text:
Photo: Genaro Molina/LA Times/Getty ImagesPhoto: Genaro Molina/LA Times/Getty Images
More Than 150 Former Federal Prosecutors Have Denounced Trump's Muslim Ban
Leighton Akio Woodhouse
February 7 2017, 12:45 a.m.
Donald Trump's executive order banning travel to the United States by the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and by refugees worldwide has been broadly rejected by the judiciary, with over a dozen federal court orders restricting or staying the travel ban.
Now, more than 150 former federal prosecutors have expressed their disapproval of Trump's overreach as well. On Monday, former Assistant United States Attorney Ellyn Marcus Lindsay provided The Intercept with a letter signed by herself and 53 other former AUSAs in California, which referred to the executive order as "a thinly veiled attempt to exclude Muslims from certain countries based on their religion."
Lindsay worked in the criminal division of the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles for 28 years.
Two similarly worded letters have been signed by former AUSAs in New York and Florida. The New York letter has 65 signatories and the Florida letter has 36. The three letters hold no legal force, but they reflect a strong current of mainstream opinion within the legal profession that is in vocal opposition to Trump's abortive travel ban.
Also on Monday, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution urging the president to withdraw the executive order. In a speech prior to the vote, ABA President Linda Klein warned that parts of the executive order "jeopardize fundamental principles of justice, due process, and the rule of law."
"We must avoid sweeping bans based on religion or national origin," Klein said in her remarks and called for a judiciary "independent from the president of the United States." She applauded the ABA for launching a website to coordinate legal defense for immigrants affected by the travel ban. Klein also responded directly to Trump's tweet attacking Judge James Robart, whose temporary restraining order suspended the ban. "There are no 'so-called judges' in America," she said. "There are simply judges — fair and impartial."
Last week, the San Francisco Bar Association also lambasted the travel ban, calling it "cruel and intolerable, and likely unlawful."
The AUSA letters argue that Trump's executive order permits the president to give an unconstitutional "religious preference" to Christians over Muslims in admissions into the country.
Patricia Pileggi, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said, "We entered into agreements with other countries to allow people into the U.S. Without any notification whatsoever, those agreements were revoked. The order initially prevented people from returning to schools, to jobs, prevented scientists from returning to the U.S. to do very valuable research."
Attorneys general for 15 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief on Monday supporting the challenge to Trump's Muslim ban by Minnesota and Washington state. Jeff Modisett, a former AUSA who signed the California letter, was the Indiana attorney general from 1996 to 2000. If he were still in that position, he told The Intercept, he would have joined the brief as well.
The Trump administration also filed a brief with the court, arguing that it was within its authority to issue the ban. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on the suit on Tuesday.
"Putting aside the inhumanity, bigotry, and ignorance underlying this order," wrote Lindsay in an email to The Intercept, "you would have to be blind to see the order as anything but absurd. To effect such a broad and sweeping change of the rules (which, to date, have not led to one terrorist attack), without proper vetting or notice to affected persons and agencies shows a recklessness and lack of care that is simply terrifying."
Top photo: Chella, from Sherman Oaks, holds the U.S. flag in protest of President Donald Trump's travel ban at the Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX on Jan. 29, 2017, in Los Angeles.
Leighton Akio Woodhouse[email protected]leightonwoodhouse.com@lwoodhouse
February 12 2017, 12:58 p.m.
The clandestine establishment (and its puppets) is instating an abolishment and subversion of inclusion, diversty, assimilation and integration (and he values of the U.S. constitutional statutes that guarantees equal protection even to non-nationals) while cloaked in (false fronts) sheep's clothing in a free and open society's remainings.
TO: Entire U.S. Per Curiam (federal judiciary system and governance) and espiacially those who legitimately and without guile stand for what is right.
A panel of three judges from the 9th circuit court of appeals illegalized (barred enforcement/ suspended/ rejected/contravened) an executive-order-13769 of POTUS aimed to unsuspend/ reject & deny resumption of,and refusing to IN-REINSTATE it as issued by a lower court ruling that enacted/instated a -— travel ban SUSPENSION/ halt — to seven (Muslim) countries that had previously been obstructed/ blocked/ prevented/ barred from (free flow of travel) entering the U.S.
Therefore/thus, this POTUS' executive order 13769 is nullified/annulled=NULL
[Legally parlanced/ worded as: the emergency motion to (for a) stay pending appeal is= DENIED]
Notice that The entire/whole U.S. Federal Judiciary system verdict (concerning the -travel ban suspension – traceable to POTUS' executive order 13769) is concluded as::::: inextricable TO MAKE NOTHING OF
The entire Federal Judiciary/court system retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to any executive action/motion as well as any of the government's branches unilateral motions. Therefore, the preceding/foregoing, by their own admission, inextricably includes
any resolution deemed as a "national interest" as when aimed at/ determined and hinged by unjustified fake intelligence and fake-news-propaganda (by kosher owned USA dead mainstream media) of "weapons of mass destruction" that while cloaked in "we the people of the land of the free" and "free press" clothing are [domestically and abroad] subverting a free an open society at large which is the inextricable epitome/epitomy of attacks against humanity.
Realize that The fallout of the covert establishment is one's gullibility or don't wake up.
– Alejandro Grace Ararat
I have learned from a brilliant non-kosher person/human being that Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is (condoning, supporting, embracing, abetting, voting) doing it.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
Christian C Holmer
February 10 2017, 3:32 p.m.
The Politics of the Possible: 150 Federal Prosecutors Denounce Trumps Muslim Ban
Stingrays Provide FBI NSA Federal "Oversight" for the Congressional Committees Providing Oversight for the FBI NSA , Hampton Homeowners, Gun Owners and Anti War Activists.
"A New Frontier in Police Surveillance"
Featuring Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Adam Bates, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; moderated by Julian Sanchez, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.
https://www.cato.org/events/stingrays-new-frontier-police-surveillance
February 9 2017, 8:16 a.m.
I'm not using the same internet connection for this. I'm not sure if it will still post
There are many comparisons being made between the USA and Germany in WW2 nowadays. If there isn't there should be with WW1 also.
"Germany's grand First World War jihad experiment"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/museums/11022199/Germanys-Grand-WW1-Jihad-Experiment.html
So much to say about this one. Well mainly perception management for elections, war and I really don't think people know what they're up against – the many layers of attacks there are when they talk about resistance. I could be wrong though. But anyway I'll just post it
Operation Himmler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler
Voice from Europe Candace
February 9 2017, 5:42 p.m.
Comparing USA today with Europe in WWI and WWII is simplistic demagogy. It doesn't give you any credibility , my dear, it only highlights your total ignorance of history.
Candace Voice from Europe
oh no, am I exposed? Well don't just sit there, caricature voice from Europe, offer me your coat and you know: explain yourself.
February 10 2017, 8:42 a.m.
You might start with a fieldtrip to an extermination camp ( WWII) and on your way visit the trenches where soldiers died in most inhuman conditions.
Please also indicate the similarities between D.Trump and W.Wilson and F.D.Roosevelt ?
Hi. A misunderstanding perhaps. I'm comparing Germany's alliance with Ottoman empire and the secret use of 'jihad' in ww1, to the US's alliance with Saudi Arabia and its use of "radical" Islam in what has been called the war on terrorism.
In relation to the thread, I'm saying this Muslim travel ban (from certain regime changing Iran friendly countries) and the politicized fear of Islam for America's safety is a sham used for economic dominance/control in the Middle East and a Saudi Empire but also serves to 'prove' the need for institutionalized Christian White Nationalism in America – not that the ban is like living through WW1 or 2
For the same end goals I believe there is a comparison or at least warning to be made in posting a link to Germany's Operation Himmler for starting WW2 that I think U.S strategists are very capable of using and have in variations to achieve support for escalation of our wars in the Middle East and in rhetoric against Islam (for White Christian nationalism) but also to sway elections.
The use of deception is significant to consider when planning resistance as well because as its known how to provoke Muslims in the Middle East plus media coverage for its advantage, its also known how to provoke "the left" and use it to their advantage .
I think this unified 'to hell with all of you' political approach/ military strategy merge came out of not being greeted as liberators in Iraq with said invasion benefiting Iran and the election of a very popular "hope and change, black, family man, who went from antiwar to covert war (for some wussy dedication to lower American casualties and to better show a public face of civility to Muslims) president.
Anyway no similarities to Trump, Wilson and Roosevelt to be made.
Banning groups of people because of where they're from is not inspired by respect for individuals or the result of debating ideas or discussing personal views on religion. It is only group punishment which is the opposite of justice. Whether the president "has the authority" or not to do this, I don't know.
I've been very surprised what the president and Congress has had the authority to do
Candace Candace
That comment just about sucked the life out of me, who knows why. I deleted about 3/4 of it. Later, I attempted to post a few links (from a different IP – not sure what the account rules are here)concerning WW1 Germany, their jihad experiment and Operation Himmler and of course because I'm checking it hasn't arrived yet .
I left out that if the Intercept hosted any discussions with anyone I can think of anyway (not interested in formal debate) yes even white nationalists, campaign persons, government outsourced online whatevers and there subsequent mixtures ;-) I would so be there, which of course includes participation.
Commenting sections can be entertaining and you know certain people have to read every comment so there is some interest in that, but its not really an activity that creates roots, in my opinion. Blah blah I doubt it will happen but I thought I would put it out there anyway.
Craig Nelsen
Sillyputty:
No legislation submitted by any race or nationality has had the effect you claim.
You are simply wrong.
Between 1925 and 1965, the nation experienced very little immigration. There was even a brief period of net emigration. During that time, assimilation had a chance to work its magic and we Americans produced the most successful country in the world. We fought a world war against two superpowers simultaneously, and won, built the largest economy in the world, by far, accomplished civil rights for a radically different race, unprecedented in world history, invented computers, and were suiting up for a walk on the moon the next day–all while managing to get our lawns mowed and our children raised. Had it not been for the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, our population would have topped out at about 230 million and then begun to decline slightly, a la Japan.
If your whiteness prevents you from accepting that this is actually how the math of demographic projections work, I suggest you get together with your brethren to hoard your women and produce more babies in order to forestall being drowned by the inevitable wave of democratically-aligned fellow citizens that is on its way.
If democracy fulfilling it's promise by creating a society amongst its electorate that represents the will of the people isn't what you want , then change it using the tools provided.
The electorate has never been behind the racial transformation of our country. That's why the Jewish sponsors and their Jewish allies in the press had to lie so blatantly about the consequences of the legislation to get it passed. No electorate in the world would be for its own disempowerment. Israel, for example, built a wall to ensure Israel remains a Jewish state (which raises Mr Salzmann's precious Establishment Clause question in a rather interesting US taxpaying kind of way, huh?)
Stop lying to yourself. Democracy has been used as a weapon against you and all you represent, and democracy is prevailing. Deal with it – or move.
You stop lying. One of the flaws of democracy is that a committed minority can have its way on an issue against the wishes and well-being of an apathetic or uninformed majority. Let that minority gain control over the press and the rest of the media, and the majority is nearly at the mercy of the minority.
The last election taught us that, if it taught us anything–and makes Trump's accomplishment truly stunning. Consider, for example, the Washington Post, which ran twelves articles on the world-shattering incident of Trump calling Miss Universe fat twenty years ago. Twelve! How many articles did the Post run on the fact that George Soros, a Jew and a major player in the demographic transformation of not only this country, but Europe as well, who openly calls for war between the West and Russia, and spends money to that end, was Hillary Clinton's major donor–sinking more than $25 million into her campaign. Zero articles. The press are hardly the watchdogs of democracy as the Founders envisioned, and we have long ago lost majority rule. Will of the people? Please. Democracy is a weapon used against the majority.
-Mona- Craig Nelsen
JayZ Craig Nelsen
Craig Nelsen: "Democracy is a weapon used against the majority."
You hate democracy, that is why you follow AhmadiTrump the dictator!
Craig Nelsen JayZ
Who cares what you think? You call Trump a misogynist, and you couldn't even articulate why you think that.
You didn't sit down one day and decide that the way a candidate for the presidency interacts with females is important to you in deciding who would make the best president. You didn't develop a set of criteria by which to assess the candidates interactions with females, and then set about assembling a coherent picture of the different candidates' histories with females, after comparing which you decided Trump would make a bad president.
Not even close.
All it took was the Washington Post repeating over and over and over that Trump is a misogynist and you were there like the trained monkey you are. You are absolutely certain that Trump is a misogynist–you KNOW it– for no reason other than the Washington Post ran twelve articles about Trump calling Miss Universe fat twenty years ago and repeating over and over every day Trump is a misogynist. Trump is a misogynist. Trump is a misogynist. A well- trained monkey, you now skip back and forth squeaking Trump is a misogynist! Trump is a misogynist! Trump is a misogynist! glancing now and then to see whether your performance is being noticed.
You even voted against him for that reason.
So your view of my relationship to democracy means as much to me as the chattering of monkeys at the zoo.
Doug Salzmann Craig Nelsen
One of the flaws of democracy is that a committed minority can have its way on an issue against the wishes and well-being of an apathetic or uninformed majority. Let that minority gain control over the press and the rest of the media, and the majority is nearly at the mercy of the minority.
That, of course, is the "Jews control the media" paranoid antisemitic delusion. It's not true and not even close to true — well, unless you are talking about Hollywood producers and directors. Jews are represented in those categories in percentages far beyond their percentage of the population.
I suppose the sneaky Hymies could be controlling our democracy by means of the movies. Has anyone investigated the subliminal voting instructions in "Finding Dory?"
-Mona- Doug Salzmann
And to the extent there are Jews in the media, thank god for the work of the Izzy Stones, Glenn Greenwalds and Amy Goodmans.
Doug Salzmann -Mona-
Wait. Glenn's Jewish?
Has he admitted it?
The poor confused young man once told me he wasn't sure he's white. I had the honor of informing him that while both his forebears and mine (Irish Catholics) were not so considered, after WWII we were let into Club Caucasian.
Craig Nelsen Doug Salzmann
A useful method of identifying a person of low principles is to notice the ease with which he asserts evil in the opinions of others. There is no such thing as an evil opinion. Actual evil can only manifest in actions.
Opinions can be irrational, in error, self-serving, and so on. But they can't be evil for the simple reason thoughts are only quasi-real. To illustrate that to yourself, try thinking of one.
For this reason, DesCartes was wrong when he said I think, therefore I am. He should have said, I act, therefore I am. Or, better, I will, therefore I am. The West has paid a price for his error, an example of which is guys like you and the currency given slurs like "anti-Semitic" ( a mortal sin of which anyone in the world can be guilty except a Jew, and to be guilty of which requires nothing more than the accusation of such by any Jew).
What do these media moguls have in common?
Craig Nelsen: "A useful method of identifying a person of low principles is to notice the ease with which he asserts evil in the opinions of others."
Are you suggesting that you are a person of very low principles?
After all, you have gone beyond … you have asserted blanket evil on entire races and nations!
A mirror can be a useful tool for self-evaluation of bigotry and racism.
The mere fact that the mountain of public data implicating AhmadiTrump's low regard for women across the board does not register with you may be indicative of the uselessness of the mirror. Unfortunately!
A. Citizen Doug Salzmann
"That, of course, is the "Jews control the media" paranoid antisemitic delusion. "
It's no delusion that Jewish Neocons have controlled U.S. Foreign Policy for the past two decades.
And before you proceed with your snide remarks, Douggie, GFY.
Sillyputty Craig Nelsen
"No legislation…has had the effect you claim."
When distilled to its essence, the effect you claim is basically "if not for democracy, my group would be better represented."
You realize you have it ass-backward, right? The legislation you reference, among others, was submitted and passed because of democracy, not in spite of it.
Ultimately, democracy is about ideas; it's not about race, religion, or nationality. Of course advocates push legislation that supports or undermines their racist agenda, their nationalist agenda, or one that supports their groups ideological preference. That's their right to do so. But in a democracy, it's survival of the best ideas, though, the ones that represent our idea of democracy best, right?
Your side has been found wanting.
Your complaint that "democracy is a weapon" is absolutely correct. It's a tool against ideas like yours that propose that individual groups deserve special consideration simply because of a misunderstood idea that your skin color makes you special and unique, and therefore deserving of special considerations.
Democracy, thus far, says it doesn't.
Karl Craig Nelsen
Hey Craig,
You are essentially speaking to the same person in many forms; this is the way that Mona operates. Her whole shtick is to employ sock puppets for the purpose of creating the illusion that she represents majority opinion. Even her arguments are structured out of deference to consensus opinion which, in turn, always mirrors that of Glenn Greenwald.
A. Citizen
You truly do not know where you are. Both the writers here, as well as commenters such as both myself and Doug, have often and vehemently slammed Obama for slaughtering Muslims.
Fine then. Where was the outrage when Obama was dropping bombs? The mainstream press turned half the country against Trump. But Obama the murder got no bad press. Go fucking figure.
-Mona- A. Citizen
Where was the outrage when Obama was dropping bombs?
As I said, you are clueless about where you are posting: Syria Becomes the 7th Predominantly Muslim Country Bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate
Karl -Mona-
So then, not only are there seven major Saudi funded and trained Salafist-Jihadist organizations in Syria fifghting against Assad, those sympathetic to Assad himself also have reason to export violence to the US?
-Mona- Karl
You really do have a thing for non sequiturs. But then, racists are not generally partial to logic.
February 8 2017, 11:29 p.m.
Mona and Douggie — answer the question please:
Why was it okay for Obama to bomb [murder] tens of thousands of Muslims but not okay for trump to BAN them?
Answer the goddam question please.
James Scott A. Citizen
Let me answer your question. It was wrong for Obama and the CIA to murder tens of thousands of Muslims under the false pretense that they were saving "rebels". Who incidentally were foreign mercenaries trained by the NATO and Turkey.
It is also wrong that Trump bans the people made homeless by US aggression in Libya, Syria and Yemen. Trump may not have made those people homeless and traumatized but he is victim bashing them in order to appear to appease the racists who blame refugees for the racist not having well paid jobs.
Both should be condemned and the nation needs to reflect on the violence being visited on foreign countries in resource wars fomented by the USA oligarchs who still remain in control under Trump.
Candace James Scott
good answer!
JayZ A. Citizen
Both actions are reprehensible.
Why can you not simply look at one act and call it reprehensible without needing to excuse it by paralleling it with some other reprehensible act?
What is it about about AhmadiTrump supporters that blinds them to this man's misogyny, bigotry, narcissism, ….?
What is it about you Aunty Fassiss that makes you such lapdogs of the Washington Post. Trump hates women? On what do you base that claim? Oh, the Washington Post told you so? Deep. Trump is a bigot? On what do you base that claim? Oh, the New York Times called him a bigot. Trump is a narcissist? Ok, I'll grant you that. He's nearly as narcissistic as Obama, but who cares? Think for yourself, for crying out loud.
Pedinska
It's Not Foreigners Who are Plotting Here: What the Data Really Show
A Little Perspective
Let's put these numbers in perspective.
In the past two years, the FBI has arrested five subjects, all American citizens, from Ohio alone. Three of them—Christopher Lee Cornell, Munir Abdulkader, Terrence J. McNeil—actively plotted attacks in the United States. Cornell planned an attack on the U.S. Capitol, while Abdulkader and McNeil targeted police stations and U.S. military personnel closer to home.
During the same time period, the FBI arrested nine subjects from Virginia, all U.S. citizens.
Since January 2015, the FBI has also arrested more anti-immigrant American citizens plotting violent attacks on Muslims within the U.S. than it has refugees, or former refugees, from any banned country. As we wrote about here, here and here, in October 2016, three white men from Kansas were charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. According to the graphic complaint, the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant men planned to attack a mosque in the area. The men progressed quickly with their plot, amassing firearms and explosives. The targets were people from Somalia, who ironically, would now be covered by Trump's order.
https://lawfareblog.com/its-not-foreigners-who-are-plotting-here-what-data-really-show
Doug Salzmann
Mr. Nelsen imagines that serious people are going to engage in a debate on constitutional issues, within the framework of his silly proposed terms, beginning with the imbecilic suggestion that opening statements be limited to 250 words. Hell, we've already wasted many more words than that on his bigotry, racism and xenophobia.
Nelsen also appears to imagine that other serious people will, should we fail to accept his goofy challenge, decide that he has "exposed" us.
In the real world, the issue is before real courts, as we type. Real judges will decide the fate of Trump's order. They may, or may not, make that decision based upon the Establishment Clause question.
I think those of us who believe the order is a violation of the Establishment Clause have made our position clear: it is a violation because it favors one or more religious groups while disfavoring another.
It wouldn't be necessary to show intent, but the bad faith of the Trump administration is obvious. Trump spent his campaign announcing, in speeches, on his website, etc. his intention of banning Muslims and his political adviser, moron Rudy Giuliani, was stupid enough to tell a national television audience that Trump asked him to form a commission and find a legal way to ban Muslims. (If the real-world case moves forward in the Seattle court, discovery is likely to add to this already-shameful record of animus and deceit.)
Accordingly, petitioner's request is denied, without prejudice. If petitioner can demonstrate some legal basis for his argument, rather than mere fuzzy thinking arising from bigotry, racism and xenophobia, and propose a form of debate that properly mirrors a legal proceeding, we may consider a new request — if we're in the mood. ;^)
Doug Salzmann Doug Salzmann
1. No. Jackson hasn't claimed he was on the balcony when MLK was shot (only King was there) and King didn't bleed to death.
2. Jackson hasn't made that claim. He has stated what he heard and believed were King's last words, but they were to Ben Branch, asking him to play a favorite hymn, before he was shot.
Karl is the genteel version of Mr. Nelsen. He despises Black Lives Matter, gets angry about pointing out when Trump and Spicer themselves have called the Muslim ban a "ban," and what he did in Glenn's recent thread about gay couples adopting is disgusting. And here he is now, attacking you as you take on an open, virulent racist. Because Karl pretty well likes Mr. Nelsen.
Craig Nelsen -Mona-
"open, virulent racist"
I'm so happy you now have a friend here in Mr. Nelsen. Being one of the few resident racists — really, the only regular one — must have been lonely.
My theory is Doug Salzmann and Mona are the same person.
Yes, there there is strong anecdotal evidence to support that contention which goes back for years. I have often made that claim myself. But, he is not the only one of Mona's sock puppets – that is provable fact.
Sillyputty Karl
I'd like to see proof. Thanks.
Karl Sillyputty
You already have Sillyputty/Mona/Hypatia/AthiestInChief/Doug Salzmann…
The problem with debating in a comments section is the lack of finality. Guys like you, whose intent is to deceive rather than illuminate, will throw out their deceptions with impunity knowing most people are neither legal experts nor immigration policy experts, and, therefore, will be unable to identify the fraud being perpetuated on them. (This is one of the reasons guys like you are fatal to democracy; democracy only works within a framework where we can be reasonably sure that most people generally agree on roughly common interests.)
Then someone comes along who sees through your fraud and calls you on it, spends a bunch of time debating you, then, when things look dire for your position, you simply stop responding. So the needle doesn't move much.
I want the needle to move. I want a public debate in real time with an understandable and definite denouement. I want either your position or my position to be discredited unequivocally. I can get two well-informed colleagues to join me, I presume you can as well. I can arrange funding to promote the debate. If you don't like the length of the opening statements, propose an alternative length or structure. I'm sure we can make this a good vigorous influential illuminating debate with lots of built in interest and lots of significance for the course of this national debate.
Doesn't that sound reasonable? And desirable? Unless, of course, you have no faith in your position–unless you have been attempting to perpetuate a fraud–to deceive your fellow citizens.
Craig Nelsen Craig Nelsen
I meant "perpetrated", not "perpetuated".
rrheard Craig Nelsen
So the needle doesn't move much.
"democracy only works within a framework where we can be reasonably sure that most people generally agree on roughly common interests."
Hence elections. You're not a stupid man, just one that holds positions that democracy itself has found wanting. Sure, we have Trump and that ilk for now, but that's not a failure of the framework of democracy, but in its implementation.
Get those "better ideas" of yours out into the public square and let them be judged with others. That's the test, and you know it.
oops, meant to blockquote this:
(This is one of the reasons guys like you are fatal to democracy; democracy only works within a framework where we can be reasonably sure that most people generally agree on roughly common interests.)
That's interesting, people like me believe people like you are fatal to democracy, a pluralistic society, and basic human decency and reason.
But you do have the last part correct, like a stopped clock, democracy doesn't work when one side believes in "alternative facts" divorced from reality, and where a majority don't share the same "values" or "interests" or respect for the same basic norms and institutions of this secular pluralistic country if they are, how did you put it, contrary to the agenda of "your people" (presumably "white" people whatever you think that means, but that means nothing as far as human beings and DNA are concerned). In fact that lack of common values or interests is exactly what led to the Civil War in this nation. How did that turn out for your "positions" and those of "your people"?
You're nothing new, Milo wannabe, and neither is your white nationalist schtick. Nobody needs to "debate" your debased ideology outside the US court system. You can peddle it to your heart's content under the First Amendment, in most public places of your choice, so long as it doesn't incite others to imminent lawlessness, but nobody is obligated to "debate" it, respond to it, engage it in any way or otherwise take it seriously or legitimize it. It isn't worthy of anywhere near that effort.
I'll just continue to mock it, and ridicule people like you and litigate against anyone who tries to impose it on others. That's all you are owed, period. Well that and having glitter thrown in your face at your little "your people rallies" while following you around playing Ride of the Valkyries on the sousaphone.
. I want either your position or my position to be discredited unequivocally.
Define "unequivocally". Do you mean "unequivocally" in the sense of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood? Because one side's "position" has been "discredited" in the eyes of those who adjudicate the meaning and effect of the US Constitution, but that doesn't stop 10s of millions from refusing to "unequivocally" accept the Court's position or decision re: what is or is not lawful with regard to a women's choices over her body and that of an unborn fetus gestating inside her.
I can get two well-informed colleagues to join me, I presume you can as well. I can arrange funding to promote the debate. If you don't like the length of the opening statements, propose an alternative length or structure.
Why do that? The American court system is entrusted with answering exactly these sorts of questions under our system of government? Are you suggesting "internet contests" between non-litigants not employing the court system as envisioned by our foundational document, the US Constitution, should be how "a definite denouement" should be reached or made clear as a legal matter?
Are you under the misimpression that the judicial branch of government was not conceived as a "co-equal" branch of our government by this nation's "founders", together with the executive and legislative branches as envisioned in the US Constitution? Is that somehow an "unreasonable" proposition to you?
will throw out their deceptions with impunity knowing most people are neither legal experts nor immigration policy experts, and, therefore, will be unable to identify the fraud being perpetuated on them.
Well if you are neither a legal nor immigration policy expert by education and profession, why would any of us here who are be willing to debate you in the first instance? If you'd like to debate us, and achieve some "finality" or "denouement" re: your "positions" why not bring your "positions" in the form of a lawsuit, before a duly constituted court or arbitration panel, and go toe to toe with us as a pro se litigant?
Why would you possibly need the help of "two well informed colleagues" if you know so much about immigration policy, or the law, and so much more than actual lawyers, judges and immigration policy "experts"? Just file a lawsuit and see if you can advance your position, or sit back and watch others do it, as is currently the case?
Karl rrheard
Hey rrheard,
Have you ever made a misstatement of fact or opinion while posting comments on line?
Galactus-36215 Craig Nelsen
I want either your position or my position to be discredited unequivocally.
This sort of finality is illusory. People often have debates and express opinions based on whatever facts and circumstances are in scope at time of the debate. Every debate I've ever seen ends up with just as many unanswered questions as there were in the beginning.
So, good luck with that.
I am afraid the you have set your expectation to high Craig. Anyone one who actually has anything substantive to say that challenges the in house orthodoxy will be subjected to every trick in the book by the intercepts self-appointed gate keepers:
1. Logical fallacies of every type (Ad Hominem and false equivalence are especially favored)
2. Obfuscating Sophistry
3. Evasion, avoidance and denial.
4. Orchestrated gang attacks
5. Public shaming via the posting of personal information
6. Lying
7. Sock Puppetry
8. Controlling the top of the thread
9. Conflation, misrepresentation, and distortion (all purposeful)
10. Purposeful repetition of the same lies over and over
It is extremely rare that anyone of the regulars will acknowledge the fact that they have been proven wrong with either fact or logic.
Doug Salzmann:
You and "Mona" claim President Trump's recent refugee Executive Order is unconstitutional. I have challenged you to defend your position in a public forum. So far, you have failed to respond to my challenge.
You should respond and accept my challenge. Then I will only show you in error.
If you don't, I will have exposed you as a fraud and a liar.
Here are the terms:
I propose a one-hour online debate on the veracity of your repeated claim below that President Trump's Executive Order temporarily banning refugees from seven countries is unconstitutional.
Arguing "for" will be you, Mona, and anyone of your choosing or you and any two of your choosing.
Arguing "against" will be me and any two of my choosing.
Each side will submit an opening statement of 250 words or less.
"Against" will then have five minutes to post a response to For's statement.
"For" will then have five minutes to post a response to Against's responses.
Against will then have five minutes to post a response to For's responses.
And so on until a half hour has elapsed, at which time the sides switch (i.e., For will have five minutes to respond to Against's opening statement, etc.).
At the end of the hour the debate is over.
a poll is open for readers to vote for winner
The transcript is posted online as a research tool.
The debate will occur one week from today.
Do you accept?
The Colonel Craig Nelsen
um, see below. you had your shot at the debate. the only thing you've exposed is a conviction to ignore the rule of law based on openly racist convictions. constitutionality is apparently a concept that either completely eludes you, or that you are entirely unconcerned with.
-Mona- The Colonel
One handles all flim flam artists the same. Scientists learned in the 80s and 90s to never let so-called creationist control the terms of a debate. Their shtick is rhetorical ploys that rely on misdirection, and many statements of fundamental falsehoods so brazen the opponent gets bogged down in just tying to establish the meaning of common concepts and terms. Lay audiences think a polished rhetorician is spewing meaningful sentences rather than unadulterated bullshit.
But all that aside, it would be immoral to accord serious status on a person such as Mr. Nelsen. Dignifying his rancid garbage with a debate is nothing this site would do. I'm really quite certain of that, without even asking.
You sound angry, Mona. Why would a challenge to a public debate make you angry? I thought, in a democracy, such debate is healthy and good. I think your angry vitriol has shone you in a particularly revealing light.
nuf said Craig Nelsen
I have a podiatrist appointed that day. Could you pick another day?
I'm really glad you decided to throw this sentence in there. Whew! For a minute there, I thought you were gonna use the "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire" defense!
If you want meaningful debate, perhaps you should simply state why you believe the Order is Constitutional and allow others to respond.
If they don't, so what. Not sure why you are begging or whining for their attention. You seem to want to engage in a game of One-Up'smanship.
-Mona- Galactus-36215
This Nelsen freak doesn't know the first thing about our system of government or the Constitution's mandate regarding the role of the office of President. He's already, in this thread, made his ignorant but vicious agenda and errors more than clear.
dev null
i want to join in with the chorus of voices condeming trump
there is no evidence of any terrorist threats from the banned countries
after all, statistical evidence from the past perfectly predicts the future ..
thats why we were successfully able to prevent the terror attacks on 9/11
and salon says the only current international terror threat is from russian cYberZ
since we all know that CIA intelligence briefs go directly to salon, feministing, NPR, and Iron Man before getting to the president … everything should be fine
the president doesnt get any special intelligence that isn't reported first by slate or MSNBC
president obama, secretary of state clinton, and wolvarine have used all the tools in the toolbox to create a long, involved, and completely reliable immigration process from the countries we've been bombing
so there's nothing to worry about
Intelligent Liberal
It's strange to see that after a year or so of quality articles about the illegal NSA surveillance programs, The Intercept has decided to go full retard with calling Trump's latest EO a "muslim ban".
I won't waste my time reading articles written with such a misrepresentation of reality and I've unbookmarked The Intercept and I'm encouraging my friends to do the same.
Voice from Europe Intelligent Liberal
The Intercept is going mainstream….
James Scott Intelligent Liberal
I am sure that the IQ level here will not go down when you and your "intelligent" friends leave. Goodbye and I am sure Fox will be pleased to see you back just as I am pleased to see your back.
According to the latest study by Chatham house on immigration in 10 European countries, only 20% of the 10.000 Europeans interviewed , are against a 'muslim ban'.
James Scott Voice from Europe
Voice from Europe James Scott
Just that these 20% make so much noise that if you are not careful you might think they are a majority.
Nelsen, below:
So, are you Jewish or not? Certainly you know the answer to that question.
So are you or not?
do you feel that racism is an appropriate basis for law?
yes or no?
This week's Der Spiegel cover.
Gee Doug WOW, thanks for the cartoon. It has only been circulating the web for 5 days already. Oh wait, I forgot that you just got off suicide watch. My bad!
milton wiltmellow Doug Salzmann
This week's me cover.
You must be proud of your success.
milton wiltmellow milton wiltmellow
This week's TIME cover.
Doug Salzmann milton wiltmellow
You're so cute when you're smug, milton.
Orange Agent19
@Craig Nelsen: just keep in mind that America is all about keeping the status quo- (don't-ever-say-out-loud-who-finances-it-all) billionaires on top, followed by whatever fanatical religion is willing to be the most mercenary for bank$ter buxx.
So, for now, many Catholics and born-brain-dead Evangelicals are quite happy to feed the war machine fresh babies because their fearless leaders like the beloved Jesus, and Saint Paul, and John the Baptiser, were all clearly, white European religious fanatics, and white nationalists.
It's gonna take awhile before Muslms are white European religious fanatics, but history shows us such a thing is possible. In fact, they are clawing at the borders for the privlege to one day be called white nationalists.
And then, the never-say-out-loud-who-invented-this-fanatiscism crowd will be just as happy then as now that no one says out loud that those un-named are actually the source of this problem of racist categorization, and herd gelding via privileged narratives.
To say such out loud would be lashon ha-ra. And we know what that gets you!! WHAT ARE YOU ANTI-SEMITIC???!!!!!!
Mr. Nelsen, below:
My guess is Mr Salzmann and Mona are both Jewish immigration lawyers (though neither has answered my query), a breed I know well. They know their lies are lies. I have guests who just arrived so I have to sign off for a while, but I relish the opportunity to expose them. White people need to understand who their enemies really are.
I would say the mask is off.
No mask. I tell you what. I will challenge you and Mona to a public debate in real time on the question: Does the President have the constitutional authority to impose a temporary ban on immigration from a certain religious group or country? The Intercept can sponsor it. We can promote it, then at the end of, say, an hour we can have an arbitration panel decide who won. Or we can have people vote. Or both. We can post the transcript here on the Intercept.
How's that? I'm not even an attorney and it's two against one and you are both immigration lawyers. And I challenge you. We can set it up with the Intercept tomorrow. They should go for it because, if it goes viral, it will drive traffic to this site and raise its profile.
What do you say? Do you accept my challenge? Or will you lurk here hiding who you are and spewing slurs?
JayZ Doug Salzmann
There was never a mask, Mr. Nelsen believes in the "Dear Leader" AhmadiTrump and his racist genocidal policies.
He attacks you personally and then wants a public debate! Does that remind you of anyone?
-Mona- JayZ
This Nelsen guy craves attention. Starve him of it. I'd ask Glenn to have this site host a "debate" with a foul slug like that right around the time I become a Scientologists, which is to say, never.
JayZ -Mona-
He does crave attention – as if his messages of hate and support for dictatorship are new!
On a tangent — is it bad karma? We know have an Ahmadinejad of our own!
What we need to actually do is tighten up the immigration of cheap labor from all countries of the world. All this "seven-country-business", which are actually all Shia Muslim countries opposed to both ISIS and their Saudi sponsors, is a distraction that need not have been created. Unfortunately, many corporations employ people from these countries, pay them less than minimum wages, make them stay in unhealthy accommodations (like the one that caught fire), make a hefty profit, and at the end of the day deny our good BLM chaps a decent livelihood and encourage them to partake in street protests.
No one should have the slightest doubt that the travel ban was in any way totally unrelated to either religion or terror. It was entirely for jobs. The fact that Google, Amazon and Apple jumped in defense of uninterrupted immigration of cheap labor is ample proof.
savagem General Hercules
Yep, General Hercules. Agree with you. Neoliberals promote immigration for their own, nefarious reasons, and frame their actions in a bogus, humanitarian veneer.
Karl savagem
Forced immigration = cheap labor and a dissolution of discreet Muslim cultures on a state to state basis. Yet while purportedly holding the Bush Doctrine in contempt, the progressive left cheerleads its intended effects out of the misguided belief that the aims of multiculturalism are not also intended to facilitate the dissolution of nativist Muslim sensibilities in concert with the those of the host countries that give them refuge.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
my emphasis added
This is the section of the Trump Muslim ban that makes this an indefinite ban. And the section below is the portion that provides that any country not already on the list is subject to being put on the list
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals …
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/
deanbob
Can anyone concerned with Trump's suspension EO, cite the exact phrase that bans Muslims (in that EO that's before the 9th circuit?
9th Circuit oral arguments on the Muslim Exclusion Order ;^) live-streamed at 3 p.m. PST (about 15 minutes from posing this).
rrheard Doug Salzmann
Sheesh August Flentje is a horrible oral advocate. And appears totally unprepared to answer the specific case law issues that the appellate judges are raising. I've never heard judges on an appellate court a) talk over each other to nail counsel, and b) never heard an appellate advocate say 'uh' and 'well' as often as this guy and not have direct answers to the judges questions.
It's like he's horribly unprepared and doesn't have every case on these issues dialed in or expect the questions that will be asked of him, and he's flipping through his notes . . . doesn't mean the written arguments won't prevail, but his oral appellate advocacy is shitty. And he keeps interrupting the judges.
His standing arguments are all over the place.
Noah Purcell is doing a much better job for Washington and Minnesota, and appears fully prepared on the case law and is prepared for almost every question coming his way, and is a much better oral advocate.
And I like him, and not just on merits. He's also a bit of a faster speaker which I am. Nothing drives me crazier than an opponent who speaks slowly while trying to form thoughts or arguments instead of waiting to speak until he's got his argument formulated and ready to share smoothly.
Always hard to say how appellate judges will rule, or how much weight they give to oral arguments, but when they have this many and varied questions usually means the judges are trying to get a good handle on all the arguments and case law contained in briefs.
Oops, Purcell is slipping on having his argument re: the standard for continuing the TRO/injunction (i.e. success on the merits re: being able to prove racial animus behind executive order.)
But he recovers when it comes to which party bears the burden of proof/persuasion between district court and appellate court and re: how to apply the standard above. But this is one area where he is getting grilled. My guess is this is where the action will be for the appellate judges.
Doug Salzmann rrheard
I think the ultimate big question is the Establishment Clause claim. If that succeeds, the EO, essentially in its entirety, is toast.
Any other outcome could result in narrow rulings and fragmentation — and leave the refugees and other non-immigrant victims in the lurch.
Overall, to the extent that you can tell much from questions at oral argument, it seems that the panel was much less than impressed by Flentje's presentation — as was I. Even Clifton, the one I was most concerned about (since Bybee isn't on the panel!) didn't seem to be buying it.
If this is treated as a motion for stay, it's hard to see how the government has met its burden. If the 9th decides to rule on the merits, the government is still, definitely, on thin ice (the panel will definitely then read all those amicusbriefs). And if the circuit court does issue a reasoned opinion, it's gonna be a pretty thin record going to SCOTUS.
Well actually, let me be precise in what I was getting at in saying "this is where the action will be".
I meant that if the 9th is looking for a way not to directly address the merits of either an Establishment Clause, Equal Protection, or the non-discrimination clause in granting visas based on nationality, place of birth or place of residence contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act, they will try and punt in one or more ways (ruling against ban or leaving TRO in place and let district court flesh it out better at subsequent hearing whether to make permanent)–that could include standing or appropriate standard of review.
And I only think that because they spent of lot of time, particularly with Flentje and to a lesser extent with Purcell because he handled it better, with the parens patriae standing args, and especially with the latter on the TRO standard of being able to demonstrate likely success on the merits based on what was before the district court . . . .
When they are going hard at standing and standards of review and stuff like that, IMHO, they are seeing what "outs" are available to them should they decide not to rule directly on the merits of one of the primary claims, or to give themselves a way to rule very very narrowly.
Being afflicted with a savage case of the flu I couldn't watch this. You're picking up an extensive remand?
@ Mona
No here's a decent summation of what I was picking up.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/07/trump-travel-ban-hearing-questions-answered
And particularly the part about, given it was a TRO, deciding whether or not to keep it in place (vs. stay it as federal government seeks) based on whether or not Washington and Minnesota had made the necessary showing.
That's why all the questions of TRO standards, sufficiency of what was before District Court as function of pleadings, affidavits etc., relevant FRCPs . . .
Just a huge guess, but I think the 9th will rule narrowly that Washington and Minnesota made enough of a showing to get the TRO, and let it play out (and have all arguments AND potential additional evidence fleshed out) before Robarts in the next hearing seeking to perpetuate or have the injunction made permanent. And force Robarts as the trial judge to develop that record fully. Which I think is actually smart.
That's why there was argument from Purcell and questions from the judges as well, if I listened correctly, re: whether Flentje and the government were challenging the TRO properly (and that the 9th should let it play out below rather than stay) vs. bringing a mandamus action . . . . and that's why Purcell was bringing it to their attention that Robarts was promptly scheduling the next set of hearings etc. etc. etc.
I think you're right, wrt to the reading that the panel doesn't really want this right now, Ron. I was really thinking more about the merits of the case as developed so far and the Court's reaction to the arguments on the merits at oral.
As a matter of the most impactful outcome, I'd really like to see this go back to Robart, whatever the ruling on the stay. It would be good to see the record more fully developed and it would be spectacular to read depositions from Giulliani, Bannon, et al. — maybe even Trump — as the states flesh out the bad faith/Establishment Clause argument.
WRT Flentje's crappy performance:
Trump Team Shuffles Lawyers in Hours Before Travel Ban Hearing
We really don't want our new buddy Craig's special gems to be buried:
Mr. Salzmann claims to be Euromerican. I find that hard to believe. It is too monstrous to celebrate the defeat of one's own people. I would have guessed he's a Jew.
I think his facade may be crumbling.
Gert Doug Salzmann
I don't think there was much facade to start with.
Still, let me shine the desk lamp's light in your eyes Doug and please answer truthfully the following question: "are you a Jooooo, Doug?" ;-)
Doug Salzmann Gert
Can I refuse to answer on the grounds that anything I say might make lowlife bigots not like me anymore?
Also, what's the standard? Religious affiliation? Genetics? Facial features? I need to be able to tell.
Probably, for clueless twits like our Very White Friend, all it takes is a name.
Of course, that would make an awfully large number of Catholic Salzmanns (mostly with Bavarian, Austrian and Swiss ancestry) into Instant Jews (just add animus), but hey! Just think of it as ethnic collateral damage. A small price to pay for protecting the Purity of the Euromerican Nation.
This guy is dead, so we can start by Hebrewfying him.
You will use 'sociobiology' (as a side project you will determine also your alphaness on a 1 – 5 scale) to determine your attachment to certain types of soil ('Caucasian, Hebrew, Judeo-Xtian, Coloured, etc'). Tick one box only please: our Race Assigners are easily cornfused.
Thank you. ;^)
You are a hoot, Mr. Salzmann. You attack me for having the best interests of my ethnicity at heart. I make no bones about that, state it freely, and think it is a little monstrous not to. Meanwhile, as you disparage mine, you refuse to even confirm your own.
And I'm the one with the facade? LOL
James Scott Craig Nelsen
Craig yours is a facade too. Your ancestors came out of Africa like everyone else and I hate to tell you this Craig, they were most likely dark skinned like Jesus Christ and were descended from apes and before that amoeba. Craig we are all cousins, isn't that good news?
Craig Nelsen James Scott
Why do you hate to tell me that? Does all it take for you to develop an opinion of me is for some immigration lawyer to call me a name? I am concerned for the well-being of my people in the same way the ADL is concerned about the well-being of theirs, the NAACP is conc…etc.
The example of the noxious Abe Foxman and the ADL notwithstanding, concern for one's own doesn't necessarily mean ill-will and hatred for everyone else.
Try this thought experiment:
You are walk around the corner and discover a man beating a woman. Quick! What's your first instinct? Help the woman, right?
Ok, you walk around the corner and discover two men beating two women. And one of them is your mother. Quick! What's your first instinct? To help your mother, right?
Ooo, you evil familyist, you. You should be weeping on national television begging forgiveness. But, of course, there is nothing wrong with your instinct telling you to help your mother first. It doesn't mean you hate the other woman. It doesn't mean you won't help the other woman at all. And if your mother is unfairly taking advantage of mother privilege, so what? It's your mother and you would be a kind of monster if you didn't help her first. Right?
Craig I was being ironic when I said I hate to tell you we all came out of Africa because I knew you would hate to be related to anyone with a different skin type than you because you feel you are superior and more important because of your skin. Despite your misguided belief you do have early relatives with dark skin Craig so get over it.
As for your unscientific test, it is based on a fallacy. You ask if If I would save my mother before another woman and you answer for me but incorrectly. My answer is that my first instinct may be to protect my mother but my rational thought would tell me to protect the fittest of the two women first so that the two of us could together save the second woman. However what if my mother was black. Your prescription would be to save the white woman first and run off with her leaving your mother to her fate. This is because you base your actions on irrational instincts rather than on the best solution.
JayZ
Yes, the Corporate Media has been horrific – but, some of made it through these years of Corporate Media without turning into racist TrumaLumps!
Our "Dear Leader" AhmadiTrump and his followers, the TrumpaLumps, do not need any hint for excusing their behavior. They already blame just about everyone and everything else for the stuff that does not fit into their false and insane narratives.
Every individual is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. TrumpaLumps would like to blame the "other" – the browns, the blacks, the Chinese, the Media, the Left, ….. No! These folks are responsible for what they get.
Hey Leighton,
Thanks for including the Amicus brief that further articulates the legal basis upon which the President's TEMPORARY SUSPENSION of all citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries relies. That brief speak definitively to your fallacious use of the term "Muslim Ban" in solidarity with those whose political opposition to all things Trump necessitates the use of descriptors that are designed to intentionally misrepresent the aim and scope of the president's actions. As the express "purpose of that temporary suspension is to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks" from countries that are, at present, openly hostile to American interest in the region, is this not a reasonable measure. The "statutory authority" upon which the temporary ban relies is (8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)) which was enacted by congress and signed into Law by President Obama as necessary pretext to President Obama imposing a TEMPORARY SUSPENSION on visa applicants in Iraq for the purpose of reviewing vetting protocols at that time.
Galactus-36215 Karl
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION
How does this explain Syria in the Executive Order?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall seeing the word "indefinitely " being used with that country.
Karl Galactus-36215
The "brief" associates seven countries with the heightened risk of terror in which Syria was included. The brief further notes that Syria is one of two countries cited by both Congress and the Obama administration as locations wherein the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) * * * maintain[s] a formidable force." Additionally, the brief notes that Syria is one of three countries on the list that Congress "designated as state sponsors of terrorism" in 2015. Additionally, major news outlets across the globe have reported the presence of at least seven formidable Salfist-Jihadist fighting organizations within Syria who are actively engaged in hostilities that are directed against Bashar al-Assad. And lastly, the forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad himself are perceived as a potential terror threat due to US support of forces hostile to his regime. As the "risk of terror" from countries that are hostile to American interests is the sliding scale by which the current suspension of seven countries is being legally justified, it only stands to reason that visa applicants from those that pose the greatest danger would be at risk of being most thoroughly vetted. Absent a working relationship with the Assad regime, the problem of properly vetting Syrian applicants necessitates an indefinite detention of migration from Syria until a thorough review and adjustment of vetting protocols can be implemented.
I agree with much of your statements above. However, you didn't really answer my question. The language of the Executive Order is open ended and may never be resolved leading to permanent ban status.
I have posted the exact language higher in the thread. Would you acknowledge or concede that the ban establishes or allows for the President to manipulate circumstances as to make the ban permanent and not temporary as you suggest?
It is not a "ban" – so no. However, the way that the law is written seems to imply that the President has the power to indefinitely suspend immigration from any country that purportedly poses a high risk of employing terrorist acts against the U.S..
We seem to have a white nationalist here in comments defending Trump and the Muslim ban. This is no surprise. It is, however, critical to keep in mind that unhinged haters at fevered sites of people such as Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney, Steve Emerson, Breitbart, Infowars, etc. are not solely responsible for the current atmosphere of unreasoning hate: How Corporate Media Paved the Way for Trump's Muslim Ban
It's no wonder, after years and years of FBI- and media-created "ISIS plots," the playing of ISIS agitprop on loop, and endless terror warnings that never bear fruit—and a definition of "terror" that includes any Muslim who follows the wrong Twitter feed but excludes white supremacists who want to start a race war—that many Americans' perception of Muslims would grow negative at a corollary rate. So-called centrist or liberal media cannot spend the better part of the past three years running non-stop Islamo-panic, then turn around and act shocked when Trump exploits the fallout.
It's important to document the way the right stokes hatred of Muslims. But it's also essential to note how that hatred seeps into mainstream and liberal circles as well. The rise of Trump did not happen in a vacuum, nor do the intellectual threads that led to many Americans supporting his arbitrary, hate-motivated Muslim ban.
As they say, do read the whole thing.
Also, the Bataclan slaughter contributed to the negative perceptions. But let me get this straight, this "white nationalist" you speak of (I am assuming your are talking ABOUT me rather than actually addressing the arguments with which I eviscerated yours), are you equating that with "unhinged hater"?
Just to be clear: are you asking Mona if she is equating white nationalism with unhinged hate?
Gert -Mona-
Excellent link.
The demonisation of Arabs/Muslims in the West of course predates 9/11 much (see e.g. common stereotypical depictions of said, in 'pop culture')
It's very much the mentality of the conquerers towards the vanquished. Of course 9/11 boosted that enormously: gefundenes fressen for all sorts of anti-immigration groups, racists and white and/or theological supremacists.
A. Citizen -Mona-
Mona, are you listening? The same people who voted 0Bama into office voted Trump into office. They voted Trump into office because they were tired of men with beards and tits following their six-year old daughters into the toilets at Chucky Cheese. So go and peddle your hate at Mother Jones.
You cute when you mad.
It's remarkable that we are talking so much about denying entry to people of these countries as being a horrible thing to do, when our countries have bombed and invaded these same countries for the last fifteen years and have caused or largely contributed to the need for these people to find refuge elsewhere.
When we wake up to the reality that there are no "borders" just people all over the world the same as us, and when our powerful people, leaders, important figures (like prosecutors) stop being so two faced as to say nothing for decades while peoples rights are violated and then to make it an issue only when we are talking about migration, then and only then the world will improve.
Trump is not the issue here, he is simply an outspoken representation of an unspoken evil that has permeated this country for decades.
James Scott Jake
Bravo Jake. There has been a disappointing slide in the morality of US Governments and their out of control Security Agencies. To most Westerners outside of the USA the American government is the main terrorist state on the planet. I put this slide down to the untrammeled powers of the CIA which I used to think was an agency to protect all Americans against foreign attacks. It was not until I read an interview with Nelson Rockefeller the then Vice President when he described the principal charter of the CIA was to advance the business interest of American corporations abroad.
In today's environment where the CIA has directors and members on the boards of merchant banks like the Carlyle Group who in turn have controlling interest in the private corporations running the CIA spying networks, and with large investments in military hardware and supplies, it is in the interest of those CIA leaders to constantly have conflict and tension rather than peace. Who first set up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and trained and armed insurgents attacking Libya and Syria and who has promoted conflict throughout Africa it is the CIA with their JSOC team on the ground.
Theirs is the perfect business, modeled on the Mafia standover tactics but with the running costs paid for by the taxpayers. Furthermore, it would seem that as their phone and email tapping and hacking that was revealed to be mostly centered on countries like Germany that compete in the technology areas rather than potential terrorists, that there is great potential for the Carlyle Group to steal from or buy into new technologies with their insider information.
If this sounds fantastic one needs to remember the Iran Contra crimes of subversion and murder as well as the selling of narcotics by the CIA that went on without punishment or censure from the top.
If Americans are to be free they need to properly control their security and military corporations otherwise we will all be slaves to the fear traders.
I misspelled Craig Nelsen's name and he corrected me.
I guess he wouldn't want anyone to think he might be this Craig Nelson:
Hiding Behind Reform
by Edward T. O'Donnell on Nov 23, 1999
In recent weeks, a group calling itself ProjectUSA has caused a stir in California, Minnesota, North Carolina and South Carolina by unveiling plans to put up anti-immigrant billboard advertisements. A similar effort in New York City in August made national headlines.
What's significant about the controversy is not ProjectUSA's message of immigration restriction. That's hardly a new idea. What's important is the skillful way it has presented this message as reformist rather than reactionary.
[. . .]
The billboard campaign sponsored by ProjectUSA is simply the latest version of this tradition. Their billboards bear messages such as "Over 80% of Americans support very little or no more immigration. Is anyone listening to us?"
In that way, the group carefully avoids the appearance of opposing immigration on the basis of race or culture. Instead, it cloaks its narrow-minded bigotry in allegedly high-minded concern over population growth, environmental damage or urban sprawl.
Craig Nelson, the group's founder, goes to great lengths to convince his critics that "it's not about skin color. It's about numbers." Such assurances ring with the same degree of sincerity as, "It's not the money, it's the principle." In interviews Nelson has let slip his view that America has "enough diversity."
Ah, but wait! Apparently, Professor O'Donnell made the same spelling error I did.
The ProjectUSA website is gone, and a current "craignelsen.com" site is is that of a Washington, DC artist, with a domain registration dated July, 2005.
However, fragments of what appears to be an earlier "craignelsen.com" website remain available because so much of the web is cached by third parties. That site previously included material relating to Mr. Nelsen's and ProjectUSAs anti-immigrant work, in a directory named "oldsites."
Published Wednesday, February 16, 2000, in The State [local newspaper in Columbia, SC].
Flood of immigrants could endanger American society
By CRAIG NELSEN
Special to The State
As the founder of ProjectUSA, the organization that recently erected dozens of billboards across South Carolina advertising Census Bureau immigration data, I must respond to the criticism leveled by Suzanne Miller in her Jan. 18 opinion piece, "Why fear immigration?"
In response to questions I put to them in new Hampshire, both Gore and Bradley have said they support current immigration policy for its "ethnic diversity." They should be asked, at every campaign stop in South Carolina, whether the benefit of importing non-whites into America outweighs the environmental degradation and political instability with which we are sticking America's children.
No one is disputing that many immigrants work hard; the world is, in fact, full of hard workers. And cheap labor. But is it fair to leave America's children an overcrowded, polluted and increasingly polarized country simply that we might enjoy "cheaper strawberries" today?
People will continue to flood into our country until one of two things happens: Either a) we put a stop to it; or b) our country is no more desirable than theirs. We owe it to the young to swallow our greed and choose the first option.
Mr. Nelsen is president of Project-USA.org
Below, Mr. Nelsen reveals himself as wholly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and basic American civics. So it's no surprise to learn he's a white nationalist who is literally unAmerican.
Then why don't you answer my arguments rather than call me names?
I'm not sure what a "white nationalist" but I'm white and I want the best for my country and future Americans. How that makes me Literally UnAmerican is a little unclear.
If you are Jewish and want the best for your country does that make YOU a Jewish nationalist, or, in your venomous words, an "unhinged hater"?
Intrigueing find, I must say…. Has someone been rumbled?
Craig Nelsen Gert
Oh, is it intriguing? What I find intriguing is the fact that Doug Salzmann thought it worthwhile to go to the lengths that he did to find the information he did (though I hide nothing: the craignelsen.com, the "Washington, DC artist" is me and the oldsites/ directory is mine, too, there and freely available).
http://craignelsen.com/fundamentalator/index.php
Now, why would Mr. Salzmann avoid my argument and, instead, go searching through twenty-year-old websites to try to discredit me? The obvious answer is that he can't meet my arguments, so he tries to attack the messenger (and fails there, too).
One and the same, though you neglected to post my response. But why attack me? Why not address my arguments? Unless your arguments won't stand up, in which case what drives your position if not dishonesty and hatred for the historic American nation and its people.
Craig Nelsen ? Doug Salzmann
"there is a huge question — a number of major questions, actually — about a president's authority to order blanket exclusions of visitors, immigrants and refugees based upon religion or national origin"
Which policy does Doug Salzmann claim is unconstitutional?
A. US immigration policy discriminates in favor of Cubans. (1966)
B. US immigration policy discriminates in favor of Irish. (1986)
C. US immigration policy discriminates in favor of Jews. (1989)
D. US immigration policy discriminates against Orthodox Russians. (1989)
E. US immigration policy discriminates in favor of Vietnamese. (1975)
F. US immigration policy discriminates against Syrian Muslims. (2017)
If you answered (F) you are correct. For a detailed defense, see (C).
They were JUST doing their jobs……. echoes of horrors….
"Ordinary Americans carried out inhumane acts for Trump"
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-airport-inhumanity-20170206-story.html
Let us together NOT ALLOW this to happen… this is NOT about the USA… this is about our humanity and their dignity.
Looks to me like the military, IC etc used and tweaked Donald Trump's before election promise to, if elected, ban all Muslims from entering the United States into a move against the countries that are on the list for regime change for Saudi Arabia.
Maybe its also intended as a dual show for reassurance and loyalty to economic/ military allies after all of the Muslim hate talk but also for his supporters who want this kind of relgious restriction to start and get "the left" angry.
This also reminds me of the legislation submitted for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel or else funding will be cut on other US embassies.
But then they leave out Jews in the Holocaust Memorial statement. They said innocents but everyone knows that White Nationalists don't think that Jews are innocent.
Interesting how Obama decision to bomb "seven Muslim-majority countries" for 8 years was never called "Muslim bombings", but now we have "Trumps Muslim ban".
-Mona- rob
Er, actually, multiple writers here correctly called Bush and Obama killers of Muslims in Muslim countries. Greenwald, Scahill, Hussain, and many other writers here and elsewhere have been, for over a decade, writing about and describing the U.S.'s horrific bombing and droning and other war activities against Muslims.
Muslims do not hate us "for our freedoms." Those of the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world who hate us do so because of our policies of killing them, meddling in their countries and allying with their despots and enemies. Probably no two people gave written more on these pressing issues than two of this site's co-founders, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill.
You literally do not know what you are talking about.
And the same people correctly call Trump's Muslim ban a "Muslim ban."
As a non-theist, I personally see ALL religions as silly fairy tales. But SOME religious belief systems are more conducive to craziness, and I think Islam tops the list. The label of "Islamophobia" is somewhat pseudo-intellectual. There is no shortage of verses in the Quran that can be used to justify jihad. It's only pragmatic to question the wisdom of letting such people into the country .
Doug Salzmann Anthony
It's only pragmatic to question the wisdom of letting such people into the country .
You're entitled to your opinion and are certainly permitted to question the wisdom of anything at all you choose to question.
However, it is unconstitutional and statutorily illegal for the government to discriminate on the basis of religion, in any mater, and on the basis of national origin in, e.g., immigration actions.
Nonsense. We began discriminating on the basis of national origin since the get-go, including in favor of Cubans the year after the legislation passed that prohibited discrimination by national origin. And from 1989, Russian Orthodox have been discriminated against on the basis of their religion.
Nonsense. We began discriminating on the basis of national origin since the get-go. . .
Why, yes, we did. That's why one of the main elements of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was a prohibition on continuing the, by then, discredited and unconscionable practice.
8 U.S. Code § 1152 (a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
Karl Doug Salzmann
Was Obama's suspension of standard vetting protocols against Iraqis discriminatory in nature?
1965 passed. Within the year, discrimination re: Cubans.
Anthony Doug Salzmann
8 U.S. Code § 1182) allows the president suspending visas in cases where there is a risk to public safety. Of course, there is also the First Amendment. So I think it comes down to the REASONS given for the ban. Opponents of the ban will argue that Trump is discriminating. And that may be the case. But I think there is a very pragmatic case to be made in support of a ban.
HippoDave Anthony
If Islamophobia means an irrational, overwrought fear of muslims, then it isn't just pseudo-intellectual when something like this ban happens. Zero terrorist attacks from those immigrants vs. several from other countries such as Saudi Arabia which aren't banned countries.
Or the scope of funding and focus on muslim domestic terrorists, when in fact there've been more far right terrorist acts here since 9/11.
Also not rational is spending $2 trillion+ invading two countries for frankly, the rather minor casualty number of 9/11. If deaths to crime to expense fighting it were objective, we'd be spending $300 billion or so a year to prevent the 10,000 or so annual deaths from drunk driving. Surveiling bars, mandating new tech to prevent driving while drunk, doing sting operations by the thousands, etc.
And obviously we'd have banned all private ownership of guns. Since we haven't done any of that, casualties from crimes obviously isn't the actual priority/reason for our ridiculous reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism "threat". Our reaction is either irrational (thus yes, islamophobia) or rational (in the sense that our leaders know the threat isn't actually great, but it's good for business/political careers to act as if it is).
Any rational person should fear death by falling in a bathtub or by lightning strike more than death by Islamic terrorist attack.
Anthony HippoDave
With the exception of Iran, what do all the banned countries have in common? Answer: The U.S. has dropped over 100,000 bombs on them over the past 8 years. Do you think that MAYBE some of these people might feel victimized by the U.S., to the point that they are willing to travel to the U.S. for martyrdom? To think otherwise is delusional. Even if it's just 1 out of 1,000, that's still an unacceptable national security risk. And since there's no way to truly vet these people, I think it's only pragmatic to pause and reassess.
And while it's true your average citizen is more likely to die in some non-terrorist type event, be it a tragic bathtub accident, lightening strike, or what-have-you, these types of events don't affect the national psyche like a terrorist-inspired event. So your point loses a little oomph.
I would agree that some people can have an irrational fear of Islam. The problem is in the way the term is applied. Those on the extreme left want to portray anyone who has anything remotely critical to say about Islam as "Islamophobist", whereas in most cases, critics of Islam are merely pointing out the craziness that is inherent in the religion and those who adhere most faithfully to it.
DocBollywood
Communete
What happens when an impressionable, mentally ill, and violent progressive left gets whipped up by globalists:
"The "Knights for Socialism" group at the University of Central Florida (UCF) held a workshop Sunday to teach left-wing students how to "BASH THE FASH" with a "Leftist Fight Club" open to everyone but Republicans."
Slightly [edited] for accuracy.
What happens [because I am an] impressionable, mentally ill, and violent [right-wing Trump supporter] gets whipped up by [the truth]:
[I joined] "The "Knights for [Columbus]" group at the University of [National Fibbers Idiotic Thinking] (UNFIT) [which] held a workshop Sunday to teach [alt-right] students how to "[Vilify and Lie]" to everyone.
Below, Craig Nelson reveals himself:
Personally, I would argue for banishing Jews based on the death and destruction of these endless wars they seem to love and on the fact that, if it weren't for the Jews, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act would never have passed and Euromericans wouldn't be disempowered in their own country.
Wouldn't want anyone to miss it.
Does he 'heart' Israel? As so many of his ilk do?
Maybe he'll tell us.
Personally, I'm just trying to deal with my anguish, as a "Euromerican," at being disempowered "in my own country."
It's just so unfair! It was so nice, being empowered.
It's so funny. Everyone agrees that when the Euromericans arrived on the Great Plains it was a terrible tragedy for the Sioux. They were defeated. Their way of life was destroyed. An alien people held power.
In fact, anywhere this happens in the world, throughout history, it is considered a calamity for the group losing power. Except this time. Euromericans are being relegated to non-majority status within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this. In a democracy, this means losing power.
Not only are we losing power and becoming a minority, the Weinstein brothers are making sure we are a hated a minority.
But, for some reason, it is wrong, according to Mr. Salzmann, to object to this. We will be ridiculed in fact and mocked for even expressing misgivings. Indeed, as the New York Times has been beating into our heads for decades, we are to celebrate this disempowerment. Diversity (i.e., not white) is our strength!
The very notion we even have a country is laughable, which is why Mr. Salzmann quotes around "in my own country".
"Euromericans are being relegated to non-majority status within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this. In a democracy, this means losing power.
That's what we get for coming over here and creating a democracy, which allows such shifts in power based on ideas, not on nationality, or some other contrived criteria.
If your group, whatever that is, has better ideas then bring them. Otherwise, you simply have no standing in a democracy. And that's the way it should be.
Craig Nelsen Sillyputty
Democracy certainly has its flaws, but it wasn't a "shift in ideas" that defeated the Euromericans. It was a specific piece of legislation, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, without which the racial makeup of the United States today would be roughly what it was then 90-10 white-black.
The 1965 Act was signed into law in a ceremony at the Statue of Liberty by President Lyndon Johnson, who assured Americans that the bill would not flood our cities with millions of immigrants, nor would it change the demographic make-up of the United States. Bald lies, as it turned out. That evening, in New York City, the passage of the bill was celebrated as a Jewish victory.
And, truly, it was.
The bill had been introduced in the House by a Jewish representative from Brooklyn, and shepherded through the Senate by a Jewish senator from New York. The young Ted Kennedy, wearing the sacred mantle of his martyred brothers, was the bill's spokesman and was rewarded with a lifetime of lionization by the Jewish-owned New York Times and Jewish-owned Washington Post. It was cast as a "civil rights" issue and, in the midst of the warm fuzzies the nation was feeling in the wake of the landmark 1964 civil rights legislation, was a slam dunk.
All of that is easily proved. Americans don't know about this aspect of our history because we Americans get our history from Hollywood and the Weinstein brothers have taught us that the history of the early 1960s was Lee Harvey Oswald, the Tet offensive, Woodstock, and Selma. Especially Selma.
So, you see, your democracy was used as a weapon against you, only you don't know it.
Imagine there's no country…. It's easy if you try…
And that's the way it should be?
What, specifically, are you afraid of? That democracy will actually work?
No legislation submitted by any race or nationality has had the effect you claim. If your whiteness prevents you from accepting that this is actually how the math of demographic projections work, I suggest you get together with your brethren to hoard your women and produce more babies in order to forestall being drowned by the inevitable wave of democratically-aligned fellow citizens that is on its way.
equating genocide with a legal system of immigration and response to an international refugee crisis in which our government was (at the very least) complicit?
that's not so funny. it's just idiotic.
Craig Nelsen The Colonel
Genocide? There are more Native Americans now than there were before the arrival of the Europeans. Odd sort of genocide.
i suppose if you're unclear on the meaning of genocide, that could account for your false equivalence.
It was so nice, being empowered.
C'mon Doug. Trump, the Last Great White Hope, will empower you again. If Milo believes it then why don't you?
Get the spelling right. It's N-E-L-S-E-N.
And lest you be accused of deceptiveness, let's fill in the context. Someone posted an argument that since almost all mass killers in this country are white Christians (not remotely true) we should "ban" white Christians.
I responded that we could have an argument about which groups should be banished, you might argue for banishing white Christians, someone else might argue for banishing African-Americans, but for sheer damage to the well-being of the American people, I would argue for banishing Jews. And then I included the bit Mr Salzmann reposted above, for the reason, I guess, he feels my post is an attack on Jews.
Mr. Salzmann, however, didn't see the need to call out the person to whom I was responding for their attack on white Christians.
Clearly, discrimination on the basis of religion. Doug Salzmann reveals himself.
Sorry Craig but wasn't Christ supposed to be one of those dark skinned Middle Eastern people. I am looking forward to the second coming to see if Trump will let Mr Christ into America.
Why are you sorry?
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8741
milton wiltmellow Communete
I guess that leaves out anarcho-capitalists.
Too bad for you and the ghost of Rothbard.
Communete milton wiltmellow
Unlike the progressive left, anarcho-capitalists believe in the non-aggression principle.
The non-aggression principle of White Nationalists.
Kumbaya ya'll.
LOOSE talk ( or REAL ) can come back to bite one……
"Trump's loose talk about Muslims gets weaponized in court against travel ban"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/07/words-matter-trumps-loose-talk-about-muslims-gets-weaponized-in-court-against-travel-ban/
Doug Salzmann rs
The lede plus one:
Throughout Donald Trump's campaign and now into the first weeks of his presidency, critics suggested that he cool his incendiary rhetoric, that his words matter. His defenders responded that, as Corey Lewandowski said, he was being taken too "literally." Some, like Vice President Pence, wrote it off to his "colorful style." Trump himself recently explained that his rhetoric about Muslims is popular, winning him "standing ovations."
No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.
Sum uv us done been tellin youse Trumpsters this wuz agonna happen. But wud youse lissen?
Doug Salzmann says "When we were freaking out before the election spewing every kind of vitriol against Trump, we told you we would freak out if he were elected. You elected him anyway. So now we are freaking out. See, we told you so." But youse wunt lissen.
Donald trump has to come up with legal justification. His BAN is a ban against religion from those countries is baseless, because he is talking 47 different incidents. We are a nation of over 100 million people….47 incidents is less than the 1% of the 1%….It really isn't even a good soundbite or excuse for the foolishness. Flip the coin over and look at the damages we have done in those countries with our bombings – invasion……
where is the talk of TORTURE – ILLEGAL RENDITIONS – WMD's
2004 Pentagon-commissioned report specified in listing the causes of terrorism: "American direct intervention in the Muslim world"; our "one-sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan." The report concluded: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies." Countless individuals who carried out or plotted attacks on the West have said the same.
Nobody should need official reports or statements from attackers to confirm what common sense makes clear: If you go around the world for years proclaiming yourself "at war," bombing and occupying and otherwise interfering in numerous countries for your own ends — as the U.S. and U.K. have been doing for decades, long before 9/11 — some of those who identify with your victims will decide — choose — to retaliate with violence of their own. Even Tony Blair's own Deputy Prime Minister John Prescottacknowledged this self-evident truth in 2015: "When I hear people talking about how people are radicalized, young Muslims — I'll tell you how they are radicalized. Every time they watch the television where their families are worried, their kids are being killed or murdered and rockets, you know, firing on all these people, that's what radicalizes them."
IS THE TRUTH – TOO MUCH TRUTH FOR YOU??
Edward K William Bednarz
Here's the truth pal.The Senate's database was assembled despite repeated refusals by Obama's deputies to provide immigration-related data to the Senate subcommittee in 2016.
However, by reviewing public data, "at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born abroad," the report concluded in June 2016. The committee's report also added:
At least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born (71 were confirmed natural-born, and the remaining 129 are not known). Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas. Additionally, of those born abroad, at least 62 were from Pakistan, 28 were from Lebanon, 22 were Palestinian, 21 were from Somalia, 20 were from Yemen, 19 were from Iraq, 16 were from Jordan, 17 were from Egypt, and 10 were from Afghanistan.
Anthony William Bednarz
I couldn't agree more with the Pentagon-commissioned report. Same for Prescott's assessment. However, I do think there is a practical side for the U.S. Namely, the fact that we HAVE done all this foreign meddling means there is not shortage of people from the affected countries that ARE trying to get through our borders, to exact revenge. Yes, our policies and actions are the main driver of this. But that fact alone doesn't mean that a ban on immigrants from these problematic countries does not serve a practical purpose.
The Intercept has regularly called out the mainstream media for misleading headlines & erroneous statements which they never correct.
How do you justify the verbiage "Muslim Ban" when you know perfectly well that this restriction applies to 7 specific countries and not 'Muslims' in general.
Gert Milton
You sound disappointed that the ban isn't far more comprehensive, to extend to ALL of Islam?
I suggest you take up your complaint with The Don. I hear he has an open door office philosophy to deal with such concerns.
Voice from Europe Gert
Gert, you seem truly obsessed by your master Wilders.
Gert Voice from Europe
As so often with your trollish comments, this one doesn't seem to address anyone or anything. To try and associate an anti-racist and anti-Zionist (me) with a extreme anti-immigrant nut, Islamophobe and someone who once claimed to be in love with Israel, is the height of stupidity.
I'll never understand what mouse brains like you get out of trolling TI.
Lookup Chatham house latest study on European immigration. You are not alone, Gert !
Eventually we will have to end all immigration just as we ended homesteading and expansionism. Here's why:
Let x=100 million
US population:
World population (in countries poorer than MEXICO)
The world will continue to come here until one of two things happens: either 1) we stand up and put a stop to it, or 2) there is no place left on earth less desirable as a place to live.
Doug Salzmann Milton
It's a Muslim ban because the people banned are Muslims.
Voice from Europe Doug Salzmann
Yes, Obama listed them as extremely high risk needing exceptional vetting.
No, it's a human ban because the people banned are humans.
Galactus-36215 Milton
Here's an example. So as to not be totally inflammatory, let's use fruit in the example.
A country produces and exports Apples, Pears and Bananas.
Apples = 90% of exports
Pears = 8% of exports
Bananas = 2% of exports
We write a law that disallows all of country X's fruit, but we make an exception for Pears and Bananas.
What is this law actually doing? It's saying we don't want Apples. We don't really have any problem with Pears and Bananas, but we really don't want Apples.
Now, replace the fruit with religions. Apples = Muslims, Pears = Christains and Bananas = all other religions combined.
Got it. It's effectively barring persons based on their religion.
So now, if you deny this argument, I'll know exactly how much you are being truthful in your question.
Also, current immigration law disallows for country of origin bans. So, on this basis alone, the law is illegal.
Galactus-36215 Galactus-36215
It's also true that only 7 countries are currently affected. But look at the Executive order closely. It's setting up Status' for countries on a list, right?
So, one country is stated outright. Syria. 100% banned (except for Christians and all other religions). That's the most extreme status.
Status 2: 6 countries on a 4 month hold. What happens after four months? Guess what, they can become permanently banned, same as Syria. Escalate the status to permanent ban.
Status 3: Countries not yet on the list. Those are all the other countries at which the president as some point in the future can and will place them on the banned country list, either temporary or permanent.
This executive order is a Test Case. They are probing the courts to see if they can get it accepted.
Question: Is there a way to allow anyone to come in under the refugee rules, as a refugee (as long as they qualify per Geneva Convention) but at the same time put a freeze on certain nationals obtaining visas? Didn't Obama do this? No one complained when he was in charge…. It was only temporary anyway, and Trump's exec. order specified only a temporary freeze, so it seems that if done as PBO did it, there would be no issue.
Craig Nelsen Ashley
Well, there is precedent of sorts. The Lautenberg Amendment exempted Soviet Jews from having to qualify as refugees, all they had to do was prove they were Jewish. Remember the stories from the early 90s of blond haired blue eyed Russian women paying dearly to buy the "proof" they were Jewish in order to stay in the United States? They were absolutely discriminated against because they were Christian–you know, the people who defeated Hitler–but the ADL seemed a tad unconcerned then. But now that it's Muslims being refused entry, they are a huffing puffing pile of indignation. Hmmm…very curious. You might almost think…naahhh…that would be anti-Semitic.
Any order this broad and sweeping requires nuance. Let Congress handle it. And if there is another attack in the meantime, make sure the ban would have actually prevented it before blaming the Dems. Most terror these days is home-grown.
Craig Nelsen Mike B
Even if mass killings were 99 percent homegrown, is that an argument for letting the one percent that aren't. And, depending how you define "these days", most terrorist-related deaths are not at the hands of home-grown killers.
rick Craig Nelsen
And none of the terrorists acts these days are from citizens from the 7 banned countries.
Voice from Europe rick
But passports from these unstable countries can be easily obtained. Here in Europe a lot of refugees have Syrian passports but originally come from other mostly neighbouring countries.
rick Voice from Europe
So the ban is useless.
,???, you ban people from countries from which passport can be obtained without proper vetting. It is a first step.
And yet "mass killings" in America are nearly 100% carried out by white nominally Christian citizens of this nation, so by you're logic shouldn't we ban all white Christians from this nation?
I mean if even 1% of white Christian Americans are going to do harm to their fellow Americans, shouldn't you be wanting to ban them? I mean assuming your going to make a logically coherent argument in defense of the Muslim ban you seem to be so fond of. Oh wait, logically and morally coherent arguments are for non-hypocrites who aren't drooling morons.
Craig Nelsen rrheard
What is it about Soros puppets that makes them so fond of name-calling? And the improper use of the second-person possessive pronoun?
If we were going to debate the merits of banishing this group or that group of American citizens based on overall damage to the American people, I'd have that debate with you. You can argue for banning white Christians. Someone else might argue for banning African-Americans. Personally, I would argue for banishing Jews based on the death and destruction of these endless wars they seem to love and on the fact that, if it weren't for the Jews, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act would never have passed and Euromericans wouldn't be disempowered in their own country. But that's my opinion. You would argue against white Christians for the Dylan Roofs and Tim McVeighs we produce. Fine, let's debate.
But, right now, we aren't debating whom to throw out, we're debating whom to keep out.
By the way, you are wrong about the ""mass killings" in America are nearly 100% carried out by white nominally Christian citizens ".
There is one common thread in these discussions; all religions discussed are Abrahimic.
What we are witnessing is little different from Catholic/Protestant hatred.
Prayer would work if enough people did it!!!
Fundies actually believe their unanswered prayers are thwarted by the rest of us not going along. God needs a quorum!
Ah sanity; where art thou in scripture?
Craig Nelsen nuf said
Hard to find, lol. However, God does get better as time goes. In Genesis, he's walking around gardens talking to snakes, turning women into salt, and commanding Jews to stone rebellious sons to death. By the end of the Old Testament, He desires mercy, not vengeance and he's safely ensconced far away in Heaven where can't wander around the Middle East incinerating cities.
Then Jesus comes along and it's Love your neighbor as yourself, something of a snowflake I guess. Then St Paul injects a heavy dose of the Greek heavyweights, and here we are.
I don't understand the fundamentalists. They claim to worship a guy whom the Jewish elites had killed for telling the people the Law was a bunch of nonsense–don't listen to the Jewish elites-but then they lug that same law back and forth to church every Sunday.
I actually wrote a Fundamentalator to help the fundies out.
Gert Craig Nelsen
What is it about Soros […]
Soros! The New Boogeyman of the alt-right…
Alois Müller Gert
In an editorial for the Foreign Policy magazine, the former US Department of Defense Assistant and former senior adviser to the US Department of State, President Obama, Rosa Brooks, suggested a total of four ways to get Donald Trump out of office. One of them is a military coup.
For example, Brooks, who is now a Schwartz senior fellow at the Soros think tank "New America" (whose CEO is CEO Eric Schmidt) is asked to explain Trump as mentally not fit enough to the presidential office or even him By means of a military coup, if an impeachment (ie an office removal procedure) has hardly any chance of success.
(Boogeyman never sleeps)
mary steyr rrheard
it's only a bit more than half:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
the numbers actually track US racial demographics pretty well .. but an argument could be made to ban all men from America
Craig Nelsen mary steyr
LOL, excellent. In fact there IS a special visa for beautiful women, or "models", but I don't think it was devised as a way to reduced the incidence of mass murder.
Even if mass killings were 99 percent homegrown, is that an argument for letting the one percent that aren't.
no. no one has made an argument to allow murder. you're welcome to point it out here if you can find it.
similarly you can't make an argument that demonstrates how banning muslims from the 7 countries on the hit list addresses mass murder in this country.
mary steyr
it's clearly a country of origin/country of citizenship ban, notwithstanding trump's poor explanation of what he's trying to do
and trump isn't trying to reduce the bee-sting odds or whatever
the ban is what it is: a temporary ban on immigration from the citizens of certain muslim COUNTRIES until the immigration process can be improved
the fact that these countries self-identify as muslim is not trump's problem
these judges know they're on shaky ground in assigning constitutional rights to non-citizens … so they're going to this "letter of outrage" stuff etc etc etc
perhaps it is an outrage to "american values"… but it's probably not the supreme court slam-dunk that some people think it is
also: it's great to watch people who have previously said american values are crap and the cia is crap and the US is some hideous empire that is crap get all misty-eyed about IC , amber waves of grain, land of opportunity etc
photosymbiosis mary steyr
What needs to be improved about the immigration process for refugees or the visa process for visitors? It's a long process that takes 18-24 months, doesn't it? So why the ridiculous ban on travel?
There's also the larger issue: if the U.S. hadn't created mass chaos in the Middle East and North Africa with the Iraq invasion and occupation and the regime change efforts in Libya and Syria, this massive global wave of refugees would not have happened, would it? And if the U.S. could accept almost a million refugees from Vietnam, a debacle of similar scale also spawned by idiotic shortsighted foreign policy agendas, why should we do the same with Iraqi and Syrian and Libyan refugees?
Here's a value for you: if you break something, you have a responsibility to pay for the damage you've caused.
mary steyr photosymbiosis
why don't you get right on that, since it's your value
Doug Salzmann mary steyr
. . .it's clearly a country of origin/country of citizenship ban. . .
Yest, that's one of the things it is, and one of the reasons it is illegal. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 ("Hart-Celler") was enacted specifically to end the practice if discrimination in immigration based upon national origin.
The how did the Cubans get special treatment? And the Vietnamese?
mary steyr Doug Salzmann
trump can be challenged constitutionally, but so can Hart-Celler
JohnDoe
Why didn't all this happen when Obama did it? Who cares how many political hacks sign a letter? It was temporary and only from 7 countries. Morons.
The Colonel JohnDoe
pesky rule of law!
Here's a good analysis of how the Middle East views this ban – interestingly, it comes across as more of a "Shia Muslim" ban there, it seems.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-iran-twitter-iraq-mosul-middle-east-instability-a7561611.html
Trump's claim about growing Iranian control of Iraq might be dismissed as nonsense without long term consequences. But there are other arrows pointing in the same direction: Iraqis, Iranians and others in the region are pointing to the bizarre make-up of the list of seven states whose citizens have been temporarily banned from entering the US. This is supposedly directed against al-Qaeda and Isis, drawing on lessons learned after 9/11. But none of the states from which the hijackers came – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon – are subject to the ban as are Iraq and Iran. "The list looks like its intent is basically anti-Shia," says one observer in Baghdad and the governments of Saudi Arabia and Turkey seem to think the same thing, since they have either supported or failed to condemn the US action, though it is more or less openly directed against Muslims.
Patrick Cockburn's piece unravels the distinction between covert military cooperation and overt political grandstanding; something very rare in the dumbed-down American mass media:
But the matter is not likely to rest there, because the US relationship with Iran in Iraq has always been a curious mixture of open rivalry and rather more covert cooperation, since they share a common enemy in Isis and, previously, in al-Qaida in Iraq. American power in Iraq has grown since 2014 because it is Iraq's main military ally. Without US and coalition air strikes, the Iraqi army could not defeat Isis or even hold its own against it. But the US political position in Iraq is weaker than its military one and, thanks to the US travel ban and Trump's escalating attacks on Iran, it's going to get weaker still.
It's also amusing to note that the Muslim countries exempted from the "Muslim ban" also tend to be those that donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative – including Bahrain, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman.
It's all very similar to what happened in California in the late 1990s – Pete Wilson tried to whip up political support by raging about immigrants, and the resulting backlash led to widespread political losses by Republicans. But it is something of a distraction from the larger issue, i.e. that corporations and billionaire plutocrats rule the United States – which can be seen, for example, in the joint support for DAPL by Obama and Trump. Corporate money runs the show, both domestically and on foreign policy.
I feel that a bit of ridicule is in order ….
President AhmadiTrump and his Trump-a-lumps want to be dictators but they just don't want to be called dictators. It hurts their fragile feelings. They want to be our "Dear Leader".
They want the rest of us to believe night is day and day is night – if they insist on "alternative facts", then they become facts. They want They want to put the billionaires that ripped us off in charge of ripping us off more, while they insist that this is all to help us poor people. The list is long … you get the drift!
Trump-a-lumps, take your show elsewhere! Even Ahmadi-Trump's "independent" supporters are beginning to see who you people really are.
Scathing.
milton wiltmellow JayZ
They want the rest of us to believe night is day and day is night
Liars lie.
They don't create reality (as Rove claimed.) They present lies as reality.because they must protect their previous lies. Collectively they attempt to create new realities to cover previous realities, like impoverished painters re-using canvases.
A fiction writer distinguishes fiction from lies.
We fiction writers make up stuff. Some of it clearly impossible, some of it realistic, but none of it real – all invented, imagined — and we call it fiction because it isn't fact. …
A lie is a non-fact deliberately told as fact. Lies are told in order to reassure oneself, or to fool, or scare, or manipulate others. Santa Claus is a fiction. He's harmless. Lies are seldom completely harmless, and often very dangerous. In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. [Ursala Le Guin]
Lies define American politics. Yet those spreading the lies thrive. (Check the cost of a superbowl ad.) Words and images designed to hide those lies — craftily sculpted words, carefully choreographed vid scenes framed to fit the television screen, stage-designed backgrounds, coordinated events with hired actors, etc. — all combine to convey messages designed to deceive.
Call it a reality bubble … soon to pop.
Milton JayZ
I prefer to have billionaires in direct control as opposed to having the in control via proxy.
Like any good business person, Trump is simply eliminating an unnecessary middle-man.
Conservative argument:
I have a greater statistical chance of being killed by a bee sting or lightning strike in America, than by a criminal immigrant to America who happens to be Muslim.
Notwithstanding that fact, I'm so irrationally fearful (of course I'm not a bigot) that I believe in the need for a Muslim Exclusion Order, because when I make the irrational yellow pee pee water in my bed every night thinking about the scary Muslim hordes coming to Nebraska and Kansas to implement their nefarious anti-corn Sharia law takeover, it makes me feel safer. And that's what I really crave, for my big daddy in charge the Tangerine Terrycloth Emperor to make me feel safe from my irrational fears of "those people".
Given the above, and next on my list, I will request that the Tangerine Terrycloth Emperor pass a ban on lightning strikes and bee stings in America. That will make me feel even safer and I will also spend less at Walmart replacing my cheap Bangladeshi made urine soaked sheets (gasp another majority Muslim country, but one we don't need to ban their citizens from traveling to 'Murica because we haven't spent better part of a decade bombing and destroying their lands or turning them into refugees, we just peacefully have their children make our clothes and sheets for pennies on the dollar because that's the American "way of life" exploiting cheap child labor all over the world.)
Gert rrheard
To me it was pure COMEDY GOLD when the Tangerine One for once said something truthful (and slightly euphemistically) by declaring " 'Murica wasn't innocent", which was then immediayely followed by sheer mayhem in the MSM regarding that minor pearl of wisdom.
And the prize for defending exceptionalism MUST go to slimebag Mitch O'Connol…
a href=https://thebaffler.com/salvos/corruptions-of-empire-hansen>MAGA v. AIAG makes for an interesting read.
Gert Gert
MAGA v. AIAG makes for an interesting read.
john K. Gert
What an exceptional read. Thanks for the link.
rrheard Gert
Yep good link. Appreciate it.
milton wiltmellow rrheard
When you vote for Conservatives, you get conservative policies.
When you vote for liars, you get lies.
It's not that difficult.
rick rrheard
Great post. LMAO.
Those same people in Kansas and Nebraska that fear Sharia law have no problem with their own version based on Christianity.
Craig Nelsen rick
Yeah, that's why we consider Kansas and Nebraska no-go- zones. Hahaha(Except the no-go zones in Europe are real)hahaha!!!
"Murica because we haven't spent better part of a decade bombing and destroying their lands or turning them into refugees,"
I hope you've been raising your voice in righteous indignation at the American-Israeli Political Action Committee's warmongering against Iran for the last decade or so? It would be really stupid on a childlike level to say nothing against the bombings, but then use the consequences of the bombings as justification for allowing the survivors to move in with the bombers, wouldn't. Stupidity on a breath-taking scale, I'd say.
Stupid or treasonous. Geez, I wonder what AIPAC is up to?
Oh, did I just make your head hurt. Sorry, go back to your After-School-Special level of virtue-signaling.
If he does raise his voice about AIPAC does that make his statement accurate? I hate that sh***y little parasite country as much as you but their war crimes don't make ours justifiable.
I hope you've been raising your voice in righteous indignation at the American-Israeli Political Action Committee's warmongering against Iran for the last decade or so?
Longer. And I BDS and made sure every investment in my shitty little meager retirement portfolio contained no Israel business or Saudi ones and a whole host of others. And if you have followed Glenn's work since its inception, you'd know that, instead of crawling out from whatever pile of right wing dummy rocks over at Breitbart or Fox or wherever it is you get your talking points.
It would be really stupid on a childlike level to say nothing against the bombings, but then use the consequences of the bombings as justification for allowing the survivors to move in with the bombers, wouldn't. Stupidity on a breath-taking scale, I'd say.
No, I'd say you're monumental immoral monster to bomb people who are no threat to you in the first instance, and then if you did it anyway and denied their citizens refuge after destroying their countries and their livelihoods, a coward and immoral hypocrite as well. That's where we differ, I'm not a chicken shit coward or afraid of "threat" that is less than bee stings and lightning strikes, and one that my fellow citizens through their craven irrational fear created in the first instance.
I don't know, which are you? Both presumably. I swore an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution as part of my oath of office and I take it seriously.
I'm not the immoral hypocrite here "virtue signaling" to my fellow cowardly bigots that a ban isn't a ban, or is otherwise warranted when it isn't because I'm a frightened irrational coward fearful of things and people that are no more likely to hurt me than bee stings and lightning strikes.
But you're not the first nor will you be the last person around here who engages in projection of their cowardice and irrationality onto others.
Should we be equally restrictive or nonrestrictive whether a would-be immigrant or visitor comes from China, Israel, Afghanistan or Finland?
I would say we should apply extreme vetting on the first 3 for different but valid reasons and maybe not be too worried about the Finnish person.
Does it make sense?
Alois Müller
Hervé Ryssen:
In order to reach this perfect world, it is necessary to crush, crush and destroy all national resistances and all ethnic or religious identities. "Unification" can only be achieved from the human dust and the human remains of the great civilizations, and immigration plays a decisive role in the process of destroying traditional civilizations. The doctrine of "human rights" is here a war weapon of terrible impact.
"Human dust", nice idea! I do not like it!
They could achieve it!
When your aim is to create chaos in order to achieve your goals, you need a willing partner….and the opponents of Trump are so eager to give him that. He is laughing all the way to the bank.
oh sure, first the ban was spun by whore media as "muslim hate"…. but just a little bit'o'time passed and suddenly, not even 48 hours later, the business stations and wallstreet are complaining that the so-called ban will prohibit 100+ tech companies from selling America out. Aw gee, the techies dont want to support America with American employees in an American economy… gee, the ceo's will have to reduce their pigfat bonuses a few million. Awwww darn.
Nowhere has Spicer or the president said this entry ban is a "Muslim ban."
Not even in Tapper and CNN's straw man "ban" clips.
-Mona- Communete
So, do you agree it is a ban? As Trump and Spicer both stated? (Before they denied it.)
Communete -Mona-
A little context would be helpful for you Mona. I agree with the president and his press secretary that it's a country of origin ban.
Cute production tricks by CNN aren't going to back you up.
His web site says:
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.
Are they letting in Jews and Christians from this purported "country of origin" ban?
Is that a campaign site, or a WhiteHouse.org site?
I think you know the answer.
DocBollywood Communete
[It doesn't matter if] that [is] a campaign site, or a WhiteHouse.org site[, everyone understands that this is a Muslim ban, right]?
They were not letting in Jews or Christians from the seven countries of origin any more than they were admitting Muslims.
Yes, they are letting in Jews and Christians. For example, Jews from those seven countries are allowed in if they have an Israeli visa. Moreover, the federal bench is overwhelmingly comprised of people drawn from the ranks of the most intellectually gifted lawyers — people who necessarily scored perfectly (or nearly so) on logical and analytical reasoning in the law school admissions exam.
This clumsy, transparent game-playing isn't going to pass their muster. That campaign site? That's called damning evidence.
Where do you see it on WhiteHouse.gov?
See, here's your problem: Asking where it is on WhiteHouse.gov is not going to help you; campaign sites are also evidence. Additionally, this happened in Judge Robart's courtroom:
…[he] asked Justice Department attorney Michelle Bennett how the order was rationally related to its stated goals. How many citizens of the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by the ban, he asked Bennett, had been arrested on domestic terrorism charges since 9/11? She said she didn't know—but he did. The answer, he said, was zero.
There's no getting around that.
Campaign sites are not governing policy.
Slightly [edited] for clarity.
Campaign sites [become] governing policy.
They were letting in Jews [and] Christians from the seven countries of origin [while denying] Muslims.
Alois Müller -Mona-
The idea of the Jews are worldwide the same:
"This unanimity across the Jewish organization spectrum continues to this day. For example, a wide range of Jewish organizations advocates a way to citizenship for illegals."
Gert Alois Müller
Cos' da Joooooz are having a shot at world domination again, Alois? Jooooooish world conspiracy v2.0, by sneaking in illegals and making them citizens, yeah?
DO please elucidate if I got it wrong, you know?
Slightly [edited] for accuracy
A little context would be helpful for you Mona. I agree with the president and his press secretary that it's a country of origin ban [which is also completely and utterly unlawful based on previous law].
[But] [c]ute production tricks by [me] aren't going to [convince] you[, but I will keep trying].
Swisscheese -Mona-
The judiciary gives more weight to what the President does or say than to what the candidate did or say.
Candidate Trump said the US should kill terrorists' families. But did President know specifically that little girl was in that house in Yemen when he sent the military? Did he tell the military to disregard international laws?
Candidate Trump did say he wanted a Muslim ban. Candidates say many things, but the elected individuals sometimes do things that are completely different from what they say during the campaign.
The Muslim ban argument is political. It would not hold that much in court. You will have to prove the court that the President who has full authority to decide who gets into the country is preventing citizens of countries in total chaos to come in just because of those citizens' religion while thousands of foreigners with the same religion are entering the US every single day.
All of you recognise the weakness of that argument whenever the US is replaced by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait..and those seven countries are replaced by Israel. None of you is willing to state that Iran's ban is a Jewish ban. Most of you support Iran or UAE when they say their ban relates to what is going on in Israel not to the predominant religion is Israel. Why is the Iranian, Saudi, UAE… argument is valid while a similar argument from Trump is not?
-Mona- Swisscheese
Most of you support Iran or UAE when they say their ban relates to what is going on in Israel not to the predominant religion is Israel.
No one says that.
The rest of your comment is equally vacuous.
[Each time] Spicer [tries to deny it, but the media keeps showing evidence] o[f] the president sa[ying] this ban is a "Muslim ban."
Attention Trumpers: Both Donald Trump and Sean Spicer say it is a "Muslim ban."
A fact CNN's Jake Tapper had a great deal of entertaining fun demonstrating.
From the Law Professors' amicus brief:
[. . .] Here, there is substantial evidence that the ban was motivated by animus against Muslims. For example, on January 28, 2017, a week after the inauguration, Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that President Trump had previously asked him about legally implementing a Muslim ban."
Indeed, for nearly a year preceding the election, President Trump's campaign website referred to a "Muslim ban," indicating discriminatory intent.
And for real kick-ass fun, be sure to read the Korematsu Center's brief. Bold and powerful.
It's just bizarre how Trump and his acolytes carry on: "It's not a 'Muslim ban,' but if it is (and it is, when Trump says it is, but only then), we gotta have it or we're all gonna die! That horrible Republican leftist judge appointed by George W. Bush is gonna get us all killed!"
Nowhere did Spicer or Trump say it was a "Muslim ban" in that video.
You and CNN and Tapper want to set up a straw man and say they used the word "ban," that's one thing, but the president and his press secretary never said this entry ban was a "Muslim ban."
Who are they banning? Christians?
Them too.
Nope. Because in all seven of these Muslim-majority countries, members of religious minorities can claim exemption, making it effectively a "Muslim ban." Just as Trump's campaign site pledged.
Spicer lied when he said it isn't a ban — they've already been using that word, repeatedly. And it is a lie to say it is not a specifically Muslim ban, as the exemption and the campaign pledge both make clear. And all of that is why every federal district court has thus far held it is unconstitutional.
Did the Trump web site refer to a "Muslim ban?"
Er, when?
The web site says:
Is that not a ban? Is it not directed at Muslims and only Muslims?
See branch above.
I think not. Is that not a ban? Is it not directed at Muslims?
That's precisely what I've been thinking. They're defending the Naked Orange Emperor ("NOT a Muslim ban!"), while desperately wanting… a Muslim ban!
Pedinska Gert
They're defending the Naked Orange Emperor ("NOT a Muslim ban!"), while desperately wanting… a Muslim ban!
Melissa McCarthy did, indeed, nail that whole roundelay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cfVQQhZ8BI
Gert Pedinska
Obomba's spokespeople were kind of funny too but Sean is unlikely to ever really learn anything, so that'll be another gift that keeps on giving. Thank the Laaaawwwd fer small blessin's!
milton wiltmellow -Mona-
Those who chose to deceive admit their deception even when they don't intend it.
Edward Snowden: Don't fear Trump, fear the surveillance state
http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-google-microsoft-pile-in-97-us-tech-firms-file-brief-against-trumps-travel-ban
barabbas barabbas
it's all aboutthe H1b's.
what a con job not to hire Americans and wallstreet thieves are pimping their media agains the Trump (THE TRUMP) to continue their robbery of Americans. With friends like wallstreet, who needs enemies.
The Trump Administration = 1 yuege cluster F**K ! ! ! Impeach him now . What is congress waiting for ? ? ? Civil War ?
"Honey, I forgot to appoint federal judges."
Obozo leaves twice as many federal judiciary vacancies as his predecessor, plays golf for the duration of his presidency:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trumps-chance-to-influence-the-judiciary-for-decades/
more than 150 FORMER federal prosecutors have expressed their disapproval
Here is what the thieving wallstreet profiteering warmuckers are not telling US. First off, consider that they great objectors to this inconsequential "DELAY" are tech companies – why? The tech companies are really big on profiteering with stealing American jobs via H1B. Second, suddenly cowardly congress and lyin' media are faced with having to confront their deception of hypocrisy that we really are at war against 7 namable countries and that really bothers them that they cannot both bomb them and sell them weapons at the same time.
The US congress – world's largest institution of the criminally insane.
Uh-oh! Trump is gonna un-friend Elon Musk. Tesla and SpaceX have joined the technology companies' amicus brief, along with Adobe and about 20 other additional corporations.
ChasDokus Doug Salzmann
One can only hope that Trump ups the stakes by attempting to terminate the H-1B visa program.
Doug Salzmann ChasDokus
Well, if he does that, it will end up being reinstated by the courts along with the Muslim ban, so it's probably not a good time to hope for it. The inequities there will have to be addressed later.
Meanwhile, try to find comfort and entertainment in watching him tweet himself into a mandatory psychiatric evaluation.
Communete Doug Salzmann
What will that do to your telephony, Doug? Damn it all.
Stan ChasDokus
Cisco, Google, and Apple will have a temper tantrum; Huawei won't.
Communete ChasDokus
Wait, that's the Hindu Ban.
To all the mindless ninnies protesting President Trump's "Muslim ban", so where do we stop? Any idea? Or must we accept any and all who want to come to the United States forever? No matter what?
Say every week we are getting a Bataclan or a Nice: Still protest any attempt to rein Muslim immigration in? Is there any eventuality so awful you could bring yourselves to uninstall from your empty sheep heads that stupid poem some mediocre scribbler affixed to the Statue of Immigration decades after it was installed? Imagine Muslim hordes are rampaging over the land and are on their way to your Mom's house, where they have promised to torture her then slit her throat. If that we the case, could you THEN imagine yourself saying "end Muslim immigration"?
Or is it just too much? Are you such slaves to equality that you would prefer to die rather than utter the words "us" and "them".
My own people sicken me for their fecklessness and ignorance and credulity. We have over a thousand years of history telling us exactly what will happen if we allow Islam to take root among us. We have Muslims themselves telling us they intend to defeat us. We have a trail of blood and bodies from one carnage to another all over the West week after week telling us exactly what is to come. And, my people are so ignorant and flat-out stupid that all it takes is a George Soros to engineer their genocide.
Imagine Muslim hordes are rampaging over the land and are on their way to your Mom's house, where they have promised to torture her then slit her throat.
That's the problem, you see. You're imagining things. It's OK to do that, but it's not OK to discriminate against particular nationalities or religious groups based upon imaginary fears.
And that's why US District courts across the country are ruling against Trump's Muslim ban; why Washington and Minnesota have filed suit; and why 15 other states and the District of Columbia have filed briefs in support of that suit, along with more than 100 major technology companies, two different groups of law professors, a group of constitutional scholars, the Anti-Defamation League and a number of other non-governmental organizations, etc., etc.
The first duty of a statesman is to prevent avoidable evils. Prevention requires foresight. Foresight, for those of us who are responsible adults, requires looking at the reality of a situation, assessing probabilities, and acting in the best interests of those he serves. He does not yammer on like an After-School-Special about abstractions like "discrimination" against the citizens of the world.
Guys like you like to present themselves as taking the virtuous position (albeit one that any second-grader could grasp, and that requires no sacrifice on your part), but I'd bet a George Soros annual budget for sedition that you have a door on your house with a lock and that you sure as hell discriminate on who may or may not come in.
Go read the briefs in Washington v. Trump.
You"ll learn a lot about our Constitution that you obviously don't know, and you'll be better prepared for the major legal defeat that's coming up.
First, the Constitution gives plenary power to Congress to devise immigration policy, not the judiciary.
Second, the Constitution sets the law for Americans, not Syrians. The First Amendment does not grant an Iranian the right of free speech.
As corrupt and idiotic as our judiciary has become, there are still an overwhelming majority of judges who believe in the rule of law and will defend the Constitution from wild-eyed ideologues and Soros seditionists. Go read the DOJ response to Robart's puerile ruling.
Provided that the policy doesn't violate the Constitution itself. This policy manifestly does, and the EO also reaches beyond the president's delegated authority under relevant federal statute, e.g., the Immigration and Nationalities Act.
The quintessential power of the judiciary is ". . .to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule."
Well, it does if the Syrian is here, but that's irrelevant.
The Establishment Clause forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. It is transparently obvious that the intention of the EO is to discriminate on that basis and that claims to the contrary are simply lies.
. . .there are still an overwhelming majority of judges who believe in the rule of law and will defend the Constitution from wild-eyed ideologues and Soros seditionists.
The wild-eyed one the Constitution needs protection from at the moment is in the White House (at least for the moment). I expect the courts will, indeed, provide the needed protection.
And, should any "Soros seditionists" sally forth with shovel and rakes and instruments of destruction to attack the Constitution, I'm sure the courts will be there then, as well.
Go read the DOJ response to Robart's puerile ruling.
I've read all the filings (as of an hour or so ago), thanks.
Don't get your hopes up.
Then how is it the Lautenberg Amendment ever passed muster? It not only discriminated in favor of Jews to the exclusion of everyone else, it even required American taxpayers to pay for the immigration of Jews, and only Jews. Don't recall the Antidefamation Leech filing any amicus brief against that blatantly discriminatory piece of legislation.
The Lautenberg Amendment did not apply to "Jews and only Jews." It gave preferred immigration status to Jews and evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union, on the basis of their persecution in that country. The salient factor was their persecution. There is nothing unconstitutionally discriminatory about preferring persecuted groups.
The Lautenberg Amendment was passed for the benefit of Jews living in the old Soviet Union. It included evangelical Christians in the USSR, too, but the overwhelming beneficiaries were Jews until we ran out of Jews who wanted to come here. (Today, like much of our federal swamp, it is a program that continues simply because it exists and has a comfortable group of parasites–the main "faith-based" groups squawking loudest against Trump– sucking on it.)
We also "loaned" the Soviet Jews' air fare (or, if they chose, their air fare to Israel) and full welfare benefits a month after arriving, including SSI. Once granted refuge from persecution, the bill gave the Jews a year to flee from the horrible persecution.
Oh, btw, if you are an American reading this and you think this sounds fishy, don't: that would make you an anti-Semite.
If you are a member of an actually persecuted group in 1989 and find yourself a little resentful that your people were passed over in favor of the Jews, don't: that would make you a Nazi.
If you are wondering why you never heard of this blatantly discriminatory policy, it has nothing to do whatsoever to do with Jewish control of the media. Even the thought means you are Literally Hitler.
There is nothing unconstitutionally discriminatory about preferring persecuted groups.
A. The nation will discriminate in favor of Jews because we designate them (persecuted).
B. The nation will discriminate against Muslims because we designate them (problematic).
Mona says A is constitutional and B is unconstitutional. My guess is she has some skin in this game.
A. Citizen Craig Nelsen
Well said Craig. Understand that Mona and Douggie are rabid leftists, no doubt both closet Zionists to boot.
Gert A. Citizen
Mona and Douggie are rabid leftists, no doubt both closet Zionists to boot.
You're funny beyond words. Both are committed anti-Zionists. You'd know that if you'd know to read. Alas…
milton wiltmellow A. Citizen
Understand that Mona and Douggie are rabid leftists …
They're not rabid. They're not even leftists.
They're mewling, puling reactionaries, who live to blame anyone other than themselves. Ask for truth, they give excuses and explanations; ask for facts they give specious accusations; ask for decency and they offer a noose.
However they are slightly more sophisticated than those who claim God gives them the right to persecute and kill.
That's probably why you think they're leftists. And rabid. That's generally similar to what Christians say of heretics. You would call them "godless commies" or "Jew lovers" if you were capable of such honesty.
The first duty of a statesman is to prevent avoidable evils.
Not in the United States it isn't. This is the oath of office as specified in Article II, Section One, Clause 8 of the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
By statesman I mean public servant.
The president is the foremost public servant of the nation, and his oath of office is what I quoted.
Stan -Mona-
Those words are meaningless. The US is a nation of thugs, not laws, and american lawyers are as worthless that pretentious oath.
Doug, readers think you're stupid writing repeatedly about a "Muslim ban." They rightly think you can't analyze.
Doug has the right of it here. You and Mr. Nelsen would do well to consult this landmark case. (Moreover, congressional legislation is not the issue; at issue is an Executive order. The third branch of government has has the authority to strike both legislation and Executive orders that violate the Constitution.)
See higher in our thread.
What does "higher in the thread" have to do with Marbury v. Madison?
Stan Craig Nelsen
What is it with you Christian nutjobs' panick attacks over muslims, because most homicides in your country are committed by Christians.
You people are clinically insane, so it's a good thing it is more difficult to hide this embarrasing fact from other countries today. Gone are the sly, silver tongued devils like W., and I am grateful to the semi-literate orange tinted guy. (Things seeming to be what they really are is always preferable. It gives a larger number of people a commonly agreed upon set of basic facts to work with.)
Or do I underestimate you? Is there a rational fear underneath your madness? Are your survival insticts, bred out of you by zookeepers, awaking from a coma? Are you scared shitless because you watched the cakewalks — those titilating, medieval torture sprees and numerous, unprovoked invasions and bombings — bring you nothing but humiliation and defeat, and you now realize retaliation is certain and deserved? Could you be that coherent and inarticulate at the same time?
I lived among Chtistian fascists in Texas for almost thirty years and always thought I had you figured out. But I am not so sure anymore, and do not expect a coherent explanation from you, or anyone who does not know you as well as I. Maybe events will clarify the matter.
Craig Nelsen Stan
Bigotry is always ugly. I'm sure Texas is glad to be rid of you.
Despite the self-declared innocence and the fact they just wanna be loved, hate begets hate, Mr. Nelson.
Fascists in Texas often put the 'bigot' label on the people they hate and it is a ridiculous habit. But it gets worse. I've witnessed some of them literally lose all of their self control and start planning murder after their evil, religious bullshit is called out by their own blood relations.
And I ditched it, not the other way around. I remember my last day there. I was asked: "Whah wooud anywun wunna lueev tuexus?!" I was stunned by the stupidity of the question, couldn't think of an answer, and drove away.
Let's see if I have this: your hate is ok because those you hate caused it, and if anyone calls you out for your bigotry, they are a fascist. Ok, got it.
i believe that's called a false dilemma. that would make it a pretty useless point of departure, even for a racist rant.
And… exactly how many former fedral prosecutor are there in the USA??? 1,000? 10,000? 1000,000?
There's a lot of freakin' lawyers out there! Ever seen a list of former professions for politicians? Seems about 90% lawyers… and there are at LEAST 10,000 politicians out there!
So… 150… seems…. kinda… small!!!
Give me a break.
Ban them.
And then ban them some more!
And then maybe EXILE them… to a Muslim country!
_"MORE THAN 150 FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE DENOUNCED TRUMP'S MUSLIM BAN"_
Is it really Muslim Ban? I feel lied to by the Intercept.
Doug Salzmann Communete
I think we're going to start calling it the Muslim Exclusion Order, so that it will forever be associated with a similarly-shameful, much earlier, government action.
Are they excluding all Muslims, Doug?
Slightly [edited] for clarity
[Of course] they [are] excluding Muslims, Doug[. That's how you discriminate based on religion.]
[I]t really [is a] Muslim ban[.] I [just] feel like lie[ing] to [people at] the Intercept[!]
This is a very ridiculous article. If you carry on like this Trump will not be able to pardon Snowden and bring him back to USA. I think Glenn Greenwald needs to invoke some discipline among the predominantly left-wing radicals in his team and bring them to heel before they can alienate President Trump any further. All this anti-Trump activity of being funded by George Soros and I only wish he stops being crooked and quickly learns to behave properly.
Now to more serious things. I can see one Chinese fellow constantly advertising his anti-virus PCMatic software on TV. As many of you may be aware, anti-virus software is a memory resident program that keeps running even when the program itself has exited. In other words, unknown to you, the program snoops around your machine and finds out a lot of stuff. In some cases it may be desirable since it acts as a security guard. However, given the affiliation of Chinese people in such intimate matters, I would be very suspicious if this is not the Chinese government at work behind the scene. So folks be careful. If we are to make America great again we have to avoid Chinese products.
Trisha Driscoll
What "Muslim Ban"? The seven countries included in Trump's executive order comprise at most 13% of the Muslim population worldwide, and nowhere in the order does it say "Muslim". What it is is a ban on refugees from seven countries which the U.S. has been bombing and droning the shit out of for a long time. What do you think the attitude of those people are towards the U.S.? Hostile or happy campers?
Tomorrow's oral arguments will be live-streamed.
Thank the CrookdClintOs for bouncing SenSanders as viable candidate– sure did not much care or any foresight of their actions! Thank god Trump won!
Nothing but admiration for the folks at the Intercept in these surreal times.
You are true journalists in the best sense of the word.
When good men and women fail to act, evil flourishes.
W0X0F
So, a POTUS trying to do his job and protect American citizens is derided for blocking the entry of the BAD GUYS?
A few innocents might be caught up in the melee, but stopping the evil is far more important. Only brain dead progressive Borg zombies could be so clueless.
Doug Salzmann W0X0F
Only brain dead progressive Borg zombies could be so clueless.
Well, no. Actually, about a dozen federal courts, so far, are "so clueless."
Douggie – since when does 12% of the Federal court system speak for the entire country? Let Trump's appeal to the court play out. If he wins do the thinking people of The Intercept a favor and go back to drinking your Pabst.
Doug Salzmann A. Citizen
. . .since when does 12% of the Federal court system speak for the entire country?
Well, to put it in overly-simple terms you still won't understand:
Since Marbury v. Madison.
You moron.
When there are so many federal district courts all holding against the Executive — including a Bush 43 appointee — it's simply not tenable for a President and his supporters to impute some purported problem to "progressive Borg zombies."
The poor judges are going to collapse from exhaustion if they try to read all of the amicus briefs.
There were eight (last time I checked) filed in the 9th Circuit today — all of them, it probably goes without saying, in support of the plaintiffs–appellees. Even the Anti-Defamation League chimed in. Their brief is a little light on law, but still.
The briefs from the Korematsu Center and Constitutional Scholars are especially good reading.
More amicus briefs are landing.
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont have filed together.
And the government finally has friends, too (allegedly friends of the court):
U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center.
Roch A. Citizen
Of course and CrookdClintons, the Obamas, WassermanShultzes have all opened up their homes and invited many to stay free of charge for an open time, all expenses paid!
Jeb Doug Salzmann
How many federal courts are there, exactly?
And what percerntage of them does a dozen make?
Good grief!
What garbage! Go back to your leftwing cave and blow Robin, you transgendered Muslim freak.
-Mona- W0X0F
Are you truly unaware that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? That no terrorism in the U.S. has been committed by anyone from these seven countries making up the ban? Do these facts have any relevance for you?
mary steyr -Mona-
test test test "We must avoid sweeping bans based on religion or national origin," Klein said in her remarks and called for a judiciary "independent from the president of the United States." She applauded the ABA for launching a website to coordinate legal defense for immigrants affected by the travel ban. Klein also responded directly to Trump's tweet attacking Judge James Robart, whose temporary restraining order suspended the ban. "There are no 'so-called judges' in America," she said. "There are simply judges — fair and impartial."
rick W0X0F
For argument sake lets say the POTUS is trying to protect us. Why would he leave the country that had the vast majority of the hijackers that carried out 9/11 off the ban list? He just met with their king to discuss safe zones in Syria and Yemen. You know Yemen, that place where the Saudis have been bombing for over a year straight with our blessings and weapons purchased from us. Someday all those terrorists being created by our allowing mass starvation will be looking to extract a little revenge. Thankfully they will be banned.
Thankfully, we have Ariel Sharon's boast that the Jewish people run America and we Americans know it, as well as AIPAC fund raising literature taking credit for devising US policy in the Middle East. The revenge will be taken on those responsible.
Erelis
I don't know. This all seems like during the election campaign when the Clinton campaign said of various endorsements: "Hurray, look some of the worst people in the world are endorsing me". Where the campaigned bragged about odious war mongers who announced their support for her. Sorta like using Al Capone as as reference, and bragging about it.
Who are these prosecutors who are now aghast at Trump's ban, which I am against by the way. My question is do they have any sort of moral standing or basis to make the announcement? Or is simply partisan motivated bullshit with no moral basis or consistency to what they have done in the past?. Now don't get me wrong–at a certain point the motivations of why people oppose Trump doesn't matter now, But it matters really later if we simply go back to the same shit supported by the same people brave enough to writer letters. For example, the ban is lifted but nobody says jack squat about the 50,000+ bombs Obama dropped on Muslim countries to create the problem to begin with.
Just for fun. I randomly picked two names from the list and quick internet search. One is now defending Wall Street criminals, and the other is defending polluters.
Doug Salzmann Erelis
My question is do they have any sort of moral standing or basis to make the announcement?
The relevant questions really have noting to do with matters of personal morality. What counts is the legal basis for their assertions. Note the sentences that begin, "We could not candidly. . ."
. . .it matters really later if we simply go back to the same shit supported by the same people brave enough to writer letters. For example, the ban is lifted but nobody says jack squat about the 50,000+ bombs Obama dropped on Muslim countries to create the problem to begin with.
That's really whataboutery.
Furthermore, sadly and despicably, there isn't a serious (domestic) legal question about whether a president is authorized to bomb people in faraway places pursuant to thin justification — he is. OTOH, there is a huge question — a number of major questions, actually — about a president's authority to order blanket exclusions of visitors, immigrants and refugees based upon religion or national origin.
The letter from the former USAs and AUSAs isn't a legal opinion, it's an expression of their concern based upon their legal knowledge and experience. If you read the States' response to the government's motion to stay the temporary restraining order, and the amicus briefs filed by various entities, the legal basis for the concern will be clear.
Washington v. Trump