No borders. No nations. No clue.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: mobiusmale

If this was a "Muslim ban", then Indonesia, India, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and many other nations would be on this current list (and maybe you could argue that, from a threat point of view, some of them should be on the list).

Exactly! Donald Trump has business connections to those countries, all of which pose greater danger than the ones on the list. In fact, Belgium should also be added to that list. This Executive Order is not about keeping America safe from terrorism, it is yet another symbolic action intended to placate his xenophobic base. All it has really done is create confusion and push the country closer to a Constitutional crisis.

Was that list of countries not originally drawn up by the Obama administration though and a ban on Iraqis implemented for a few months?

As for Trump having interests in Saudi, the same could be said about Clinton and many others in the political sphere.

a reply to: DJW001

No where in the EO does it specify Islam.

No where in the EO does it say this is because of religious beliefs.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: mobiusmale

If this was a "Muslim ban", then Indonesia, India, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and many other nations would be on this current list (and maybe you could argue that, from a threat point of view, some of them should be on the list).

Exactly! Donald Trump has business connections to those countries, all of which pose greater danger than the ones on the list. In fact, Belgium should also be added to that list. This Executive Order is not about keeping America safe from terrorism, it is yet another symbolic action intended to placate his xenophobic base. All it has really done is create confusion and push the country closer to a Constitutional crisis.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, because I know you are expressly sincerely held beliefs when you write...but I just had to chuckle at your reply.

1) Deflection...now it's about Donald Trump neglecting to add Countries on the basis of where he happens to have hotels, because he (according to the line of reasoning) has a profit motive in not naming certain countries. It is just as reasonable, I think, to assume that he does not have hotels/resorts in the countries named, because they are unstable and dangerous countries to try to do business in.

2) Confusion...so you are against naming the 7 Countries because you claim it represents a religious test - but you think the Countries where Trump is doing business should be added to the list because they represent a greater danger than the ones on the list. So if Saudi Arabia was on the list, you would concede that it is not based on a religious test, but based on the threat from radical Islamic Terrorism...nothing to do with religion then.

3) Couldn't Resist...rolling out the "xenophobic" tag. Yes, because somebody wants to keep the bad element out of the Country if at all possible, that automatically makes them afraid/paranoid of all foreigners. That means that they are anti-immigration, and that they hate all people not born in their homeland. Please...

A Constitutional crisis? Hardly.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?

You ever read the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952... That pesky little law that Jimmy Carter used to kick out 15,000 Iranians back in 1979 ?

Didn't think so...

a reply to: mobiusmale

Can we please stop all this madness, Let's ban Politics for the rest of the day, hug your neighbour and sing your favourite song......doesn't it feel good to be alive..listen to those birds, smell those flowers, look at that wonderful blue sky, created for us all, whether we live in England, Syria or Mongolia. Peace and love.

a reply to: destination now

Since when has the Trump Administration ever deferred to the Obama administration. He is attempting to cover his tracks by blaming Obama. Ultimately, this is about Syria.

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?

You ever read the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952... That pesky little law that Jimmy Carter used to kick out 15,000 Iranians back in 1979 ?

Didn't think so...

That was based on nationality, not religion.

a reply to: DJW001

Again: absolutely no where in the EO does it say that.

You (and others) are trying to say it implies that. It is your belief that it does.

Know who else does that? Who firmly believes in something, and then tries to find ways to make the evidence fit what they believe, instead of following the evidence? Who try and twist the facts so that it fits what they believe?

Moon Landing Hoax people.

Must be some cosmic irony here.........

a reply to: mobiusmale

1) Deflection...now it's about Donald Trump neglecting to add Countries on the basis of where he happens to have hotels, because he (according to the line of reasoning) has a profit motive in not naming certain countries. It is just as reasonable, I think, to assume that he does not have hotels/resorts in the countries named, because they are unstable and dangerous countries to try to do business in.

There needs to be an investigation into whether or not his business interests influenced his decision. As usual, Trump has made a rash decision that is thrilling his supporters but which will not accomplish its stated goals.

2) Confusion...so you are against naming the 7 Countries because you claim it represents a religious test - but you think the Countries where Trump is doing business should be added to the list because they represent a greater danger than the ones on the list. So if Saudi Arabia was on the list, you would concede that it is not based on a religious test, but based on the threat from radical Islamic Terrorism...nothing to do with religion then.

I'm not the one who is confused. What is the determining factor? Threat? Or is it a splashy PR move calculated to win applause from his followers without harming his business interests. Again, an investigation is called for.

3) Couldn't Resist...rolling out the "xenophobic" tag. Yes, because somebody wants to keep the bad element out of the Country if at all possible, that automatically makes them afraid/paranoid of all foreigners. That means that they are anti-immigration, and that they hate all people not born in their homeland. Please...

It's not all of his supporters who are xenophobic, but xenophobes are the ones applauding this the most.

A Constitutional crisis? Hardly.

That is literally for the courts to decide. Trump should have waited until his Attorney General and Supreme Court judge were approved first.

Hey I'm a moon landing hoax person...

And I actually support this action of Trumps, one of the few I"m sure and I'm probably the only democrat that supports it.

How it can benefit our country to bring in endless third-world migrants is beyond me.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: destination now

Since when has the Trump Administration ever deferred to the Obama administration. He is attempting to cover his tracks by blaming Obama. Ultimately, this is about Syria.

What? Trump's only been in power for 11 days, hardly had any opportunity to defer to the previous administration. As for Syria, yet again look to Obama for that intervention, it had nothing to do with Trump, like I said, he only became president 11 days ago!

And yes, I do believe that the list of countries was drawn up by the Obama administration, loads of people have posted links to it, and Trump has simply used the same list to suspend inbound travelers from those destinations for a period of 90 days until there is a robust vetting procedure in place...Sheesh, get some perspective.

a reply to: namelesss

INA. Feng Yue Ting v US.

All that needs to be said. 100% legal.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?

Are you saying that the Constitution calls for open borders, and that the Federal Government has no right to try to control who comes into the Country?

Do tell...

Yeah...

Article I. Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress..

There was a time, at least, when it was illegal for the Federal Government to prohibit people from immigrating to the states, since it was the right of each state to decide who to accept and who to reject.

a reply to: AMPTAH

The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation.

In the United States, the power to exclude or to expel aliens is vested in the political departments of the National Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress,

supreme.justia.com...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: mobiusmale

If this was a "Muslim ban", then Indonesia, India, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and many other nations would be on this current list (and maybe you could argue that, from a threat point of view, some of them should be on the list).

Exactly! Donald Trump has business connections to those countries, all of which pose greater danger than the ones on the list. In fact, Belgium should also be added to that list. This Executive Order is not about keeping America safe from terrorism, it is yet another symbolic action intended to placate his xenophobic base. All it has really done is create confusion and push the country closer to a Constitutional crisis.

Call someone that cares or a cop.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: destination now

Since when has the Trump Administration ever deferred to the Obama administration. He is attempting to cover his tracks by blaming Obama. Ultimately, this is about Syria.

Ya, obama and hillary's mess along with Libya.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
:facepalm:

The US Constitution applies to all US Citizens.

Based on the logic I'm seeing here, you all seem to think that it applies to citizens of other countries. That explains a lot of the ignorance I've seen as of late.

Most of the US Constitution applies to everyone in the world. This was "recently" settled under W, then again under Obama but cases go all the way back to the late 1800's that said the rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to everyone when dealing with the government.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: Aazadan

Doesn't matter. Wasn't violated. End of story. Show me the line in the EO that specifies a religion.

(Hint: It doesn't)

The Carter Administration did it. The Clinton Administration did it. Exactly as President Trump has done. I have proof. Just listen to Alex Jones show from yesterday. They have the recordings of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton stopping travel with very specified countries. I know a lot of people on ATS don't like Alex, but I have to agree with him 100% on this issue.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Aazadan

Doesn't matter. Wasn't violated. End of story. Show me the line in the EO that specifies a religion.

(Hint: It doesn't)

I wasn't arguing that the EO couldn't have been made, it could, and many similar ones have been made in the past. I was only correcting the poster on the scope of the Constitution.

The bigger question is, was the EO the right thing to do, not whether it was legal or not.