anti-Latino hate crimes remained steady.

---

Anti Muslim?

quote:

---

In one year, anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States rose 67%, from 154 incidents in 2014 to 257 in 2015

---

The absolute numbers have anti-Jewish attacks at over double this (664), but raising at a considerably lower rate.

quote:

---

Preliminary data from CAIR indicates that 2016 is on track to be the second-worst year on record when it comes to mosque attacks. This year is barely trailing the record set last year: 78 mosques were attacked in 2015.

---

From CNNI understand the FBI are probably lying lefties and the CNN is evil mainstream media from your perspective - but those are the numbers RAZD is probably referencing.You can also read the FBI's report yourself, if you have the patience. From the issue of religiously motivated hate crimes it goes like this:

quote:

---

51.3 percent were anti
-Jewish.

22.2 percent were anti-Islamic
(Muslim)
.

4.4 percent were anti-Catholic.

4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.

3.7 percent were Anti-Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Other)
.

3.5 percent were anti-Protestan

---

The numbers drop off from there quite a bit.The raw numbers of hate crimes against LGBT is about the same (1200 - 1300).Here is the report

You could not possibly have checked this before posting. Of course, there are instances of both Trump supporters and non-supporters attacking their opposition.My rule of thumb for you is that anything you post in all caps should immediately be fact-checked.

Why should Cat worry about facts when reading Facebook memes is all he needs?

You say my claim needs fact checking. But you didn't do any fact checking, you just asserted that it must be so because you think it must be so. I listed five or six instances I'm aware of in which it was Trump haters assaulting Trump supporters; I'm not aware of any on the other side. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, it is the case that I did not provide an example. However, unlike you, I do check things before I run my mouth. And it's not like those examples are difficult to find... at least not if you bother to look.What I said was that there were Trump haters and Trump detractor who assaulted their opposition. So your having found some Trump supporters who were assaulted does not even challenge my argument. My point is, and remains that you are utterly incapable of vetting what you say.If you want an example of a Trump supporter who assaulted someone I supply the name of Airforce Staff Seargent Tony Pettway who sucker punched a non- Trump supporter. If you want a second example, I offer John McGraw of NC who assaulted opposition supporter. Anyone competent could find these with next to no effort. Both got lots of press.When Donald Trump said Sunday that he might pay the legal fees of a man charged with hitting a protester in the face at one of his rallies, it was the latest of many occasions when the leading Republican candidate for president appeared to condone or accept violence by supporters.
Air Force Staff Sergeant Charged with Assault at Trump Rally | Military.com"I am not aware". Yeah, I can understand that. Being unaware is what you do. But given the fact that you don't check, telling us you are unaware means just about nothing.

I've read the articles and seen the videos for every instance I posted.You would be right if you guessed I'm not going to check out your claims because it costs me a lot to check things out. My eyes can't take much of it and I save them for things I really have to check out. I'll say only that one of your examples sounds like something I heard happened at a Trump rally before the election, when Soros gangs were trying to disrupt things. Not something that happened after the election, which is what we were talking about.

Mod, I skimmed your post after writing one that took a lot out of me that was then dismissed in a few words that broke my heart. I looked at yours and couldn't see a shred of relevance in it. Sorry/But on another brief run through it I see it ISN'T relevant because the subject was executive orders on IMMIGRATION, not on just anything. Again sorry. I posted the law that makes Trump's action perfectly legal. I wasn't discussing anything about the tension you are talking about, just that his action was legal on this subject of banning immigration if he judges the admission of aliens to be dangerous to the country. With such a law on the books the attempts to prevent it can only be from illegal political motives. The only one being called a despotic tyrant in this instance is Trump, again for the sake of disruption on political grounds.Anyway, it was on the subject of immigration restriction on which I understood Obama to have acted in a similar way that I said I don't recall his needing to be defended because nobody was protesting it.I'm afraid I didn't read your post carefully enough to get what you were saying about gun control. Sorry.

No, I said what I meant. It is the religion of Islam that promotes all those radical movements IF a Muslim wants to follow that part of the religion. It's there on the books if he is so inclined. Fortunately most Muslims aren't so inclined, but there is always the potential for that BECAUSE the violent jihadist directives ARE in their sacred books.There is no such thing as a Christian terrorist acting on Christian principles. Any such behavior is CONTRARY to Christian principles, which is not the case with Islam.The thing is nobody wants to face the fact that a religion that is held by such a huge number of people really has the written intent of conquering the entire world, and is willing to do it by subjugation and annihilation of nonmembers of that religion, which it is playing out all the time around the world for anyone willing to see it, and whatever lies it takes to accomplish those things. It is a scary thought and it scares people into cowardly lies in the attempt to placate and appease the giant.There are plenty of nonviolent Muslims fortunately, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the religion itself, its sacred teachings themselves and the leaders who follow those teachings strictly, that promotes the violence of those who do become radicalized and violent.You can't put your head in the sand on this one and expect it to go away. If the problem isn't directly confronted it's going to roll right over you and the entire world. You have to see it as it is and tell it like it is, denounce it as it is and not be intimidated by their hurt feelings and being offended, before they have the power to enforce their views. Many Muslims don't even know that their religion teaches what it teaches. They need to be made to understand it.===================
There is no evidence of increase in violence on both pro and anti Trump supporters as a result of the election. I've given examples of five instances of Trump haters attacking Trump supporters, you've given none.
==========================I found my copy of Philistine, the book about Islam that I've mentioned a number of times that explains Islam as I've been characterizing it. But that information is out there in many forms, it's just that too many people don't want to believe it, put their heads in the sand and make nice with the wolf that hates us and intends to devour us. The author lives in Israel, or did, and most of the book focuses on the politics of Islam's determination to rid the world of Israel. But there is also discussion of the Islamic design to subjugate the entire world for Allah. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I suspect that Trump's efforts to return the nation to sane policies may not work because the nation is under judgment by God, and until we do away with the causes of that we aren't going to get out from under that judgment. Which means causes like abortion and normalizing homosexuality and legalizing gay marriage and many other issues dear to the heart of the Left. Trump is not taking those on but focusing only on the practical projects that should protect the nation, protect it I've finally realized, from God's judgments against us. Since the Left isn't going to give an inch on its sin-liberation politics which is the main reason we are under judgment, I don't see any way for Trump's projects to succeed for long. That means we'll eventually be overtaken by Islam, which appears to be God's main instrument of judgment against us.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem with your argument is that regardless of what the statute says, the Constitution requires due process, and Congress and the president cannot decide to do away with a constitutional provision. Now go back and read the judge's orders and examine the basis for the rulings.

The Constitution does not apply to noncitizens of America. I can hardly believe anyone would make such a claim. There is no such thing as a right for noncitizens to enter this country.I will not go back and read anything on your orders. It is your responsibility to quote whatever you want me to read.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Constitution DOES give rights to non-citizens as has already been shown in this thread Message 84. So why are you amazed that people would say so ?