Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump's travel ban

[Good1]

The law says visas cannot be denied due to race, nationality or place of birth and if Trumps motives were really national defense he'd be banning The Sunnis from Saudi Arabia rather than Shiites from Iran.

Mohamedism is not a race, nationality, or place. It is a subversive ideology...a political movement masked as religion.

The US constitution bans anyone from becoming president due to place of birth. If it can do that, it can also prohibit entry based on place. In regards place, of presidential birth, or place of immigrant birth, the intent of the place law is to insure allegiance to the US system of governance. While the place of an immigrant may not be specified, as it is with a president, the intent remains the same: allegiance.

Mohamed and his train of imitators do not have allegiance to any other government, and are sworn to overthrow any other government. It is classism, justified by the currently positive view of "faith", as if faith is some sort of universal visa.

 

[Tony Stark]

Mohamedism is not a race, nationality, or place. It is a subversive ideology...a political movement masked as religion.

The US constitution bans anyone from becoming president due to place of birth. If it can do that, it can also prohibit entry based on place. In regards place, of presidential birth, or place of immigrant birth, the intent of the place law is to insure allegiance to the US system of governance. While the place of an immigrant may not be specified, as it is with a president, the intent remains the same: allegiance.

Mohamed and his train of imitators do not have allegiance to any other government, and are sworn to overthrow any other government. It is classism, justified by the currently positive view of "faith", as if faith is some sort of universal visa.

Congress passed a law in 1964 that states visas can not be denied due to race,place of birth, or nationality.Until Congress passes a new law overturning that law or The SC rules it unconstitutional the 1964 law stands and is the law of the land.

 

[Good1]

Congress passed a law in 1964 that states visas can not be denied due to race,place of birth, or nationality.Until Congress passes a new law overturning that law or The SC rules it unconstitutional the 1964 law stands and is the law of the land.

Again, Mohamed and his train of imitators are not a race, place, or nationality...and ALLEGIANCE remains an aspect of US entry.

 

[Tony Stark]

Again, Mohamed and his train of imitators are not a race, place, or nationality...and ALLEGIANCE remains an aspect of US entry.

But Trump didnt ban Muhammad followers,because Muhammad followers from countries he has business interests are excluded from his ban.

 

[java]

But Trump didnt ban Muhammad followers,because Muhammad followers from countries he has business interests are excluded from his ban.

So that proves it is not a ban on any religion.

 

[Good1]

But Trump didnt ban Muhammad followers,because Muhammad followers from countries he has business interests are excluded from his ban.

The business relationship canard is a canard. It is more unprovable than what you say about "birthers".

If he hasn't done it already, all Trump needs to do is state the relationship between place and allegiance. We can, he can, assume allegiance based on place, if the place does not have allegiance to the US system of governance.

The places named lack allegiance among the general population, largely due to a political ideology masked as religion, or "faith".

If people from Saudi Arabia aren't banned along with other allegiances, Trump's order is inconsistent, and probably based on what he perceives as US business interests in Saudi Arabia...the same reason prior admins have been bowing to Arabia for decades: because of oil, and the petro dollar alliance. Otherwise the bubble the US dollar lives in would pop.

The intent is to ban the imitators of Mohammed, as well as Mohammed's agents. If Trump has not done so already, he should state it openly, and fight that fight out in the open, where Mohamedism can be judged for what it is: an allegiance to a foreign power, intent upon subverting the any other system of gov.

Now if people want to swear off such allegiance, and may risk their lives doing so, let them come here.

I myself have sworn off systems of faith based allegiance sometimes called "religion". I know what it's like to have allegiance to such systems, and I know what it's like to CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT such systems, even while family members remain.

I know it's possible to change allegiances and remain safe due to a system of government. In times past I may have been burnt alive.

I don't take US tolerance for granted.

Done get me started on tolerance.

So, to me, I don't see why people just don't swear off allegiance to Mohammed. I don't see why this would not be easy, given the behavior of Mohammed and his imitators. Why associate yourself with that, and that crowd? If you want to ally with that man, or his train, why complain about tolerance or the aspirations of other systems of governance, backed by other ideological generalities?

 

[newwurldmn]

no, I just wasn't stoned yet, I wake up very angry. That's why it is good I am not God because I would kill all of them the first hour. You should have been educated in America before the Department of Education. They taught us how important these little things are to our freedom. Those liberal judges are giving it all away and it's not theirs to give. And they are taking it from me. Very simple, if you don't like it vote in a president who will repeal it. That's what we did. And I don't have any problem taking this to court, I just have a problem with the judges stupid ass reasoning.

Get stoned now, because you might lose that privilege/right in the near future thanks to your President and his choice for AG. You are likely to lose that privilege soon.

These days (and it wasn't always this way), if you care about freedom to make choices, you should look to liberal judges. If you are care about the freedom to oppress others, you should look to the conservative ones.

 

[newwurldmn]

If people from Saudi Arabia aren't banned along with other allegiances, Trump's order is inconsistent, and probably based on what he perceives as US business interests in Saudi Arabia...the same reason prior admins have been bowing to Arabia for decades: because of oil, and the petro dollar alliance. Otherwise the bubble the US dollar lives in would pop.

That is the case.

He's keeping America safe as long as it doesn't hurt himself and his big business cronies.

 

[Good1]

That is the case.

He's keeping America safe as long as it doesn't hurt himself and his big business cronies.

Problem is you are conflating US interests with Trump's personal business interests. I see that as dishonest, and not more consistent with Trump's admins policy , and past admins policy, with the Saudi Royal family.

Personally, I see Arabia spreading Mohamed ism more than Iran, and therefor spreading more terror than Iran.

 

[newwurldmn]

Problem is you are conflating US interests with Trump's personal business interests. I see that as dishonest, and not more consistent with Trump's admins policy , and past admins policy, with the Saudi Royal family.

Personally, I see Arabia spreading Mohamed ism more than Iran, and therefor spreading more terror than Iran.

Maybe the only countries he does business with in the Middle East are in concert with US interests. But then what's the point of having a ban to protect America when you don't ban the countries where people have come and ACTUALLY killed thousands of Americans?

Perhaps the whole point is to appeal to his racist base.