If there's a Muslim ban...
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
Sticking up for muslims. What a joke. When was the last time a good muslim turned in a radical muslim. When there is a terrorist attack even bill mahler says Democrats quit saying those poor muslims. They should triple check any muslim coming into america. Look at France.That place is being ruined by muslims.
Calling a muslim a christian is punished by beheading. No chance of them pretending to be an infidel
You do know that there isn't anyone in this thread taking up for Muslims, right?
I'm not getting dragged into one of your greed-style, mired in minutiae arguments. The joke's interference is that the pending travel ban is really a ban on Muslims.
I've used this analogy before, but it didn't seem to permeate certain thick skulls.
Assume a nightclub in DC restricts access to people from certain zip codes. The zip codes they restrict each have an overwhelming majority of blacks. The zip codes they allow each have an extremely low percentage of blacks.
So, even though those blacks who live in the allowed zip codes are granted access, it is clear that they are only allowed access so that the club can avoid a "black ban" and just claim it is based on zip code instead. In order for them to not have to accept the reality of a "black ban," they have to bite the bullet on a few in order to restrict the far larger number.
The Supreme Court, even with their biased political leanings, will be forced to acknowledge the same.
Since when do citizens of foreign countries have USA constitutional rights?
What Trump should do is just sign an executive order temporarily banning all immigration, only allowing entry to anyone who can pass "extreme vetting".
The thing is, "zip code test" for non-citizens isn't illegal. It's the basis for all immigration law. That's the fallacy the courts are making up in their recent rulings. The courts are "inserting" a religious basis into the executive order that does not exist.
WTF is wrong with you people? Instead of defending these savages, provide a logical argument as to why we should open our doors and invite them into our homes. Think about this a bit. If the leaders of France, and a small percentage of Frenchmen were savagely killing Americans, bragging about it, showing videos of cutting off the heads of Americans and Brits, wouldn't it make sense to not let those bastards enter our country? That old saying, one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch, sure as hell doesn't apply here.
Use your brains. Keep the bastards out.
Use your brains. Keep the bastards out.
It does exist. That is why I previously claimed cheeto's words on Muslims would come back to haunt him. The court is taking that into consideration as it should.
In order to "ban Muslims," cheeto had to mask his true intent. Based on his prior words, the courts are able to identify what his intent is.
So The courts have precedence using words from a candidate to establish legal rulings?
Is that a serious question?
In a hearing, a judge will ask an attorney for proof of their claim. Much of that proof can be traced back to cheeto's own words. He recently claimed that he wanted a "Muslim ban" and that "Islam hates us." Then, the very day he signed the ban/order, he stated that he wanted to give priority to Christian refugees.
That clearly shows giving preference to one religion over others. You may want to read the 1st Amendment if you don't see an issue with that.
It simply has to be shown that the order/ban was based on discrimination of a religion. It doesn't have to show that it hurts every member of a religion. It clearly fits that.
I find the rational of the judge in Virginia (Leonie Brinkema) and the SCOTUS precedent she used to be compelling. Look it up, it's interesting reading.
