Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional

[Eloy]

Starting wars and invading countries is against international law regardless of what American politicians think.

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

 

[Eloy]

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

Yes, it was a stupid war. I think most people agree on that. Where you go off the rails is when you try to put it 100% on Bush. Dems voted to authorize, fund, and continue that fiasco.

But lets talk about a democrat war, shall we? Lets talk about the 58,000 americans who died in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

I did not mention Bush in my previous post but his war against Iraq was supported by many Democrat politicians.

 

[Redfish]

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

 

[Redfish]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

Yes, it was a stupid war. I think most people agree on that. Where you go off the rails is when you try to put it 100% on Bush. Dems voted to authorize, fund, and continue that fiasco.

But lets talk about a democrat war, shall we? Lets talk about the 58,000 americans who died in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

I did not mention Bush in my previous post but his war against Iraq was supported by many Democrat politicians.

So if, as you say, it was "illegal" those democrats also violated "international law". So what happens now?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

Yes, it was a stupid war. I think most people agree on that. Where you go off the rails is when you try to put it 100% on Bush. Dems voted to authorize, fund, and continue that fiasco.

But lets talk about a democrat war, shall we? Lets talk about the 58,000 americans who died in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

I did not mention Bush in my previous post but his war against Iraq was supported by many Democrat politicians.

and by everyone who voted for Hillary

 

[Eloy]

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

 

[Eloy]

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

Yes, it was a stupid war. I think most people agree on that. Where you go off the rails is when you try to put it 100% on Bush. Dems voted to authorize, fund, and continue that fiasco.

But lets talk about a democrat war, shall we? Lets talk about the 58,000 americans who died in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

I did not mention Bush in my previous post but his war against Iraq was supported by many Democrat politicians.

So if, as you say, it was "illegal" those democrats also violated "international law". So what happens now?

The USA places itself above international by vetoing any charge against them in the Security Council.

 

[LeftofLeft]

...Says Mike Pence.

We all agree. Muslim bans are offensive. "Muslim Ban" means if you are Muslim, regardless, you are banned. That is a radical departure and differentiation from a temporary ban on countries are banned. Christians from Syria are temporarily banned from entering the US due to the state of the country's strife and violence. Can you stand with Christians from Syria?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

The UN also makes deals with countries to undermine US.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"international law" ? Could you please tell us where we can find a book of "international law"? Then tell us what court has international jurisdiction to enforce "international law".

With every new post, you confirm your ignorance.

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

LMAO!!!! I'm guilty of using words to justify just how uneducated you are on the subject? Did you even bother to take the time to look up the term - "cease fire agreement", or did you just respond with your little tantrum here? For someone who claims to boast so much about their knowledge of "international law" and the United Nations, i find your reply rather humorous.

 

[Unkotare]

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

Yes, it was a stupid war. I think most people agree on that. Where you go off the rails is when you try to put it 100% on Bush. Dems voted to authorize, fund, and continue that fiasco.

But lets talk about a democrat war, shall we? Lets talk about the 58,000 americans who died in Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam war.

I did not mention Bush in my previous post but his war against Iraq was supported by many Democrat politicians.

So if, as you say, it was "illegal" those democrats also violated "international law". So what happens now?

The USA places itself above international by vetoing any charge against them in the Security Council.

As we should.

 

[Unkotare]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Damn, boy. wake up. The UN is not a body of law, it is not a court, it has no legal enforcement ability. Legal vs illegal via the UN is ridiculous.

Your ignorance is quite amazing. Did you finish grade school?

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

How'd that work out for Rwanda?

 

[Eloy]

...Says Mike Pence.

We all agree. Muslim bans are offensive. "Muslim Ban" means if you are Muslim, regardless, you are banned. That is a radical departure and differentiation from a temporary ban on countries are banned. Christians from Syria are temporarily banned from entering the US due to the state of the country's strife and violence. Can you stand with Christians from Syria?

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

 

[Eloy]

Please quit accusing me of ignorance. Insulting is easy to do. For example, I could accuse you of being ignorant of international law but I will not.
International law is found in many international treaties.
The UN Security Council clarifies what law applies in given circumstances. When George W Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, he did so without the consent of the Security Council. This is illegal. The International Court in The Hague deals with violations but the USA is too big that it gets away with starting wars.

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

LMAO!!!! I'm guilty of using words to justify just how uneducated you are on the subject? Did you even bother to take the time to look up the term - "cease fire agreement", or did you just respond with your little tantrum here? For someone who claims to boast so much about their knowledge of "international law" and the United Nations, i find your reply rather humorous.

Scofflaws often laugh at the law.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

There was also no cases of German or Japanese immigrants coming from an recognized nation we were at war with (labeled as a part of the axis of evil), that were allowed to enter the United States during World War II. Such facts and links that prove otherwise I would so love to see if you can provide. However, I'm sure (in likewise fashion) we would find the usual liberals, who claim to "know" the United States Constitution, try and conclude the argument that such acts were deemed unconstitutional as it unfairly focus on a particular group of people and prohibits a perceived entitled "requirement" to allow them equal entry. There is no clause or amendment regarding immigration, that even states that it's the duty of the United States to allow equal opportunity to all immigrants ... especially ... those hostile threats and regions that are proven to be aggressive against the United States and its citizens. Let's see if these liberals can actually provide such a clearly written article or clause under our Constitution.

Although the United States is planning to attack and pulverize Iran on behalf of the Israelis, it has not yet done so. This means that there are no grounds for discriminating against Iranian Muslims wanting to visit the USA.

How about we stuck to one subject such as your topic of World War II and my points regarding the subject of "immigration" during that war, instead of changing topics when you can't handle the discussion.

 

[Eloy]

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

There was also no cases of German or Japanese immigrants coming from an recognized nation we were at war with (labeled as a part of the axis of evil), that were allowed to enter the United States during World War II. Such facts and links that prove otherwise I would so love to see if you can provide. However, I'm sure (in likewise fashion) we would find the usual liberals, who claim to "know" the United States Constitution, try and conclude the argument that such acts were deemed unconstitutional as it unfairly focus on a particular group of people and prohibits a perceived entitled "requirement" to allow them equal entry. There is no clause or amendment regarding immigration, that even states that it's the duty of the United States to allow equal opportunity to all immigrants ... especially ... those hostile threats and regions that are proven to be aggressive against the United States and its citizens. Let's see if these liberals can actually provide such a clearly written article or clause under our Constitution.

Although the United States is planning to attack and pulverize Iran on behalf of the Israelis, it has not yet done so. This means that there are no grounds for discriminating against Iranian Muslims wanting to visit the USA.

How about we stuck to one subject such as your topic of World War II and my points regarding immigration during that war, instead of changing topics when you can't handle the discussion.

Normally belligerent states in a war do not have free movement of people.

 

[LeftofLeft]

...Says Mike Pence.

We all agree. Muslim bans are offensive. "Muslim Ban" means if you are Muslim, regardless, you are banned. That is a radical departure and differentiation from a temporary ban on countries are banned. Christians from Syria are temporarily banned from entering the US due to the state of the country's strife and violence. Can you stand with Christians from Syria?

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

This was not a ban on Muslims.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...Says Mike Pence.

No words in the ban, as far as I have read, mentions Muslims.

The ban exempts people who have a minority religion (Christians) and implies that the majority religion (Muslims) are not exempt.

The ban does no such thing or perhaps you can cite for us where it says that or does that?

 

[federalist50]

If it was up to me I wouldn't let anyone in from countries that hate us. And all these Muslim countries hate us. No need to take any chances.

The 1952 McCarren-Walter Immigration Act states clearly that the President can impose a travel or entry ban for any aliens and for as long as he deems necessary! Both President Carter & Obama imposed temporary travel bans. So, the questions is, is it constitutional for democratic President's to impose travel bans under this act and un-constitutional for a republic President to do the same?

 

[Eloy]

...Says Mike Pence.

No words in the ban, as far as I have read, mentions Muslims.

The ban exempts people who have a minority religion (Christians) and implies that the majority religion (Muslims) are not exempt.

The ban does no such thing or perhaps you can cite for us where it says that or does that?

You can read it in the executive order.