• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

BobStackFan4Life said:
'You have NO moral standing’ Galloway blasts liberal Obama fans for criticising Trump ban
“Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama until LAST WEEK murdered a million Muslims. Trump imposed a travel ban. And HE is the No1 villain?”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/760301/George-Galloway-Barack-Obama-Donald-Trump
Click to expand...

"Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party, having been found guilty by the party's national constitutional committee of four of the five charges of bringing the party into disrepute"
 
ONW said:
"Galloway was expelled from the L"
Click to expand...

This is what I saw on the Tapatalk preview and I thought this was a completely different thread with some good news. Should have figured it wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
MysteryMen said:
1. Allowing asylum for religious persecution and denying visas based on a particular religion are completely unconnected things. Normally, anyone who has suffered persecution based on their religion, regardless of which religion it is, is eligible for asylum. The constitutional issue with the executive order is that it disfavors Muslims in relation to other religions. Saying that the executive can't do that would in no way disturb existing asylum law, because existing asylum law doesn't distinguish between religions in regard to persecuted people.

2. Looks like I might be wrong about Trump not having the authority to reduce the number. Still it would be a massive break with almost 40 years of practice.

3. You're jumbling a bunch of separate legal concepts. The injury doesn't become moot just because of possible preemption. Preemption is a merits argument. The states have standing to challenge the law, they might lose, but they have standing to have it adjudicated (at least under the Fifth Circuit test)
Click to expand...

Regardless of what may or may not been the intent, there is nothing within the language of the EO that favors one religion over the other. It simply prioritizes based on religious persecution and being a minority religion in one's country. What it doesn't do is (1) instruct all claims of religious persecution to be ignored or dismissed, (2) instruct claims of religious persecution to be prioritized for only the countries in question (it's an across-the-board prioritization), or (3) even differentiate between religious sectarian violence as a basis for religious persecution (so theoretically, Sunni-Shia persecution could still be prioritized).

Your point on #3 is well stated. Arizona had standing and injury and ultimately lost their case based on preemption.
 
PhDeac said:
This is what I saw on the Tapatalk preview and I thought this was a completely different thread with some good news. Should have figured it wasn't.
Click to expand...

:bowrofl:
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Regardless of what may or may not been the intent, there is nothing within the language of the EO that favors one religion over the other. It simply prioritizes based on religious persecution and being a minority religion in one's country. What it doesn't do is (1) instruct all claims of religious persecution to be ignored or dismissed, (2) instruct claims of religious persecution to be prioritized for only the countries in question (it's an across-the-board prioritization), or (3) even differentiate between religious sectarian violence as a basis for religious persecution (so theoretically, Sunni-Shia persecution could still be prioritized).

Your point on #3 is well stated. Arizona had standing and injury and ultimately lost their case based on preemption.
Click to expand...

Right, but intent matters in constitutional analysis. In fact, it's the only thing that matters.

An executive order uses neutral language can still be unconstitutional if it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against certain religions. That's one of the arguments that the challengers are making here, and if successful, it wouldn't affect existing religious asylum laws that weren't enacted with discriminatory intent.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
No one is looking to stop Nobel-level immigrants from coming here. But for every one of these you've got around a million who didn't even graduate high school.
Click to expand...

Huh? If they're from one of the seven countries, Trump is looking to stop them
 
It's nice to have a president that keeps the people up to date on the latest happenings.
 
MysteryMen said:
Right, but intent matters in constitutional analysis. In fact, it's the only thing that matters.

An executive order uses neutral language can still be unconstitutional if it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against certain religions. That's one of the arguments that the challengers are making here, and if successful, it wouldn't affect existing religious asylum laws that weren't enacted with discriminatory intent.
Click to expand...

But the problem is people are inferring an intent out of neutral language. The EO didn't even have time to be applied in a way where the intent could be questioned. You can't just say Bannon operated a white supremacist website (which is a false) and Trump doesn't like illegal Mexicans or terrorists, ergo the intent must be to fuck over Muslims. I mean, the standing here is with the state being harmed, right? It's not like people are coming forward to say they were denied refugee status which was based on Sunni-Shia violence and the denial was based on the EO. Anything like that would be months down the road, or course, but it still has to play out. And I have to say that sectarian persecution claims are pretty commonly approved so the administration would have to issue guidance or clarification if those claims were going to be denied..Basically, they'd have to put it in writing that such claims are no longer valid OR that they would be de-prioritized in some way because Islam is the majority religion and the EO was not meant to consider sectarian differences in emphasizing religious persecution. Regardless, prioritizing such claims are well within the scope of his power. Furthermore, the EO has a rational basis, even if it's poorly applied.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
But the problem is people are inferring an intent out of neutral language. The EO didn't even have time to be applied in a way where the intent could be questioned. You can't just say Bannon operated a white supremacist website (which is a false) and Trump doesn't like illegal Mexicans or terrorists, ergo the intent must be to fuck over Muslims. I mean, the standing here is with the state being harmed, right? It's not like people are coming forward to say they were denied refugee status which was based on Sunni-Shia violence and the denial was based on the EO. Anything like that would be months down the road, or course, but it still has to play out. And I have to say that sectarian persecution claims are pretty commonly approved so the administration would have to issue guidance or clarification if those claims were going to be denied..Basically, they'd have to put it in writing that such claims are no longer valid OR that they would be de-prioritized in some way because Islam is the majority religion and the EO was not meant to consider sectarian differences in emphasizing religious persecution. Regardless, prioritizing such claims are well within the scope of his power. Furthermore, the EO has a rational basis, even if it's poorly applied.
Click to expand...

No, they're inferring intent from the fact that Trump made it clear on the campaign trail that he wanted to ban Muslims from coming to the country and then enacted a order that bans people from seven Muslim countries.

This is about as clear as you're going to get for showing intent to discriminate in a facially neutral act these days.
 
MysteryMen said:
No, they're inferring intent from the fact that Trump made it clear on the campaign trail that he wanted to ban Muslims from coming to the country and then enacted a order that bans people from seven Muslim countries.

This is about as clear as you're going to get for showing intent to discriminate in a facially neutral act these days.
Click to expand...

Yet oddly enough the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries as well as Muslims living in non-Muslim countries were unaffected. Helluva Muslim ban that was.

Again, the countries listed all have a rational basis for being listed, and he could have added a few more for good measure. That he didn't do a broad brush list pretty much negates whatever malevolent intent is inferred through the EO.
 
Only 10% of Muslims were impacted but yeah, it was a "Muslim Ban". :rolleyes: Anything to slam Trump, no matter if they're being honest.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Yet oddly enough the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries as well as Muslims living in non-Muslim countries were unaffected. Helluva Muslim ban that was.

Again, the countries listed all have a rational basis for being listed, and he could have added a few more for good measure. That he didn't do a broad brush list pretty much negates whatever malevolent intent is inferred through the EO.
Click to expand...

Except for the Giuliani comment. It's not an all or nothing thing. If it can be shown that he intended to prevent muslims from coming to the US, which it seems clear he did, then he will be in trouble.

Also I think there's a good argument that he violated the statute because there's a provision that says you can't discriminate based on national origin
 
q7F7Tff.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top