Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 481 of 993 (799127)
02-07-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Dr Adequate
02-07-2017 1:42 PM


Re: Lying polls again. Also lying photos
We also know there weren't any pro-Trump demonstrations. Why should there be?
Oh, there've been plenty. It's just that they've been tiny.
Portland, Maine:
Eight people (yes, 8) attend pro-Trump rally in Portland — and Twitter noticed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2017 1:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 482 of 993 (799128)
02-07-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Faith
02-07-2017 1:36 PM


Re: a bet? OK, let's do it
I didn't concede Mod. After all the confusion I simply tried to define what I was trying to say all along, that the Constitution -- as a whole -- doesn't apply to people who have no right to be here.
I understand that, but that wasn't the bet, Faith. The bet was about part of the Constitution, specfically the 14th amendment which defines rules for both citizens and 'persons' which I argued should mean both citizens and non-citizens. You were saying this was 'insane'.
I also had to take note of the fact that parts of the Constitution have to apply to anybody because they are general human rights, which Cat Sci pointed out are given by God. That's not what I meant by Constitutional rights
Again fine, but I was talking about the right to equal protection under the law which applies to noncitizens:
quote:
Non-citizens within US jurisdiction are equally protected as citizens.
and to which you replied with
quote:
"That's in/sane. THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO NONCITIZENS."
Unless you want to try to prove that the 14th amendment confers citizenship on illegal aliens I don't think there's much left to debate or bet about.
I've not argued that. That wasn't the argument. It was whether 'persons' described in the Fourteenth Amendment covers tourists and aliens - regardless of their legal status. That was what I was arguing. An illegal alien has the right to an attorney, a right to remain silent, a right to a fair trial. That, they have rights to 'due process'. That's all I was saying. That's what you were yelling against.
I get that you got confused - and boy am I glad I asked for an aribtrator because you just moved the goalposts.
But yes, the argument is over.
James Madison argued that aliens...are obedient to the Constitution, do have Constitutional rights, though not ALL Constitutional rights.
vs
BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DEPORT THEM IN ANY CASE IF THEY ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, FOR ANY REASON WHATEVER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
Non-citizens have a right to due process where they fall under the jurisdiction of the United States of America as provided in the Fourteenth (and Fifth) amendment. Even if you won't 'concede' I'm glad you agree with thi point now. As I said back in Message 350
quote:
They are both subject to its laws and protected by them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 275
From: FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


(1)
Message 483 of 993 (799129)
02-07-2017 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
02-06-2017 5:14 PM


Could you please stop typing in all cap huge letters Faith?
A debate is less valuable if the participants are screaming over each other. You read as if you are trying to scream over the other participants, and there is no value added to the dialogue. You don't win an argument this way; making your letters bigger in no way makes your words truer. It just makes you sound unbalanced and insecure in what you say.
I have spent years trying to read your all cap posts, trying to hear what you are saying fairly. I'm coming to the end of my rope with your typing tantrums and just want to let you know I will, moving ahead, stop reading your all cap rants. Please talk like a grown up. Thank you!
Rob.
Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.
Edited by Aussie, : Eliminated redundant wording.

"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 02-06-2017 5:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 484 of 993 (799136)
02-07-2017 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Modulous
02-07-2017 1:48 PM


Mod writes:
Trump's order is not about prohibiting people based on their intent to cause harm. Where religious discrimination may enter into it is focussed on prioritizing non-Muslims (esp Christians) over Muslims for visa/refugee processing.
Religious discrimination would be prioritizing non-Taliban believers over Talibanists. It's done. If religious discrimination is unconstitutional, and that's the argument against Trump, have these judges thought it through?
Mod writes:
If you try to define the group carefully, but cannot actually show that all members of that group pose an actual threat to the USA, you are going to risk running into Establishment Clause, Freedom of Religion, Equal Protection....etc etc.
I wasn't aware that anyone had ever shown that all the members of any proscribed religious terrorist group pose an actual threat to the U.S.A. When, where and how was this done?
Once again, the American state practises religious discrimination. Attacking Trump on that basis might not be wise.
Religions practise religious discrimination and believe in it. They couldn't exist without it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 1:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 4:25 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 485 of 993 (799137)
02-07-2017 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-07-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Lying polls again. Also lying photos
but it's hard to get much objection to it from the left
quote:
violent criminals
quote:
The reaction was criminal but more than that it was stupid.
quote:
I'm on board with the idea that riots and violence are bad. I don't condone them.
quote:
peaceful non-violent protesters do not condone the anarchy group/s in any way shape or form, because the ruin the value of the peaceful non-violent protests by distracting people/media/etc away from the issue of the protest to make it about violence.
quote:
crazies
quote:
wrong
quote:
Dreadful behaviour.
That's from the 'leftists', by your description, here at this site. I suspect you just filter this kind of stuff out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 1:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 8:58 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 486 of 993 (799138)
02-07-2017 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-07-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Lying polls again. Also lying photos
but it's hard to get much objection to it from the left, who seem to like to avocate assassinating Trump and blowing up the white house and that sort of wonderful American peaceful transition sort of thing.
I understand your frustration, Theodoric. Try to scream into a pillow or something.~AdminPhat Forum Guidelines
Edited by AdminPhat, : Message hidden due to inappropriate content
Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 1:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 487 of 993 (799139)
02-07-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Stile
02-07-2017 10:51 AM


Stile writes:
bluegenes writes:
jar writes:
I certainly hope so. Beliefs are to be protected and the beliefs we most strongly disagree with deserve our strongest support.
Really? I'll start by sending a donation to the Flat Earth Society, and continue by showing up to the next neo-Nazi rally in this area with a swastika on my T-shirt.
Would you care to put that wonderful second sentence on its own thread and defend it against all comers?
I'd defend that statement of jars.
Should I take that to mean that you strongly agree/disagree with him, and therefore his belief doesn't/does deserve your strongest support?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Stile, posted 02-07-2017 10:51 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Stile, posted 02-08-2017 8:25 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 488 of 993 (799140)
02-07-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by bluegenes
02-07-2017 4:10 PM


Religious discrimination would be prioritizing non-Taliban believers over Talibanists. It's done. If religious discrimination is unconstitutional, and that's the argument against Trump, have these judges thought it through?
Whether or not that would be religious discrimination: The right to life outweighs the freedom of religion. Therefore, when the two concepts are in conflict, the right to life wins and therefore it is not unconstitutional. Additionally, one doesn't need to ban the Taliban on religious grounds, but one can ban them on the grounds of belonging to a terrorist organisation or the like.
It would be a problem if similar Christian terrorists were given a pass while Muslim terrorists were not. You should address this as I've said it several times now and it's getting repetitive.
I wasn't aware that anyone had ever shown that all the members of any proscribed religious terrorist group pose an actual threat to the U.S.A. When, where and how was this done?
I cited relevant law in the post you are replying to. See section 212 of the INA. Threat to the USA shouldn't be taken to mean 'likely to defeat it', just 'cause harm to its interests' (eg., it's people, property, economy).
Once again, the American state practises religious discrimination. Attacking Trump on that basis might not be wise.
Once again, discriminating against violent people, or members of a group that incites, practices, funds violence - who are religious - is constitutionally fine due to the right to life outweighing the right to free practice of religion. Prioritizing non-terrorist Christians over non-terrorist Muslims is a problematic policy on religious discrimination grounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by bluegenes, posted 02-07-2017 4:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by bluegenes, posted 02-07-2017 5:05 PM Modulous has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 489 of 993 (799141)
02-07-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Modulous
02-07-2017 4:25 PM


Mod writes:
Whether or not that would be religious discrimination: The right to life outweighs the freedom of religion. Therefore, when the two concepts are in conflict, the right to life wins and therefore it is not unconstitutional. Additionally, one doesn't need to ban the Taliban on religious grounds, but one can ban them on the grounds of belonging to a terrorist organisation or the like.
It would be a problem if similar Christian terrorists were given a pass while Muslim terrorists were not. You should address this as I've said it several times now and it's getting repetitive
Are there travel restrictions on G. W. Bush?
Mod writes:
Once again, discriminating against violent people, or members of a group that incites, practices, funds violence - who are religious - is constitutionally fine due to the right to life outweighing the right to free practice of religion. Prioritizing non-terrorist Christians over non-terrorist Muslims is a problematic policy on religious discrimination grounds.
So, if Muslims are more frequently questioned and searched at points of entry to the U.S.A. than non-muslims, this would be unconstitutional. Right. So, why are the judges making a fuss now, when it's been going on for years?
Are the judges wise to think that equal treatment by the state of all religions is practical? If the CIA and FBI are spending a disproportionate amount of time concentrating on Muslims, should they be told to stop doing so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 4:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 5:48 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 490 of 993 (799143)
02-07-2017 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by bluegenes
02-07-2017 5:05 PM


So, if Muslims are more frequently questioned and searched at points of entry to the U.S.A. than non-muslims, this would be unconstitutional. Right. So, why are the judges making a fuss now, when it's been going on for years?
You make it sound like court cases regarding these matters haven't been going on for years. They have. This particular case however, is newsworthy and discussed for a number of reasons. It is a Presidential Executive Order - the courts 'make a fuss' over some EOs when people raise suits that don't get immediately dismissed. The President in question has been...vocal....about his intentions and desired ends. In the religious discrimination aspect of the case (which is the weakest part of the case), there is publicly available information that suggests animus against a particular religion and that members of this religion, almost all of whom are entirely blameless with no suspicion of being members of a terrorist organisation are being discriminated against without any balancing threat to life that could justify the act.
Are the judges wise to think that equal treatment by the state of all religions is practical?
Their job isn't to determine what is practical, but what is legal. The law, as I understand it, is that religions don't have to be treated equally - but practitioners should be offered equal protections under the law, be given due process, and not face any undue burden as a result of their beliefs. the government should not act to favour or disfavour a particular religion. Further, government action should not be motivated, in part, by animus against a particular religion.
Terrorism is not a religion.
If the CIA and FBI are spending a disproportionate amount of time concentrating on Muslims, should they be told to stop doing so?
This question suffers from vagueness and broadness that renders it impossible to answer. On the face of it, no. Assuming the best of them for the moment they are investigating terrorists, which are presently disproportionally Muslim. But it's their terrorism, not their religion, that generates the scrutiny. That the practical consequence of this is disproportional scrutiny of Muslims is not intrinsically problematic.
Obviously it is possible for any given agency to overstep constitutional lines - and I expect given human nature, the size of those agencies and so on that in some cases they have.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by bluegenes, posted 02-07-2017 5:05 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by bluegenes, posted 02-08-2017 5:14 AM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 491 of 993 (799144)
02-07-2017 6:34 PM


The reality of why we need to restrict Muslim entry into the US
All this legal stuff we're talking about can be a distraction from the real issue. Just listened to Chris Pinto's latest radio show, which is on this subject, and as usual he gets into the whole background of the brainwashing in the universities geared to destroying America, and the west in general. He gives some familiar reference points like the Reece Committee's investigation in the 1950s of the big foundations that back in the 20s and 30s funded the rewriting of books to indoctrinate students into Marxism.
LINK: (Reece Committee leader Norman Dodd is interviewed on the subject at You Tube.)
ABE: I'll leave that link up, but I think this one may be better./ABE
Pinto continues about how Marxism and Islam have become politically aligned recently so that this immigration ban interferes with leftist goals. Accounting for the fury against the ban, the violent protests and so on.
LINK: Here's Pinto's broadcast
He discusses this video made by a former Marine now living in Iraq who asked some Iraqis how he would be treated if he simply walked into the town. He was told the locals would accost him and behead him. So he asks why if ordinary Muslims would treat an American that way, why we would want ANY ordinary Muslims in our country? Not radicalized Muslims, not ISIS, not jihadis, ordinary Muslims.
Lemme see. People here will
call him some kind of name, deny he's telling the truth
deny that ordinary Muslims are any kind of threat
by implication show their willingness to put America in danger.
Enjoy:
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2017 7:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 494 by Riggamortis, posted 02-07-2017 8:25 PM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 492 of 993 (799148)
02-07-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Faith
02-07-2017 6:34 PM


Re: The reality of why we need to restrict Muslim entry into the US
All this legal stuff we're talking about can be a distraction from the real issue.
The real issue is the legal stuff. The legal stuff is the 'wacko leftist response'. If you want to move onto the 'wacko rightist' response why not just bring up some lunatic who couldn't compete in a legal discussion...
Just listened to Chris Pinto's latest radio show, which is on this subject, and as usual...
He lies, dissembles and manipulates his listeners with conspiracy theories that affirm their fears? I invested 3 hours of my life watching his documentary when we debated Constantine Simonides and almost every sentence was demonstrable nonsense or villainous lies (Message 769 in Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries) .
Pinto continues about how Marxism and Islam have become politically aligned recently
Hahahahaha. So Catholics joined forces with Marxists, and now the Muslims? The Catholics and Muslims are no doubt in cahoots with one another now too, presumably? Secret Jesuit invitations to Abu Bakr to meet the pope to discuss how to undermine Precious Protestant Bodily Fluids, I'll wager.
If it's one thing ISIS are known for, its disseminating critical theory along with their lesser known hits of rejection of slavery and anti-authoritarian class struggles.
so that this immigration ban interferes with leftist goals.
Yep - extremist Islam, dedicated to traditional conservative religious views, the hatred of gays, transgender and the oppression of women....are Marxist lefties, exploiting the Jewish school of Marxism that the Catholic Jesuits smuggled into America through the universities. The lies must be stupendous this time around. Talk about a 'wacko response'.
He discusses this video made by a former Marine now living in Iraq who asked some Iraqis how he would be treated if he simply walked into the town. He was told the locals would accost him and behead him.
Sounds like the snowflakey leftist namby pamby violent fascist Marxist thing to do. It is likely true, a private American military contractor is not likely to be welcomed by all in Iraq right now, a society collapsed into an atrocious civil war by American military/political incompetence.
He's probably right, lawlessness and civil disturbance are high all over the place. He's likely to be targeted by violent groups. That's why he is being paid stupendous amounts of money for working security. It is of course a logical error to go from 'some group of people will likely attack and kill you' to 'Iraqis will kill Americans if they have the opportunity'.
Naturally, by making a video generalising Iraqis to justify banning all of them from entry into the US, regardless of age, sex or their cooperation with US security forces - he went from being a security asset to a security liability and he has been shipped home and won't be earning that money any more. I expect he'll make up for it with youtube ad revenue and possibly TV/radio interviews.
People here will
call him some kind of name
Steven.
deny he's telling the truth
He's telling the truth, he's improperly generalising from that truth.
deny that ordinary Muslims are any kind of threat
Well the numbers have supported this.
by implication show their willingness to put America in danger.
Well there are approximately equal number of Muslims in the UK as in all of the USA. I live in an area which has a *particular* concentration of them, probably more than in 99% of the USA. Erm. It's erm.... entirely undramatic. I doubt a few tens of thousands more are going to present all that much of an issue for you. Unless you have a President who insists on being a dick. That might present a problem.
Especially when there are people who insist on ramping up the fear. It's not going to help. Rising tensions is more likely to reduce social integration, separation from local culture is more likely to foster an insular bitterness which can be, in the wrong hands, grown into a seed of hate, anger and violence.
Here's hoping I'm wrong, and 'tough' tactics don't backfire, as they do every other time they've been used.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 6:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 493 of 993 (799150)
02-07-2017 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Dr Adequate
02-07-2017 1:42 PM


Re: Lying polls again. Also lying photos
We also know there weren't any pro-Trump demonstrations. Why should there be?
Oh, there've been plenty. It's just that they've been tiny.
fifty people demonstrate support for Trump in front of Trump Tower.
Fifty. In NEW YORK CITY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2017 1:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 8:49 PM JonF has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 494 of 993 (799158)
02-07-2017 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Faith
02-07-2017 6:34 PM


Re: The reality of why we need to restrict Muslim entry into the US
Those Muslims who would behead him are the victims of decades of state sanctioned US terrorism. He is the face of that terrorism. Were I in their shoes, I would likely want to kill him too. That is not to say it's ok to kill him but that I understand their anger far more than I understand western fear.
We in the west have been the victims of mostly impotent terrorist attacks at the hands of extremists. I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans have not been directly affected by terrorist acts(by this I mean lost a loved one/property/lifestyle not simply 'became fearful of terrorism'), while the Iraqi's have all been and continue to be affected by the actions of the US.
I hate the US Faith, for what it's doing to the world, I hate my own country, more specifically our govt, for following the US like lost puppies. Hate may be too strong a word but you get my point. You seem unable to understand why those Muslims feel that way, perhaps because you believe the BS that we are 'helping them'?
Before you label me a bleeding heart liberal, you should know that I reject the left/right paradigm outright and do my best to evaluate each issue on its merits alone. In this case, were it not for the fact that the west has actively participated in the destruction/destabilisation of the Middle East, I would be more sympathetic towards the conservative view. But that is not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 6:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 8:47 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 495 of 993 (799168)
02-07-2017 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Riggamortis
02-07-2017 8:25 PM


Re: The reality of why we need to restrict Muslim entry into the US
That's not the reason, Rigga, but thanks for tha response.
I don't support a lot of our military actions either, but that is not the reason they hate America.
ABE: HOWEVER whatever their reason, why would we want to admit people who hate us into our country? /abe.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Riggamortis, posted 02-07-2017 8:25 PM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by Riggamortis, posted 02-08-2017 3:35 AM Faith has replied
 Message 503 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2017 4:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024