Trump's published Immigration policies MEGATHREAD

[Faizal 27]

[abum 324]

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

A law or EO that is designed to discriminate against members of a religion in whole or in part is considered discriminatory under the law. You don't need to discriminate against all Muslims in order to be discriminatory. You don't need to discriminate against only Muslims to be discriminatory. The legal question here, IMHO, isn't whether or not it discriminates against Muslims, but whether that discrimination is permitted via an EO. Not all discrimination - even against protected classes - is illegal.

 

For instance, take what recently happened with the voting laws in South Carolina. I understand state voting laws are not immigration laws....this is just demonstrating a point.

For a brief background of the issue, the SC legislature created a law requiring certain Voter ID requirements. The law was challenged on the basis that is was discriminatory against a protected class based on the color of their skin. The law did not mention black people. it did not impact all black people. It did impact non-black people. However, it was shown that:

1) The law disproportionately impacted a protected class.

2) The legislature enacted the law knowing that it disproportionately impacted the protected class.

The federal appeals court that heard the case determined that the law was discriminatory based on the above, and targeted black people despite not only affecting black people. As a result, it was ruled unconstitutional.

 

Okay, back to the immigration issue. Regardless of what it's called - "Muslim Ban" / "Travel ban" / whatever - does the EO disproportionately affect Muslims? If so, were these class of people targeted? Personally, I think the first question is pretty clear - the countries with the most severe restrictions are overwhelmingly Muslim-majority nations. As for the second question, determining intent is always tricky. Was the basis for choosing those countries a coincidence or were they targeted based on their religious makeup? Were the rules applied equally to all nations or are they more strict to Muslim-majority nations? Can the claims by the current president on the campaign trail and statements made via Twitter be considered in determining intent? I'm not claiming to have an answer by any means..just trying to explain the questions that have been or will likely be presented to the court.

 

The EO lists certain reasons for why they chose each country, but doesn't provide enough information in itself to validate those claims. For instance, it says certain countries don't share enough information with the US, or don't provide sufficient identity proofing. "Insufficient" is very broad...were the rules applied equally or did they set rules that discriminated against certain nations based on their makeup? Specifics like that are not something the government wants to disclose, and their claim (as I understand it) thus far has been that they are not discriminating based on religion and that the court does not have jurisdiction to review the requirements.

 

FYI - I'm not looking to debate this. I just wanted to try to provided some background into the current state of things and the questions/arguments being presented by council.

 

To be fair, both the president and his press secretary called it that. For example, Trump tweeted "That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN..." (capitalization is not from me).

The current EO is indefinite.

 

SCOTUS has not ruled on the ban. All they did is determine that the TRO is to be removed while the lower courts hear the merits of the actual case. It's more of a procedural move than a ruling on the legality of the ban.

The end result is the same for now....until a lower court determined otherwise.

Thanks for the explanation and insight @geowrian . 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

2 hours ago, Lee & Lei said:

It isn't deliberately discriminatory against Muslims. If that were what Trump wanted, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,  Indonesia, and UAE would also be on that list.

 

If you read the details of the document, it specifies for each country why that country is banned. For the majority, they either fail to adequately share security intelligence, do not keep adequate identity records about their citizens, or they are a significant source of terrorist threats or have a significant terrorist presence within them. 

Kind of convient that all the countries that meet this criteria match up with Trump's champagne rehtoric. 

 

But regardless of intent.. the outcomes hurt families of our fellow citizens. So as a country we need to stand up and stop these pejudices against Muslims ( and Hispanic) countries. 

 

 

[RO_AH 1,659]

3 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

The key fact.. "Muslim majority countries".. 

Muslims are the ones being disprortiatly affected by this.  Rationalizing discrimination is not cool. 

Nice try but if the goal was to ban Muslims wouldn't you go after the country with the largest Muslim population? I don't see Indonesia on that list. All of these news outlets that want to constantly say "Muslim majority" countries have never used the term Christian majority country to describe the United States, so it's rather obvious they do it to push an agenda.

[Dianalorena 1,153]

The pro-Trump/against Trump debate is so polarizing that we are not able to even listen to the other anymore. 

As much as I dislike the man, not everything the media reports is true, just as and not everything is fake news. 

The wording has been a touchy subject since they first attempted it, the white house said it wasn't a ban at all, and then Trump himself tweeted that it was, indeed, a travel ban, which is understandably a bit confusing to some people. I don't personally know his motivations behind it, and I do feel that a lot has to do with the pressure on the administration to ''keep the U.S safe'' whether I agree with how they chose to do it or not. 

 

What we do know is that family-based VISAS are not going to be affected, at least not now/with the current draft. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Dianalorena

[abum 324]

Just now, RO_AH said:

Nice try but if the goal was to ban Muslims wouldn't you go after the country with the largest Muslim population? I don't see Indonesia on that list. All of these news outlets that want to constantly say "Muslim majority" countries have never used the term Christian majority country to describe the United States, so it's rather obvious they do it to push an agenda.

have a read of what @geowrian had said there @RO_AH . He has explained the issue very succinctly so that you would understand why and how it came about to be where we are right now 

[TBoneTX 45,001]

Eleven posts of a noncontributory, attacking, or overly argumentative nature have been removed, along with posts quoting.  Maintain respectful posting behavior, or suspensions will be next.

 

Thread is merged with pinned thread, "Trump's Published Immigration Policies."

 

VJ Moderation

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

I'm a little perplexed as to when North Korea became a Muslim majority country.  

[Lazybones18 261]

8 minutes ago, N-o-l-a said:

I'm a little perplexed as to when North Korea became a Muslim majority country.  

to justify that ban is not racist - which has worked

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Just now, Lazybones18 said:

to justify that ban is not racist - which has worked

 

Are you trying to suggest that Iranians would otherwise be the same race as let's say Libyans?

[Lazybones18 261]

Just now, N-o-l-a said:

 

Are you trying to suggest that Iranians would otherwise be the same race as let's say Libyans?

I dont understand your question

 

both Libyans and Iranians are majority muslim population ?

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

16 minutes ago, Lazybones18 said:

I dont understand your question

 

both Libyans and Iranians are majority muslim population ?

 

Is Islam a race?

 

No?  Then, the policy is not intrinsically racist on that ground.

[abum 324]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

A law or EO that is designed to discriminate against members of a religion in whole or in part is considered discriminatory under the law. You don't need to discriminate against all Muslims in order to be discriminatory. You don't need to discriminate against only Muslims to be discriminatory. The legal question here, IMHO, isn't whether or not it discriminates against Muslims, but whether that discrimination is permitted via an EO. Not all discrimination - even against protected classes - is illegal.

 

For instance, take what recently happened with the voting laws in South Carolina. I understand state voting laws are not immigration laws....this is just demonstrating a point.

For a brief background of the issue, the SC legislature created a law requiring certain Voter ID requirements. The law was challenged on the basis that is was discriminatory against a protected class based on the color of their skin. The law did not mention black people. it did not impact all black people. It did impact non-black people. However, it was shown that:

1) The law disproportionately impacted a protected class.

2) The legislature enacted the law knowing that it disproportionately impacted the protected class.

The federal appeals court that heard the case determined that the law was discriminatory based on the above, and targeted black people despite not only affecting black people. As a result, it was ruled unconstitutional.

 

Okay, back to the immigration issue. Regardless of what it's called - "Muslim Ban" / "Travel ban" / whatever - does the EO disproportionately affect Muslims? If so, were these class of people targeted? Personally, I think the first question is pretty clear - the countries with the most severe restrictions are overwhelmingly Muslim-majority nations. As for the second question, determining intent is always tricky. Was the basis for choosing those countries a coincidence or were they targeted based on their religious makeup? Were the rules applied equally to all nations or are they more strict to Muslim-majority nations? Can the claims by the current president on the campaign trail and statements made via Twitter be considered in determining intent? I'm not claiming to have an answer by any means..just trying to explain the questions that have been or will likely be presented to the court.

 

The EO lists certain reasons for why they chose each country, but doesn't provide enough information in itself to validate those claims. For instance, it says certain countries don't share enough information with the US, or don't provide sufficient identity proofing. "Insufficient" is very broad...were the rules applied equally or did they set rules that discriminated against certain nations based on their makeup? Specifics like that are not something the government wants to disclose, and their claim (as I understand it) thus far has been that they are not discriminating based on religion and that the court does not have jurisdiction to review the requirements.

 

FYI - I'm not looking to debate this. I just wanted to try to provided some background into the current state of things and the questions/arguments being presented by council.

 

To be fair, both the president and his press secretary called it that. For example, Trump tweeted "That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN..." (capitalization is not from me).

The current EO is indefinite.

 

SCOTUS has not ruled on the ban. All they did is determine that the TRO is to be removed while the lower courts hear the merits of the actual case. It's more of a procedural move than a ruling on the legality of the ban.

The end result is the same for now....until a lower court determines otherwise.

i would suggest @N-o-l-a to read this post.

[RO_AH 1,659]

1 hour ago, abumiqdad said:

have a read of what @geowrian had said there @RO_AH . He has explained the issue very succinctly so that you would understand why and how it came about to be where we are right now 

Respond to what I said.

 

1 hour ago, RO_AH said:

Nice try but if the goal was to ban Muslims wouldn't you go after the country with the largest Muslim population? I don't see Indonesia on that list. All of these news outlets that want to constantly say "Muslim majority" countries have never used the term Christian majority country to describe the United States, so it's rather obvious they do it to push an agenda.

 

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

1 minute ago, abumiqdad said:

i would suggest @N-o-l-a to read this post.

 

I did read it.  You obviously don't know the difference between "discriminatory" and "racist".