I already don't have that privilege and never have. Anything else in that scare tactic bag? Who am I oppressing and who do I want to oppress. What law or rule gives he freedom to oppress. What is your hang up with oppression? Once you get off the college campus I doubt you will find very much of it actually going on. It doesn't really bother me, I am used to it. I mean it's not like any of my rights are being violated. There are still places in this country where I can legally buy a gun. So it's no big deal.
Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump's travel ban
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
Of course that is the point. Nobody is arguing that. The point of argument is that is not a valid reason to block.
Again, Mohamed ism is not a race, but an allegiance cloaked as "faith", as if faith had to be respected as a universal diplomatic visa.
It, and it's supporters are grossly dishonest.
Dishonesty remains an aspect of the granting of visas.
The debate is currently focused around the issue of National Security. But if and when that policy is not put forth in an honest way, it has no power to check the dishonesty of Mohamed and his train of political followers.
You can stomp your feet all you like. The fact remains that the law does exist and has been enforced by past presidents. The supreme court will uphold the order and that will be that. Sadly the lower courts, filled with fascist leftists, are doing their best to delay the order. They and you are willing to put lives at risk just because Trump is a big meany and hurt your feelings while he was campaigning
The Trumpkins are the ones stumping their feet and whining because their Muslim ban to countries that don't do business with Trump keeps getting shot down by the federal judiciary.The fact remains that the law passed by Congress in 1964 says visas cannot be denied due to race, nationality or place of birth and that is the current law of the land.
not necessarily. it may be the law with respect to legislation and quotas and preferences but it would not necessarily control executive orders enacted by the president for security reasons.
We have a separation of powers. We have a constitution. Congress' laws and actions are checked as well as the courts.
So there are myraid reasons that law would have nothing to do with situation upon review by the Sup ct.
1. It can be argued that law dealt with quotas and preferences not security.
2. It is the case the executive has powers with respect to the security of the country
3. If Congress intended that law to usurp the President's authority that law could be unconstitutional (at least in part.)
4. This law is not deny Visa because they were born there or there race. it was passed because there is currently a risk of terrorism and people arriving from those countries. I don't think it made any reference to birth .
We have a separation of powers. We have a constitution. Congress' laws and actions are checked as well as the courts.
So there are myraid reasons that law would have nothing to do with situation upon review by the Sup ct.
1. It can be argued that law dealt with quotas and preferences not security.
2. It is the case the executive has powers with respect to the security of the country
3. If Congress intended that law to usurp the President's authority that law could be unconstitutional (at least in part.)
4. This law is not deny Visa because they were born there or there race. it was passed because there is currently a risk of terrorism and people arriving from those countries. I don't think it made any reference to birth .
Last edited:
At some point, this kind of misrepresentation and mischaracterization becomes criminal.
Do you plan to REPEAT the same canards till they become true?
Conflation. Look it up. No, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation
" In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2]"
There's the 1964 law, and there's a meaning you are forcing upon it by conflating place, nationality, and race with ALLEGIENCE.
There are Trump's international business interests, and also dishonest, inconsistent, longstanding admin policy. Different things.
1.The language of the law is clear
3.It might be.But the law has been in place since 1964 and until The SC rules that is the case the 1964 law is the law of the land
2 and 4.If it was really about security than Saudi Arabia would be #1 on the ban list since the people who killed 3,000 Americans were from Saudi Arabia
If you do comedy, like Jimmy Kimmel, it's expected you don't claim it's true. So we laugh at all the untrue images he shows, and things he says.
There's a gray line between a joke and a criminal lie.
So unless you are a comedian, you are fast approaching criminality.
It's always an insult, as you always play upon ignorance.