Supreme Court upholds travel ban

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing to see hear, folks. Move along. Never was a "Muslim" travel ban, it was a ban of those wishing to enter the US from countries that were known to produce terrorists. Unfortunately most of those folks were from Muslim countries. So, go ahead, take your best shot. It was the proper thing to do for the protection of all US citizens. (BTW, how loudly did you moan and groan when Obama banned immigrants from Iran?).

So, we can now judge a person, not by the content of their character, but by their nation of origin? Used to be the colour of your skin could tell a good American everything they needed to know about another, and now it's where they were born.

Me, I'm having a little trouble seeing the difference, but then, I'm Canadian, eh?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You're not even close to base with this. *Yikes*

We're talking about a travel ban, not detainment.

I'm talking about the lengths people will to go in the name of national security which isn't justified. As I said earlier in the thread, none of the foreign terrorists we have had came from those countries (not even the one the list was originally founded on). But it so happens that they come from common trading partners that aren't on the ban (Re: Egypt and SA). The vast majority of terrorist problems we have are with domestic terrorists. All this does is make it more difficult for legal Muslim visitors, immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees to get out of harm's way, and set a bad precedent as a specious and generalized anti-Muslim target. Sending a clear message. "We don't trust you."

 

[icehorse]

So, we can now judge a person, not by the content of their character, but by their nation of origin? Used to be the colour of your skin could tell a good American everything they needed to know about another, and now it's where they were born.

Me, I'm having a little trouble seeing the difference, but then, I'm Canadian, eh?

A couple of data points here:

1 - For decades now, the US immigration rules have stated that people can be denied entry if they are members of terrorist organizations or members of totalitarian ideologies.

2 - About half the world's Muslims wish to live under Sharia law. Any country that lives under Sharia law is living in a totalitarian state.

3 - Immigration is a privilege, not a right.

4 - While - IMO - trump remains despicable and I'm sure this particular action was horribly executed, there is some merit to the idea that Muslims ought to be asked to denounce Sharia as one criteria in applying to immigrate.

 

[BSM1]

So, we can now judge a person, not by the content of their character, but by their nation of origin? Used to be the colour of your skin could tell a good American everything they needed to know about another, and now it's where they were born.

Me, I'm having a little trouble seeing the difference, but then, I'm Canadian, eh?

Absolutely if that's all we have to go by. There was no way to really vet these people before they were turned loose among the citizenry of this country. Sometimes common sense has to triumph over blind emotionalism.

 

[Sunstone]

Another example of Americans supporting an erosion of liberties in return for a little perceived security. There's a strong sense in which it doesn't matter it's not their own liberties this time.

 

[BSM1]

Another example of Americans supporting an erosion of liberties in return for a little perceived security. There's a strong sense in which it doesn't matter it's not their own liberties this time.

So you believe that everyone in the entire world has the right to enter the US (or any country) at will simply because they are sucking air?

 

[Faithofchristian]

To my Muslim brothers and sisters in humanity I apologize for what this man has done and unfortunately our judicial system has been bought. This man is not my president nor do I acknowledge his office nor his person. I pray those of you of middle eastern descent even those of central and South American origin whose homeland has been targeted be careful.

Oh Wah,Wah, get over it, that's how it is. No Terrorist allowed in the U.S.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you believe that everyone in the entire world has the right to enter the US (or any country) at will simply because they are sucking air?

Holy strawman, that's a doozy!

 

[Revoltingest]

So you believe that everyone in the entire world has the right to enter the US (or any country) at will simply because they are sucking air?

I don't think the loyal opposition actually believes that.
But I can see your getting that impression from....
- Some here have suggested emulating how our ancestors arrived, ie, with no border controls.
- Opponents of Trump's policies offer criticism of every measure, but offer no alternative.
- Many here have favored sanctuary city shielding off illegals.
- Some here have favored public benefits to support illegals.

As evidence of the loyal opposition's wanting some (albeit undefined) border controls is
the lack of opposition to Obama's similar policies. Partisanship could be a factor here.

 

[icehorse]

Another example of Americans supporting an erosion of liberties in return for a little perceived security. There's a strong sense in which it doesn't matter it's not their own liberties this time.

Immigration is not a liberty, correct?

As for security, what do you think of the idea that immigrants ought to be compelled to renounce all of the theocratic parts of their belief systems?

 

[esmith]

Immigration is not a liberty, correct?

As for security, what do you think of the idea that immigrants ought to be compelled to renounce all of the theocratic parts of their belief systems?

No, the country of origin should have in place adequate procedures to vet those requesting travel to the U.S.; just as those countries that their citizens are allowed to travel to the U.S. have in place.

Every hear of the 6 P's?

 

[icehorse]

No, the country of origin should have in place adequate procedures to vet those requesting travel to the U.S.; just as those countries that their citizens are allowed to travel to the U.S. have in place.

Every hear of the 6 P's?

To be clear, I think visiting and immigrating should be handled differently.

 

[esmith]

To be clear, I think visiting and immigrating should be handled differently.

Why?

 

[icehorse]

Why?

I think the requirements for visiting should be more lenient than the requirements for immigrating. Again, long standing immigration rules state that an applicant can be denied if they are a member of a totalitarian organization. Presumably this is because if such a person were to live in the US (as opposed to just visiting), they would be far more capable of causing trouble. This is speculation on my part, but the part about denying totalitarian-ists is not.

 

[esmith]

I think the requirements for visiting should be more lenient than the requirements for immigrating. Again, long standing immigration rules state that an applicant can be denied if they are a member of a totalitarian organization. Presumably this is because if such a person were to live in the US (as opposed to just visiting), they would be far more capable of causing trouble. This is speculation on my part, but the part about denying totalitarian-ists is not.

Visit or immigrate should have the same requirements as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Shaul]

Ugly denial such as this has a history.

So does delusions and fear mongering.

 

[Revoltingest]

Visit or immigrate should have the same requirements as far as I'm concerned.

Looser standards for visiting makes sense.
Immigrants are here to stay, & could be vetted for economic productivity.
But visitors, like my sister's aged mother-in-law from Iran won't be staying long.

 

[Shaul]

There's been zero terrorist attacks from the countries on the list. And countries where we have had attacks are not on it, such as Egypt and SA. And Obama didn't ban immigrants from Iran, there was a slow down of ONE type of visa for a short, outlined period. Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions
And furthermore, it was a Muslim ban and the court originally made him rewrite the proposal because they ruled it as such. This is the same ban with a different wording slapped on to it. But nobody is or should be fooled.

You are factually incorrect. Also none of this is relevant. By law the President has broad discretion in these matters, as the SCOTUS noted. And it might just be possible that the President has information that we in the public don’t have. Simply put, President Trump has the authority to have done this and it was legal.

 

[esmith]

Looser standards for visiting makes sense.
Immigrants are here to stay, & could be vetted for economic productivity.
But visitors, like my sister's aged mother-in-law from Iran won't be staying long.

You got me there. Guess I'll agree with you and others.

 

[Revoltingest]

You got me there. Guess I'll agree with you and others.

You're just too dang reasonable.
(How often are you thus insulted?)