We are all equal again, right?

[Dill]

(07-06-2023, 10:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you were actually doing that then I wouldn't have made the accusation.

Like I said, circular arguments.  This is such a train wreck that it beggars the imagination.  You're actually suggesting that I stated "the system" made a decision without any input from actual human beings.   Your position is literally absurd.

Because I enjoy your incomprehension and inadvertent continued reinforcement of my position
 
Probably because it wasn't a Muslim ban?  Where non-Muslim majority countries included in the ban?  Where the majority of the world's Muslim majority populated countries included in the ban?

Ok, so the one-liners can continue without me. 

I'll address the bolded again, though we've been over your defense of Trump's policy before. 

The intent of Trump's original EO 1369 was to create the Muslim ban he promised during his campaign
and targeted 7 majority Muslim countries with weak or no lobbies in the U.S. The Trump team's fear of terrorism may have been real, 
but the larger intent was to slow or stop refugee flows from Muslim countries, especially Syria. A ban on Muslim countries with 
little refugee flow and strong financial connections to the U.S.--Like Trump's potential business partner SAudi Arabia, would not be cost effective.

But like all politicians pushing discrimination, post-Civil War, the Trump team had to learn how to craft legislation to produce the desired 
discriminatory effect without mention of religion or ethnicity or even the appearance of targeting. 

Court challenges and counsel forced them through three revisions until by addition, they found the "sweet spot"
with North Korea, which posed no terrorist immigrant problem, and Venezuela. Neither were Muslim countries 
so how could the Travel ban be about Muslims? 

At least three more revisions after that, eventually even including Egypt--7 versions in all. 
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/trump-travel-ban-timeline/index.html

How realistic is it to suppose that somewhere, through all the changes, the intended Muslim ban stopped being a Muslim ban,
and became about something else? 

Especially since the Muslim-ban-which-was-not-a-Muslim-ban dropped Muslim refugee flow some 94% between Jan. and Dec. of 2017, just as a real Muslim ban would have. https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-muslim-ban-working-muslim-immigration-slumps-747922




It had almost no effect on NK and V, though 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/26/trumps-muslim-ban-really-was-muslim-ban-thats-what-data-suggest/

But if Trump team says its NOT a Muslim ban because NK and not Saudi, then you are persuaded. No mention of religion, right?