Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[Breccia]

Trump...I mean Bannon...to reveal new security measures and EOs next week. Any guesses?

He has an uphill battle. Again, the court specifically called out the intent of the EO's drafters as part of their dissent. Rewriting it changes nothing of that. The only way that leaps to mind, is he's going to have to ban other non-Muslim countries. I suppose he could, instead, make the new ban far more clear on who gets checked out and what criteria must be met -- something else the courts specifically cited. I don't think he's going to do that, but it would make things easier for him if he did.

[Mavick]

Ok, so what about the Trump Travel Ban is different then the Carter or Cuba Travel Bans

There was clearly sufficient evidence to the judges that the bans for those countries had a direct relation to their predominant muslim populations and not enough evidence that those countries posed a significant terrorist risk to our country (in the fact that none of the terrorist attacks to date were done by anyone from those countries). You put the two together and there was clearly no valid, let alone constitutional, reason for the ban.

And you can't even claim partisanship with the judges, one of them was a George W. appointee, and they all voted to uphold the lower court's ruling.

[petej0]

Will you talk with me? Because I have also read the ruling. And there's a LOT in there the court didn't like. For example, something I quoted earlier, they said that the intent was clearly discriminatory by religion, based on what the people who wrote the EO said beforehand. Carter didn't ban Muslims from Iran, he banned Iranians from Iran. Nobody banned Cuban Christians, for example, they blocked Cubans. Nor did Carter, Reagan, etc. say anything about banning a particular religion. Trump? Has.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cbb48efe316e

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.' "

---------

That's from Giulliani. On FOX Freaking News. That quote remains uncontested.

And that was just one paragraph of their dissent, in which they quoted a hell of a lot more precedent than you did, including previous bans. So yes, there were differences. Cited, explained differences.

You could make the argument that it was based on religion, but it does not ban ALL muslims. It banned travel from 7 countries which would include all faiths that live in those countries. Obama had listed as countries that require extra travel scrutiny.

Even if what Giulliani said is true (which I have no reason to believe isnt), it isnt discriminatory by religion because it only affects a small portion of the Muslim community. If anything, not that I would agree, it targets Muslims most likely to cause us harm.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not my job to read you the court ruling. If you can't be bothered to do so, don't try to debate the ruling.

Not asking about the COURT Ruling I am asking you, what the difference between the BANS are.

- - - Updated - - -

There was clearly sufficient evidence to the judges that the bans for those countries had a direct relation to their predominant muslim populations and not enough evidence that those countries posed a significant terrorist risk to our country (in the fact that none of the terrorist attacks to date were done by anyone from those countries). You put the two together and there was clearly no valid, let alone constitutional, reason for the ban.

And you can't even claim partisanship with the judges, one of them was a George W. appointee, and they all voted to uphold the lower court's ruling.

There was enough evidence to require the need for extra scrutiny as deemed by the Obama Admin.

[Breccia]

You could make the argument that it was based on religion

They did make that argument. And it won. It was specifically cited in the decision as one of the relevant features.

[Jeezy911]

The Democrats better hope we don't have a terrorist attack over the next 3 months, they would be completely wiped out as a party because of this. Playing with fire on National Security.

[Edge-]

Not asking about the COURT Ruling I am asking you, what the difference between the BANS are.

Why? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, and the government, from what I could tell of the courts ruling, brought up neither ban when arguing their case.

The Democrats better hope we don't have a terrorist attack over the next 3 months, they would be completely wiped out as a party because of this. Playing with fire on National Security.

If it comes from someone who would have been denied entry by this EO, maybe. But even then, that's arguing that the president should have unlimited authority, completely ignoring the constitution, in the name of national defense. Something that's patently ludicrous.

But even if an attack does happen (I hope it does not, ever), and the attacker is home-grown or comes from somewhere not included in this EO, I'm sure it won't stop Trump and his supporters from still claiming victory...somehow.

[petej0]

They did make that argument. And it won. It was specifically cited in the decision as one of the relevant features.

Ok, if Trump did not claim he would ban muslims, would this travel ban be contested?

[drakensoul]

Even if what Giulliani said is true (which I have no reason to believe isnt), it isnt discriminatory by religion because it only affects a small portion of the Muslim community. If anything, not that I would agree, it targets Muslims most likely to cause us harm.

This is the same argument that failed in the court. You have zero evidence to support the claim that banning travel from these seven countries is banning those 'most likely to cause us harm.' Because there is zero evidence that any refugee from any of these countries has been responsible for a terror attack on US soil. The government failed to provide any evidence to support this.

And just because it doesn't ban all Muslims doesn't mean it isn't a ban on Muslims. If I mutilate small animals and every animal I mutilate is a purple panda, you wouldn't say "Well he isn't mutilating just purple pandas, because some purple pandas are still alive. He hasn't killed all purple pandas, so he isn't just killing purple pandas."

That's a ludicrous assertion: people can be anti-group even if they haven't yet successfully targeted every member of that group. People who hate gays are homophobic; they don't become non-homophobic simply because they haven't yet hated every gay person.

A guy in jail for raping women who raped only Asian women; you wouldn't claim "He's not targeting Asian women because some Asian women haven't been raped yet."

Fallacious logic. It was suggested at multiple points throughout the campaign that Muslims were a dangerous group that needed to be banned for our own safety. If he hadn't made his motive clear, it's possible that a ban based on country of origin would have stood.

[petej0]

Why? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, ]and the government, from what I could tell of the courts ruling, brought up neither ban when arguing their case.

Which is why I want to know how the Trump travel ban is different. Is it only because Trump said he would ban muslims during his campaign? So people see this as a ban based on religion?

The Carter travel ban banned people based on country of origin.
The Cuban travel ban banned people based on country of origin.
The Trump travel ban banned people based on country of origin.

Am I missing something?

[AndaliteBandit]

The Democrats better hope we don't have a terrorist attack over the next 3 months, they would be completely wiped out as a party because of this. Playing with fire on National Security.

Sad thing is, that applies even if the attack isn't perpetrated by a Muslim immigrant from one of those nations, as we saw with /r/The_Donald's celebration over the mosque attack until the Muslim person of interest turned out to just be a witness, not a suspect after all.

[Breccia]

Ok, if Trump did not claim he would ban muslims, would this travel ban be contested?

There was a LOT in the dissent. Look, just read it, okay? It's pretty clear you haven't. Then you won't have so many questions.

[petej0]

This is the same argument that failed in the court. You have zero evidence to support the claim that banning travel from these seven countries is banning those 'most likely to cause us harm.' Because there is zero evidence that any refugee from any of these countries has been responsible for a terror attack on US soil. The government failed to provide any evidence to support this.

What evidence was there for extra scrutiny under the Obama Admin?

[Breccia]

Am I missing something?

Yes. You haven't read the decision. What you're missing, is in the decision. It's been linked multiple times.

[drakensoul]

What evidence was there for extra scrutiny under the Obama Admin?

And there it is. "But Obama!!!!!" is not a defense, as the court ruling shows.

Trump's EO was taken to court; the government was asked to provide evidence to support it and they failed to do so. Saying 'But Obama thought we needed extra scrutiny!!!!' has nothing to do with completely banning immigration from seven countries, and isn't a defense.

I don't have access to top secret material so I have no clue what the impetus for Obama thinking we needed extra scrutiny was.

I do have access to television and can watch for myself Trump repeatedly saying we need to ban Muslims, then watch him put an EO banning travel from seven Muslim countries from whom zero terrorists have committed a terrorist act in the US, then watch his administration fail to provide any factual evidence to support the need to do so for national security.

And unfortunately even though I don't twitter I can access his ridiculous tweets that hostiles are pouring in and our national security is at risk and we need to stop the influx immediately. Again, no evidence provided for any of this, just fear-mongering.

Eventually something will happen; that's the law of large numbers. It could be tomorrow, it could be in 900 years. You could die tomorrow in a car accident, the mathematical probability is not zero. Does it then make logical sense to ban automobiles?

You could slip in the shower tomorrow, hit your head, and drown face down in the tub. Probably won't happen, no reason to think it would... but it could, so should we ban showers? Or water? Would banning showers then be an imperative life-saving ban?

Of course not. It's completely ludicrous.

[Edge-]

Which is why I want to know how the Trump travel ban is different. Is it only because Trump said he would ban muslims during his campaign? So people see this as a ban based on religion?

The Carter travel ban banned people based on country of origin.
The Cuban travel ban banned people based on country of origin.
The Trump travel ban banned people based on country of origin.

Am I missing something?

Again, none of this is relevant to the ruling because the Government did not argue this. I have no idea why you are stuck on this, but to humor you...

The Carter ban was in direct response to the Iran Hostage Crisis, and was not a complete ban at that. It did not ban visas issued for humanitarian reasons either (refugees). It was very tightly written and targeted only Iranians, and only during that time of crisis and direct threat to the US. Something that Trump has not established with the seven countries listed.

I'd need to know which specific Cuban ban you're referencing before giving an opinion.

Again, either way, it's irrelevant. The government did not use either ban to support their arguments so the courts did issue statements on them. I have no idea why you continue to bring them up.

[Deleted]

I'm still sort of confused as to why people are against a Muslim travel ban until the constant waves of uncheckable "Refugees" and Opportunistic immigrants have subsided and their religion stops being such a volatile issue in the US.

I mean really, all we see Muslims doing is "Not muh religion" when they should stand up accountable for this.

[AndaliteBandit]

Which is why I want to know how the Trump travel ban is different. Is it only because Trump said he would ban muslims during his campaign? So people see this as a ban based on religion?

And because he stated his vetting process will prioritize Christians.

[Deleted]

And because he stated his vetting process will prioritize Christians.

Is there anything wrong with that? Considering the issues Arabian Christians face it's sort of a no-brainer to vet the most hit through first.

[Deleted]

Yes, there's something wrong with that. The constitution says you can't discriminate based on religion. Preferential treatment for Christians over other religions discriminates against every other religion. I know, complicated stuff.

But that's not true. Are you saying we should not counter discrimination with preferential treatment? Or should we treat the rich Pakistani doctor fleeing with tons of money under a fake passport from Syria the same as a Gay or Christian afraid for their life even among the refugees?

[AndaliteBandit]

Is there anything wrong with that? Considering the issues Arabian Christians face it's sort of a no-brainer to vet the most hit through first.

I've linked to it already but-- http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/17-35105.pdf

You can find the answer to that and other questions you may have about the ruling by actually reading the ruling.