CNN Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban
I never did understand why folks considered this issue a "religious issue". I mean only a small percentage of Muslims live in the countries that are named. And Lord knows security is pretty weak in the countries named and/or folks there do not wish America well. Thoughts?
Though it is odd that Russia doesn't make the list given their recent behaviors in America. Oh yeah, I forgot that Putin is black mailing Trump. :-)
I never did understand why folks considered this issue a "religious issue". I mean only a small percentage of Muslims live in the countries that are named. And Lord knows security is pretty weak in the countries named and/or folks there do not wish America well. Thoughts?
Though it is odd that Russia doesn't make the list given their recent behaviors in America. Oh yeah, I forgot that Putin is black mailing Trump. :-)
Gee, I wonder who could have given folks the idea that this was a religious issue?
ReplyDeleteWP: Republicans insist this isn’t a ‘Muslim ban.’ Trump and Giuliani aren’t helping their cause at all.
The court today ruled that if you can find a way to slather enough lipstick on it, a pig ceases to be a pig. In effect they said, if you play us just right, we are willing to be your fools.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
VOX How Trump’s travel ban became normal. The ban has been tamed. So has the resistance to it"
ReplyDeleteIf you're worried about possible terrorists, and you don't ban people from Saudi Arabia, it's not about terrorists at all.
ReplyDeleteMoose
From Sean's source. Apparently bad intent can also yield an okay policy...
ReplyDelete"Fox News host Jeannine Pirro asked Giuliani, “How did the president decide the seven countries?”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani said. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"
Giuliani continued: “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
I am sure that's why the ban was applied to countries where none of the 9-11 hijackers were from.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I am thinking that folks are watching tourists from Saudi Arabia pretty closely now days. As well as the Saudi's being aligned with America in trying to crush their own extremist insurgent population.
ReplyDeleteThe movie "The Kingdom" was pretty interesting.
Just a note: The Hill: Why Chad was Removed
ReplyDelete"I am thinking that folks are watching tourists from Saudi Arabia pretty closely now days."
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised you don't get it, but seriously, ACTUAL TERRORISTS from Saudi Arabia infiltrated our country and perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Again...ACTUAL TERRORISTS!
Giuliani again: "It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Watching them closely means we're not banning them. So the basis for the ban is not what they're saying it is.
Justice Sotomayor correctly ascertained the basis for the ban in her opinion.
Moose
Moose,
ReplyDeleteThat was almost 17 years ago, I hope we do not set up are security based on decades old risk assessments.
And what did Justice Sotomayor think the purpose was? And remember that ban has relatively few Muslims and almost the same number of non-Muslims. (ie Venezuela and N Korea)
Venezuela and North Korea are the lipstick, to borrow Hiram's comparison.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sotomayor-and-ginsburg-issue-scathing-dissent-of-scotus-travel-ban-decision/ar-AAzctPw?fdhead=gizmodemo&ocid=ansmsnnews11
ReplyDeleteMoose
The only terrorists currently terrorizing citizens in the U.S. are white men with guns, but we can't address that.
ReplyDeleteMoose
Moose's Link
ReplyDeleteMoose,
ReplyDeleteDon't be so prejudiced... :-)
Actually the mass shooters vary greatly in age and skin color.
Yesterday's decision will go down as our generations' Plessy v. Ferguson.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
For those like me who do not know much...
ReplyDeletePlessy vs Ferguson
And I guess I disagree.
Foreigners from countries that are in essence at war with us or do not have adequate security apparatuses to ensure the immigrant is who they say they are...
Is in no way the same as a ruling that impacts the current citizens of America.
One is a foreign policy issue and the other is a domestic policy issue.
Or are we back to Liberals believing that foreigners have a same US Legal rights as US Citizens? Even if they are half the world away.
And if Liberals do believe people living in Iran, Syria, Somalia, etc have those rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Why are Liberals so resistant to the US trying to stabilize foreign countries?
ReplyDeleteWhy are Liberals so resistant to the US trying to stabilize foreign countries?
ReplyDeleteThat's kind of out of left field. Basically, because it conflicts with another interest of ours, our support for Israel. That's one element of the problem, but not the only one. I think another issue is that we stand for destabilizing the middle east by our excessive reliance on middle eastern oil, and the political consequences that ensue from that.
Both liberals and conservatives need to understand a basic fact of human nature. Dropping bombs on people doesn't make them like you. Quite the contrary, actually.
--Hiram
I am not sure about that... I am thinking Iraq is getting better every day.
ReplyDeleteAnd the goal is not to make them like us. It is to support them in attaining "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". :-)
As for Middle East instability, I think that was going on LONG BEFORE the Western powers got involved and oil was discovered.
The Weekly Standard doesn't share your optimism.
ReplyDeleteWe Can't Ignore Iraq
Maybe we will need to go back to supporting violent Dictators in those countries if they truly are incapable of maintaining a balanced self ruling democracy?
ReplyDeleteHowever I think it was worth giving them the opportunity to try. :-)
Maybe they all deserve and need the IRAN, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabian, etc model...