Ban of Religion defined...

[SCNCmod]

I thought a religious ban doesn't have to be a ban of that religion from every country in the world. and that If you prove there is a ban on citizens of a specific religion.. from 7 countries.... that is considered a prohibited ban based on religion. 

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Well, is religion banned in 7 countries? I bet most individual ones are banned in several countries, especially communist countries (and North Korea) but religion as a whole?

[SCNCmod]

It unconstitutional when a ban turns on religion.   Because the order has a cut out exception for minority religions...

that inherently says the Majority Religion (which is Islam in each of the 7 Countries) is Uniquely Banned.

[pbrower2a]

Well, is religion banned in 7 countries? I bet most individual ones are banned in several countries, especially communist countries (and North Korea) but religion as a whole?

Neither China, Cuba, Laos, nor Vietnam outlaws religion.  They can make religious practice difficult...

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump just answered your thread:

1h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump just answered your thread:

1h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

Pussygrabber and his cabinet are here, so it's pretty obviously a failure on that score.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Pussygrabber...

Just on a technicality, whilst President, Bill Clinton grabbed more phlange than Donald Trump in the White House.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I believe OP is referring to church of the lukumi v. City of hileah. That case involved a local ordinance banning certain types of animal killings on the grounds that it was inhumane. It was passed soon after an event by the local santeria population at which several chickens were ritually sacrificed and their carcasses were later found discarded on the sidewalk. The ordinance exempted kosher and hallal food preparation  (undermining the argument that the inhumane treatment was the purpose of the law) but was still applied against the local santeria population. The supreme Court held that even though the ordinance was facially neutral, the surrounding circumstances and selective exemptions for some religions but not others demonstrated discriminatory intent. Discrimination against a specific religion triggers strict scrutiny which means the law is presumptively unconstitutional unless the government can overcome a very high threshold. I believe OPs argument is that banning immigration from countries with a very high population of one religious group is evidence of targeted discrimination in light of the fact that minority religious practioners may be exempt.

The tricky part about arguing this is that its foreign policy related. Zitolsky v kerry held that the president has a whole lot if discretion in how to conduct foreign policy and that some such decisions are political questions that cannot be decided by a court. The constitution does give the power to congress to regulate immigration. They have delegated some power to the president. If Trump frames the travel ban as related to the governments of the banned countries he might win. But presidential actions generally are still limited by the bill of rights. Its just a matter of when and where  you can sue. I haven't taken the time to see if this issue is carved out from the APA rules for when and how to sue over government acts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trump just answered your thread:

1h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

Just because President Trump is a craven coward, doesn't mean that I want to be.  Terrorism is not an existential threat to my country.  Not to say it isn't a problem, but the pinpricks that the terrorists have achieved in the past 15 years are not worthy of tossing out our proud traditions of compassion and treating each person on their own merits that Trump's EO has done.  Besides if we're going to worry about terrorists, why weren't Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, or Lebanon, the source of the 9/11 hijackers, included in EO, especially Saudi Arabia. This isn't to say that terrorism isn't a problem, but at best Trump's EO does nothing to solve the problem, and at worst, he's handed the terrorists a major victory by showing how terrified our President is of them.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump just answered your thread:

1h
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

Just because President Trump is a craven coward, doesn't mean that I want to be.  Terrorism is not an existential threat to my country.  Not to say it isn't a problem, but the pinpricks that the terrorists have achieved in the past 15 years are not worthy of tossing out our proud traditions of compassion and treating each person on their own merits that Trump's EO has done.  Besides if we're going to worry about terrorists, why weren't Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, or Lebanon, the source of the 9/11 hijackers, included in EO, especially Saudi Arabia. This isn't to say that terrorism isn't a problem, but at best Trump's EO does nothing to solve the problem, and at worst, he's handed the terrorists a major victory by showing how terrified our President is of them.

Your first three sentences are first class.

But at the end of the day, the will of the American people is, for whatever reason, an overwhelming feeling not to allow people from these countries to come freely to the USA.

That may be an "out of proportion" feeling that people have from media stereotypes, and I am sure the majority of Americans have not visited any of the 7 countries.

Trump is a populist who ran a campaign based on their fear. Maybe online beheadings in Iraq etc are enough to turn people off, however infrequent as you mentioned.

My stance is "legal" immigration. Queue up. Put your application in and wait your turn in an orderly process. I am all for resettling refugees who are fleeing religious persecution. But the German experiment has highlighted that a lot of the "free roaming" refugees are incompatible with their newly found western home. Economic refugees and terrorism are simply not discussed anywhere (glad I can actually discuss them here).

Trump is doing it with a chainsaw, but you will be disappointed to find most Americans approve.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trump is doing it with a chainsaw, but you will be disappointed to find most Americans approve.

First off, Trump isn't using anything as precise as a chainsaw, more like hand grenades.  Second, given the misinformation out there, I'm not surprised that a majority want a temporary halt in immigration from problem areas until the new administration has had a chance to do something.  I don't think it's needed, but a temporary halt for reassessment doesn't strike me as the end of the world, so long as it is indeed temporary.  I'm also pleased that it appears that a majority believe he botched implementing his change.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Right now everyone from these countries is banned regardless of religion unless they can get an individual exemption.  The Lautenberg program, which has brought Jewish, Christian, Bahai and Zoroastrian refugees from Iran to the US, is currently under suspension.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It unconstitutional when a ban turns on religion.   Because the order has a cut out exception for minority religions...

that inherently says the Majority Religion (which is Islam in each of the 7 Countries) is Uniquely Banned.

What are the 7 countries?

[Ban my account ffs!]

it's definitely discrimination against Shiite Muslims... and also a small number of Sunni muslims.