Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Allah does forgive you.

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

George Soros was only born in 1930. He was only 9 when Hitler came to power. He was only 15 when Hitler died. Sheesh Faith. Don't you ever check basic facts or do you simply believe all the crap you hear on Christian Radio?

LOLSoros was only born in 1930. Sorry Faith but that is a fact. Soros was only born in 1930.Stop putting faith in all those liars and fools Faith.Soros was only born in 1930. Surely even you can do the math.

And so you start with utter bullshit. Yes, the US Constitution applies to anyone in the US, citizen or non-citizen. And simply continue posting even more bullshit, falsehoods and absurdities. The US cannot discriminate against anyone, citizen or non-citizen based on religious beliefs; Thank God. And end up with yet another falsehood.Three for three Faith.

And as usual you would lose.The 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War precisely because a segment of the population was being denied citizenship and protection under the laws. They were denied the right to vote, to marry people not of their own race, access to schools and education, were not allowed to eat in many places and a whole host of other injustices.The whole point of the 14th Amendment is that everyone in the US should be granted equal protection under the law and access to due process regardless of their citizenship status.

It applied to even people who had been bought and brought here.

But that's not true. If the State could show that Anglicans posed a clear and present danger and that Anglicans held as a basic tenet the policy of physical harm to non-members and if there was actual evidence that Anglicans had and could cause such harm to non-members then those conditions would be sufficient to override the general rule of equal treatment.

No, still not true.It is not the religious beliefs that are the issue. If the Anglicans espoused a belief that all non-Anglicans should be killed it would still be protected. It is only when there is reason to think that the Anglican actions would pose a threat that they might find their equal protection sanctioned.If Anglicans simply talked the talk but there was zero evidence that they never walked the talk they would still be protected.It is not religious beliefs that are treated differently, it is simply that ISIS has demonstrated that they simply can't play nice. The sanctions are not based on their beliefs but rather their behavior and they are treated equally to any group that exhibits that behavior patter regardless of the motivation.Should ISIS change its behavior even if it maintained its beliefs then they would be treated just as any group that exhibited the trait of playing nicely with other kids.

I certainly hope so. Beliefs are to be protected and the beliefs we most strongly disagree with deserve our strongest support. The individuals that work at border immigration are human and so yes, there is likely some that did discriminate; but if so it was illegal and not policy.AbE: Let me expand on this since I think it is important.Here at EvC one of our members posted that I should be taken out and shot. Now that is a pretty clear threat yet it was very unlikely the member would be capable of actually putting that plan into effect so his belief is one I would support. It was likely a stupid thing for him to post but not something that should be sanctioned or censored.Now long long ago and in a land far far away, my wife was working as a legal assistant to a lawyer who was defending someone who had just been convicted of committing several murders AND had threatened the Judge as well as his own legal team (which included my wife). After sentencing he was scheduled for a psych evaluation and attacked, beat up and tied up the person evaluating him and escaped through a window.In that case I did behave differently. Here was a threat from someone who had demonstrated belief, intent and the capability to really be an actual threat. The police explained that they simply did not have the resources to provide any real protection and advised me to always be armed and ready to protect myself and my wife. So I did. We increased our vigilance, changed schedules and routing, went armed at all times and prepared for potential threats.Beliefs need to be protected.Behavior though really is different.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Again Faith, you are simply wrong. Even people here illegally have a Constitutional right to equal protection under the laws including the right to Due Process.

Again, it seems you simply are not capable of reading. I did not say support any organization but rather that I support peoples rights to believe even really stupid stuff including that the Earth is flat, the Earth is Young, that there was a Global flood during the period humans existed and even Neo-Nazi beliefs. I would gladly contribute to a legal defense of a Neo-Nazi to believe and even speak in favor of his beliefs if necessary here in the US.But do you have a Constitutional Right to Free Speech or Free Association? The courts first deal with the cases brought before them. Dealing with individual acts of discrimination seems counter productive when you can deal with the origin of orders to discriminate.

The people that were effected already has Visas Faith.

Too funny.Faith, the issue was discrimination of people already vetted and with Visas based on the predominate religion of their nation of origin.The US Constitution says we can not discriminate based on sex, race, national origin. The individually impacted by Trump's stupid order were already vetted and he never showed ANY possible reason to deny them entry, and threat to the US posed by their nationality or religious beliefs.The problem is the man is just plain dumb and ignorant.

One of the big issues is that Faith as well as many others seem to be totally clueless what Fascism is.Nothing in the post Faith was replying to suggested ultra-Nationalism, Corporatism or any other characteristic of Fascism.From Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leadersuch as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist partyto forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.

---

It is interesting to examine those characteristics in light of Faith's posts and today's USA.Is there a group that believes liberal democracy is obsolete?Is there in effect a one party system in the US where one party has control of the Judiciary, the Executive Branch and the Legislature?Is there someone who claims to be a strong, perhaps even Uuge, leader?Did the government say the plan is to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society?Is the plan to advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies?And finally, is there a leader who has said that the US must strengthen it's military as a way to Make America Great Again?Perhaps Faith may learn what Fascism really is; and in the case of the US today, it is us.