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

[Eloy]

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

 

[Eloy]

President Trump only wants to admit folks who share our values and love our people, meaning only people who believe in the constitution!

I share few of the values of Donald Trump and I certainly do not love him or his followers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump says, "It's not a Muslim ban," therefore all the stupid muppets just repeat him. Useful idiots.

It is not a Muslim ban. Why can't you just accept that you were wrong?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...Says Mike Pence.

THEY ARE NOT BEING BANNED BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIMS, THEY ARE BEING BANNED BECAUSE THEY COME FROM TERRORIST COUNTRIES AND WE HAVE NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHO THEY ARE, WHY THEY WANT TO ENTER OUR COUNTRY, AND WHAT THEY MIGHT DO ONCE THEY GET HERE.

ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

Did you graduate high school? Tell me the truth.

I asked you to quote from the EO so we can all see that language that says muslims are being banned solely because of their religion. Bring it, or STFU, and I am quite certain the my educational level, IQ, and life experience exceeds yours by a very large margin.

Trump says "I'm calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," during his campaign.

Now elected, Trump bans people entering from 7 predominately Muslim countries, conveniently excluding the countries where he does business.

Redfish, who has the IQ of a grapefruit, can't seem to put 2 and 2 together.

The list of countries came from Obama. Facts are pesky little inconveniences for liberals because it exposes their hypocrisy and lies.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...Says Mike Pence.

but calls to ban immigrants from certain problem countries is not.....

It is against the Constitutional equality for all to ban Muslims but not Christians.

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

You are wrong and you have been shown that you and your liberal know-nothings have been shown the truth throughout this thread. Why do you grasp so tightly to an obviously false statement?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

but calls to ban immigrants from certain problem countries is not.....

It is against the Constitutional equality for all to ban Muslims but not Christians.

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.

Bullshit!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

Doesn't matter the charter for the UN allows a Nation State to wage a war for cause. For numerous reasons. The US had cause. You simply do not know what you are babbling about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

My roommate from college had his entire mother's side of the family come to the US from Syria that came to the US in the early 1900s. Every one was a Christian.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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.



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.

Your video is old, very old. Try to stay focused on the here and now. Making false claims based on an old video is dishonest.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

Not paying your payment also violates the treaty, but you either knew that and ignored it or you are simply ignorant.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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.



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.

None of the 9/11 killers came from any of the countries on Donald Trump's list. The man is nuts.

So?

 

[Rustic]

To hell with the refugees...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

None of the 9/11 killers came from any of the countries on Donald Trump's list. The man is nuts.

actually it was Obama's list. You should really check the validity of your talking points before parroting them like a good little lib moron.

I do not know about Obama's list. We are discussing Trump.

Then that simply proves you are an ignorant windbag who prefers talking out of his ass.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

worst in history, bar none.

Obama did not illegally invade other countries.

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

When will you run out of lies?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Which president invaded illegally? If you say Bush, you are once again showing your partisan ignorance. While I disagree with what Bush did, he had the authorization and approval, and funding from congress before doing it-----------it was not illegal.

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

OMG - Did we honestly forget the oil for food scandal the United Nations was involved in? How about France profiting from rebuilding Iraq's military with French Marauders? Still nothing? You see, it's hard to enforce UN resolutions when you are the one on the take from a dictator [Saddam] that knows how to bride their way out. Honestly, I've lost track of how many new resolutions the UN established, because apparently it's much easier to simply write a new one than develop a backbone to actually enforce one. Also, it's hard to discredit WMDs when the UN couldn't even complete their weapons inspections in 8 years of the Clinton Administration. How hard could it possibly be that 8 years wasn't a long enough time to get their act together?

On a side note, democrat presidents are awfully good at sitting on their ass when it comes to enforcement, heck even Obama was willing to bribe a nation like Iran to free Americans. Then there's the Syrian red line "oops" he never meant to get involved in. Gotta be nice to be a nation that is taken advantage of by a weak democrat president.

Name one country that Iran has occupied in your lifetime.

Saddam, involved in UN resolutions and weapon inspectors, was a dictator for the nation of Iraq NOT Iran. Either learn your geography or get your "invading" stories straight with actual history.

I repeat, name one country that Iran has occupied or even invaded in your lifetime. Iran is no danger to the USA. The USA, however, is getting very hostile with Iran.

Iraq. You lose! Their war caused massive problems in the Persian Gulf.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

President Trump only wants to admit folks who share our values and love our people, meaning only people who believe in the constitution!

I share few of the values of Donald Trump and I certainly do not love him or his followers.

Nobody's perfect.

 

[oreo]

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

They are? How do you figure? The Trumpsters seem to be in full support of this travel ban.

Here's a great article on why Trumps travel ban is unconstitutional. Long but informative.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

 

[Eloy]

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.

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.



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.

Your video is old, very old. Try to stay focused on the here and now. Making false claims based on an old video is dishonest.

The video is not old. It comes from the recent campaign by Trump to become U.S. president.

 

[Eloy]

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

Doesn't matter the charter for the UN allows a Nation State to wage a war for cause. For numerous reasons. The US had cause. You simply do not know what you are babbling about.

The UN Security Council did not approve the invasion of Iraq. This means the USA waged a war of aggression against Iraq which is now a failed state in civil war.

 

[Eloy]

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.

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.

The people have no authority to elect someone to violate the Constitution. If the prime minister of Canada said he was going to build a wall between his country and the USA and that Americans would pay for it, I know Americans would find that insulting. Mexico is also trading with the USA and Canada according to the terms of NAFTA, a treaty signed by the USA. By saying that the USA will not protect Poland from a Russian invasion because they are behind on their payment to NATO violates the treaty.

Not paying your payment also violates the treaty, but you either knew that and ignored it or you are simply ignorant.

Countries cannot always pay money when it is due. If the USA considers that a good reason for allowing the Russians to invade an ally, fair enough. We now know what the Americans think is important.