[excon]

Hello:

Of course, not..

But, if you LISTEN to Trumps WORDS, you'll see that he intends to DO exactly that. And, that's WHY his ban is unconstitutional..

The following is from an interview Trump gave to the Christian Broadcasting Network:

"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."

When asked by Brody if he saw helping persecuted Christians abroad as a “priority,” Trump promptly replied, “yes."

Trump: Persecuted Christian refugees will get priority | TheHill

excon

[Athos]

Your question is not supported by your example which is not about religion, but about a persecuted class which happens to be a religion. The same would be true for persecuted Muslims, persecuted Jews, persecuted Buddhists, or persecuted Hindus, etc. The key is the persecution, not the religion.

[tomder55]

Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that religion [among other things] … was one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

(B) Burden of proof(i) In general....To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

(I can also cite UNHRC aka International Law about what constitututes a refugee ....1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, extended by the 1967 Protocol) .

US law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is that asylum law is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed,to address persecution.There is no "right" to asylum and refugees are not protected by constitutional law until they are within US jurisdiction.

The jihadists want to rule over fellow Muslims . The Christians ;they are brutally persecuting and exterminating . You can deny it if you want to ,but Christians in Syria are being persecuted and deserve special consideration.

From January 1, 2015 to date, the U.S. processed 11,086 Shiite, Suni and other Moslem versus 433 Christian refugee arrivals from Iraq. In the same time, the U.S. processed 5,345 Muslem versus 28 Christian refugee arrivals from Syria.

16,431 Muslem versus 461 Christian . And the emperor made the outrageous claim that his policies were non-discriminatory ? Bunk !

If it were me ,I would make it a point to also prioritize Yezidis and Kurdish refugees because ISIS also has made it a point to target them for extermination.

[excon]

The key is the persecution, not the religion.

Hello again, A:

If I wrote it, I'd couch it that way. And, if it's the TRUE intent of the order, then he'd win.. He even said that everybody was persecuted, so it can't be about persecution.. Nonetheless, THAT, among others, are the issues before the court.. I picked that one because the violation is the easiest to see, or so I thought.

When the legislators in North Carolina passed a voter ID law, they SAID it was about voting.. But, the court saw through that argument..

“Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.."

So, even though Trump SAYS it's about protecting America, I think the court will see through that argument too.

excon

[tomder55]

Herr Donald has the law on his side. Now the 9th Circus may say otherwise . But they are wrong.

[talaniman]

The Donald has railed about banning Muslims for a year or more and now he has done it! He was wrong when he said it and is wrong now that he has done it.

They have more active terrorists in Europe, but are Europeans banned? Why NOT?

[Athos]

Hello again, A:

If I wrote it, I'd couch it that way. And, if it's the TRUE intent of the order, then he'd win.. He even said that everybody was persecuted, so it can't be about persecution.. Nonetheless, THAT, among others, are the issues before the court.. I picked that one because the violation is the easiest to see, or so I thought.

When the legislators in North Carolina passed a voter ID law, they SAID it was about voting.. But, the court saw through that argument..

“Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.."

So, even though Trump SAYS it's about protecting America, I think the court will see through that argument too.

excon

I understand what you're saying and I agree that there is a dog whistle effect at work here.

But I'm not a lawyer and what I've read about the law in a case like this is that the Judge is NOT to take into consideration the subjective attitude of plaintiff or defendant - a way of saying the Judge must deal only in facts. Past behavior may be a contributing fact - I don't know.

As I say, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if this subjective attitude business is even an accepted legal principle.

From a purely personal point of view, I believe the EO in question is a mess, has caused a mess, and continues to be a mess. I hope the courts decide against Trump.

[smoothy]

Most of the lefties seriously need see psychiatric help...

But the fact is The government has been VERY anti Christian and very PRO Muslim for the last 8 years.

Fact is Carter did it.. Obama did it, and the left wing panzies didn't care about the poor "persecuted" Muslims who do NOTHING BUT persecute Christians, Jews and any other Religion in THEIR part of the world then.

And not surprisingly almost EVERY bit of Terrorism in the world for the last 20 years HAS been committed by Muslims.

I really DO hope the next terrorist attack on US soil DIRECTLY affects those of you defending their IMAGINED rights which don't exist being they are NOT US citizens and NOT even on US soil.

Because that would be karma.

And trust me...you really don't want to go there....because I survived the 9/11 attack on the pentagon by LUCK, I've never walked out on customers in my adult life before or since except on that day., YOU all saw it on TV, ....everybody I worked with that night have their names on the memorial there....and no, I will NOT back down on that.

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy:

Well, I wouldn't mind if a bomb took you out too..

excon

[smoothy]

REPORT: Obama Restricted The Immigration Of Certain People Into The U.S.--19 TIMES! | The Sean Hannity Show

With a court battle underway over President Donald Trump's temporary ban on refugees and immigrants from 7 Muslim-majority nations in the Middle-East and North Africa, many have begun to question whether the president has the legal authority to issue such a ban. Fortunately, one need look no further than Trump's predecessors to find precedent for this executive action.

According to a new Congressional Research Service report entitled Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens, the last 5 presidents have used executive authority to limit or restrict the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants into the U.S. a total of 43 times.

Ironically, it appears that President Barack Obama used this authority more frequently than any of his predecessors, exercising it a total of 19 times during his two terms in office.

Here's the breakdown of how many times each of the past five presidents issued such orders:

Ronald Reagan - Five times
George H. W Bush - One time
Bill Clinton - 12 times
George W. Bush - Six times
Barack Obama - 19 times

In a tweet on Sunday, Trump reiterated his belief that the courts were putting Americans in jeopardy by calling a halt to the ban:

Below is the link to the Congressional report.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3379...ief#from_embed

[Wondergirl]

And not surprisingly almost EVERY bit of Terrorism in the world for the last 20 years HAS been committed by Muslims.

Adam Lanza was Muslin? Dylann Roof was Muslim? Timothy McVeigh was Muslim? Shall I go on?

[earl237]

I have no problem with law-abiding, educated, middle-class Muslims who integrate and respect Western values but unfortunately, not all of them do even though it's politically incorrect to say it, they need to hold up their end of the bargain if they want to be welcomed. Check out this video of Muslims refusing to stand for the national anthem. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL2UdrU-rJg This wasn't an isolated incident, it also happened at an event in Canada and there is a video of Muslims booing at a soccer game in Europe when the anthem was playing. You can understand why there is so much resentment towards them, not to mention the terrorist attacks in recent years. Look up rape and violent crime rates in Sweden in recent years. Respect and tolerance goes both ways, it has to be earned.

[smoothy]

Adam Lanza was Muslin? Dylann Roof was Muslim? Timothy McVeigh was Muslim? Shall I go on?

Gee.You are aware ONLY Timothy McVeigh was considered Terrorism... and most of the "shooters" were liberals... Columbine, Giffords, etc... etc... Watch the news Terrorism every day someplace. Other Musim terrorist acts IN the USA, Fort Hood, Orlando Night club, etc, etc... the diaper bomber, Boston Bomber... and all the others that were caught before they could do something. Not to mention all the Somali retards from Minnesota going overseas , ALL Muslims.

[Wondergirl]

smoothy, you have said very recently, and a number of times before that, that watching the news on tv is a BAD thing -- fake news. Now you're saying watch the news. Which is it?

[smoothy]

smoothy, you have said very recently, and a number of times before that, that watching the news on tv is a BAD thing -- fake news. Now you're saying watch the news. Which is it?

Look at the people here that believe EVERYTHING a liberal journalist tells them... without ever questioning their motives?

Official list of 78 Terrorists attacks world wide int eh last 2 years most of which got no news coverage...

At this link...

https://libertywritersnews.com/2017/...not-want-know/

[paraclete]

smoothy, it may have go no news coverage there, but in some places it did get coverage, but was rapidly pushed off the news by the ratbag antics of the very person who now uses it to bash the media. The Donald and Hilliary circus is reason why. So ask yourself why is the media fixated on the electoral cycle in the US

[talaniman]

I don' know your daily source of news is but I suggest you watch CNN, and MSNBC a lot more.

[tomder55]

MSNBC ,where you love the commentators you hated a year ago.

[paraclete]

I don' know your daily source of news is but I suggest you watch CNN, and MSNBC a lot more.

I gave it up, couldn't make sense of it

[talaniman]

Doesn't take much sense to understand Trump is a liar!