This was in respect to Iranians. My argument rests on the shoulders of religion, the historical relevance religious persecution plays in the forming of the United States, and the words written in the Constitution.
Travel ban on Iraqis, fine.
Travel ban on Muslims, not fine.
Imo, of course.
Lol (oh, sorry, that isn’t very manly of me. Let me try again).
Thank you for the hearty laugh my friend, but I will be declining your challenge. I imagine I could find a “scholar” that thinks Karl Marx is history’s greatest economist and that the United States should adopt Soviet-style economic policies. I tell you what, though, if Trump wins, a ban specific to Muslims is passed, and SCOTUS rules it is Constitutional then I will fly out and we’ll have a nice steak dinner, on me. You’ll have to supply the bourbon, though. Deal?
It is not disingenuous. The concept of banning an immigrant based solely on their religion–besides being completely unenforceable–is a direct attack on that religion’s legitimacy in the nation.
It is not established that the ban would be temporary, only disputed that it COULD be temporary. Essentially what is being established is a limit–“we won’t have any more of that religion here because here don’t like it.” This is in fact a ban on the religion, with an exemption being made for people already in the States not needing to emigrate.
I repent of nothing. If you like you substitute the word limit in for ban. It makes no difference to the substance of my general point, which you know.
I mean, there’s not much I can do about government overreach. So, sure, Trump can write an executive order on day 1 (right after he reverses all of Obama’s (I believe he said he would do this, but I could be mistaken)) banning all Muslims from entry here. Congress could pass a law banning Muslims too. It could happen, sure. That doesn’t mean it is constitutional, though and it certainly doesn’t make it right. SCOTUS would eventually (hopefully) decide.
I could not agree more. Obama ignores immigration law with his executive orders to pander to voters. Trump rallies the extreme part of his base with a call to ban Muslims from nations with hostile intentions.
Excellent post. The ramifications of a Trump-style ban could be catastrophic. Couple that with the tariff war he will start with Mexico, China, and Japan, his deportation and wall plans, his stance on “going after” the families of terrorists, his use admiration for advanced interrogation tactics beyond waterboard (ie torture), silencing the media by opening up libel laws, etc… Does not bode well for anyone.
Legally would there be any difference between Trump suspending travel privileges until an overhaul of the immigration system and Obama ignoring immigration law with his executive order? Other than the Democrats like one of them, and fear the sky is falling with the other?
Mexico, Japan and China have just as much to lose if not more…if there is a trade war with the U.S. Not EVER gonna happen. China and Japan especially, with the rather nasty financial outlook both are facing in the coming 6 months.
Come on now guys…where were you on immigration when Obama basically took the existing LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS and said “now y’all ignore the FUCK out of these…because I say so.”
I don’t think the two situations are really comparable. Obama’s executive order seem like a blatant overreach to me. We will see what SCOTUS has to say.
As far as a Trump ban goes and as Smh pointed out countries aren’t going to just stand by and accept our terms without repercussions. Everyone will be hurt by this.
If Trump forces it (through tariffs) most likely what choice will they have?
I’ll read it when I’m in front of my computer but keep in mind WaPo is owned by Bezos and he’s vehemently anti Trump. They even have twitter war of words between the two.
It’s like that 20min segment by John Oliver on Trump. Oliver bosses are donators to Hillary
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Bill of Rights is the what, and the preamble is the who.