Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[Belsnickel]

Okay, there is a lot of commotion about this EO, some of it warranted, some not so much.

The list was something generated by Congress and the Obama administration. My guess would be it is coincidental that business interests line up, but those business interests also line up with those of the country, so that may have been purposeful when the list was created. Either way, it's not something I am going to blame the Trump administration for in not including the countries we have actually had terrorists make their way to us from.

The application to permanent residents is something that will not fly. That was a decision made, based on some sources, by Bannon and Miller. The administration should be taken to task for that.

The vetting process for holders of visas and for refugees is a very strong process. There is a reason we have never had a refugee come over that was a terrorist in disguise, because the system works. This is creating a problem that didn't exist in order to solve it.

The application of the order was the biggest fumble of the whole thing, IMO. There are reports that DHS and State were not in on the drafting of it and no instructions were really provided to those carrying out the orders. This is problematic and one of the reasons why we are seeing so many issues (like the green card thing). Had the roll out of the order been over a couple of days in order to provide guidance, this would have been a much smoother process. Still likely to upset many, but there would not have been as many cases people could directly point to of misapplication of the order.

Lastly, the whole idea of this being a Muslim ban is something we have to be careful with. There is circumstantial evidence to point us in the direction that this is an attempt at a Muslim ban without calling it such, but that is going to be a matter of determining intent which is not likely to happen. There is the question, though, of the religious minorities test that is in the EO. That may be the death blow to this in the judicial process. Had they left that out it would have a better survival chance, but the ACLU is going to push back hard on that as violating the establishment clause given that it focuses on minority religions in Muslim majority countries.

This is going to be an interesting fight. What people need to realize is that in this age of President Bannon Trump we need to pick our battles in order to be successful. This immigration EO is troubling for a number of reasons, but we need to articulate why we think it is bad and base that on reality.

[Goalpost]

To be honest, i expect next weekend to have more protests. Trump is expected to name a Supreme Court nomination Thursday.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2017, 12:27 PM)Goalpost Wrote: To be honest, i expect next weekend to have more protests. Trump is expected to name a Supreme Court nomination Thursday.

Tuesday, now. Though some journalists are expecting a leak today. Suggested the bump is to try to change the current media narrative sooner.

[Griever]

i for one hope its hulk hogan

[Mike M (the other one)]

I believe that I told people about this list of countries a month ago and said that he could easily create a ban starting with that list that Obama and Congress created and it would not be a ban based on Religion, but a ban based on terrorism. In Fact, with the exception of Iran, none of the other 6 countries have functioning centralized governments established.

(12-22-2016, 05:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Easy way around most of it,
ban all immigrants from countries we are at war with (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia & Yemen)
ban all immigrants from countries where their is state sponsored terrorism (Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, South Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia)
ban all immigrants from Arabic speaking countries (covers a lot of them, including Israel).

So as you can see, there is ways around it with out actually making it about Religion :)

Unfortunately, my post wasn't the most up to date with the 7 countries. Mine still had Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, too bad they still aren't on the list.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2017, 02:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I believe that I told people about this list of countries a month ago and said that he could easily create a ban starting with that list that Obama and Congress created and it would not be a ban based on Religion, but a ban based on terrorism. In Fact, with the exception of Iran, none of the other 6 countries have functioning centralized governments established.


Unfortunately, my post wasn't the most up to date with the 7 countries. Mine still had Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, too bad they still aren't on the list.

Yeah, this was (supposedly) Giuliani's answer for a Muslim ban without naming Islam and thus making it legal.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-30-2017, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, this was (supposedly) Giuliani's answer for a Muslim ban without naming Islam and thus making it legal.

And it should hold up in court just fine.
The Green-Card/NPR part might have to be revised, but that's all.

[GMDino]

(01-30-2017, 03:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And it should hold up in court just fine.
The Green-Card/NPR part might have to be revised, but that's all.

Yet...it was still a Muslim ban.  They admit that.  Sad.

[Griever]

(01-30-2017, 02:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I believe that I told people about this list of countries a month ago and said that he could easily create a ban starting with that list that Obama and Congress created and it would not be a ban based on Religion, but a ban based on terrorism. In Fact, with the exception of Iran, none of the other 6 countries have functioning centralized governments established.


Unfortunately, my post wasn't the most up to date with the 7 countries. Mine still had Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, too bad they still aren't on the list.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2017, 03:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And it should hold up in court just fine.
The Green-Card/NPR part might have to be revised, but that's all.

It may or may not, depends on the case the ACLU makes. They are going to bring suit that it violates the establishment clause because of giving preference to refugees of minority religions from Muslim majority countries, and with it being stated by the administration that they would give Christian refugees priority. Not saying they will win or not, but they are going to bring that case.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-30-2017, 03:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yet...it was still a Muslim ban.  They admit that.  Sad.

The media is admitting it. Trump denies it, we all know what it is, but it was done with keeping it legal and not citing religion.

(01-30-2017, 03:55 PM)Griever Wrote: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Never said they did, what I said was they created the list (not Trump's fault that most or all of them are Muslim based countries), and Trump referenced it in his EO. All Obama did was setup the means necessary for Trump to do this.

[GMDino]

(01-30-2017, 04:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The media is admitting it. Trump denies it, we all know what it is, but it was done with keeping it legal and not citing religion.

He said he wanted a Muslim Ban.

He asked for a way to have a Muslim ban "legally".

It's a Muslim ban.

(01-30-2017, 03:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ...we all know it in the back of our minds, so it's getting silly to keep repeating yourselves.

[Au165]

(01-30-2017, 03:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It may or may not, depends on the case the ACLU makes. They are going to bring suit that it violates the establishment clause because of giving preference to refugees of minority religions from Muslim majority countries, and with it being stated by the administration that they would give Christian refugees priority. Not saying they will win or not, but they are going to bring that case.

Basically this. I think there will be enough there to judge intent to throw out the whole thing.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-30-2017, 04:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: He said he wanted a Muslim Ban.

He asked for a way to have a Muslim ban "legally".

It's a Muslim ban.

And we all know OJ was guilty.  If he lets in Christians from these countries then you have a case. Also Muslims from any country not on that list can come here including Indonesia which I believe has the largest Muslim population.. Hard to claim Muslim ban.

Personally I don't think it should matter.  Nobody has a right to come to this country, so nobody's rights are being violated by any criteria used.  Not agreeing with denying people based on religion, but in my opinion you aren't violating anyone's rights.

[GMDino]

(01-30-2017, 05:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And we all know OJ was guilty.  If he lets in Christians from these countries then you have a case.  Also Muslims from any country not on that list can come here including Indonesia which I believe has the largest Muslim population..  Hard to claim Muslim ban.

Personally I don't think it should matter.  Nobody has a right to come to this country, so nobody's rights are being violated by any criteria used.  Not agreeing with denying people based on religion, but in my opinion you aren't violating anyone's rights.

Not hard to "claim" when he said he wanted one but asked how to do it legally...because he can't do it legally.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-30-2017, 06:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not hard to "claim" when he said he wanted one but asked how to do it legally...because he can't do it legally.

Well then he did it so poorly that it's going to be impossible to prove.  What percentage of Muslims are affected by this?  I can't imagine it's more than 25%.  

[xxlt]

(01-30-2017, 12:53 PM)Griever Wrote: i for one hope its hulk hogan

I would like that. For all the little Hulkamaniacs who are still out there eating their vitamins (you know who you are), I think it would be great. Really really good and great. In other words, grrrrrrrrrrreat!

It would be the greatest supreme court nomination. Bigger than Obama's, he didn't even get a vote. So, yeah, it'd be great.

[Bengalzona]

(01-30-2017, 12:53 PM)Griever Wrote: i for one hope its hulk hogan

The awesomeness of that would be awesome.

"I'm gonna rip out Clarence Thomas' head and shove it up his ass if he gives me that same opinion again!!!!"

[Bengalzona]

(01-30-2017, 02:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Unfortunately, my post wasn't the most up to date with the 7 countries. Mine still had Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, too bad they still aren't on the list.

Frankly, I'd feel more protected against terrorism if those two countries were included and the other seven left off the list.

[Bengalzona]

(01-30-2017, 04:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: Basically this. I think there will be enough there to judge intent to throw out the whole thing.

(01-30-2017, 05:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And we all know OJ was guilty.  If he lets in Christians from these countries then you have a case.  Also Muslims from any country not on that list can come here including Indonesia which I believe has the largest Muslim population..  Hard to claim Muslim ban.

Personally I don't think it should matter.  Nobody has a right to come to this country, so nobody's rights are being violated by any criteria used.  Not agreeing with denying people based on religion, but in my opinion you aren't violating anyone's rights.

That is sort of the nice thing about this situation: it will go to court and be decided. I'm satisfied with that and with whatever they decide.