The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Jan 26, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Second guessing the bosses is the job of the courts. It's what they do when they apply the law as it stands.
    Iran has a central government, is not a war zone, and is not a source of terrorist attacks on the US; Yemen and Libya and regions of a couple of others can provide records as good as those from most countries.

    And Saudi Arabia is still missing - along with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, and Egypt (speaking of countries that have actually provided terrorists who attacked the US, and whose records are suspect).

    And of course there are places like Germany, Canada, and Sweden, who have already taken in refugees - refugees have no proof of their status more or less by definition - and so people from those countries would be pretty high risk if anyone is.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
    Washington Post
    By Rosalind S. Helderman January 28 at 6:35 PM

    The seven nations targeted for new visitation restrictions by President Trump on Friday all have something in common: They are places he does not appear to have any business interests.

    The executive order he signed Friday bars all entry for the next 90 days by travelers from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. Excluded from the lists are several majority-Muslim nations where the Trump Organization is active and which in some cases have also faced troublesome issues with terrorism.

    According to the text of the order, the restriction applies to countries that have already been excluded from programs allowing people to travel to the United States without a visa because of concerns over terrorism. Hewing closely to nations already named as terrorism concerns elsewhere in law might have allowed the White House to avoid angering some more powerful and wealthy majority Muslim allies, such as Egypt.

    But without divesting from his company, as bipartisan ethics experts had advised, Trump is now facing questions about whether he designed the new rules with his own business at least partly in mind.

    “He needs to sell his businesses outside his family and place the assets in a blind trust, otherwise every decision he makes people are going to question if he’s making the decision in the interests of the American people or his own bottom line,” said Jordan Libowitz, the spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group. The group has filed a lawsuit arguing that Trump is already in violation of a constitutional provision barring federal officials from accepting payments from foreign officials.

    Earlier in the week, Norm Eisen, the group’s chairman and a former ethics adviser to Barack Obama, tweeted: “WARNING: Mr. Pres. your Muslim ban excludes countries where you have business interests. That is a CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. See u in court.”

    Stephanie Grisham, a White House spokeswoman, said, “The high-risk territories are based on Congressional statute and nothing else.”

    Trump has said he has handed management of his real estate, licensing and merchandising business over to his adult sons to avoid the perception that he is making presidential decisions to boost his own business. But he has retained ownership of the company, meaning that if it thrives during his presidency, he will personally profit.

    The new executive order points to the complications that are likely to arise from the arrangement.

    Trump’s order makes no mention of Turkey, which has faced several terrorist attacks in recent months. On Wednesday, the State Department updated a travel warning for Americans visiting Turkey, noting that “an increase in anti-American rhetoric has the potential to inspire independent actors to carry out acts of violence against US citizens.”

    Trump has licensed his name to two luxury towers in Istanbul. A Turkish company also manufactures a line of Trump-branded home furnishings. Trump’s most recent financial disclosure, filed in May when he was a presidential candidate, showed that he had earned as much as $6 million in the previous year from the deals.

    “I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” he said in a December 2015 interview with Breitbart News. More recently, he has insisted that he has no conflicts because laws making conflicts illegal do not apply to the president.

    Also untouched by Friday’s executive order is the United Arab Emirates, a powerful Muslim ally with whom the United States nevertheless has complicated relations. Trump has licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort, as well as a luxury home development and spa.

    . . .
    The executive order makes no mention of Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Trump Organization had incorporated several limited liability companies in preparation for an attempt to build a hotel in Saudi Arabia, showing an interest in expansion in the country. The company canceled those incorporations in December, indicating that no project is moving forward.

    Excluded as well is Indonesia, the world’s largest majority-Muslim nation, where there are two large Trump-branded resorts underway, built in partnership with powerful local interests.

    “To be blunt, we really don’t know what to make of which motives are driving this president’s decisions,” said Kamal Essaheb, director of policy and advocacy for the National Immigration Law Center. “From what we could tell from his campaign and his actions since he became president, what seems to be first and foremost on his mind is his own self-interest and an obsession with his brand.”
    douwd20 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Correct you nailed that

    Try telling that to the protestors at the airport's demanding the release of those in detention who the protestors insist have the right to enter regardless of executive orders.

    Nooooo. The terrorist are the the targeted group. Did you miss the word 'supposed' target group?

    Watch the banners of the protestors who are trying to misrepresent the executive orders about who is being banned.

    Only 7% of the SUPPOSED banned group are within population of the 7 countries

    Woo woo am sure a larger % of crazes live in those selected countries but do not have the information to state what the % is
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member


    Hmmmmmm...... maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall the mass hysteria after this speech? Actually, that almost sounds like democratic applause?
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    WaPo: Australia Strikes Deal to Resettle Refugees in U.S.

    Maybe not now, but one does wonder, why would Australia be sending refugees to the USA? When did the USA become the go-to? The USA is actually quite violent, I'd argue they're probably not safe in many of our low-income cities. They're probably more likely to be shot in Chiraq than Iraq.

    Seems reasonable that AU should resettle them somewhere in AU.
  9. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Oz has a gun ban. Guess.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    One reason is that many of them are refugees from US war and US violence.

    I'm a bit surprised France and Germany haven't sent the US a bill for the Iraq War aftermath. Or just settled the refugees on US military bases.
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Nailed what?

    Well according to a US federal judge they do have that right.

    Yes the terrorist are the target group, so why all nationals from those nations, and why not saudi arabian?
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    The Australian army, along with others (including the US) invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq. Australian farmers sold beef and wheat to Saddam's Iraq and to the mess it is today. Many refugees are not from Iraq incidentally. For example: Pakistani Christians, ironically enough, given the OP.
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member


    Current Iran

    Records - incorrect
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    What are the chances that a multi million dollar class action is taken out against the USA for compensation due to hardship and financial loss suffered because of his "rationally unexplainable" executive order?

    here in Australia Australian citizens who have merely traveled to those countries listed are being told they will not be able to enter the USA.
    I smell a major class action pending.....
    can they do it though?
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Your words

    Wait, Iran has no central government and is a war zone? Maybe your saying Iran has no records on there population? They got birth certificates, licenses, voting registration, medical records, criminal records, etc,

    Nailed it = got it right

    That's what I am saying

    According to his boss they don't

    My favourite game of guessing coming up

    I guess because any national from the 7 are not asked
    • Are you a terrorist?
    • What is your religion?
    but all are subject to (or soon will be) extreme vetting

    When the Extreme vetting questions documents are released it will be educational to vet the questions

    Saudi can provide supporting documents and is a ally
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    why say that?
  18. douwd20 Registered Senior Member

    If you're trying to equate Bill's speech with Trump's ban you have an epic failure on your hands.
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    so what has changed do you think? ( to provoke mass hysteria as you call it)or do you deny that "mass hysteria" is real? ( even if it is crazy it is still real IMO)
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Because it's doubtful

    • : uncertain or unsure aboutsomething
    • : not likely to be true : not probable
    • : likely to be bad : not worthy of trust
    Full Definition
    • 1 : giving rise to doubt : open to question <it is doubtful that theyever knew what happened>
    • 2 a : lacking a definite opinion, conviction, or determination <theywere doubtful about the advantages of the new system>
      b : uncertain in outcome : undecided<the outcome of the election remainsdoubtful>
    • 3 : marked by qualities that raisedoubts about worth, honesty, or validity <of doubtful repute>
    • doubt·ful·ly \-fə-lē\ adverb
    • doubt·ful·ness noun

    • he was doubtful about the decision to complete the project despite its mounting problems
    • the election results were highlydoubtful, so an investigation was begun
    • our winning the championshipincreasingly looks like a doubtfuloutcome
    First use: 14th century
    Synonyms: distrustful, dubious, hinky [slang], mistrustful, skeptical, suspicious, trustless, uncertain, unconvinced, undecided, unsettled, unsure, on the fence
    Antonyms: certain, convinced, positive, sure
    Synonym discussion: doubtfuldubious problematic questionablemean not affording assurance of the worth, soundness, or certainty of something. doubtful implies littlemore than a lack of conviction or certainty <doubtful about whether I said the right thing>. dubiousstresses suspicion, mistrust, or hesitation <dubious about the practicality of the scheme>. problematic applies especially to things whose existence, meaning, fulfillment, or realization is highlyuncertain <whether the project willever be finished is problematic>. questionable may imply no more than the existence of doubt but usuallysuggests that the suspicions are well-grounded <a man of questionablehonesty>.

  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, correct. The courts are charged with "applying the law", even against the wishes and edicts of bosses. That's their job. The law applies to everybody, even bosses.
    According to your link, Iran has a central government, is not a war zone, and has not been a source of terrorism against the US.
    The "status" of anyone from Iran is easily verifiable in the same way and to the same degree as the status of people from most other countries.
    So it meets none of the requirements you claimed were the basis of the new executive order.

    Whereas Egypt, say, or Saudi Arabia, or Canada, does.
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    And the law is?

    The new executive order

    Is it your contention

    Whereas Egypt, say, or Saudi Arabia, or Canada, does.

    are war zones with no central government?

    Will check for more information about Iran and get back to you

    This might be of interest although not exactly in line with the main theme here

    Stay tuned
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2017
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    The executive order can be vetoed if it is deemed unconstitutional for one... if I am not mistaken.

Share This Page