Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
And he's right, what's the point STYFE?...Says Mike Pence.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
Well his EO won't do it since he did not ban the immigration of people from dozens of Muslim Countries.
Shitforbains leftards think Muslims are banned from entering the US!...Says Mike Pence.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
Well his EO won't do it since he did not ban the immigration of people from dozens of Muslim Countries.
The anti-Muslim Executive Order is a start. Trump has been in office for only days.
You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is not keeping his word to stop all Muslims, surely.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.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.
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?
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.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
Well his EO won't do it since he did not ban the immigration of people from dozens of Muslim Countries.
The anti-Muslim Executive Order is a start. Trump has been in office for only days.
You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is not keeping his word to stop all Muslims, surely.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?
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.
He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign and exactly what the people elected him to do. Mexico was not insulted, they were called up on their one sided border and trade policy. WE are paying most of the bill for NATO, if they other nations want our protection then they need to pay their share. That's all trump has said.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?
I do not share your anti-Muslim bigotry.Not all refugees are the same. Muslim refugees are different because Islam is different. Yes, we need to treat Muslim refugees differently.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.There is not a single non-Muslim detained at an American airport.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.
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.
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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?
It is the stated intention of Donald Trump to shut out all Muslims. You saw the video. It was an outrageous promise to put himself in the good books of voters who hate Muslims and why he did not keep his promise is something only he can answer.
Islam is a bloodthirsty cult. Keeping its adherents out of this country is just plain common sense, not bigotry.I do not share your anti-Muslim bigotry.Not all refugees are the same. Muslim refugees are different because Islam is different. Yes, we need to treat Muslim refugees differently.
Surely it has not escaped you that it is the intention of Donald Trump to stop all Muslims from getting into the USA. Do you not have a TV, I wonder.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.
As for the text of the Executive Order, we know the intentions of Donald Trump and the White House staff are trying to explain what the the heck it means.
If that is his intention, why didn't he do it?
It is the stated intention of Donald Trump to shut out all Muslims. You saw the video. It was an outrageous promise to put himself in the good books of voters who hate Muslims and why he did not keep his promise is something only he can answer.
And yet dozens of Muslim Countries are NOT banned from Immigrating go figure.
