The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Syne said:
Really? So black women aren't shown more deference among feminists (white women needing to check their privilege), there's no affirmative action, etc.?
Click to expand...
Those are reactions intended to correct inequalities. In context, they do not amount to over-correction.
 
I am only repeating what the official posture is... Those shootings you refer to were essentially home grown lone wolf attacks got little to nothing to do with other nations migration.

Syne said:
"Entirely predictable"? San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Boston bombing, etc.?
Click to expand...
the term predictable I believe refers to the fact that they have no credible evidence other than what they already know.
You have no rational justification for a travel ban other than paranoid ramblings.
 
The truth takes courage to see... and at the moment a lot of the world is blinded by their fear.
 
In Australia we hold our values surprisingly strong. ( even if a tad contradictory with off shore detention etc)
But even when we went code red for national security we did not place any ban on legitimate migration/travel.
Yet here we have you Syne defending your own trashing of your supposed values and you're not even close to a serious terror alert. (Homegrown or external)
Terrorism is a strawman, Islamophobia and white supreme-ism is the issue.
Obviously to the world at large, most Americans speak with "forked tongue" especially the ones who promoted a paranoid unconstitutional bigot into the presidency.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps here in Aus we should ban travel to Australia by Trump Supporters and set up a political discrimination value instead of a racial one...
After all, the Trumpies are a more serious a threat to our values than any Muslim could possibly be.
 
Last edited:
Syne said:
While countries like Iran are overwhelmingly Shia, does their "death to America" chants and ambitions for nuclear weapons make them less of a threat than ISIS Sunnis?
Click to expand...
Of course. The nuclear threat is irrelevant for immigration, and the "death to America" stuff apparently hasn't been afflicting emigrants at all - except possibly motivating their escape, some of them.
 
Syne said:
It's a straw man that I ever implied there was "no reason" for people referring to it as a "Muslim Ban". Hell, I even made the point that those countries are overwhelmingly Muslim. But if you want to call your own straw man dishonest...I agree. I was questioning your other straw man of it somehow being "accidental". It is no accident that overwhelmingly Muslim countries are the most overtly opposed to Western ideals.
Click to expand...

You twist yourself into knots inventing straw men:

Syne said:
The only reason people can even call it a "Muslim Ban" is because the Muslim theocracies (in effect if not actual) in those countries ensure their populations are overwhelmingly Muslim, with severe penalties for apostasy. If you banned immigration from Israel, you wouldn't be able to call it a "Jewish Ban", since so many non-Jews are allowed to live and even hold political office there. So it's only because these Muslim countries lack diversity that this straw man of an ethnic/religion ban can even be entertained.
Click to expand...

The reason people call it a Muslim ban is, as I pointed out, the Trump administration. Now, your bit about a "Jewish ban" is exactly the problem; Mr. Giuliani made it clear what is going on. And when you described the term "Muslim ban" as "this straw man of an ethnic/religion ban".

You called it a "straw man".

There's your "no reason".

Look, Syne, this isn't exactly the most difficult of sciences. I don't know if you really think you're fooling anyone, but the problem with the proposition that what you're putting on is somehow genuine is that it's really, really rude to describe you in such lowly terms. That is to say, do you really think people are so stupid, or is it possible the problem has something to do with the low bar you set for such comparison―i.e., How stupid do you need people to be in order that you might feel smarter than them?

Because, really, taking the explanation for why it's a Muslim ban and slapping a new label on it to say it's why the term "Muslim ban" is a "straw man" is pretty damn stupid.
 
It's sort of crazy when you think on it...

The whole world (other than the USA admin) is saying it's a Muslim ban that breaches international law and Syne thinks his opinion to the contrary and that of a terribly confused USA Admin is somehow important. The point is there is No Point trying to convince any one here at sciforums, instead pick just about any world leader and try to convince them. And while you are at it spewing what appears to be irrational paranoid ramblings watch out for the guys in the white coat...
 
The actual solution is really simple:

If YOU can't sign a pledge to support the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights -1948 (UDHR) especially with regard to Article 18 then YOU are not welcome in my home.

Put aside the issue of USA constitutional rights further supporting the UDHR. Disregard race, religious ideology and anything else and focus on the UDHR.
Blame the UDHR for any discrimination ( it is after all discrimination) and get on with life....

Because it is the adherence to the UDHR that the world is needing and wanting...
 
Last edited:
Dear President Trump,
There is a solution to this vexation you and the entire world are in regarding Immigration and travel across borders (including to the USA mainland)
Change the Muslim ban to a UDHR requirement, extend the requirement to all migration regardless of Nation and become the most amazing and brilliant President in USA history and help change the world for the better....at the same time...as other nations willingly follow suit. This is a "requirement" that applies to the individual and not just a nation.
It takes but one signature on an executive order and a global historical milestone is made.....
see post#389
 
Last edited:
"Trump and his allies have hit back against claims of anti-Muslim bias, arguing the nations subject to the ban were previously identified by the Obama administration as potential security threats."

sort of stupid hey... all nations pose a security threat. they try to pass the buck for their stupidity onto Obama... and not make up their own minds... eh?

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/


Now if Trump sort to enforce a UDHR "requirement" he would have no challenge from the Federal court. Because he is discriminating on core values and not race or religion. Core values the courts currently have an obligation to uphold.
 
Last edited:
The other benefit is that the hatred to the USA would shift to the UN for enforcing Human rights.... putting the protection of universal core values where they need to be - at the UN
 
Now did he say he was going to ban Muslims or not? Os he keeping his word, or not? He can't have it both ways.
 
The Decision


Click to do it with style and a smile.​

"The States have satisfied the Winter test because they have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claims that would entitle them to relief; the States are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of equities favor the States; and a TRO is in the public interest. The court also finds that the States have satisfied the 'alternative' Cottrell test because they have established at least serious questions going to the merits of their claims and that the balance of equities tips sharply in their favor. As the court noted for the Winter test, the States have also established a likelihood of irreparable injury and that a TRO is in the public interest."

 
I vote Syne simply be ignored... Don't feed the troll and all that. Any objections?
 
News just in (AU) states that Trumps admin team are appealing the decision mainly to determine the power of an executive order rather than the bans actual legitimacy...certainly to me that is how it reads.

"At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President," the White House statement said."

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/donald-trumps-travel-ban-temporarily-blocked/8241266​

The word outrageous was later removed. However the fact that it was initially present in the comment is very telling of the Presidents attitude to his own Power and that of the Judiciary. Indicating a belief perhaps that the President was superior to the Judiciary or "above the law".
 
Sorry to hear about your Iranian Grad Student, but there is good reason for concern. Obama thought so, yet his decission didn't grab as much attention when he did the same. Anyway, since we're discussing the issue, maybe we should look at the order itself...

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top