Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

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.

First, please stop screaming. A word or two in all caps for emphasis is tolerated but screaming whole paragraphs is not.Second, all persons, repeat, ALL PERSONS subject to US law, are protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments and cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without the DUE PROCESS of LAW.See SCOTUS: Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953)This case makes the protections of all due process rights as well as First Amendment and other rights applicable to citizens, legal resident aliens, illegal aliens and anyone else within the legal purview of the United States.There are separate rights reserved for citizens, such as voting and holding certain elective offices, but legal due process rights are guaranteed to all. Even poor Juan from El Salvador who snuck into this country in a suitcase cannot be deported without a hearing, represented by legal council, in accordance with law. Our law allows us to kick him out but he is entitled to a legal hearing before we can slam the door on him.That is our way. That is our law.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yes there is. SCOTUS said so. And under our Constitution and rule of law this is part of our law until the congress and the states say otherwise.

Yes, just another instance of a court doing idiotic things. Remember this ruling by SCOTUS was in 1953. Brown v Board of Education anyone? In 60+ years neither congress nor the states have objected -- to either. How republican!Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

But it wouldn't save the president's ego. Withdrawing the Executive Order is not going to happen. Besides, this is only a bunch of judges backed by false news while the nation's imminent security hangs so precariously in the balance. Just ask the White House's resident openly Islamophobic-white supremacist-closeted-nazi, Steve Bannon, who wrote the order without staffing it to any other department and which Trump sign without the full knowledge of its content. He'll tell you how dire our situation is.

The problem with the present vetting system for immigration is that after years of interviews, background checks, security checks, financial and family checks, the process still ends up allowing Muslims into the country. That’s not good.Under the Extreme Vetting imagined by Steve Bannon, who is heading this entire Islamophobic tirade from the White House (remember, until Bannon joined Trump’s campaign staff Trump’s thing on immigration was Mexicans and The Wall) the vetting process would become a whole lot less time consuming and costly.Agent: Are you a Muslim?
Applicant: Yes.
Agent: NEXT! ... (stamps application REJECTED)Faith would like that, I think.

I don't blame you. In the last 15 years about 65 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks in the US. Sixty percent of those were killed by Christian extremists. The rest were jihadists, for sure, with exactly none of them (that's a 0 with a point 00 after it) coming from Trump's banned nations.This is a dangerous country, especially when you consider that more than 406,000 Americans were shot dead in this same period by gun extremists including about 2500 shooting deaths by (not of) gun-toting toddlers.I should imagine you are also a gunnutphobic. Gotta watch out for those six-year-olds.

Apparently, from their actions in this country, so are Christians to a larger extent than Muslims. We need some extreme vetting for churchgoers.

Preliminary reports indicate that the administration has decided not to appeal directly to the Supreme Court but will keep the fight within the lower courts for now.Reports also indicate the administration is considering re-writing and re-issuing this executive order. Maybe this time they'll do the extreme vetting through the various affected departments and get some useful realistic input. Maybe this time Donald will understand what he is signing.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.