Are we sure he isn't purposely tweeting Saturday Night Live material? Some trolls do it cause its provocative and gets the reactions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who Agrees with Trump's Tweets on his Immigration EO and the Court Orders Thereto?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
It's seems you don't have an answer to my question, "What changes to immigration laws do you propose in order to 'concentrate more on those immigrants who'd benefit us'?" You're always allowed to just say that you don't have an answer to a question. Some of us appreciate the honesty.
That would imply a degree of cleverness. Trump is not clever. He has the mind of a bratty 5-year-old.
I'd give preference to those who'd benefit us, eg, engineers.
I'd end the lottery too.
UpperLimits
Active Member
I'm still trying to figure out why Trumps order created such a ruckus in the first place.
Let's do an honest comparison here... Obama issued similar edicts 19 times during HIS administration, restricting immigration and placing other travel restrictions on people of various nations - and NOT ONE single Democrat ever raised a peep. It was, after all, being done for "the security of the nation."
Trump issues one order and now Democrats are shouting racism, running to the courts, and rioting in the streets.
Why the apparent hypocrisy?
A complete list of orders restricting, or otherwise affecting aliens, by the last 5 presidents, is given in this document. This has happened 43 times since 1981. Mostly under Democratic presidents. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44743.pdf
Let's do an honest comparison here... Obama issued similar edicts 19 times during HIS administration, restricting immigration and placing other travel restrictions on people of various nations - and NOT ONE single Democrat ever raised a peep. It was, after all, being done for "the security of the nation."
Trump issues one order and now Democrats are shouting racism, running to the courts, and rioting in the streets.
Why the apparent hypocrisy?
A complete list of orders restricting, or otherwise affecting aliens, by the last 5 presidents, is given in this document. This has happened 43 times since 1981. Mostly under Democratic presidents. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44743.pdf
How many times has six nations, not all on any sort of terror or war list, been targeted all at once?
Curious George
Veteran Member
The problem is first and foremost never has any president said they were going to ban people based on religion or favor people based on religion.
Until now.
esmith
Veteran Member
Please show where the EO says that entry into the US is based on religion. When you do, I will consider taking you seriously.
Yes, he did say that a persecuted minority would be taken into account when screening persons for entry. However, it is not in the EO is it?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Trump made it very clear during the election that he wanted Muslims banned-- period. It was only later in the campaign that he backed off.
Secondly, Giuliani admitted that Trump called him and asked how banning all Muslims could be banned and have it be legal.
However, when it comes to constitutional matters, intent is considered far less significant than in criminal cases, so I have doubts that what he said in the campaign and to Giuliani will play any significant role. But it's possible.
Secondly, Giuliani admitted that Trump called him and asked how banning all Muslims could be banned and have it be legal.
However, when it comes to constitutional matters, intent is considered far less significant than in criminal cases, so I have doubts that what he said in the campaign and to Giuliani will play any significant role. But it's possible.
Curious George
Veteran Member
That is correct. It is not in the EO. But it needn't be there for what I say to be true.
esmith
Veteran Member
According to a competent lawyer the statements made by Giuliani and candidate Trump are not admissible as evidence in the hearing that the EO was to ban Muslims. It would be nothing more that speculation and does not have any legal standing.
esmith
Veteran Member
As per my above post what was said should not have any legal bearing on the case. Post #91
Curious George
Veteran Member
Well apparently reasonable minds disagree. The point here is that intent matters. We can infer intent from a person's words.
esmith
Veteran Member
Not legally. However with the 9th Court who's to say.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Yes, most certainly intent matters legally.
What lawyer said that? Trump's statements in December were mentioned in the Circuit Court hearing.
The "ruckus" concerns the fact that the EO violates the Constitutional rights of lawful immigrants. The fact that other EOs that are quite unlike Trump's EO were Constitutional does not imply that Trump's EO is Constitutional.
If you want to do "an honest comparison," then cite which of Obama's EOs you claim to be similar to Trumps.
esmith
Veteran Member
(
Does this indicate a ban. No, what it does say is that those that are of a persecuted religion will have priority.
Want to try again
Curious George
Veteran Member
Because there don't seem to be any takers, let me play devil's advocate.
Regarding equal protection claims, deportation is not considered a punishment therefore one is not guaranteed equal protection under a constitutional analysis. That the president and Congress have plenary power with regard to immigration means that a law that did not afford equal protection to non-citizens who were not residents could not be struck down. And were it challenged a court should avoid the question of law based on the political question doctrine.
With regard to the presidential comments relating to the intent, the comments were part of election speak from which we cannot infer actual intent but only intent to appeal to a certain demographic. Thus, while the EO could be read in this light, (that it intends to appeal to a specific demographic as being religiously motivated) The actual order does not facially do so nor was the actual intent of the order to be so. This would simply fall under PR. A similar example is the deceptive naming of bills in congress.