Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional

[basquebromance]

WATCH: Powerful Video Shows How Christians REALLY Feel About Refugees

 

[Rambunctious]

What power does the president have to act on immigration issues?
As chief executive, the president not only has the duty to enforce laws, but also the authority to decide how to do so.

• Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has “prosecutorial discretion” — the power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute. Agencies may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they’re charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face.
• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may decide how to prioritize its resources in order to meet its stated enforcement goals.
• Executive authority to take action is thus “fairly wide,” as former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner has said.[1] The Supreme Court has emphasized the federal government’s “broad discretion,” which includes consideration of “immediate human concerns.”[2]

 

[Eloy]

What is your opinion about this, basquebroman ce?

 

[Eloy]

Do you have an opinion on the video clip, basquebroman ce?

 

[HaShev]

...Says Mike Pence.

Ummm it's not a Muslim ban it's a "Temp"
SPECIFIC "COUNTRIES" BAN.

This is not about religion least you admit the "Countries" that are "Temp" Banned are religiously intolerant that you assume them all Muslim.

While not protesting other faiths banned from that country's ban makes them hypocrits and exposes intentions. *Oops*
Those Countries are not only uninclusive they also have Religious intolerance that incudes Sectarianism bigotry that is not specific to
religion. It means any discrimination or hatred arising from perceived differences between subdivisions (sects) within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion , class, regional or factions of a political movement.
Since theCountry and not faiths are banned then if you claim it a Muslim ban you are admitting their intolerance of other faiths not ours and you'd be displaying intolerance and support of intolerance to those other religions being predjudiced against in those countries. That Means Schumer is supporting predjudices against his own supposed religion as are all the other sympathizers of these countries intollerances. Ironic that the Countries crying are blasting their reflection of their intollerant behavior against Americans and many religions and cultures.
In conclusion the removal of the word Temporary, and use of religion over Country is proof propaganda is politically motivated and the cause of hate and fear baiting.
Any claim this enhances radical recruitment means that blame is on the Liberal manipulation and propaganda which is displacing blame onto the
party they are demonizing for political motive.
=epic fail....they think you the people are too stupid to notice.

 

[Eloy]

WATCH: Powerful Video Shows How Christians REALLY Feel About Refugees

What is your own view in the video, basquebroman ce?

 

[Eloy]

...Says Mike Pence.

Ummm it's not a Muslim ban it's a "Temp"
SPECIFIC "COUNTRIES" BAN.

This is not about religion least you admit the "Countries" that are "Temp" Banned are religiously intolerant that you assume them all Muslim.

While not protesting other faiths banned from that country's ban makes them hypocrits and exposes intentions. *Oops*
Those Countries are not only uninclusive they also have Religious intolerance that incudes Sectarianism bigotry that is not specific to
religion. It means any discrimination or hatred arising from perceived differences between subdivisions (sects) within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion , class, regional or factions of a political movement.
Since theCountry and not faiths are banned then if you claim it a Muslim ban you are admitting their intolerance of other faiths not ours and you'd be displaying intolerance and support of intolerance to those other religions being predjudiced against in those countries. That Means Schumer is supporting predjudices against his own supposed religion as are all the other sympathizers of these countries intollerances. Ironic that the Countries crying are blasting their reflection of their intollerant behavior against Americans and many religions and cultures.
In conclusion the removal of the word Temporary, and use of religion over Country is proof propaganda is politically motivated and the cause of hate and fear baiting.
Any claim this enhances radical recruitment means that blame is on the Liberal manipulation and propaganda which is displacing blame onto the oarty they are demonizing for political motive.
=epic fail....they think you the people are too stupid to notice.

Trump is beginning to keep his promise of forbidding Muslims to enter the country until the Republican Congress finds out "what the hell is going on!"

 

[HaShev]

No, there are still Muslims that are coming and going, just people visiting suspicious active training radicalization hot spot countries are being temp halted and we can't assume why, because we don't get briefed.
My take is that the giant lacking that even Obama admitted existed, has holes they need to address first hence the Temp halt till we get it straightened. Even people going and coming back can't be assumed who they are, because people are stealing their info and coming in with their stolen visa or I.D. claiming to be the returning i.d. theft victim.
And there are incidents where people are being convinced and radicalized, coordinated, or trained and financed on these trips.

Records of these people in these listed countries are not reliable or existing like the advanced anti terror systems in place in other countries. This is important to a transitioning administration since it's their necks on the line paying the price of a former administration that droped the ball on properly vetting.

Once again proving substituting the word country with Muslim is fallacious and harmful race baiting by the left and terrorist recruiting is benefiting from Liberal spin helping them.

 

[Redfish]

Trump supporters are furious about this. Trump has betrayed his conservative base on many fronts, and he is quickly losing support

huh?

It's true. Trump supporters are turning against him and he's only been in office less than a month!

BS, the more the media and the dems lie about what he is doing, the greater his support. Trump has done more good for this country in 11 days than Obama and Bush did in 16 years.

 

[Redfish]

Yes it is. There is nothing in the EO that bans muslims.

I recommend you do not restrict your information to FAUX News and hate radio. Your belief that the Executive Order is not aimed at Muslims from countries where Donald Trump has no business interests shows that you are misinformed.
Chaos, anger as Trump order halts some Muslim immigrants

look up the EO on the internet, its all there for you to read. Then come back and quote the language that you think makes it a muslim ban.

I read the EO and helped others understand how it is anti-Muslim earlier in the thread. All of us heard more than once Donald Trump promising to stop all Muslims until the politicians figure out "what the hell is going on." Now you know he is a man of his word.

First of all it is a temporary ban
second, it applies to people from 7 countries that promote or harbor terrorism.
third, the word "muslim" does not appear anywhere in it.
fourth, what exactly is wrong with knowing who we let into our country?

You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is not keeping his word to stop all Muslims, surely.

He is not a politician, he sometimes misspeaks, like you and me and all normal people.

Go back and look at how immigrants were screened in the 1800s coming in through Ellis Island in NY. That made sense then and this makes sense now.

 

[theHawk]

...Says Mike Pence.

It's good to see a queer get converted into a Pence fan.

 

[hadit]

...Says Mike Pence.

Thank God that's not happening.

 

[Eloy]

I recommend you do not restrict your information to FAUX News and hate radio. Your belief that the Executive Order is not aimed at Muslims from countries where Donald Trump has no business interests shows that you are misinformed.
Chaos, anger as Trump order halts some Muslim immigrants

look up the EO on the internet, its all there for you to read. Then come back and quote the language that you think makes it a muslim ban.

I read the EO and helped others understand how it is anti-Muslim earlier in the thread. All of us heard more than once Donald Trump promising to stop all Muslims until the politicians figure out "what the hell is going on." Now you know he is a man of his word.

First of all it is a temporary ban
second, it applies to people from 7 countries that promote or harbor terrorism.
third, the word "muslim" does not appear anywhere in it.
fourth, what exactly is wrong with knowing who we let into our country?

You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is not keeping his word to stop all Muslims, surely.

He is not a politician, he sometimes misspeaks, like you and me and all normal people.

Go back and look at how immigrants were screened in the 1800s coming in through Ellis Island in NY. That made sense then and this makes sense now.

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

 

[basquebromance]

Syrian-Americans who've been here for decades support Trump's ban. Why? Because today's refugees are too "Muslim."

‘Trump is right, in a way’: These Christian Syrians in Pa. back the travel ban

 

[SYTFE]

...Says Mike Pence.

Thank God that's not happening.

Tell that to Trump.

 

[bripat9643]

look up the EO on the internet, its all there for you to read. Then come back and quote the language that you think makes it a muslim ban.

I read the EO and helped others understand how it is anti-Muslim earlier in the thread. All of us heard more than once Donald Trump promising to stop all Muslims until the politicians figure out "what the hell is going on." Now you know he is a man of his word.

First of all it is a temporary ban
second, it applies to people from 7 countries that promote or harbor terrorism.
third, the word "muslim" does not appear anywhere in it.
fourth, what exactly is wrong with knowing who we let into our country?

You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is not keeping his word to stop all Muslims, surely.

He is not a politician, he sometimes misspeaks, like you and me and all normal people.

Go back and look at how immigrants were screened in the 1800s coming in through Ellis Island in NY. That made sense then and this makes sense now.

Trump became a politician the moment he decided to run for president.
He is creating chaos with poorly written Executive Orders and every time he opens his mouth.
In his first week he insulted a friendly bordering country, Mexico, and Europeans see him as a threat by his loose talk about NATO being obsolete and his bigoted anti-refugee policy.

Granted, telling the truth about Mexico is insulting. That doesn't mean politicians are required to lie about it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

...Says Mike Pence.

Exactly., so ruled the DC Court of Appeals


Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal


"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence." Appellants argue that the Department violated the statute in drawing an explicit distinction between Vietnamese nationals and nationals of other countries when refusing to process the visas of the screened out Vietnamese immigrants. Appellants assert this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw a distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas. In contrast, appellees urge us to adopt the position that so long as they possess a rational basis for making the distinction, they are not in violation of the statute. Appellees maintain the goal of encouraging voluntary repatriation and the aims of the CPA certainly provide a rational basis for the practices and policies in question.


We agree with appellants' interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more explicit language. While we need not decide in the case before us whether the State Department could never justify an exception under the provision, such a justification, if possible at all, must be most compelling--perhaps a national emergency. We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications simply on a preferred "rational basis." Cf. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 453 (S.D.Fla.1980) (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a), INS has no authority to discriminate on the basis of national origin, except perhaps by promulgating regulations in a time of national emergency).


45 F.3d 469

310 U.S.App.D.C. 168

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees



.

Trump's executive order is not unconstitutional on the basis which officials are chosen to hold executive levels of government, called "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign as well as domestic, to bear faith and swear allegiance to the same". Part of the role of government is clearly written to provide for that common defense of a nation. Given that our nation suffered an attack on American soil through 9-11, against a group professing to believe in an extreme Islamic view of faith, and that such extremists reside in regions to which immigrants are also seeking entry into the United States. Therefore, such actions to defend this nation "against all enemies foreign" fits within the structure and duty outlined under the Constitution, and with that oath of office.

The proper and more accurate question to be asked is this:
Should we allow any immigrant entry on the basis of their desire to become Americans OVER the security and safety of those citizens who already reside in the United States that our government is actually sworn to protect?

The Precedent established by

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees

shows that the Prez must allege and prove that those 7 countries constitute an emergent danger to the US. But those countries have never caused the US any problem.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE have. Yet amazingly those countries are NOT on the list.

The EO is unconstitutional.

The NY Judge's order will be upheld by the 2nd Cir, Trump can appeal but a 4-4 SCOTUS tie will allow the 2nd Circuit decision to be the law of the land.


.

France had already suffered an attack from extremists who exploited the refugee issue, The FBI director also has admitted problems with the vetting system, and does not have confidence that it is adequate to meet with the concerns of safeguarding the American people from infiltrating terrorists that hope to take advantage of the refugee crisis.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria

The ban is not even an attack on the basis of religion, as there are 6 nations with a higher Muslim population where immigrants will not be prevented entry.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000


So (1) there is no religious discrimination that can be proven (2) safe guards to vett refugees in a region that is KNOWN by central intelligence to have terrorist strongholds or sympathizers also confirmed through the Obama administration, is admitted to be inadequate (3) there is no proof provided to confirm those regions are NOT found to have terrorist strongholds / activity, or
do not to have governments that are opposed to supporting terrorist groups. Based on the facts above, there is nothing found to support a solid case that the EO is unconstitutional. Whether the nation is to accept a large amount of refugees or not is ultimately under the discretion of Congress and the President under the current administration, based on the intelligence they have received. Just as the case of illegal immigration and the enforcement of law is the duty of the extecutuve and legislative, not the place for the judicial branch to take on the role of establishing law to adhere to a preferred ideological view of the current time ..but solely to interpret its original meaning within the context it was originally written.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump’s Refugee Ban May Already Be Killing People

They were deemed the most vulnerable cases: refugees suffering from medical conditions so severe that normally their journeys to the United States would be expedited.
One is a 9-year-old Somali child in Ethiopia with a congenital heart disease that cannot be treated in a refugee camp. Another is a 1-year-old Sudanese boy with cancer. A third is a Somali boy with a severe intestinal disorder living in a camp that doesn’t even have the colostomy bags he needs.
After President Trump’s executive order last week, their resettlement in America was put on hold. Now, the organization responsible for processing refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, Church World Service, says that order could be their death sentence.
As Sieff writes, the United Nations announced Monday that roughly 20,000 people in such condition are banned from entering the United States for the next four months. For many, Sieff points out, this is more than a mere delay—refugees who were prepared to move to the United States have already given up their shelters and supplies at their former camps:

They would be treated as new arrivals—often sent to crammed communal tents, waiting all over again to receive a card that entitles them to food rations. In Kakuma, [Kenya], those rations were halved in December, as humanitarian organizations ran low on money as they struggled to respond to the global refugee crisis.
Because many of the refugees’ U.S. clearances will expire during the 120-day suspension, it could take them “months or even years to get to complete the process again,” [Church World Service senior director Sarah] Krause said.
Some of the most ill refugees may be admitted to other countries for treatment. Some could plausibly be admitted into the United States on a case-by-case basis should the Trump administration take an interest in saving them. But some, inevitably, will die.

 

[Eloy]

...Says Mike Pence.

Exactly., so ruled the DC Court of Appeals


Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal


"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence." Appellants argue that the Department violated the statute in drawing an explicit distinction between Vietnamese nationals and nationals of other countries when refusing to process the visas of the screened out Vietnamese immigrants. Appellants assert this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw a distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas. In contrast, appellees urge us to adopt the position that so long as they possess a rational basis for making the distinction, they are not in violation of the statute. Appellees maintain the goal of encouraging voluntary repatriation and the aims of the CPA certainly provide a rational basis for the practices and policies in question.


We agree with appellants' interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more explicit language. While we need not decide in the case before us whether the State Department could never justify an exception under the provision, such a justification, if possible at all, must be most compelling--perhaps a national emergency. We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications simply on a preferred "rational basis." Cf. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 453 (S.D.Fla.1980) (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a), INS has no authority to discriminate on the basis of national origin, except perhaps by promulgating regulations in a time of national emergency).


45 F.3d 469

310 U.S.App.D.C. 168

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees



.

Trump's executive order is not unconstitutional on the basis which officials are chosen to hold executive levels of government, called "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign as well as domestic, to bear faith and swear allegiance to the same". Part of the role of government is clearly written to provide for that common defense of a nation. Given that our nation suffered an attack on American soil through 9-11, against a group professing to believe in an extreme Islamic view of faith, and that such extremists reside in regions to which immigrants are also seeking entry into the United States. Therefore, such actions to defend this nation "against all enemies foreign" fits within the structure and duty outlined under the Constitution, and with that oath of office.

The proper and more accurate question to be asked is this:
Should we allow any immigrant entry on the basis of their desire to become Americans OVER the security and safety of those citizens who already reside in the United States that our government is actually sworn to protect?

The Precedent established by

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees

shows that the Prez must allege and prove that those 7 countries constitute an emergent danger to the US. But those countries have never caused the US any problem.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE have. Yet amazingly those countries are NOT on the list.

The EO is unconstitutional.

The NY Judge's order will be upheld by the 2nd Cir, Trump can appeal but a 4-4 SCOTUS tie will allow the 2nd Circuit decision to be the law of the land.


.

France had already suffered an attack from extremists who exploited the refugee issue, The FBI director also has admitted problems with the vetting system, and does not have confidence that it is adequate to meet with the concerns of safeguarding the American people from infiltrating terrorists that hope to take advantage of the refugee crisis.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria

The ban is not even an attack on the basis of religion, as there are 6 nations with a higher Muslim population where immigrants will not be prevented entry.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000


So (1) there is no religious discrimination that can be proven (2) safe guards to vett refugees in a region that is KNOWN by central intelligence to have terrorist strongholds or sympathizers also confirmed through the Obama administration, is admitted to be inadequate (3) there is no proof provided to confirm those regions are NOT found to have terrorist strongholds / activity, or
do not to have governments that are opposed to supporting terrorist groups. Based on the facts above, there is nothing found to support a solid case that the EO is unconstitutional. Whether the nation is to accept a large amount of refugees or not is ultimately under the discretion of Congress and the President under the current administration, based on the intelligence they have received. Just as the case of illegal immigration and the enforcement of law is the duty of the extecutuve and legislative, not the place for the judicial branch to take on the role of establishing law to adhere to a preferred ideological view of the current time ..but solely to interpret its original meaning within the context it was originally written.

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

...Says Mike Pence.

Exactly., so ruled the DC Court of Appeals


Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal


"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence." Appellants argue that the Department violated the statute in drawing an explicit distinction between Vietnamese nationals and nationals of other countries when refusing to process the visas of the screened out Vietnamese immigrants. Appellants assert this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw a distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas. In contrast, appellees urge us to adopt the position that so long as they possess a rational basis for making the distinction, they are not in violation of the statute. Appellees maintain the goal of encouraging voluntary repatriation and the aims of the CPA certainly provide a rational basis for the practices and policies in question.


We agree with appellants' interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more explicit language. While we need not decide in the case before us whether the State Department could never justify an exception under the provision, such a justification, if possible at all, must be most compelling--perhaps a national emergency. We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications simply on a preferred "rational basis." Cf. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 453 (S.D.Fla.1980) (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a), INS has no authority to discriminate on the basis of national origin, except perhaps by promulgating regulations in a time of national emergency).


45 F.3d 469

310 U.S.App.D.C. 168

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees



.

Trump's executive order is not unconstitutional on the basis which officials are chosen to hold executive levels of government, called "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign as well as domestic, to bear faith and swear allegiance to the same". Part of the role of government is clearly written to provide for that common defense of a nation. Given that our nation suffered an attack on American soil through 9-11, against a group professing to believe in an extreme Islamic view of faith, and that such extremists reside in regions to which immigrants are also seeking entry into the United States. Therefore, such actions to defend this nation "against all enemies foreign" fits within the structure and duty outlined under the Constitution, and with that oath of office.

The proper and more accurate question to be asked is this:
Should we allow any immigrant entry on the basis of their desire to become Americans OVER the security and safety of those citizens who already reside in the United States that our government is actually sworn to protect?

The Precedent established by

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees

shows that the Prez must allege and prove that those 7 countries constitute an emergent danger to the US. But those countries have never caused the US any problem.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE have. Yet amazingly those countries are NOT on the list.

The EO is unconstitutional.

The NY Judge's order will be upheld by the 2nd Cir, Trump can appeal but a 4-4 SCOTUS tie will allow the 2nd Circuit decision to be the law of the land.


.

France had already suffered an attack from extremists who exploited the refugee issue, The FBI director also has admitted problems with the vetting system, and does not have confidence that it is adequate to meet with the concerns of safeguarding the American people from infiltrating terrorists that hope to take advantage of the refugee crisis.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria

The ban is not even an attack on the basis of religion, as there are 6 nations with a higher Muslim population where immigrants will not be prevented entry.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000


So (1) there is no religious discrimination that can be proven (2) safe guards to vett refugees in a region that is KNOWN by central intelligence to have terrorist strongholds or sympathizers also confirmed through the Obama administration, is admitted to be inadequate (3) there is no proof provided to confirm those regions are NOT found to have terrorist strongholds / activity, or
do not to have governments that are opposed to supporting terrorist groups. Based on the facts above, there is nothing found to support a solid case that the EO is unconstitutional. Whether the nation is to accept a large amount of refugees or not is ultimately under the discretion of Congress and the President under the current administration, based on the intelligence they have received. Just as the case of illegal immigration and the enforcement of law is the duty of the extecutuve and legislative, not the place for the judicial branch to take on the role of establishing law to adhere to a preferred ideological view of the current time ..but solely to interpret its original meaning within the context it was originally written.

There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.
The new president gave his word that all Muslims will be stopped from entering the USA.

He has not stated, nor does the EO state, that this is a ban on all Muslims. Let me know when you can provide some linked facts.