Single Status Update
Woke up to a beautiful headline today.
"Donald Trump 'to sign orders restricting refugee access and immigration from Muslim countries'"
From another article on the legality of it, since oh so many morons kept saying MUH HUMUN RIGHTS and DIS IS RECIST AND ILEGEL!Quote
Candidate Trump was never particularly specific on the policy details of how the Muslim ban would work. But with President-elect Trump set to take office in January, and his pledge to implement the ban on day one now about to be put to the test, the question looms: Will he be able to do it, and if so, how?
I put that to several experts on US immigration law. Their answer was unanimous: Trump would be able to implement his ban. In fact, he would be able to do it easily. Congress has already granted wide power to the president to alter immigration rules, so he will not need congressional approval. If the ban is designed properly, it is virtually guaranteed to survive court challenges from liberal advocacy groups determined to derail it.
The president has nearly unchecked authority to ban people from entering the country
In 1952, Congress passed something called the Immigration and Nationality Act. It has been amended dozens of times subsequently, and currently exists as a 600-page behemoth with lots of very specific rules.
There is one section, 212(f), that is particularly relevant to the Muslim ban. It sets out criteria for “excludable aliens” — which noncitizens the president can choose, using executive powers, to prevent from entering the United States. Its wording is exceptionally broad:
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.
Translated from legalese: The president can ban whoever he wants, however long he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
“All he has to do is say ‘I think Muslims are not in the interests of the United States,’” says Stephen Legomsky, a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis and the former chief counsel for US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Important part: “All he has to do is say ‘I think Muslims are not in the interests of the United States.’”
Makes perfect sense, because Immigrants are not American citizens and thus do not have the same rights as Americans. Get fucked, globalist pieces of shit. I love this man. #MAGA
- Show previous comments 10 more
@Folterknecht I'll do that if you read up on the Crusades, in which people were slaughtered indiscriminately based off of geographical location. To say that Islam is a "vicious religion" without admitting that ALL major religions have committed atrocities is hypocrisy.
@Xen VAST MAJORITY. That's in caps since you apparently only read what you wanted to hear from my first post. A vast majority implies much more than 50%. In case you don't believe me, here is an article written by TIME magazine less than two weeks after 9/11, decrying Islamophobia and attempting to set the record straight about Islam. This article dictates why the actions of groups such as ISIL violate the principles of Islam.
The "low standard" that is set appears to be your willingness to think critically, since no religion is without its wars, conflicts, and crimes. Why, then, are we singling out Islam? We've taken a religion that forbids commencing hostilities and spun it into a fear of "warmongering jihadists", all due to the actions of a few extremists. I'm not denying that there are suicide bombers, but to say that they represent the other 99.99% of Islam is a lie.
@CraBeatOff Should we have a politics subforum (something like the Venting Room) so these non-tank related discussions can be held elsewhere? I've a feeling this is just the first of many conversations of this nature.
The crucade argument ... ... just look at what happend before the crucades: centuries of agressive muslim incursion into christian teritories (Spain, East Roman Empire, France, Balkan). You can stick your crusade argument where the sun doesn't shine. In opposite to christians who mostly gave up on the idea conversain by force centuries ago, the muslims are still at it with no sign of coming to their senses. While the current crop of bomb layers is a minority a big part of the muslim population world wide finds that acceptable (dying for Allah or in his cause) or at least tollerate it. Have you forgotten the partying in the streets of muslim countries after 9/11 - and no that wasn't governemnt sanctioned.
And where these goat fuckers are in power - a goal they are aiming for world wide for the most part - atheists, christians, jews, gays, woman don't fare well that's for sure.
Ok, the vast majority, much more than 50%. 70%? 80%? 90%? Is that the standard for "this group is a okay?" Because I draw the line depending on the average.
Muslims are much harder to integrate.
Muslims are more likely to hold backwards views.
Muslims are more likely to become radicalised. The likelihood of this tends to increase rather than decrease with 2nd and 3rd generations of immigrants.
<many more things here>
Why do you think we should put up with that? What's the benefit? We do not depend on them, we don't need them. We have a nearly unlimited pool of immigrants to choose from while our capacities are limited. We could and should choose the best, most willing, and most compatible.
- Show next comments 3 more