Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban

[SYTFE]

I want a muslim ban, and a mexican ban, a syrian ban.

We need to take about 20 years off from bringing people here. Limit the immigrants to specialized fields and only the top of their professions. No ditch diggers, no ******* drive thru operators. And nobody that get's any government funding or assistance.

Yikes. You sure are afraid of a lot of people, aren't you? You probably sleep with a night lite too.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Judge is relying on the Presidents campaign statement that he would ban Muslims. The “judge” even stated that he would not have ruled against this order had it been written by a different President.

So now, according to this judge Trump has special rules just for him!

 

[MrShangles]

I want a muslim ban, and a mexican ban, a syrian ban.

We need to take about 20 years off from bringing people here. Limit the immigrants to specialized fields and only the top of their professions. No ditch diggers, no ******* drive thru operators. And nobody that get's any government funding or assistance.

Yikes. You sure are afraid of a lot of people, aren't you? You probably sleep with a night lite too.

No, some of us are tired of carrying the worlds dead weight, bring in the ones that can carry their families plus some of our poor Americans. America First remember.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

10USC311 is also, federal law; why do we have the expense of a War on crime, drugs, or terror?

 

[danielpalos]

The Judge is relying on the Presidents campaign statement that he would ban Muslims. The “judge” even stated that he would not have ruled against this order had it been written by a different President.

So now, according to this judge Trump has special rules just for him!

it is not special; it is merely pander and trying to make good on it.

 

[danielpalos]

I want a muslim ban, and a mexican ban, a syrian ban.

We need to take about 20 years off from bringing people here. Limit the immigrants to specialized fields and only the top of their professions. No ditch diggers, no ******* drive thru operators. And nobody that get's any government funding or assistance.

Yikes. You sure are afraid of a lot of people, aren't you? You probably sleep with a night lite too.

No, some of us are tired of carrying the worlds dead weight, bring in the ones that can carry their families plus some of our poor Americans. America First remember.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The right wing won't go for it, because it may require Capitalism and it may actually benefit Labor.

 

[radical right]

The Judge is relying on the Presidents campaign statement that he would ban Muslims. The “judge” even stated that he would not have ruled against this order had it been written by a different President.

So now, according to this judge Trump has special rules just for him!

The judge was actually using conservative legal principles like Antonin Scalia advocated. Conservative judges don't believe in a living constitution, one which changes with time, but instead one which is fixed and defined by the intent of its framers. As such conservative law says to look at the intent of the people that wrote the law to determine its meaning.

And it's clear that Trump intended to write a muslim ban, so a conservative would use Trumps intent, to determine the intent of the law. So unless Trump reverses his position on letting muslims into the country, he will face the same obstacle.

 

[radical right]

Intent is very important. When you look at the Jim Crowe laws the laws had a clear discriminatory intent. And no matter how they tried to disguise dilute their effect to try and make them legal, their intent clearly showed through.

 

[radical right]

The Framers’ Constitution

American constitutional law has long followed the path set by Chief Justice Marshall. As technological means of surveillance became more sophisticated, for example, the meaning of “search” in the Fourth Amendment came to include invasions of privacy that do not involve a physical trespass. The provision granting Congress the power to maintain the nation’s “land and naval Forces” was eventually seen as authorizing an air force. The guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” in the Fourteenth Amendment was understood in later decades as prohibiting discrimination against not only African Americans but women and gays and lesbians as well. “Commerce…among the several states” came to be seen differently as the nation’s economy became more complex and integrated across state lines. The concept of “liberty” was recognized as encompassing not only freedom from physical restraint, but also freedom from undue government intrusion into such fundamental personal decisions as whether to bear or beget a child or how to raise and educate one’s children.

political conservatives next came up with the theory of “originalism.” First popularized by Robert Bork, Edwin Meese, and Antonin Scalia in the 1980s, originalism presumes that courts should exercise judicial restraint unless the “original meaning” of the text clearly mandates a more activist approach.

Originalism asserts that those who crafted and ratified our Constitution intended the meaning and effect of their handiwork to be limited to the specific understandings of their time.

Originalism - Wikipedia

Today, originalism is popular among somepolitical conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Justice Clarence Thomas, 2017 Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Robert Bork.

Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

• The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

when conservative jurists began to take seats on the Supreme Court, that the debate really began in earnest. "Old originalism" focused primarily on "intent,"

The original form of originalism is sometimes called intentionalism, or original intentoriginalism, and looked for the subjective intent of a law's enactors.

 

[beagle9]

The Judge is relying on the Presidents campaign statement that he would ban Muslims. The “judge” even stated that he would not have ruled against this order had it been written by a different President.

So now, according to this judge Trump has special rules just for him!

The judge was actually using conservative legal principles like Antonin Scalia advocated. Conservative judges don't believe in a living constitution, one which changes with time, but instead one which is fixed and defined by the intent of its framers. As such conservative law says to look at the intent of the people that wrote the law to determine its meaning.

And it's clear that Trump intended to write a muslim ban, so a conservative would use Trumps intent, to determine the intent of the law. So unless Trump reverses his position on letting muslims into the country, he will face the same obstacle.

. You are a leftist, so of course you would say it was clear he wrote a Muslim ban, but you are wrong according to millions in this country. Now don't run and get the leftist MSM to inflate your numbers.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is that why he said that he wanted one in DEC 2015?

 

[beagle9]

Is that why he said that he wanted one in DEC 2015?

How many attacks and American deaths has been a result of not vetting these people properly ? How much American colateral damage should we withstand here because of the do good ignorant left ? A ban until we figure out WHAT the HELL is going on. Not a dam thing wrong with that.

 

[danielpalos]

The Framers’ Constitution

American constitutional law has long followed the path set by Chief Justice Marshall. As technological means of surveillance became more sophisticated, for example, the meaning of “search” in the Fourth Amendment came to include invasions of privacy that do not involve a physical trespass. The provision granting Congress the power to maintain the nation’s “land and naval Forces” was eventually seen as authorizing an air force. The guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” in the Fourteenth Amendment was understood in later decades as prohibiting discrimination against not only African Americans but women and gays and lesbians as well. “Commerce…among the several states” came to be seen differently as the nation’s economy became more complex and integrated across state lines. The concept of “liberty” was recognized as encompassing not only freedom from physical restraint, but also freedom from undue government intrusion into such fundamental personal decisions as whether to bear or beget a child or how to raise and educate one’s children.

political conservatives next came up with the theory of “originalism.” First popularized by Robert Bork, Edwin Meese, and Antonin Scalia in the 1980s, originalism presumes that courts should exercise judicial restraint unless the “original meaning” of the text clearly mandates a more activist approach.

Originalism asserts that those who crafted and ratified our Constitution intended the meaning and effect of their handiwork to be limited to the specific understandings of their time.

Originalism - Wikipedia

Today, originalism is popular among somepolitical conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Justice Clarence Thomas, 2017 Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Robert Bork.

Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

• The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

when conservative jurists began to take seats on the Supreme Court, that the debate really began in earnest. "Old originalism" focused primarily on "intent,"

The original form of originalism is sometimes called intentionalism, or original intentoriginalism, and looked for the subjective intent of a law's enactors.

I am just glad our Founding Fathers did such an Most Excellent job with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

There is No Thing, ambiguous about it.

 

[danielpalos]

Is that why he said that he wanted one in DEC 2015?

How many attacks and American deaths has been a result of not vetting these people properly ? How much American colateral damage should we withstand here because of the do good ignorant left ? A ban until we figure out WHAT the HELL is going on. Not a dam thing wrong with that.

why not ban our foreign intervention in those foreign States who have all those foreigners?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Judge is relying on the Presidents campaign statement that he would ban Muslims. The “judge” even stated that he would not have ruled against this order had it been written by a different President.

So now, according to this judge Trump has special rules just for him!

The judge was actually using conservative legal principles like Antonin Scalia advocated. Conservative judges don't believe in a living constitution, one which changes with time, but instead one which is fixed and defined by the intent of its framers. As such conservative law says to look at the intent of the people that wrote the law to determine its meaning.

And it's clear that Trump intended to write a muslim ban, so a conservative would use Trumps intent, to determine the intent of the law. So unless Trump reverses his position on letting muslims into the country, he will face the same obstacle.

False!

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Intent is very important. When you look at the Jim Crowe laws the laws had a clear discriminatory intent. And no matter how they tried to disguise dilute their effect to try and make them legal, their intent clearly showed through.

America was at its finest when we had Jim Crow laws. We must return to that in order to make America great again. The focus should extend to gays, Wetbacks and Muslims. This country was not created for them in mind.

 

[meaner gene]

The judge was actually using conservative legal principles like Antonin Scalia advocated. Conservative judges don't believe in a living constitution, one which changes with time, but instead one which is fixed and defined by the intent of its framers. As such conservative law says to look at the intent of the people that wrote the law to determine its meaning.

And it's clear that Trump intended to write a muslim ban, so a conservative would use Trumps intent, to determine the intent of the law. So unless Trump reverses his position on letting muslims into the country, he will face the same obstacle.

False!

You have that backwards, Scalia is an original meaning, originalist, While Clarence Thomas is an original intent originalist. Scalia wouldn't have blocked the eo, but Thomas would have if he held to his same principles.

 

[meaner gene]

America was at its finest when we had Jim Crow laws. We must return to that in order to make America great again. The focus should extend to gays, Wetbacks and Muslims. This country was not created for them in mind.

This country was founhded on the principle that lthe meek shall inherit the earth, but that earth would be located on small patches of land called reservations.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

We're supposed to take him seriously but not literally. He may have very clearly called for a complete ban on Muslim's entering, then a temporary ban, then extreme vetting. Now it's some innocuous sounding travel restriction from a few countries that just happen to be predominately Muslim. We really should have known that it really never had anything to do with Muslims at all.

Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I want a muslim ban, and a mexican ban, a syrian ban.

We need to take about 20 years off from bringing people here. Limit the immigrants to specialized fields and only the top of their professions. No ditch diggers, no ******* drive thru operators. And nobody that get's any government funding or assistance.

I guess it's safe to say you have no clue how immigration works .

I guess your version of immigration is let anyone in here that wants to come? We don't need anymore people that can't support themselves. That's where all of this immigration shit went sideways. We don't need to let someone who's primary job qualification is pushing a ******* lawn mower. We can take a few top level scientists, engineer's or whatever we need but we don't need open borders for people that can just do menial labor. If we get back to the point we are short ******* janitors then let a few in. There's no reason for them to be the bulk of our immigrants.

. And deny the Democrats their quest for destroying the white man with the brown man ?? Now you know that that ain't gonna work with the left or for the leftist agenda. You must have fell and bumped your head. LOL.

And deny the Democrats their quest for destroying the white man with the brown man ?? Now you know that that ain't gonna work with the left or for the leftist agenda. You must have fell and bumped your head. LOL.

There it is. That's what it's really all about.
Thanks beagle9!
While you are surely a deplorable, I applaud your courage and truthfulness. Thank you sir.