The last ten days

[giblets]

The "temporary ban on certain muslims" wouldn't have affected any of the 9/11 hijackers

[Proteus_MST]

First of all, not a Muslim ban. It's a temporary ban on certain muslims that may pose a threat to this country. And I will keep repeating that, just as you seem resolved in continuing to repeat your lie.

Second, why do you think it's ok to exclude 9-11? That's just ridiculous. I don't understand the point of this kind of stuff.

Third, there is absolutely zero right wing extremists immigrating to the US. So again, you have no point.

If you insist on including 9/11 I might remind you that on 9/1 not a single person with family ties to one of the 7 countries on Trumps ban list has been involved.
The majority of the persons involved in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia ... which is (unsurprisingly, considering Trumps business ties) not on the ban list.

Not a single terrorist plot, in which any of the persons with family ties in one of the 7 countries was involved, resulted in deaths of US citizens.

As for "Muslim Ban"

...
Pirro asked him if the president’s order has “anything to do with religion.” Giuliani explained, “When he 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.'”
...

Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/giuliani-...do-it-legally/

So, Trump himself ordered Giuliani to find legal ways to enact a "Muslim Ban".

That Giulianis Team afterwards covered it in Legalese in order to hide the "Muslim Ban" behind a ban for muslim persons from "dangerous countries" doesn't make it less of a "Muslim Ban".
Especially if you take the statisics of the source into account that I linked. (which clearly show that muslims of the 7 countries on Trumps ban list actually aren't the big danger that Trump makes them out to be)

[Kidlicious]

If you insist on including 9/11 I might remind you that on 9/1 not a single person with family ties to one of the 7 countries on Trumps ban list has been involved.
The majority of the persons involved in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia ... which is (unsurprisingly, considering Trumps business ties) not on the ban list.

Not a single terrorist plot, in which any of the persons with family ties in one of the 7 countries was involved, resulted in deaths of US citizens.
,

I am in favor of including Saudi Arabia. However, the fact that Saudi Arabia isn't included doesn't mean a thing. It's up to the president who he thinks is a threat. Not me. Not activist judges. Not protestors. Not CNN. And certainly non US citizens.

As for "Muslim Ban"


Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/giuliani-...do-it-legally/

So, Trump himself ordered Giuliani to find legal ways to enact a "Muslim Ban".

That Giulianis Team afterwards covered it in Legalese in order to hide the "Muslim Ban" behind a ban for muslim persons from "dangerous countries" doesn't make it less of a "Muslim Ban".
Especially if you take the statisics of the source into account that I linked. (which clearly show that muslims of the 7 countries on Trumps ban list actually aren't the big danger that Trump makes them out to be)

There was no ban on Muslims. That is a verifiable fact. And if you actually read the whole conversation they are all talking about defending the country against terrorism. Neither Trump or Gulianni ever say anything islamophobic at all. This all a complete lie.

[Proteus_MST]

I am in favor of including Saudi Arabia. However, the fact that Saudi Arabia isn't included doesn't mean a thing. It's up to the president who he thinks is a threat. Not me. Not activist judges. Not protestors. Not CNN. And certainly non US citizens.

Obviously it was not the president who tought anything.
Instead he told Giuliani to give him a muslim ban and Giulianis team decided that the best they could do wouldd be a ban on muslims of those 7 countries.
I have no doubt that Trump, if Giulianis team would have found a "legal" way to ban muslims of every country of the world from travelling into the USA, Trump would have signed this as well.

Obviously Mister president is like a parrot who just regurgitates stuff that was fed to him (regarding the alleged danger of muslim of said ****ries ... without reading any statistics on the atual danger posed by them for himself.

There was no ban on Muslims. That is a verifiable fact. And if you actually read the whole conversation they are all talking about defending the country against terrorism. Neither Trump or Gulianni ever say anything islamophobic at all. This all a complete lie.

It is a ban on muslims from those countries, so it is a muslim ban.
As giblets mentioned in the war-thread, it is rather doubtful that immigration officers will make a distinction between Shia or Sunni-Muslims (or even Sufis) ... despite the fact that the one or the other is a minority (and may even be persecuted) in all of the 7 countries.
So, with oher words, any muslim (who ever went to one of the 7 countries within the last 5 years ... or even comes from one of thoe countries) is banned from entering the USA ... any person who doesn't belong to the muslim faith will have no problem (as he can just remind the immigration officrs that he has a religion that has the minority status in said countries).

[Kidlicious]

No one has ever been banned in the US because of their religion. Again this is about the protection of the US. It has nothing to do with religion. Please stop lying.

[Proteus_MST]

No one has ever been banned in the US because of their religion. Again this is about the protection of the US. It has nothing to do with religion. Please stop lying.

The case for calling it a Muslim Ban:

...
So the case for calling Trump’s order a “Muslim ban” is pretty straightforward: It’s based on intention. In 2015, Donald Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration to the United States. The proposal morphed over the course of 2016 into a more legally defensible country-based ban. If the “country-based” stuff is really a fig leaf, the argument goes, then the public shouldn’t let the Trump administration get away with it.

Calling it a “Muslim ban” also makes sense if, in practice, the executive order would treat Muslims differently than members of other religions. The order banned most refugees from coming to the US for four months (before being put on hold by a federal judge), but allowed and even encouraged the US to bring in persecuted “religious minorities” — and President Trump has explicitly promised to help Christians in the Middle East. If the ban exempts Christians from certain countries, but affects their Muslim neighbors, that could create de facto discrimination.
...

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...xecutive-order

[Kidlicious]

There is no law about discriminating against Muslims. There is a law that says that you can not ban people based on religion. That law was not broken because they were not banned for being Muslim. They were temporarily banned because some of them might be terrorists. Insisting that Christians also be banned is actually against the law because no reasonable person can say that any of them are terrorists. We are not at war against Christian terrorism.

[Proteus_MST]

There is no law about discriminating against Muslims. There is a law that says that you can not ban people based on religion. That law was not broken because they were not banned for being Muslim. They were temporarily banned because some of them might be terrorists. Insisting that Christians also be banned is actually against the law because no reasonable person can say that any of them are terrorists. We are not at war against Christian terrorism.

From the judges ruling against Trumps muslim ban:

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/09/7-key-takeaways-from-the-courts-ruling-on-trumps-immigration-order/?utm_term=.615d4d33a33e

There is no evidence that there is danger of getting terrorists that are about to do any acts of terrorism in the USA, by letting muslim refugees from those countries into the USA. So obviously the ban was not about protecting the USA but rather about keeping muslims from those countries out.

[Kidlicious]

From the judges ruling against Trumps muslim ban:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/09/7-key-takeaways-from-the-courts-ruling-on-trumps-immigration-order/?utm_term=.615d4d33a33e

There is no evidence that there is danger of getting terrorists that are about to do any acts of terrorism in the USA, by letting muslim refugees from those countries into the USA. So obviously the ban was not about protecting the USA but rather about keeping muslims from those countries out.

Well there certainly is a danger. ISIS has said that they are going to send terrorists into western countries as refugees. We don't need to wait for an attack. By then we might have 100 terrorists in the US. The president isn't obligated to prove anything. The law isn't intended to require him to do that. His obligation is to the American people to protect them and he has wide sweeping power to do that. This isn't about war or something like that. This is just immigration.

You're talking about a judge who is an established activist. His word doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the law. People like him deny people justice everyday. How would you like it if the law was on your side and someone like him decided to rule against you?

[kentonio]

Insisting that Christians also be banned is actually against the law because no reasonable person can say that any of them are terrorists.

I wish every lawyer in the world could be shown this quote to give them a free cheap laugh.

[Proteus_MST]

Well there certainly is a danger. ISIS has said that they are going to send terrorists into western countries as refugees. We don't need to wait for an attack. By then we might have 100 terrorists in the US. The president isn't obligated to prove anything. The law isn't intended to require him to do that. His obligation is to the American people to protect them and he has wide sweeping power to do that. This isn't about war or something like that. This is just immigration.

You're talking about a judge who is an established activist. His word doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the law. People like him deny people justice everyday. How would you like it if the law was on your side and someone like him decided to rule against you?

Who is the activist here ...
the president who criminalizes thousands of people based on their faith and country of origin (or sometimes even just based on their faith and the country they went to during the last 5 years)
despite the fact that among those people there are many who have been working or studying in the USA for yeas (or even have a spouse who is a born american).
A president who does this criminalizatin despite he fact that statistics don't show that there is a greater danger from those people than from people anywhere on the world (or with another religion) (see my posting in the other thread that works with the numbers)

Or the judge who protects the right of those people to return to the USA ... to the place where they work, study, teach or even have their family?

[Kidlicious]

Who is the activist here ...
the president who criminalizes thousands of people based on their faith and country of origin (or sometimes even just based on their faith and the country they went to during the last 5 years)
despite the fact that among those people there are many who have been working or studying in the USA for yeas (or even have a spouse who is a born american).
A president who does this criminalizatin despite he fact that statistics don't show that there is a greater danger from those people than from people anywhere on the world (or with another religion) (see my posting in the other thread that works with the numbers)

Or the judge who protects the right of those people to return to the USA ... to the place where they work, study, teach or even have their family?

He didn't criminalize anyone so I think that answers the question. It is pointless to accuse the president of being an activist because he isn't a judge. There is a big difference between a judge who's job it is to judge the law and the president who is protecting his country. So I think that you not understanding that answers the question.

I'm not in any danger of being murdered in the US. That's totally besides the point. We have a problem in inner cities with murder and a different kind of terrorism that we fight against. Your argument is that we should not worry about muslims immigrating here and trying to overthrow the govt (terrorism etc) because of this homicide problem and that is ridiculous.

[giblets]

So we aren't banning muslims.. but we are banning muslims because they might be terrorists.

[BeBMan]

I'd rather have non-activist terrorists than activist activistst!

[Proteus_MST]

Trumps alternate reality again ... he complains that the fake news don't report the crowds of supporters that lined the streets when he left Forida and totally overlooked that those weren't supporters, but protesters against him

https://twitter.com/SouthFlorida42/status/830910341118832642

Reality definitely has turned into a SitCom