Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

[JA]

We'll have to await the conclusion of the review process before we can celebrate anything, but things are certainly looking good. Whether or not this truly amounts to a "Muslim ban" is debatable, but Trump didn't help his case by campaigning on the promise of a Muslim ban. Now any proposal to limit travel or migration from a Muslim majority nation will be immediately viewed as a ban on persons of the Islamic faith, which is exactly the perception the courts and American public should maintain.

[JA]

We'll have to await the conclusion of the review process before we can celebrate anything, but things are certainly looking good. Whether or not this truly amounts to a "Muslim ban" is debatable, but Trump didn't help his case by campaigning on the promise of a Muslim ban. Now any proposal to limit travel or migration from a Muslim majority nation will be immediately viewed as a ban on persons of the Islamic faith, which is exactly the perception the courts and American public should maintain.

Absolutely not , unless it has religious exemptions the order is not a religious ban and it should not be overturned.

The intended target of the ban is implicit in the law by its application solely to Muslim-majority countries. If this ban was truly intended to target countries that are exporters of alleged terrorists, then why does it not even include Saudi Arabia - the home of numerically and proportionally more terrorists than any other? If we cannot trust the law to include the country most responsible for terrorism, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, then how can we trust that it's stated purpose is its actual objective?

[JA]

We'll have to await the conclusion of the review process before we can celebrate anything, but things are certainly looking good. Whether or not this truly amounts to a "Muslim ban" is debatable, but Trump didn't help his case by campaigning on the promise of a Muslim ban. Now any proposal to limit travel or migration from a Muslim majority nation will be immediately viewed as a ban on persons of the Islamic faith, which is exactly the perception the courts and American public should maintain.

Absolutely not , unless it has religious exemptions the order is not a religious ban and it should not be overturned.

The intended target of the ban is implicit in the law by its application solely to Muslim-majority countries. If this ban was truly intended to target countries that are exporters of alleged terrorists, then why does it not even include Saudi Arabia - the home of numerically and proportionally more terrorists than any other? If we cannot trust the law to include the country most responsible for terrorism, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, then how can we trust that it's stated purpose is its actual objective?

So if the ban also targetted Saudi Arabia, one of the most Muslim countries in the world, it would no longer be a "Muslim Ban" to you?  LOL!

No, it would remain a Muslim ban. I was specifically pointing out the failure of this law to pursue its stated objectives of reducing the threat of alleged terrorists entering the United States. If that was truly its purpose, then why would it exclude the country most responsible for terrorist attacks on American soil?

[JA]

We'll have to await the conclusion of the review process before we can celebrate anything, but things are certainly looking good. Whether or not this truly amounts to a "Muslim ban" is debatable, but Trump didn't help his case by campaigning on the promise of a Muslim ban. Now any proposal to limit travel or migration from a Muslim majority nation will be immediately viewed as a ban on persons of the Islamic faith, which is exactly the perception the courts and American public should maintain.

Absolutely not , unless it has religious exemptions the order is not a religious ban and it should not be overturned.

The intended target of the ban is implicit in the law by its application solely to Muslim-majority countries. If this ban was truly intended to target countries that are exporters of alleged terrorists, then why does it not even include Saudi Arabia - the home of numerically and proportionally more terrorists than any other? If we cannot trust the law to include the country most responsible for terrorism, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, then how can we trust that it's stated purpose is its actual objective?

So if the ban also targetted Saudi Arabia, one of the most Muslim countries in the world, it would no longer be a "Muslim Ban" to you?  LOL!

No, it would remain a Muslim ban. I was specifically pointing out the failure of this law to pursue its stated objectives of reducing the threat of alleged terrorists entering the United States. If that was truly its purpose, then why would it exclude the country most responsible for terrorist attacks on American soil?

Because Saudi Arabia is an "ally" obviously.  The others are not.

Does that somehow change the supposed threat? If an "ally" has a recorded history of producing a disproportionate number of terrorists, including those responsible for the deaths on 9/11, and the stated intention of this controversial law is to limit our risk of future domestic terrorist attacks, then they should be included as well. Being an ally shouldn't mean you're able to send terrorists here, does it?

[JA]

It's almost like liberals would risk being killed, as long as you die compassionate rather than live while being more cold-hearted.

I can't figure it out.



The question is when they begin to become a risk to the National Security of the United States.

I'm really conflicted here whether I should burst out laughing at your post or simply feel bad for you for actually believing something so ridiculous.