A ban on people based on their religion

Not for the faint of heart!
stella
Novice
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:52 am

A ban on people based on their religion

Postby stella » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:05 pm

I have a hard time believing that this is even happening in this day and age. In 2017 the sitting president has scoffed at the Constitution of the United States of American and placed a ban on people based on their religion. Does the Constitution even exist to this guy? It's not only appalling, it's frightening. Who's next?

Tabby
Herd Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby Tabby » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:27 am

Is there any way to alter/adjust/overrule an executive order? In Canada, constitutional things like this work their way up to the Supreme Court. Our last PM had nearly 40 laws overturned because they were unconstitutional. It takes time but it happens. What is the process in the US?

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby WheresMyWhite » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:31 am

If an executive order is challenged on Constitutional grounds, SCOTUS would hear the case and make a ruling.

Having said that, exactly what do you feel is unconstitutional? I had gotten the impression the executive order was based on country of citizenship, not on religion.

Green cards (permanent residents) are still not citizens of the US. Yes, they should be treated constitutionally but if the ban is based on passport, they can't produce a US passport...

User avatar
Chisamba
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 2382
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:33 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby Chisamba » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:19 am

There are a number of majority Muslim countries that are not banned. The ban is not on religion but by country. The countries chosen were the ones put on the visa restricted list by the Obama administration.

Whether you agree ir not, at least be accurate and informed.

Literiding
Herd Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby Literiding » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:24 pm

I think the one rule that applies in this age is that anything seen in the press needs to be verified.

I've read both of the Executive Orders and based on my "non-expert" reading, Trump's intent is to rigorously start enforcing the EXISTING laws that regulate immigration and boarders.

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... provements

Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... ior-united

A good way to keep track of the Executive Orders to check this site:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... d_depth=46

Mr. George Soros is starting to concern me. Since he is a private person there isn't a lot to be found about him without significant effort that isn't approved by him. But I've started to develop a working thesis that he isn't so interested in supporting "human rights" as he is in destabilizing governments. As the 57th richest man in the world, he seems to gain a lot of wealth and power by advancing the "laissez-faire" government inaction on economic issues. He's one of the guys that drive CEOs into their totally indifferent actions regarding workers employed by their companies to maximize stock value. Stock value is what gives Mr. Soros his wealth and his power.

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby WheresMyWhite » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:40 pm

FWIW, I suspect there will be constitutional challenges in the future. *But*, they need to be based on "fact"... what actual elements of the Constitution are being violated. The Constitution is a document with specific elements that would need to be identified in the challenge and SCOTUS may (or may not) choose to hear the case and would then rule.

Everything is not a constitutional violation even if it feels like it should be or someone wants it to be. The media, IMO, will do their best to "inflame" public opinion which is why digging a bit deeper is often called for.

Do I like or agree with what Trump is doing? Not at all. However, he is doing what he said he'd do (which, deplorable as I may find it) is more than I have come to expect from many newly elected officials who make campaign promises and then drop them on the floor after taking office.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby boots-aregard » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:43 pm

Literiding wrote:Mr. George Soros is starting to concern me. Since he is a private person there isn't a lot to be found about him without significant effort that isn't approved by him. But I've started to develop a working thesis that he isn't so interested in supporting "human rights" as he is in destabilizing governments.


Yeah, and after all, he has said he wants to see the government destroyed.

Oh, wait. That was Bannon -- Trump's national security advisor, and the guy behind the Media-need-to-shut-up speeches.

Yeah. Soros is a *real* problem. The man behind the curtain? We'll just ignore him. :roll:

Briarwood
Novice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:54 pm
Location: Western Illinois

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby Briarwood » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:03 pm

The 7 countries were NOT put on a restricted visa list by the Obama administration.
Soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

Tarlo Farm
500 post plus club
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: NW Michigan

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby Tarlo Farm » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:13 pm

The difference between Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/most-of-trump’s-executive-orders-aren’t-actually-executive-orders-here’s-why-that-matters/ar-AAmoYIA?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

Briarwood
Novice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:54 pm
Location: Western Illinois

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby Briarwood » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:32 pm

This is still on his website, today, Jan. 30, 2017. Although he did not state "except for those from countries in which I have businees interests". Those that think that the executive order is not a thinly veiled attempt to ban people based on their religion then, imho, they just might have gone to school in Michigan at a school owned by Betsy Devos.

Copied and pasted from his website.
- December 07, 2015 -
​Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is 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. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby WheresMyWhite » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:26 am

Briarwood, it appears you are quoting from something that was said over 12 months ago. I wonder what standing that statement would have in a constitutional challenge of the currently written executive order?

stella
Novice
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:52 am

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby stella » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:20 am

See, now that must be the basis of my confusion. Donald Trump said, twelve months ago, when he was campaigning to become President of the United States of America, that he would ban Muslims. Now, that he has become president, he has made moves to ban people from Muslim countries. No wonder I was confused and thought he was banning Muslim people.

"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair -- everybody was persecuted, in all fairness -- but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."
Trump did not name a reason or offer any evidence about why the agencies that vet refugees, including the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, would have prioritized Muslim refugees over Christians.


See, I thought it was his words that mentioned that Christians would be favored over Muslims because they're "chopping the heads off of everybody" would be evidence that there was a religious overtone to this ban on people from middle eastern countries that may or may not be of the Muslim faith.

No wonder you guys think I don't have the facts. Right. I'll get going on digging them up right now.

And WMW, you follow court cases ALL THE TIME. Do you think a person is absolved from their words just because a year has passed since they were uttered? I don't think so.

stella
Novice
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:52 am

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby stella » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:28 am

Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came together.

Trump signed orders on Friday not only to suspend admission of all refugees into the United States for 120 days but also to implement “new vetting measures” to screen out “radical Islamic terrorists.” Refugee entry from Syria, however, would be suspended indefinitely, and all travel from Syria and six other nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — is suspended for 90 days. Trump also said he would give priority to Christian refugees over those of other religions, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”


The above is from the Washington Post. I wish I could just get my facts straight!! This is so frustrating!

Briarwood
Novice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:54 pm
Location: Western Illinois

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby Briarwood » Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:29 am

WMW - What difference does it matter when he said it? He said it more than once at more than one campaign rally.

Oh, I forgot...... he often denies he has said something even where there is video proof that he did in fact say it!

However, since he was elected I have not heard him deny any of his campaign speech statements where he promised to ban Muslims or call for a registry. I guess the "I never said that" line has grown old.

Now he is just trying to hide the true reason behind his executive order. And his true followers have drunk enough of his kool aid to buy into that. Or, what I believe is really the case, they know what he is actually doing and they agree with his original promise to ban all Muslims. They cheered loudly at the campaign rallies when he said it.

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: A ban on people based on their religion

Postby WheresMyWhite » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:37 pm

What he said isn't what he wrote. I am not sure (not an attorney) but I suspect that the spoken word would be hard to enforce from a constitutional basis. The written word and associated action can be challenged.

You're talking evidence in a criminal case (utterances 12 months prior to a crime), not a constitutional challenge.

Again, do I agree with what he's doing. Not at all. As I said, didn't support him before, didn't vote for him and don't like him now. But, cr*p he said a year ago probably can't be challenged constitutionally depending on how the current constitutional challenges are handled. I'm also not sure if a case can go directly to SCOTUS or if it has to go up the federal appeals chain first. I do expect challenges to many of the things he'd doing in executive orders FWIW.


Return to “The Political Forum and Other Hot Topics!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests