The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

[ElectricFetus]

the problem with this is that even evolution scientists admit they have a way to go before their theory is evidenced properly.
Example:
So whilst I may have a tentative belief that the science of evolution is correct it is qualified always by the fact that it could prove to be wrong.
To claim that the theory of evolution is proved by a person claiming to be a scientists, is even worse that believing it to be false.

This is not a mathematical proof, so yes "proven" is subjective, none the less evolution is a proven in the same regards that a person can genetically determine who their parents are.

What any of this has to do with the Muslim ban, I have no clue. Clearly Rule #25 is in full effect now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is not a mathematical proof, so yes "proven" is subjective, none the less evolution is a proven in the same regards that a person can genetically determine who their parents are.

What any of this has to do with the Muslim ban, I have no clue. Clearly Rule #25 is in full effect now.

Even genetically tested hereditary is subject to some pretty amazing errors... but none the less it is the best we have at the moment.

As to relevance to this thread:

The Muslim ban now called a Travel Ban was invoked by an executive order that had no scientific** basis. It is thus premised on purely fear and imaginary threats.

**Trump has not made use of the sound use of empirical evidence in any of his orders as far as I can tell.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Tangential discussion of antibiotic resistance, evolution and public policy has been split to a new thread, here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/antibiotic-resistance-evolution-and-public-policy.158919/

 

[Michael 345]

The Muslim ban now called a Travel Ban was invoked by an executive order that had no scientific** basis

Was not aware that any Executive Order required a Scientific basis

It is thus premised on purely fear and imaginary threats

Might or might not be true

Might be based on Intelligence Information

And I guess it would not be worth repeating the ban referenced countries not Muslims

Someone might like to find out how many Muslims entered the US from all other countries in the world apart from those 7 countries

At the moment that would be unknown because the country ban never really took effect

May be when the ban is up and running it can be checked

Again though are there religion questions on the entry documents?

And before you go down the road - no one from the 7 has been bad in the US - can you explain scientifically how this relates to what might happen in the future?

Today is 30 days up for me

You have another 18 days from your starting point to get to 30

My gut says he makes 8 years which by my shaky maths is a little over 18 days

 

[Quantum Quack]

Was not aware that any Executive Order required a Scientific basis



Might or might not be true

Might be based on Intelligence Information

And I guess it would not be worth repeating the ban referenced countries not Muslims

Someone might like to find out how many Muslims entered the US from all other countries in the world apart from those 7 countries

At the moment that would be unknown because the country ban never really took effect

May be when the ban is up and running it can be checked

Again though are there religion questions on the entry documents?

And before you go down the road - no one from the 7 has been bad in the US - can you explain scientifically how this relates to what might happen in the future?

Today is 30 days up for me

You have another 18 days from your starting point to get to 30

My gut says he makes 8 years which by my shaky maths is a little over 18 days

You might be right... we are after all talking about the USA...

 

[douwd20]

In leaked document, the case for Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ takes another huge hit

^ the sad thing is the number of Americans that bought into the scheme and now the truth comes out and they aren't paying attentin and haven't learned much from the exercise.

 

[iceaura]

What others? You seem to keep implying polls that demonstrate racism, yet you've only given ones that conflate racism with politics.

It's not an implication, it's a direct assertion: the polls that show belief that Obama is a secret Muslim, was born in Kenya, hates white people, etc, show the minimum percentage of racist voters. It's like a poll showing the percentage of people who deny Darwinian evolution - you get reliable minimum estimates of the percentage of fundies in the electorate.

What does confusing the positions of two white guys have to do with racism?

Absolutely nothing - just as you requested. Do try to follow at least your own posting, eh?

It couldn't possibly be that Christians are suspicious of any Democrat, of any race, who seems to defend Islam to the extent of never saying "radical Islamic terrorism", that the lack of a birth certificate may lead those of the opposing party to think where there's smoke there's fire (remember, there was Cruz birtherism too...they must have been racist against Cubans, right? ), certainly seemed to spend a lot of time blaming white people, didn't tend to do well without a teleprompter, actually does have only an average IQ, and though he was president of the Harvard Law Review, never had anything published in it.

No, actually, it couldn't be any of that, because none of that shit is accurate or means anything of the kind. That kind of consistently biased error of fact, always biased in line with the standard and stereotypical assumptions of white racism towards Obama's assigned race, is exactly the solid evidence of racism revealed in the polls.

Those are all either facts or completely expected due to religious or political affiliation.

They are none of them facts, and they are none of them commonly expected among white people of identical religious or political affiliation. They are expected of white racists, and nobody else. (Nobody accused Gore, Kerry, W, Cheney, Trump, Clinton, or Sanders, of being a secret Muslim, hating white people, etc.)

That you are impugning racism to them is exactly why many people came to think Obama didn't like white people.

So now you are arguing that the evidence of racism in the polls caused the evidence of racism in the polls - polling causes racism?
Bullshit. Nobody thought Obama hated white people because of anything I or anyone like me said.

Again, just swap out ethnicity. If I (and my Attorney General) spent 8 years saying that the "unconscious bias" of black people is what's hurting white communities, you would rightly assume that I'm blaming black people and may even be racist.

That would depend on reality. Bias is not measured against some hypothetical "other side", but against physical fact.

But go ahead, show me where the Bible supposedly condones FORCED charity.

The Bible not only condoned paying Roman taxes, but directly instructed all believers in Christ to to so - and of course some of the money went to charity (the Roman imperial government, like all functioning governments, handed out charity now and then). You have been confronted with this several times now - we're all reading the same Bible.

 

[iceaura]

Someone might like to find out how many Muslims entered the US from all other countries in the world apart from those 7 countries

Be easy to get a conservative estimate - from the entrants holding passports of countries or local origins largely or almost entirely Muslim. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, various North African countries, etc.

As already noted: known sources of Islamic terrorism, largely Muslim in population, were not banned.

 

[Oystein]

 

[Capracus]

Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

Why is Trumps travel ban still an issue? The reason for it’s instigation was to allow 90 days for the administration to formulate a more suitable vetting process to prevent undesirables from entering to US. It’s been 114 days since it’s proposal, and presumably plenty of time to craft a functional policy, so why haven’t they rolled one out?

 

[joepistole]

Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

Why is Trumps travel ban still an issue? The reason for it’s instigation was to allow 90 days for the administration to formulate a more suitable vetting process to prevent undesirables from entering to US. It’s been 114 days since it’s proposal, and presumably plenty of time to craft a functional policy, so why haven’t they rolled one out?

Good question, I've asked the same question. I suspect it's all about Trump's narcissism and the blustery his base loves.

 

[Capracus]

Apparently the administration has not only been dragging the knuckles on policy development, but their feet as well.

During Monday's hearing, judges also questioned the government about the status of its review of immigration vetting procedures. Why does the Trump administration continue insisting on 90- and 120-day travel suspensions, they asked, if it's already had so much time to improve vetting procedures? Judge Stephanie Thacker said the portion of Trump's order calling for a vetting review was in place for nearly two months.

"Was any vetting (review) done in those 50 days?" she said.

Wall said government attorneys have interpreted court rulings as barring them from doing so.

"We've put our pens down," he said. "We haven't done any work on it."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...president-trump-revised-travel-ban/101430764/

 

[billvon]

Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

Score - Constitution 4, Trump 0.

 

[Syne]

Ah, the woefully uninformed chorus.

Trump's second travel ban was again thwarted by liberal judges who again erroneously applied campaigning statements in lieu of actually reading the order as written.
Has nothing to do with Constitutionality and everything to do with liberal bias. Just another case of liberals selectively claiming to be proponents of the Constitution...as it suits their purposes.
This issue is likely headed to the Supreme Court, whether the court accepts the DOJ's request for a hearing or another case against it finds in favor of the government, satisfying the Supreme Court's necessity for disagreement in lower court rulings.

 

[joepistole]

Ah, the woefully uninformed chorus.

Trump's second travel ban was again thwarted by liberal judges who again erroneously applied campaigning statements in lieu of actually reading the order as written.
Has nothing to do with Constitutionality and everything to do with liberal bias. Just another case of liberals selectively claiming to be proponents of the Constitution...as it suits their purposes.
This issue is likely headed to the Supreme Court, whether the court accepts the DOJ's request for a hearing or another case against it finds in favor of the government, satisfying the Supreme Court's necessity for disagreement in lower court rulings.

Yeah, everything and everyone who isn't a mindless drooling right wing bot is liberal in your view. The fact is this is a constitutional issue and multiple judges, some appointed by Republicans, have affirmed that fact.

It may be headed to the Supreme Court and perhaps the activist Republican justices will hear the case and reverse the lower courts. But if those justicies want to maintain any modicum of impartiality, they will refuse to hear the case. We will have to see how it turns out.

Trump's executive orders are the least of his problems. If he wants to chase his tail and dig his hole deeper, so be it. But as Capracus pointed out, if he needed 90 days to figure out how to better vet people, you remember, the whole reason for his executive orders, he has had a 100 plus days to figure it out. If Trump were smart, he would drop it. But he isn't smart.

 

[Syne]

Yeah, everything and everyone who isn't a mindless drooling right wing bot is liberal in your view. The fact is this is a constitutional issue and multiple judges, some appointed by Republicans, have affirmed that fact.

It may be headed to the Supreme Court and perhaps the activist Republican justices will hear the case and reverse the lower courts. But if those justicies want to maintain any modicum of impartiality, they will refuse to hear the case. We will have to see how it turns out.

Trump's executive orders are the least of his problems. If he wants to chase his tail and dig his hole deeper, so be it. But as Capracus pointed out, if he needed 90 days to figure out how to better vet people, you remember, the whole reason for his executive orders, he has had a 100 plus days to figure it out. If Trump were smart, he would drop it. But he isn't smart.

Yet no one seems to be capable of making a constitutional argument against the travel ban. They have to conflate either campaign rhetoric with the actual order as written or constitutional protections of US citizens with the dearth of such protections of foreigners. And all you have is simple-minded ad hominem.

Guess what, Republicans generally don't have a history of appointing judges based solely on partisan bias.

And some countries simply cannot be trusted to provide adequate vetting info...even if we could establish a good diplomatic relation with them.

 

[joepistole]

Yet no one seems to be capable of making a constitutional argument against the travel ban. They have to conflate either campaign rhetoric with the actual order as written or constitutional protections of US citizens with the dearth of such protections of foreigners. And all you have is simple-minded ad hominem.

And yet several judges, appointed by Republicans and Democrats disagree. They have found good constitutional arguments and that's why they have unanimously ruled against Trump's executive orders. Just because you don't like the truth, your dislike doesn't negate the truth.

Guess what, Republicans generally don't have a history of appointing judges based solely on partisan bias.

And yet they appoint justices like Scalia,Thomas, and Roberts who reflect nothing but partisan bias - even going so far as to contradict themselves to maintain their partisanship. Be honest comrade. Republicans have a very strong and long history of appointing partisan judges. They even have an organization and processes dedicated to recruiting law students and mentoring them throughout their judicial careers, e.g. The Federalist Society. Republicans have a machine dedicated to stacking the courts with partisan justices. Thomas sleeps with a very partisan right wing lobbyist.

And some countries simply cannot be trusted to provide adequate vetting info...even if we could establish a good diplomatic relation with them.

What does that mean, and how is that relevant?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Yet no one seems to be capable of making a constitutional argument against the travel ban.

erm... where, exactly are you getting your news from?

rather than read the opinion of the authors of a website or article, you should check the source material. any time there is a final decree you will be able to pull the judicial ruling or adjudication (or whichever term applies in your neck of the woods)

start on page 12
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf

 

[Syne]

erm... where, exactly are you getting your news from?

rather than read the opinion of the authors of a website or article, you should check the source material. any time there is a final decree you will be able to pull the judicial ruling or adjudication (or whichever term applies in your neck of the woods)

start on page 12
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf

Yeah, on page 12, it immediately starts by misconstruing the Constitution as somehow protecting the rights of foreigners.
They start by citing Ex parte Milligan, which was specifically about a US citizen.
Plaintiffs cite "statements" and "the broader context" as justification for standing, which are not relevant to the actual order, as written.
It seems to establish standing in US courts for any foreigner related to a US citizen.

Apparently you believe whoever told you there was a strong Constitutional argument against the travel ban. I don't see you making any arguments of your own.

 

[iceaura]

Guess what, Republicans generally don't have a history of appointing judges based solely on partisan bias.

Yes, they do.

Yeah, on page 12, it immediately starts by misconstruing the Constitution as somehow protecting the rights of foreigners.

The prohibition of religion-biased law or regulation is directed at the US Government, and applies to all of its laws and regulations. It forbids certain kinds of laws and regulations - regardless of whom they are are aimed at. It's aim is to protect the citizenry, and that would be its effect here (the travel ban injures US citizens), but regardless of that it is what it is, as written. It has nothing to do with the rights of foreigners.