Who Agrees with Trump's Tweets on his Immigration EO and the Court Orders Thereto?

[UpperLimits]

Was it not a ban based on religion? If it was not why would the president have called for a ban based on religion?

Just curious about something.... Would it make you happy if Trump were to just photocopy Obama's order of 2011 and sign HIS name to it? It bans the same 7 nations, and apparently it was "legal." Besides, I'm not really sure the USA is in any less imminent danger today than it was then.

 

[UpperLimits]

Where did the EO state that?

I don't believe it "states" that, but it is implicitly implied.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Just curious about something.... Would it make you happy if Trump were to just photocopy Obama's order of 2011 and sign HIS name to it? It bans the same 7 nations, and apparently it was "legal." Besides, I'm not really sure the USA is in any less imminent danger today than it was then.

The 7 countries is referring to Obama's Appropriations Act EO, which did not ban seven nations. Instead it suspended a visa waver program for those who have visited those seven countries. Citizens from those countries could still enter. The only thing even close was the suspension of visa processing for Iraqi refugees for a temporary investigation following an actual recent foiled terror attempt. No refugees were barred indefinitely and no green card holders or people who already had processed visas were barred from entering. Meanwhile no refugee or immigrant from any of the seven countries targeted by the ban has been implicated in any fatal terrorist attack in the United State.
For more information you can read about it here: Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions

 

[UpperLimits]

A big problem, that Trump implied that xtians were treated unfairly and this EO was going to fix that also implies that the intent behind it is to favor xtians as well, I don't think he has singled out any other groups that were treated very unfairly.

There are other groups besides Christians which are being persecuted in the the Middle East. Basically, anybody who is not a Muslim. Nevertheless, I personally have no problem with people trying to help Christians get out of there. I confess, it's a personal bias, but I believe also with good justification. They are not exactly a welcome group over there.

Iraq, for example, had over a million and a half Christians in 2003. Today, while the exact number is unknown, ADF International estimates their numbers to have dwindled down to a couple hundred thousand. (About an 80% drop in 13 years) If that doesn't spell systematic genocide, then I don't really know what does.

You may not agree with Christians - or even like them - but regardless, they have a right to exist according to their own beliefs, and if anyone needs a little favoritism over there, it's that demographic group. I fully understand why Trump would have made an exception in their regard. They have a genuine need for it. Especially in fleeing groups like ISIS and such.

It's called putting compassion before the rule of law. This is something I find many people have a problem understanding. They would rather whine about some group (Usually somebody they don't like.) getting some "special privilege before the law." We must always remember that the law is OUR servant to help and guide our society. We should never become slaves to it's rule. And, while law and order must, in general, prevail - pushing the written law to the 'N'th degree helps no one. It simply turns us into a cold and heartless society. The law, in and of itself, has no allowance for compassion, or forgiveness. Those elements must come from within a society.

 

[UpperLimits]

The 7 countries is referring to Obama's Appropriations Act EO, which did not ban seven nations....

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Curious George]

Just curious about something.... Would it make you happy if Trump were to just photocopy Obama's order of 2011 and sign HIS name to it? It bans the same 7 nations, and apparently it was "legal." Besides, I'm not really sure the USA is in any less imminent danger today than it was then.

Are you suggesting that Obama’s order was just as broad as Trump's?

I would be happy if we had a secular government making secular decisionso for secular reasons.

 

[ajay0]

Especially this Tweet:

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!​

Do you consider it appropriate for a President to denigrate a federal judge by referring to him as “this so-called judge” when the judge has merely issued an TRO entirely within his powers?

The way the judiciary is challenged by Trump, and the way Trump got elected as president amidst rumours of election fraud committed, all this seems eerily similar to the way Hitler came to power himself through fraudulent democratic means and then systematically denigrating all other institutions which might block his way to absolute power needed for dictatorship.

It also reflects in a sense the failure and steady deterioration of American democracy.

 

[Curious George]

There are other groups besides Christians which are being persecuted in the the Middle East. Basically, anybody who is not a Muslim. Nevertheless, I personally have no problem with people trying to help Christians get out of there. I confess, it's a personal bias, but I believe also with good justification. They are not exactly a welcome group over there.

Iraq, for example, had over a million and a half Christians in 2003. Today, while the exact number is unknown, ADF International estimates their numbers to have dwindled down to a couple hundred thousand. (About an 80% drop in 13 years) If that doesn't spell systematic genocide, then I don't really know what does.

You may not agree with Christians - or even like them - but regardless, they have a right to exist according to their own beliefs, and if anyone needs a little favoritism over there, it's that demographic group. I fully understand why Trump would have made an exception in their regard. They have a genuine need for it. Especially in fleeing groups like ISIS and such.

It's called putting compassion before the rule of law. This is something I find many people have a problem understanding. They would rather whine about some group (Usually somebody they don't like.) getting some "special privilege before the law." We must always remember that the law is OUR servant to help and guide our society. We should never become slaves to it's rule. And, while law and order must, in general, prevail - pushing the written law to the 'N'th degree helps no one. It simply turns us into a cold and heartless society. The law, in and of itself, has no allowance for compassion, or forgiveness. Those elements must come from within a society.

Our law allows for religious exception, and were xtians in need it would understand. But this is not the case. The consideration of religious persecution is not the problem.

Why is it that that some seem to whine when the cards don't fall in their favor? Usually this is xtians (a group whom I do like) whining about how others just don't understand.

If a person is facing oppression, torture, and death because of their religion it makes little differenice whether a person is xtians or not. It's called putting companion before one's rule of personal bias.

 

[UpperLimits]

Our law allows for religious exception, and were xtians in need it would understand. But this is not the case. The consideration of religious persecution is not the problem.

Why is it that that some seem to whine when the cards don't fall in their favor? Usually this is xtians (a group whom I do like) whining about how others just don't understand.

If a person is facing oppression, torture, and death because of their religion it makes little differenice whether a person is xtians or not. It's called putting companion before one's rule of personal bias.

So then, I guess in your view, an 80% reduction in a mere 13 years doesn't count as persecution. Executions, forced conversion at gunpoint, etc.... Or are you suggesting there are really the ones who've immigrated to safety?

 

[Curious George]

So then, I guess in your view, an 80% reduction in a mere 13 years doesn't count as persecution. Executions, forced conversion at gunpoint, etc.... Or are you suggesting there are really the ones who've immigrated to safety?

I think that you are missing my point.

 

[UpperLimits]

I think that you are missing my point.

Apparently so. Begging your forgiveness. I may have misunderstood you about post 110/111. Would you please clarify a bit?

 

[metis]

Just a reminder that the single group who has suffered the most from radical Islamic attacks has been other Muslims. Therefore, when the Trump camp offered refuge only to "Christians and other minority groups", this showed what the administration's hand really was, and that violated the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. And then what Giuliani said what Trump had asked him confirmed the administration's real motivation all along.

 

[esmith]

Just a reminder that the single group who has suffered the most from radical Islamic attacks has been other Muslims. Therefore, when the Trump camp offered refuge only to "Christians and other minority groups", this showed what the administration's hand really was, and that violated the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. And then what Giuliani said what Trump had asked him confirmed the administration's real motivation all along.

How about once and for all stop fabricating false information about the EO.
Yes you can use his campaign rhetoric to make a point, but you can not use his campaign rhetoric to put words into a EO.

 

[fantome profane]

Just curious about something.... Would it make you happy if Trump were to just photocopy Obama's order of 2011 and sign HIS name to it? It bans the same 7 nations, and apparently it was "legal." Besides, I'm not really sure the USA is in any less imminent danger today than it was then.

If you have a photocopy of Obama's 2011 order them maybe you should actually read it, because what you say here is just not true. The 2011 order that listed these seven countries did not ban people from travelling to the U.S. It simply required a more stringent background checks. But it did not ban them. No one was rejected at the airport simply for being from one of these countries. It is not the same thing.