What is 'Islamophobia'?

[Akivah]

I don't think the ban should be enlarged. I'm saying the idea that the ban is designed to keep the U.S. safe from countries which export with terrorism is, in my opinion, a red herring because the ban does not cover some of the larger exporters of terrorism like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

I'm not getting your point. If the ban was extended to include those two countries, then you'd be in favor of it?

Isn't it also a red herring to say the travel ban is against Muslims when it doesn't apply to all Muslim countries?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So to fix it, Trump needs to enlarge the ban to them?

... no.

The ban is illegal because it's an order which is applied in a discriminatory manner based on a religious qualification. Making laws (even executive orders) which singles out religious group(s) for advantages or disadvantages is against the Constitution - especially when American citizens are affected which they have been. The only way to fix this ban's illegal nature is to scrap the ban.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The Pesident has the right under statute to make security determinations related to people inbound to the country.

And the court system has the right to act in its role as a system of checks & balances to ensure Presidential actions do not violate the Constitution.

Peoplw outside the country who are not citizens or legal residents have no rights granted by the Constitution, certainly no right to come here. If this were a "moslem ban" then it would apply to all moslem country's not just the ones where background information is virtually non existent. liberals have alway's used their particular judges to quash the will of the people and grant rights where none exist, it won't work this time

This ban is affecting American citizens - subjecting them to discriminatory treatment based on their religious beliefs and, in some cases, their perceived religion. This is why the federal courts have, for the second time, frozen this executive order. The moment this travel ban affected one American citizen it became legally dubious.

The same as HOMOPHOBIA, an intimidation towards the just.

Treating LGBTs like second class citizens isn't just. Put your persecution complex away.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

If terrorism is the criteria for banning people then why aren't Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Egypt on the list; all countries with citizens who took part in the 9/11 terror attacks - with Saudi Arabia being a known exporter of Wahabi indoctrination and arms to mujahideen groups in Syria?




So you're fine with illegal laws being passed because they don't affect you? This is the dictionary definition of privilege.

I'm honestly pretty okay with privilege and I'd be lying if I said I didn't distrust muslims as a whole. I have the privilege to distrust this religion because of the harm it has caused. I have the privilege to say that maybe trying to keep out radicals is a good thing. Privilege is not entirely wrong you know.
Saudi Arabia is also an ally so that is more complicated unfortunately, even if though i'd like them banned as well.

Which illegal laws by the way?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

... no.

The ban is illegal because it's an order which is applied in a discriminatory manner based on a religious qualification. Making laws (even executive orders) which singles out religious group(s) for advantages or disadvantages is against the Constitution - especially when American citizens are affected which they have been. The only way to fix this ban's illegal nature is to scrap the ban.

I'm sorry the ban is not illegal the president has the right to forbid certain groups from entering the country. I would suggest you read the whole constitution and it's amendments in full before you try to say that.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm sorry the ban is not illegal the president has the right to forbid certain groups from entering the country.

Not when the discrimination with which said laws apply is religious in nature or when laws disproportionately disadvantage certain communities. If keeping America safe is the goal, why are countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt & Lebanon not on this travel ban list? Three of those had citizens who took part in the 9/11 attacks - which in fact occurred with support from the Saudi state itself!

I would suggest you read the whole constitution and it's amendments in full before you try to say that.

An order, statue or law only needs to violate part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional - not the whole thing. The President is not above the law.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Not when the discrimination with which said laws apply is religious in nature or when laws disproportionately disadvantage certain communities. If keeping America safe is the goal, why are countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt & Lebanon not on this travel ban list? Three of those had citizens who took part in the 9/11 attacks - which in fact occurred with support from the Saudi state itself!



An order, statue or law only needs to violate part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional - not the whole thing. The President is not above the law.

I'm suggesting you read he whole thing to understand the whole thing. The president can apply a ban on pretty much whatever merits he chooses and if it's held up in court it will stay period. He can do this, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Period.
Read the whole thing. it's not that long.

You can't just ban the Saudi's cause they are allies. No matter how disgusting they are. And honestly I don't even care that much about the "keeping us safe part" I just don't want a backwards ideology coming in droves to my country. Or hell even in small amounts. Lets not turn into the regressives in Europe shall we? Why are you defending an ideology that would rather see you dead or enslaved than practicing your spirituality in anyway? What is wrong with keeping a bunch of savages out of the country?

 

[MD]

I'm suggesting you read he whole thing to understand the whole thing. The president can apply a ban on pretty much whatever merits he chooses and if it's held up in court it will stay period. He can do this, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Period.
Read the whole thing. it's not that long.

You can't just ban the Saudi's cause they are allies. No matter how disgusting they are. And honestly I don't even care that much about the "keeping us safe part" I just don't want a backwards ideology coming in droves to my country. Or hell even in small amounts. Lets not turn into the regressives in Europe shall we? Why are you defending an ideology that would rather see you dead or enslaved than practicing your spirituality in anyway? What is wrong with keeping a bunch of savages out of the country?

It doesn't keep out the backward people, in America it keeps out the enlightened ones. Many people coming to America are highly educated, but in their repressive societies cannot express their views. America is not Europe, that continent is done. America vets and picks the best and the brightest. I cannot support the ban because I have met many ex Muslims from Iran and Iraq, and they would be banned. They are stuck now.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

It doesn't keep out the backward people, in America it keeps out the enlightened ones. Many people coming to America are highly educated, but in their repressive societies cannot express their views. America is not Europe, that continent is done. America vets and picks the best and the brightest. I cannot support the ban because I have met many ex Muslims from Iran and Iraq, and they would be banned. They are stuck now.

As far as I can tell we still don't need to take them in and it would still be better these people by and large stay out.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Lorgar,

banning people from certain muslim countries because they are known to produce terrorists sounds justified to me. Not sure I've heard anything about the other two but i'd be pretty fine with it depending on what that meant.

None of the six or seven countries has a single person connected with terrorist attacks on US soil. That is to say, zero people from these countries have actually killed even a single American citizen in an act of terror in the United States. This is according to data spanning from 1975 up to late 2015 (Cato). Only “six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.”

Curiously, as @A Greased Scotsman mentioned, those nations with known terrorist attackers in the US who have actually killed US citizens were not included in the ban, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Thousands of American citizens have been killed by terrorists from these countries, including the 9/11 attack. This is particularly pertinent since Trump explicitly used the 2015 San Bernardino and K1 visa-holder Tashfeen Malik in particular to justify his ban. She was actually from Saudi Arabia, and also lived in Pakistan before coming to the US: two nations not included in the ban. Trump’s new order would not have done a thing to prevent her attack, therefore.

 

[Kartari]

Hi shmogie,

The Pesident has the right under statute to make security determinations related to people inbound to the country. Peoplw outside the country who are not citizens or legal residents have no rights granted by the Constitution, certainly no right to come here. If this were a "moslem ban" then it would apply to all moslem country's not just the ones where background information is virtually non existent. liberals have alway's used their particular judges to quash the will of the people and grant rights where none exist, it won't work this time

This entire post is factually wrong. Both bans are in fact illegal, according to congressional statues placed upon the president. The Immigration Act of 1965 trumps Trump’s claimed precedent to ban immigrants and refugees thusly (Cornell). According to the ’65 Act, no person may “be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

And in direct contrast to your anti-immigration statement (your second sentence above), the United States has turned its back on one of the core values of democracy by detaining immigrants and refugees alike who had until recently been promised a safe haven from tyranny and oppression elsewhere in the world. “Give us your weary, your tired, your poor…,” these were not mere words, but a meaningful and humanitarian promise to immigrants and refugees throughout the world that they could have a better life here. Indeed, aside from American Indians who were here long before the rest of us, we are all otherwise either immigrants and refugees ourselves, or the descendants of immigrants and refugees who fled bad and even violent situations to have a better life here.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Lorgar,

I'm sorry the ban is not illegal the president has the right to forbid certain groups from entering the country. I would suggest you read the whole constitution and it's amendments in full before you try to say that.

This is factually wrong. It is in fact illegal. Please refer to my previous post to shmogie for an explanation.

 

[Kartari]

Lorgar...

...You can't just ban the Saudi's cause they are allies. No matter how disgusting they are. And honestly I don't even care that much about the "keeping us safe part" I just don't want a backwards ideology coming in droves to my country. Or hell even in small amounts. Lets not turn into the regressives in Europe shall we? Why are you defending an ideology that would rather see you dead or enslaved than practicing your spirituality in anyway? What is wrong with keeping a bunch of savages out of the country?

In all sincerity, do you not recognize how bigoted this paragraph is?

Please, in friendliness, reflect on your paragraph above. But imagine it targets not Muslims but, for instance, blacks. Or Jews. Does it still sound fine to you?

 

[Kartari]

Everyone,

Concerning the Muslim bans, it can only help the US and the world at large if more people would comprehend the realities of the matter. Around the time the first ban was attempted, the Cato Institute published a series of fact-based articles against it. I highly recommend reading and reviewing their "Five Reasons Congress Should Repeal Trump’s Immigrant & Refugee Ban" (Source).

 

[shmogie]

l

Hi Lorgar,



None of the six or seven countries has a single person connected with terrorist attacks on US soil. That is to say, zero people from these countries have actually killed even a single American citizen in an act of terror in the United States. This is according to data spanning from 1975 up to late 2015 (Cato). Only “six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.”

Curiously, as @A Greased Scotsman mentioned, those nations with known terrorist attackers in the US who have actually killed US citizens were not included in the ban, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Thousands of American citizens have been killed by terrorists from these countries, including the 9/11 attack. This is particularly pertinent since Trump explicitly used the 2015 San Bernardino and K1 visa-holder Tashfeen Malik in particular to justify his ban. She was actually from Saudi Arabia, and also lived in Pakistan before coming to the US: two nations not included in the ban. Trump’s new order would not have done a thing to prevent her attack, therefore.

Are you intentionally being obtuse ? You don't even understand why the ban is required. The identified nations have little or no reliable data bases to use to screen their citizens, therefore they would be coming here without even the basic skeleton of a background check on them, In other words, we would be importing blindly people from the most violent and debased region on earth.





























you are not gewtting it (purpoisely ?)

Hi Lorgar,



None of the six or seven countries has a single person connected with terrorist attacks on US soil. That is to say, zero people from these countries have actually killed even a single American citizen in an act of terror in the United States. This is according to data spanning from 1975 up to late 2015 (Cato). Only “six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.”

Curiously, as @A Greased Scotsman mentioned, those nations with known terrorist attackers in the US who have actually killed US citizens were not included in the ban, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Thousands of American citizens have been killed by terrorists from these countries, including the 9/11 attack. This is particularly pertinent since Trump explicitly used the 2015 San Bernardino and K1 visa-holder Tashfeen Malik in particular to justify his ban. She was actually from Saudi Arabia, and also lived in Pakistan before coming to the US: two nations not included in the ban. Trump’s new order would not have done a thing to prevent her attack, therefore.

 

[shmogie]

... no.

The ban is illegal because it's an order which is applied in a discriminatory manner based on a religious qualification. Making laws (even executive orders) which singles out religious group(s) for advantages or disadvantages is against the Constitution - especially when American citizens are affected which they have been. The only way to fix this ban's illegal nature is to scrap the ban.

Wrong in oh so many ways. Why don't you try reading the authorizing statute before you display your ignorance ? If religion was the rationale, why only seven of the moslem country's, why not all ? The order says NOTHING about religion. In law, there is the concept of the four corners of the document. That is, the issued order explains for itself why it is being implemented, Liberals have always used selected courts to subvert the will of the people, and today, having had their butts kicked in the election, and having lost 2/3 of the state governorships and over 1,000 state legislature seats since the election of osama bin obama, they are like a mad dog being attacked by a swarm of killer bee's. They will howl and fight anything that comes from their tormentors, regardless of whether it is legal or just. I assure you with 100% certainly, the executive order will be sustained

 

[shmogie]

Hi shmogie,



This entire post is factually wrong. Both bans are in fact illegal, according to congressional statues placed upon the president. The Immigration Act of 1965 trumps Trump’s claimed precedent to ban immigrants and refugees thusly (Cornell). According to the ’65 Act, no person may “be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

And in direct contrast to your anti-immigration statement (your second sentence above), the United States has turned its back on one of the core values of democracy by detaining immigrants and refugees alike who had until recently been promised a safe haven from tyranny and oppression elsewhere in the world. “Give us your weary, your tired, your poor…,” these were not mere words, but a meaningful and humanitarian promise to immigrants and refugees throughout the world that they could have a better life here. Indeed, aside from American Indians who were here long before the rest of us, we are all otherwise either immigrants and refugees ourselves, or the descendants of immigrants and refugees who fled bad and even violent situations to have a better life here.

Sorry, but you are wrong, and the shopped for liberal judges who stayed the order will be overturned, I guarantee it. Congressional statutes cannot circumvent the Constitution. The Constitution provides the Executive branch the sole responsibility of protecting the nation. If you read the authorizing statute, and the Constitution, this is abundantly clear. Immigration also falls within the purview of the Executive branch, not the legislative branch. No foreign citizen has the right to come here, nor does any American citizen have the right to arbitrarily ensure their presence here. "Anti immigration", what does that mean ? I certainly am against illegal immigration, and I am extremely suspicious of importing people from a region and culture that essentially refuses to make any effort to assimilate. Some of my ancestors immigrated here ( not my native American ones) legally. They did not set up enclaves, little kingdoms, to replicate and live in as they did in the "old country" ignoring as far as possible the culture and more's of their host nation. Nor did they come here and expect to be supported and aided by the taxpaying citizens of the Republic, they made their own way. One only need to look at Europe to see the disgusting failure of your immigration idea's. Multiculturalism has been outed as a cancer, many nations are on the brink of civil war because of unfettered immigration, and The cultures of these nations have been maimed by alien actors in droves performing alien acts contrary to what the Cultures of these nations deem acceptable. The US is not the righter of all the worlds ills. Nor is it the protector of all the victims of the worlds failed societies. Nor is it the supporter of all the worlds poor. We can do a reasonable amount, ALWAYS protecting our own nation, it's resources, it's culture, nothing more,

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Wrong in oh so many ways.

List them then. In what way is Trump's travel ban in keeping with established laws?

If religion was the rationale, why only seven of the moslem country's, why not all ?

Ah ha! So we've established that my argument is sound in principle; now we're just arguing over what it should be applied against.

The order says NOTHING about religion.

It doesn't have to specifically state religion in order to disadvantage a religious community. Muslims and people perceived to be Muslims are being stopped and searched purely because of how they look - not what country they are from. A NASA scientist (who is Muslim) was forced to unlock his phone at George Bush Intercontinental in Houston as a result of this travel ban. It was a NASA-issued phone and he could have lost his job for complying with the order. More to the point, the scientist in question, Sidd Bikkannavar is an American-born Muslim and was returning from Chilé (not from any of the countries listed on Trump's ban). If the travel ban in place at the time was only aimed at the countries listed then why was Bikkannavar affected at all? Further, why was he affected in such a way that risked his job?

The moment this travel ban affected Bikkannavar because he was Muslim it became illegal.

In law, there is the concept of the four corners of the document. That is, the issued order explains for itself why it is being implemented, Liberals have always used selected courts to subvert the will of the people,

Like Kim Davis, Mike Pence et al.

and today, having had their butts kicked in the election,

You mean having 3 million votes overwritten by 77 electoral votes.

and having lost 2/3 of the state governorships and over 1,000 state legislature seats since the election of osama bin obama, they are like a mad dog being attacked by a swarm of killer bee's.

Still can't hear your ravings over the sound of your lack of evidence that Obama was a) a Muslim and; b) not an American citizen. The irony here being the birther movement is more like a sound of killer bees in that it's just angry buzzing.

They will howl and fight anything that comes from their tormentors, regardless of whether it is legal or just

You actually make fighting injustice sound unreasonable. Wow.

. I assure you with 100% certainly, the executive order will be sustained

Like the last one was?

 

[shmogie]

Hmmm, seems that you have problems with reading the four corners of a post. I said nothing about where obama was born, nor did I say anything about his religion, I use the nickname for him because he clearly enabled both destruction and terrorism with his feckless " strategic patience" policy. Now to the election, liberals want to use the speed of a basketball team up and down the court to determine the winner of a game, unfortunately it is won by points. The President is elected by the states, not individual votes. If you don't like how the Founders wisely decreed it, then amend the Constitution, don't **** n' moan about something that means nothing. You are complaining about "profiling". Everyone profiles to a greater or lesser extent. The Israeli's probably have the best anti terrorism program there is, based upon profiling. They don't play stupid games like we do, making old ladies in wheel chairs be searched to preserve the illusion of everyone being treated the same. They recognize the obvious factors that apply to most terrorists, being moslems and being of middle eastern ancestry being two major ones. I couldn't care less who is inconvenienced by a security program that protects everyone, they are just unfortunate that they have traits shared by most terrorists. As to injustice, I think it is disgustingly unjust to import people who cannot speak our language, cannot support themselves, use taxpayer money to support and medically treat them. Unjust to the citizens of this country





'

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Hi Lorgar,



None of the six or seven countries has a single person connected with terrorist attacks on US soil. That is to say, zero people from these countries have actually killed even a single American citizen in an act of terror in the United States. This is according to data spanning from 1975 up to late 2015 (Cato). Only “six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.”

Curiously, as @A Greased Scotsman mentioned, those nations with known terrorist attackers in the US who have actually killed US citizens were not included in the ban, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Thousands of American citizens have been killed by terrorists from these countries, including the 9/11 attack. This is particularly pertinent since Trump explicitly used the 2015 San Bernardino and K1 visa-holder Tashfeen Malik in particular to justify his ban. She was actually from Saudi Arabia, and also lived in Pakistan before coming to the US: two nations not included in the ban. Trump’s new order would not have done a thing to prevent her attack, therefore.

Can't say I care I it happened on US soil or not, just like I can't honestly say I've ever cared all that much about the 9/11 attacks. You can't exactly ban allies. Well I suppose you could but it wouldn't look good or work for international relations. Granted Countries like Pakistan disgust me to no end as does Saudi Arabia. I'd rather they be wiped off the face of the earth but that is just me.