The General Political Thread

[AP0CALYPS3]

Saying it's unconstitutional is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Obama used said power 19 times. Think Bush only used it 12 times.

BUT OH MAH GAWD TRUMP IS A FASCIST, NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW.

Not only does the US Constitution really only apply to those within the United States/Citizens of the US. Not only is it not a ban on religion (therefore not even a violation of Freedom of Religion), it wouldn't even matter if it was.

Fucking Hack judges. There is no fucking debate to be had. No wonder their decisions almost always get overturned in the Supreme Court, where they actually care about the law.

I think he could (and if he can, he should) have those judges arrested legally. Think Lincoln did that to judges who undermined his executive authority like that.

[Edwin]

That paragraph is a mine of hypocrisy. There's a lot of random fluff added in, but I'll pick out the highlights:

He has stated that Christians will be given priority which would? 
(...)
The whole prospect behind refugees it that they are fleeing away from a conflict or persecution to find a better life.

Exactly, it's the CHRISTIANS that are facing conflict directed at them and are being persecuted, not typical Islamic refugees from Africa (or the stray Muslim from Syria). Christians are the ones who are being marched through towns and having their buses and transport stormed and cleansed.

It's safe to safe ISIS are killing everyone and anyone regardless of their creed, but there are many groups operating in the middle east and those selecting their targets do generally seem to be specifically going after Christians. Christians make the most legitimate refugees, and I can understand why Trump is willing to let them in. They will be much easier to integrate into society, also.

It's far to out there of an idea to think that they are leaving the middle east because to specifically enact terrorism against the U.S. People are not risking their lives in crossing the Mediterranean to blow up a church.

You deploying the "they're coming here for safety!" rhetoric isn't exactly valid speculation behind their motive, either. The Trump administration's ability to recognise that the majority of refugees may be coming to America for things such as the living conditions offered as a result of the sympathetic outlook of refugee status should not be criticized but applauded - we've seen what damage the open door policy can do when enacted by governments too cowardly to address or even slightly vet anyone claiming to be a refugee (like what's going on in your beloved Europe).

That's why Irish people fled to to the U.S rather then France. That's why Jews fled to the U.S rather then France if they were given the chance. If your life is shit, try to find the best one you can.

The ideology of the Irish and Jewish is a hell of a lot different than that of a Muslim. Are you really comparing the refugee crisis to the holocaust? Jesus Christ, tone down the rhetoric and start being rational, please.

If your life is shit, try to find the best one you can.

Nice to see you being so tolerant of people abusing poorly designed government policies when they're a creation of the left. Instead of being angry at your government you choose to applaud these "clever" men, "good job getting a better life living off the fruits of the tax payer's labour!"

You're a fucking terrible socialist.

[joer5835]

Christians make the most legitimate refugees, and I can understand why Trump is willing to let them in. They will be much easier to integrate into society, also.

It certainly does... except this isn't targeting a religion

So you're saying...it isn't targetting a specific religion...but at the same time certain people from certain religions are/should be exempt? Mind elaborating on that?

[Edwin]

I wasn't saying if the Christians were in more or less danger. 1) It's without a doubt that they are in more. 2) I was debating the legality of specifically accepting Christian's above people in equal danger.

1) The Christians are in more danger than the other refugees

2) The Christians are in equal danger

Checkmate. Where's Duuring? Can I face the boss battle already?

I was debating the legality of specifically accepting Christian's above people in equal danger.

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

It's not really a matter of religion, but more so of ideology and interest. And it's legal, yes.

So you're saying...it isn't targetting a specific religion...but at the same time certain people from certain religions are/should be exempt? Mind elaborating on that?

You say "targetting" as if they're being persecuted; the people coming from the selected Muslim majorities are being vetted/denied, not executed.

Again, the president reserves the right to ban entry of aliens who "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States", and there's plenty of fuel to feed the argument that those brought up with the extreme Muslim beliefs displayed in those 7 countries inherently are.

[Theodin]

>Does things for Christians
>muh voter base

[Edwin]

But Rick, taking in one person above another based on his religious orientation is infringing on the separation of state and religion. It means that the government favors one faith over another.

You might have an argument if Christianity wasn't the semi-native and current majority religion, and if Islam didn't work against the interests and national belief of freedom.

You don't have to be American to realise the beliefs and interests of America stem from the objection of control from undemocratic rule like we would see under sharia.

I suggest you read:
http://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

and decide for yourself whether the US should take in Muslims who come from a more extremist background when there's clearly already a problem with a decent amount of American Muslims who believe Sharia should be put in place and that Muslims should be governed separately by it.

Trump probably doesn't give to fucks about the Christians over there. Any money its just to appeal to the largely Christian Republican voting demographic but then again, its not like any other president did things better.

Well, I know better not to argue or speculate around the psychology of Trump...

But Rick,

Don't make this personal, I'm sure we could share some politically incorrect banter about immigration over a pint. Maybe one day.

[Edwin]

You've actually always been "Commie Conway" in my mind, Conway was in fact a nickname. You deserve better, let me think on it.

As for my name, I reeee internally whenever someone calls me "RickPerry", so thanks for not doing that at least. I actually often forget I'm even called GovernorRickPerry sometimes; he was the original extremist rightwinger, but the media was actually smart and ignored him. He's a bit of an old meme now tbh.

[Duuring]

The American constitutions, like all constitutions, applies to everyone who is on the territory of the US. Not just citizens. Not only does it not apply to non-citizens outside of the US (obviously) it also don't apply to US citizens outside of the United States (once again, pretty obvious)

Fact is that Trump's ban bans people from countries whose nationals have not killed an American citizen in a terrorist attack since, I think, 1975. Anyway, it's a badly written executive order as it is unclear and ambigious. Executive agencies had no real clear idea what they were supposed to and foreign governments had no idea whether it could apply to their immigrant citizen.

Is the ban unconstitutional? Seems so, or else the courts would not have suspended it. Trump is of course in his full right to appeal, but he openly questioned the legitimacy of the courts. Why? It doesn't help his case. It won't speed up his appeal. It certainly won't make other judges more likely to accept his actions and it certainly doesn't change anything about the wording of the Constitution. What people sorta forget is that it's the courts that decide on unconstitutionality. You can make a great case on how it is, but that doesn't change the fact that by American legislature, the Supreme Court has that final say. If they say something about the constitution, it automatically becomes law until overturned by that same court. Our interpretation of law changes overtime. Nobody felt that 'All men are created equal' applied to Negro's, women or natives when it was written. Yet that line is still there, and rights are derived from it.

Tl;dr, deciding whether it's unconstitutional is not really up to us. Deciding whether it's morally right of course is.

What pains me the most is that apparantly, allowing people that worked as translators for the US Armed Forces into the country is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. Why did his order not make an exception to this? Why are people who endanger the lives of themselves and their families a danger to the United States? This just feels like plain injustice, and even if you do not agree with that, then consider the fact that not harbouring these people if their lives are in danger will make it very hard for the US to find new translators or other local support.

PS: apologies for any typo's or grammar mistakes, I worked a late shift and its like 3:30 in the morning.

[Edwin]

Fact is that Trump's ban bans people from countries whose nationals have not killed an American citizen in a terrorist attack since, I think, 1975. Anyway, it's a badly written executive order as it is unclear and ambigious. Executive agencies had no real clear idea what they were supposed to and foreign governments had no idea whether it could apply to their immigrant citizen.

Why does there have to have been an attack to justify the ban? The US has been extremely paranoid since 9/11. The mass surveillance is straight out of  Theresa May's wet dream etc, and many terrorists have been apprehended before attacking from Trump's 7. 

http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

Tl;dr, deciding whether it's unconstitutional is not really up to us.

I completely agree. Although letting the 9th Circuit Court decide - a liberal court governing a massive liberal majority - should CERTAINLY not decide either.

Deciding whether it's morally right of course is.

That's entirely subjective though, how could that ever be set in stone?

What pains me the most is that apparantly, allowing people that worked as translators for the US Armed Forces into the country is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. Why did his order not make an exception to this? Why are people who endanger the lives of themselves and their families a danger to the United States? This just feels like plain injustice, and even if you do not agree with that, then consider the fact that not harbouring these people if their lives are in danger will make it very hard for the US to find new translators or other local support.

This is actually very interesting. I don't consider them "heroes" however I agree that they should be except to the extreme vetting that is probably unnecessary. However, I can empathise with Trump on how cases like Ali Mohammed - an example of a translator gone rogue who committed extremely serious crimes on US territory - puts him in a fairly awkward position.

[Edwin]

Pls, no Commie. Centre-Left at a worst. I'm completely centrist concerning Canadian politics. I'd make an edgy fascist joke but I genuinely don't know if you'd object

Hey, I'm no fascist but you can't knock it; it worked perfectly fine for the Nazis, and only failed because of the Communists   

[Edwin]

Yup, I suspect so

[Rutger Müller]

Pls, no Commie. Centre-Left at a worst. I'm completely centrist concerning Canadian politics. I'd make an edgy fascist joke but I genuinely don't know if you'd object

Hey, I'm no fascist but you can't knock it; it worked perfectly fine for the Nazis, and only failed because of the Communists   

The fact that they fought the communists displays in itself the inherit flaws of fascism. The high command knew it would be a stretch but the risks didn't matter. Things might have been ok if he didn't lose his mind from 1940 onwards.

imblying gommies should not be killed at all costs

[AP0CALYPS3]

You say we can't debate the legality, that it is up to the courts Duuring. However, the law is pretty fucking crystal clear on its intent and purpose. (Not gonna repost it for a 3rd time). Also courts are all about precedent and when basically every president since like 1952 has used that particular law at one point or another, I would say the courts know damn well how legal it is.

Iirc, the Judges based their ruling on the fact that they saw no evidence of terrorism from nationals of the countries on the ban, and banning them would be detrimental to the interests of the United States (all those Somali brain surgeons, amirite?). That's all well and good, and they could bring that to a debate on the morality of the order. However, no part of the law even politely asks a judge for his opinion on the matter. It leaves the decision up to the PRESIDENT.

It was an ideological power play meant to delay the order. Trump can still say "F U" and implement it anyway, but now he'd look like a massive douchebag if he did. So while he has to rewrite the order or appeal, which can take months, we have nationals from those countries flooding in before the floodgates close.

[Riddlez]

Yes, enjoy your comedy as Europe destroys itself with dindu nuffin arabs protected by the left and the MSM  but yes, lecture us on how we are sheep for wanting to control who comes into our country and actually trying to address the problem that is Radical Islamic Terrorism and its implications

funny you bring that up. Somehow terrorism gets all the attention nowadays. Stll it's no more or less a factual problem than it was 10 years ago - when immigration wasn't an item, an defense budget cuts were massively happening throughout Europe.

The anti-terrorism campaign and the 'radical islam problem' is no more than fearmongering. Terrorism ahsn't ever, is currently not and probably won't ever be an actual threat to the stability of Western countries. I'll start worrying when something like that kills more people than traffic accidents.

Spoiler

Oh wait. Guns do in the US. Makes one think, doesn't it?

[close]

[Olafson]

Since "Merkled opened the doors" (Which she did not btw... The law was already there,) nothing has changed for me... I have not seen any difference. Most people still talk German, the infrastructure has not collapsed, public schools still function, the military and police still have a budget, the courts still function, there have been no real terrorist attacks (Unless you count 2 random dudes with a machete and a dude with a truck as major terrorist attack...), there are not 1000000 million of refugees roaming the streets, women can still go out at night without getting robbed, stabbed or raped...

Edit:
In response to riddlez:

Yeah, I was thinking the same. There are like a billion gun murders every day in the US. There are huge gang wars and entire city blocks owned by gangs. There are city blocks that a non-gang member should not visit and the US has a huge drug problem and has way to much debt to be believable. (Sure I am exaggerating, it is not like that everywhere, but still, you know it is at least partly true) Yet the US people think that refugees are killing Europe, where practically none of the shit noted above is happening.