Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

If Trump is not granted complete deference then obviously the courts can decide that he is wrong or even lying. And do you really want a President to be able to push through orders by falsely claiming National Security concerns ?

The Trump administration has already walked back on the issue of Green Card holders, so there doesn't seem any reason to withhold judgement on that. The attempt to prevent Green Card holders entering the country was illegal.So far the courts have held that it is likely that the same applies to those who hold visas.

quote:

---

No point in taking the opinion of anyone here as the truth.

---

Perhaps, then, you will stop trying to push your opinions as the truth - and shouting at and abusing anyone who disagrees.

quote:

---

Certainly some of the Constitutional laws ought to apply universally, such as right to property, life and liberty, no matter who the person is or where. The problem I keep having is that it implies anyone has a right to be here or a right to enter, which can't possibly be the case. .

---

It certainly does not imply any such thing. How can you miss the point that we have been talking about Due Process rights all along ?The most that can be claimed is that there is a right for applications for admission to be reasonably examined (and a lot of objections do not even go that far!). Nobody is saying that such applications cannot be rejected for good cause. Most of the concern is about revoking permission that has already been granted - especially when it is sudden, without warning and almost certainly with no prospect of compensation.

quote:

---

Fine, I agree, and that's pretty much what I figured had to be the case as I said earlier, but it's a red herring. The order isn't about them, it's about people who have no such prior right to be here.

---

It is rather clear that at least some in the White House intended the order to cover Green Card holders. It is also absolutely clear that it is intended to include people with visas, even those who were already in the air at the time the order was put into force - without warning. It's not a red herring, it is the heart of the objections against the order.

You were certainly screaming against the idea of Due Process rights.And it sounds as if you still reject them:

quote:

---

...only about this ridiculous idea that we can't discriminate on any grounds whatever against anybody whatever who wants to enter the country.

---

quote:

---

The subject keeps getting changed and it gets confusing to follow it all, but that's the main utter stu/pidity I've been focused on.

---

The main subject has always been people with Green Cards or visas. You may not like the fact that you have come around and started agreeing with "wacko liberals" and "insane leftists" on that point but that is what has happened. So please spare us this attempt at revisionism when there is a clear record available.

quote:

---

I could not care less. Either those restrictions are legal or they are not. That's not what I've been arguing about.

---

The record of this thread shows otherwise.

Then maybe you shouldn't have objected to the court decisions, or started screaming against the idea that non-citizens have Constitutional rights.

So when you reply to the assertion that Message 133With Message 134Now I will admit that you went on to say But that is not what NoNukes said, and you still denied the existence of Due Process rights.And let us note that I corrected you on that issue Message 140So, your opponents invoked Due Process rights from the Constitution and you denied the existence of any Constitutional rights for non-citizens. The fact that you also mischaracterised your opponent's arguments does not make me dishonest - it is just another example of your dishonesty.

quote:

---

It's hard to believe that the freedom of religion bit in the U.S. constitution is merely saying that Americans can have what humans have always had in any society: the freedom to privately believe whatever we want.

---

Which is not what is being said. Again, the point is not being penalised for beliefs.

quote:

---

It certainly can't be about equal treatment by the state of all known religious beliefs, because someone who is known by the C.I.A. to be a believer in the ISIS Caliphate will not be treated in the same way by immigration officials as an Anglican.

---

Only because of the justifiable fear that the Da'esh supporter might put those beliefs into action. And yes, the "justifiable" part is important.

I don't think at this point anyone is saying that there is a certain case against Trump - and the main case seems to be based on his tweets rather than the ban itself.However, if it did turn out that Trump intended to ban Muslims for being Muslims, the fact he might have got away with it if a Muslims *were* mostly fanatical terrorists is hardly going to help much.

quote:

---

What evidence is there that ISIS believers are mostly fanatical terrorists? Judging by surveys of support for the Caliphate, more than 99.9% have yet to commit an act of terrorism, which seems to show remarkable patience for fanatics.

---

If you define "supporter" so loosely then I guess you can't ban people who support Da'esh then - although I also suppose that supporting Da'esh is more political than religious.And even then, I very much doubt that Muslims in general are as likely to engage in terrorist acts as Da'esh supporters

quote:

---

If it's unconstitutional for the U.S. State to discriminate against Muslims, then it has been doing "unconstitutional" stuff on its borders for a long time.

---

Almost certainly. Constitutional violations can slip past, customs and immigration or TSA officials who abuse their positions are hardly unknown, and it would be surprising if there were none of them who were prejudiced against Muslims. The problem is proving it.

quote:

---

If it's unconstitutional to ban them, it might be time for Americans to rethink their constitution.

---

Or maybe you should rethink your attitude. Banning people because you don't like their ideas doesn't seem a good thing.And Da'esh - centred on conquering and ruling territory - is rather more political than most religion.

quote:

---

This country does it. KKK leaders, for example, have been refused visas because governments don't like their ideas. Are we really missing much?

---

A defence against tyranny perhaps - although I expect what they intended to do has rather more to do with the bans than you suggest. Also it must be admitted that there is a big difference between banning leaders on a case-by-case basis and blanket banning anyone who might be sympathetic to even the KKK.

quote:

---

That's very much in the original Islamic tradition. At what degree of politicalness does a ban on a religious sect become constitutional, I wonder?

---

In practical cases, probably never. Da'esh doesn't seem to be a sect, rather a political organisation attached to a religion.

quote:

---

This has become such a tangled mess of confusion I don't know if it's possible to sort it out

---

Let me help you.Until the last day or so you were arguing that Trump's order was legal because non-citizens had nor rights that could be violated.Now you have changed your position, admitting that non-citizens do have the rights that your opponents claimed and now arguing that Trumps order was legal because it didn't target anyone who already had a visa even though we already know that it did (and was even intended to target Green Card holders).Instead of confusing yourself by trying to pretend that your position hasn't changed you could take the honest approach of admitting that you were wrong.

The fact that the U.S. has caused some Iraqis to hate the U.S. is hardly a reason to ban all Iraqis from the U.S.What about the Iraqis who worked with U.S. Forces and are at risk from the haters ?This is not a hypothetical questionDespite having spent 6 years getting a Special Immigrant Visa an Iraqi family were still taken off the plane at Istanbul and sent back to Iraq. All because of Trump's Executive Order.Fortunately the White House were persuaded to change their minds. Or do you think that this family should be excluded just because they are Muslims ?