Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Hi, Faith. Islam isn't so popular. What is popular is protecting people's right to their beliefs and protecting them from being punished for something other people are doing.

Beliefs are held by individuals. Individuals act based on the beliefs they have in their own mind. And the only way I can know the beliefs of an individual is by speaking with the individual herself. I have known a lot of Muslims. When I was in Africa, half the people around me were Christian, the other half were Muslim. Except than the choice of names given to them by their parents, I honestly wouldn't have been able to tell who was which.In the US, many (perhaps most?) Islam-inspired crimes were foiled by law enforcement with the assistance of tips and informers from the Muslim community itself.

• Many Muslims are willing to commit heinous crimes.
• Many Muslims support terrorists but would never themselves get involved in a plot.
• Many Muslims are opposed to terrorism but blame the victims of terrorism.
• Many Muslims oppose terrorism without reservation.
• Many Muslims are working to stop and end terrorism.

Replace "Muslim" with any other religion or political ideology and you're likely to have a list that is just as accurate.A person is responsible for their own beliefs, not the beliefs of other people who happen to share the same label. A person is accountable for her own actions, not the actions done by other people.- In my opinion, what's suicidal for a democratic republic is giving the state the authority to act against individuals for beliefs they don't actually have and to punish them for crimes they haven't committed.

I think it's more important to know who the individual Muslims are, and forgetting that is national suicide.

From Wikipedia: -But besides that, saying "great majority" is an admission that the characterization isn't universal. Individuals still should be judged on their own merits. All the "great majority's" beliefs should mean, at worst, is that the stringent vetting process for the Syrian refugees might possibly not be excessive.

For the record, I do believe process that the Syrian refugees have to go through should probably be relaxed a great deal. But I don't know what the ideal process should be, and I'm willing to accept that the proper balance between the safety and well-being of the refugees and the legitimate security concerns of US citizens can be the subject of reasonable disagreement between people of good faith.Within limits, of course. It is possible that I may become convinced that the current process is a terrible violation of basic decency.

You mean white slave owners? Speaking for myself, I'm glad that part got amended out.

Thanks! But it's only because I'm avoiding catching up on grading!

Just saw this article at thenation.com and I thought I'd post it here. With all the Russia junk going on, small but important actions are slipping by under the radar.  The Airport Lawyers Who Stood Up to Trump Are Under AttackSummary: The Department of Justice is trying to use a legal technicality to prevent nonprofit organizations from providing legal representation to immigrants in deportation hearings.

Hi, Faith. Well, that is one purpose of the deportation hearings: to make sure that a legal resident or a citizen wasn't "rounded up" by mistake, and the legal representation is to make sure that the officials deciding the matter follow the law and the person isn't summarily deported before her legals status is properly verified.- The other reason is that even if a person entered in this country illegally, there are exceptions to whether she can be deported. She may be fleeing a very dangerous situation, she may be legitimately entitled to refugee status, she may have family in this country legally. These are the sorts of things that may allow her to remain in this country and try to achieve legal status.And that is the law. You may not like that law, but there it is. According to the law, people in this country are entitled to be able to explain their situation, and if their situation warrants further consideration and even being granted legal status, then to be granted that consideration and/or status.Furthermore, depending on circumstances, the person may be entitled to be set free while her case is pending. Again, you may not like it, but that is the law.The lawyers are giving their time and expertise for free in order to make sure the government officials follow the law properly and to make sure the persons being held are aware of their legal options during their hearings.In other words, these particular lawyers are trying to make sure the laws are obeyed.- I find the contradictions in conservative thought to be interesting. We can't trust the government to provide health care properly to people. We can't trust the government to make sure that air and water are clean. Some even feel that we can't trust the government to provide a proper education to our young.Yet, we should give the government complete trust to decide who is or isn't in this country legally and to decide who should or should not be immediately deported.

Some are. Conversely, some valid IDs may have enough wear to look fake. I dunno. But I imagine that officials aren't just allowed to toss an ID into the trash saying, "Eh, looks fake to me." A hearing is to allow the party to challenge that sort of thing and to provide a chance to provide proper documentation. Like any judicial or semi-judicial procedure, it's probably good to have legal representation to make sure proper procedures are being followed.Besides, lots of people don't routinely carry ID with them. I don't.There's also the point I was trying to make that even if a person is in this country illegally, the law provides circumstances that allows the person to apply for legal residence (or at least be put way down in the queue for deportation) and to be released while the person's claim for those circumstance are being verified. Again, it's helpful, even necessary, for a legal representative to let the detainee know about the laws and to make sure the officials follow proper procedure.

Evidently enough that procedures are in place to prevent it.- I guess. And this is how freedom of the press works: to call out the officials for being dicks in the hopes that public pressure will force the officials to quit being dicks and/or to close the loophole.

Hi, Faith. Yeah, I agree that it would suck to have to pay higher premiums.On the other hand, some people -- like my sister -- have finally been able to get access to affordable health care.I think some people getting health care that they wouldn't otherwise get is worth some people having to pay more.'Course my preferred solution would be to raise taxes on rich people and use the money to fund a single payer system like the civilized countries have.

Well, my sister is not rich, either. In fact, she is so not rich that she never had health insurance until the AFA.-That said, like I tell people who don't like to pay insurance premiums (I know I don't!): elect politicians who will work to make the US into one of the civilized nations. Tax citizens like the civilized nations do; reduce military spending to the levels that the civilized nations do; and then provide the level of services that the civilized nations do.

Another article from the New York Times: Hiding Christians in the Cellar: Fear and Heroism in a Philippine SiegeIn the Phillipine city of Marawi, supporters of the Islamic State were going through the city killing the non-Muslims that they found. There were examples of Christians being protected by other Muslims, even at the risk of their own lives! Remember, there are people who would enact oppressive laws that would treat every Muslim as if they were the same.My point is, again, that "Muslim" is not does predict a person's character or behavior with sufficient accuracy that such blanket prohibitions can be permitted.

Would they, though? (Hypothetically that is, if these incidents had been happening in a country that is to be covered by Trump's travel ban instead of the Phillipines.)First, the travel ban didn't seem to allow these types of exceptions -- in fact, the first time the travel ban was attempted even people who already had their green cards were being denied reentry into the US.Second, what is Trump's vetting process supposed to be? The US is still using the vetting processed developed in the previous administrations. The travel ban was supposed to be a temporary measure while that vetting process while it was reviewed by the Trump administration and, if judged inadequate, fixed.What is the status of that review? Are they even doing the review? You don't have to wait until the suit against the travel ban has worked its way through the courts; in fact, if there really was a legitimate concern that the vetting process was inadequate, then it would be important to continue reviewing it even while the ban itself is still being litigated -- in fact, the review could proceed even if the travel ban isn't allowed at all.My feeling is that the vetting process was just smoke being blown to justify the ban, which itself is just meant to be red meat thrown to Trump's Islamophobic supporters. If I were more cynical, I would even suspect that some in the administration don't really care whether or not the travel ban is upheld by the courts. Either way, they will have an issue they can try to use to whip their supporters into a new frenzy.