The nation would not exist without immigrants though. You have just stated that had the founding members of the US decided no more immigrants the country would likely be a lot worse and even speculated on whether it would have continued to exist.
This argument has everything to do with this thread and its not a weird sidetrack. The point that you have just proved for me is that immigration can be good, it can be very good in fact. Indiscriminately placing blanket bans on an entire nation of people who have done nothing wrong, ever, based of fear mongering with no facts is not a good thing. trumps ban is only being done to win over the bigots and small minded people who are so dumb they need someone to tell them how to think. Look at these 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXOydtO5Ww
Joe, you, uh, you ok there, guy? You're looking a little green And glowy. Might wanna slow it down on the Slurm.
On-Topic: As I said back on page 1, I'd believe it was about security if there were any US attacks from the countries listed, and Trump didn't just happen to leave out any countries he has imminent business deals with, and if there weren't clauses for non-Muslims from those areas to be processed faster, and if the guy didn't campaign on constantly discussing Muslim bans and registries.
Be seeing you guys on Bloodsail Buccaneers NA!
But we also wouldn't have Trump without immigrants, so there's that.
- - - Updated - - -
Don't forget that it's also only for 120 days, so even if it was about security etc, it wouldn't accomplish anything but to make the US look like a bunch of dicks and serve as an ISIS recruiting tool.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
-Kujako-
And I know that technically it isn't a Muslim ban. Banning a religion is practically impossible. What is hurting Trump is his previous statements on promising such a ban. Judges are using that plus the fact that the ban list consists of mostly Muslims to conclude that the EO is religiously motivated.
The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.
Again, one doesn't need to target all members of a group to be targeting that group. If you're a serial killer and you're killing women, the fact that you haven't killed every woman doesn't mean that you aren't targeting women. The fact that you also killed a man in 70 women doesn't mean that you aren't targeting women.
And are you really asking why he didn't outright come out and say every Muslim from every country is banned? Uhh, because he's trying to get it passed, perhaps? And that would be obviously unconstitutional, and he was banking on this to loop-hole its way through.
Trump Asks Giuliana How to do a Muslim Ban Legally
This fallacy that "it's not a Muslim ban because every Muslim on the planet wasn't targetted!!!!" is exactly that--false.
It's a Muslim ban. You can choose to shove your fingers as deep in your ear canals as possible and say otherwise, but so far the courts disagree with you. He wanted to ban Muslims, he said he wanted to ban Muslims (repeatedly, constantly at his rallys and throughout the campaign), he asked others how to ban Muslims legally, and he released a ban that targets countries from which zero terrorist attacks have happened in the USA and which are predominately Muslim, misappropriating a list from the Obama administration because it made it simpler. The percentage of people, by race/religion, that are affected by the ban is almost entirely anti-Muslim.
If you could show him a way to ban every Muslim on the planet, he'd invite you to meet.
So he's a serial killer attacking Muslims, and your defense is "well some are still alive so no he isn't!!!! He killed a christian once too!"
Mmmhmm. Okay boo.
Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-03-25 at 08:25 PM.
It is an absurd statement that not allowing refugees in will result in more people becoming terrorists, because this implies that if you allow refugees in you are inevitably letting people in who have a proclivity towards becoming terrorists, which means in the future you will have a population within your country that is likely to engage in terrorism if they are not appeased. The logic behind this is self detonating, because the only rational conclusion from the fact pattern presented is that allowing refugees in will result in your country being held hostage to terrorists.
Most people would rather die than think, and most people do. -Bertrand Russell
Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Last edited by Spectral; 2017-03-25 at 08:33 PM.
Well, if you want to get technical, one of the big reasons random Saudi nationals end up radicalized is that the unpopular and hardline Saudi royals don't support undermining the United States and effectively biting the hand that feeds them. Since these individuals can't operate openly inside Saudi borders because they would be put on pikes for the masses, they use other more sympathetic vectors to enter the West and launch their attacks. Vectors which would be denied to them if the travel restrictions were to be enforced.
OMG 13:37 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Cleave unto me, and I shall grant to thee the blessing of eternal salvation."
And His disciples said unto Him, "Can we get Kings instead?"
Restricting based solely on nation of origin should be unconstitutional. There should be a substantive reason for restricting or blocking, not just 'CAUSE THEY'RE SWEDES!!!!
So if there's a specific problem, and immigration from a country is demonstrably worsening that problem, then a temporary stay could be applied based on that problem, not based on someone's nation of origin. Restricting based solely on nationality is... racist? Nationist? Some kind of -ist that shouldn't exist in this day and age.
We already went through another version of this. This is why people make such a "nation of immigrants!" cry, because of faulty reasoning that focuses on people's nationality, race, religion instead of an actual underlying factual problem.
Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-03-25 at 08:41 PM.
Minor point of order - it takes a pretty narrow definition of terrorism to not include the Ohio State attack.
- - - Updated - - -
Surely you see why I don't find this argument compelling, right? I don't think, "that must be unconstitutional, it's racist or something" is really much of a bedrock legal principle.
Also, once again, because people still seem to be conflating whether I think something is a good idea with whether I think it's constitutional - I think this is generally a pretty bad idea. I would pretty much always rather screen immigrants on an individual basis. However, it's surely not unconstitutional to restrict immigration based on more or less any arbitrary criteria the federal government concocts.
It's a human principle. Discriminating based on the fact that you were born in another country, have a different skin color, have a different gender, or any other inalterably innate principle is discrimination. No one likes to be discriminated against, it feels wrong and it is wrong.
Welcome to 3rd grade? To American History? To every conversation you've ever had with your parents about morality?
There's no legal reason to constitutionalize said discrimination -- just make law that deals with real underlying facts.
If discriminating against people doesn't strike a cord with you, that's your problem not mine. Perhaps that's why you're getting so much "a nation of immigrants!!" response to your posts: You (seemingly) don't understand that what you're suggesting is innately detestable and prejudiced.
There is a big difference between banning someone based on their skin and banning someone because they in some measurable way are destroying an institution. A fact that doesn't require you to find it compelling.
Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-03-25 at 08:48 PM.
The ban is actually constitutional now that it is properly written, the argument against it mostly have to do with intent which is why they use Trump and his surrogate's words against him. Since Gorsuch will most likely be confirmed to me this will probably end up being upheld by the supreme court along partisan lines but it will be a long and painful process.