Trump passes executive order restricting immigration, in violation of the Constitution.

[Terralthra]

As has been said before, inference from the fact that Mr. Trump talked explicitly about making things easier for and helping Christians, and from the fact that the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement made literally no mention of Judaism or Jews. Immigrant detainees over the past 4 days have reported they were asked if they were Christian, not if they were Jewish. If you're waiting for these assholes to come out and say "Jews aren't welcome", you're going to be waiting a while, because they've gotten smarter than to say such things out loud. There will simply coincidentally be very few Jewish refugees approved, while Christian refugees are approved in much larger numbers.

I count three mentions of Jews in President Trump's remarks

“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

Unless it's your argument that no Jews fit in the category of victim, survivor, or hero, in which case fuck you. There has been a long-standing tradition of giving special mention to their losses during the holocaust, I personally thought we ought to continue that practice, but a bad rhetorical device doesn't make Trump a Secret Anti-Semite.

I don't think Mr. Trump is a secret anti-semite, so I've cut the rest of your irrelevant argument. In the same way, I also don't think Kermit the Frog is a secret anti-semite. What matters are the feelings and thoughts of the people with their hands up the puppets' respective asses.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Funny, Trump seemed relatively happy to keep the company of Klansmen and Neo-Nazis when they were supporting a presidential bid with better chances at success sixteen years later...

What Klansmen or Neo-Nazis has Trump been seen in company with? Steve Bannon is the only one anything like it I can think of. Admittedly he's a nationalist and a nativist, and pretty much a jackass from what I've read, but distrust of immigration is not the same as Neo-Nazism. There's overlap, Neo-Nazi's definitely don't like immigration from the "wrong" groups, but control over borders is something nations are allowed to exercise. And if you're unfamiliar with it you should read up on "Operation Wetback", looks lie Ike was a Neo-Nazi too. Or maybe immigration is a persistent concern.

I think what it comes down to is that if he has private opinions they don't matter, because he's willing to throw anyone to the pack of dogs he uses as a core support base.

1) Are you suggesting that the Neo-Nazi's and their ilk, represent a significant enough political force that President Trump cares about them?
2) I mentioned this, and you apparently missed it.

Restricting immigration as a policy predates Donald Trump, the Executive Order Trump signed is a more stringent version of a bill which was attempted in 2015 Link..

The countries that were are all problem spots exporting terrorism, this is not a phenomenon that started with Donald Trump. This is painting with a broad brush, but it predates him and the recent Alt-Right movement. Donald Trump just extended it.

This bill does, very blatantly, discriminate against Muslims. It doesn't exclude Muslims from every country in the world, but it certainly excludes the Muslims coming from the countries people are fleeing. There isn't a flood of Muslim refugees pouring out of Indonesia any more than there is a flood of refugee unicorns pouring out of La-La Land. There ARE such refugees coming out of Syria and Iraq, some of them people who have aided the United States in the past.

I think you're discriminating against Yezidis because you don't mention them.

Or it could be that after the Paris shootings, people are concerned (wrongly probably, that's an awfully big brush to be painting with) and that's what Trump is catering too. If you want to believe that it's for some Neo-Nazi chuckle-fucks go right ahead. But Rasmussen polling puts approval for this at a majority, and disapproval at 33% or so. If a Hindu Nationalist bombed a marathon in the US the tone might change. Right now the visibility is on terrorism associated with political Islam, which is terrorism that's happening in the countries on President Trump's executive order list.

At this point I believe I need to reiterate a point that you have not responded to. The argument that Christians face a much worse situation in those areas, and that given other people's odious prior decisions to cap refugees at a small number, we ought to prioritize the cases that are the most threatened, the argument goes that Christian refugees find themselves in that position in the Middle East.

And telling them that they are summarily banned from entering the US because they aren't Christians (or maybe Jews) is utterly blatant discrimination.

As I mentioned in the paragraph above, and in my previous post, it's a decision to prioritize the refugees who are the most in danger in their home countries, it's also a decision to avoid anything that would increase the (overestimated) danger of terrorism, which so far has had an Islamic face. If the Druze start shooting up Lincoln Nebraska, I guess we'll learn our lesson.

Furthermore, in addition to being discrimination, we have examples of Muslims from these countries being detained without evidence and not allowed to speak to a lawyer. This is why there's a court order out against Trump's executive order in the first place.

Did you read the thing? Link I'm not seeing a single section on detention in it, in fact this section seems to suggest that the folks who did the detaining did so without the direction of law.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Now that doesn't stop internal directives from being illegal. But it's a pretty shit lawyer who reads this and says "There's the culprit, that's why people are being detained." There's multiple challenges to this, the challenge on detention is easy. There's no basis in the executive order for holding people, the executive order says they aren't allowed in. So the Customs officials that were holding people were doing so without even the thin read of an executive order covering their action.

There's another challenge, President Trump's not allowing people who obtained Visa's to enter, that also got overturned, pretty straight forward case law there, Congressional Law, and treaty govern Visa's.
Nothing about it seems to suggest detainment without lawyer, so yes the detention without lawyers needed to go, particularly since

The thing I want to bring to your attention here is... Why is this his first resort?

Because the bill that this could have been got filibustered, and is sitting unvoted on in the Senate, and there's an unkown percentage of voters that like this, but based on recent Rasmussen numbers it's probably at least a plurality. So sooner or later something like this is going to wend it's way through the Senate and go to reconciliation. In the absence of such a bill we have justification like this

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

I'm fairly certain that if you look back on your posting history with regard to Republican obstructionism, you will find yourself justifying Executive Orders because government still needs to be run, even when the legislature is throwing a hissy fit. Apparently Republicans think this issues is more important than obstructionism. Personally I think people have given the Executive branch too much authority in the name of expediency, but any Republican concerns about that are going to disappear now that they've got a President there.

If he cares about people's rights, his actions make no sense.

First it's fairly clear he's a nativist, so his first priority is American's rights, and American security. Second, most Republicans don't recognize a right of migration, that didn't start with President Trump, he's hewing awfully close to the party line.

If he cares about securing America, well, he's not really accomplishing much of anything with this kind of action.

I agree, the number of terrorists coming in is such a small number that we probably have as many prospective terrorists coming in from acceptable countries as we would from these 7. I don't think it makes us safer, but people have a tendency to overestimate the risk of terrorism. That's not new with Trump either, he's just catering to people.

What interests and agenda are served here except something along the lines of "fuck you and fuck your Constitution, I do what I want?"

His agenda as mentioned above. Securing us from a miniscule threat. Eric or Donald Jr (I forget which) retweeted inane analogy about this on twitter, during the run-up to the campaign. It really does seem that President Trump is what he campaigned as.

[Gerald Tarrant]

I don't think Mr. Trump is a secret anti-semite, so I've cut the rest of your irrelevant argument. In the same way, I also don't think Kermit the Frog is a secret anti-semite. What matters are the feelings and thoughts of the people with their hands up the puppets' respective asses.

Illiterate too I see?

There's a pretty core argument in there, and it's that Christians refugees face an added danger that Muslims refugees don't. Now ISIS seems to be universally awful to all it's subjects, but they do seem to have reserved special awfulness for Christians that they find in their territory. Additionally I mentioned and you aerily dismissed it-because of stupidity or indifference, or just not having an answer-that Jewish refugees do have a country that is readily accepting them, so the decision to look for Christian refugees is a triage decision.

Where this leads to? Occam's razor, the explanation for Trump's executive order, we have a shadowy cabal pulling the strings, or trends that existed in the Republican party, and in the US prior to this, evidence against the dark shadowy cabal of puppetmasters are Trump's Son-in-law and grandkids both being Jewish, Trump himself proclaiming disdain for them in 2000 and in 2015, evidence for? I got nothing except the presence of Steve Bannon? Anything else? So short version I'd like your evidence for the puppet-masters please.

Barring that we have the simpler response that Trump's Executive Order is consistent with the growing Republican suspicion of immigration in general.

[Terralthra]

Your case that Christians need to be urgently accepted is somewhat undercut by the fact that Mr. Trump just banned them from entering the country for 90 days if they come from one of those regions. The religious minority exemption kicks in after 90 (or 120, depending on circumstance) days. So, we urgently need to "triage" to let Christian refugees in from Syria...in April or May.

Not so urgent, then, I guess?

[Gerald Tarrant]

The cap was lowered per Trump's executive order.

Yes you are correct, I was wrong.

So, in fact, Trump has worsened your little triage situation. How unfortunate then, that Christians exclusively will have the opportunity to take up those "stupidly lower" slots.

No. Popular sentiment would have done it too, Trump rode it along. Link The US has generally had fairly mixed to poor feelings on refugee resettlement. President Trump, or congress one of them was going to do this.

President Obama increased it above the historical (low) refugee resettlement rate, so Trump or Congress one of them would have lowered it. Trump did first, congress will probably enshrine this number in law given the option.

Also, are you implying the United States is a Christian state or supposed to be a Christian state?

Not remotely, I'm saying that Christians face potential religious persecution that's probably worse than it is for Muslims, I'm also saying that there isn't an equivalent of Israel to accept Christian refugees, so given the extra danger they face it makes sense to accept the most in danger cases first. Even if the number were at Obama's preferred 110k/year* there would still need to be prioritization (*as referenced above, thanks for pointing out my error btw).

Your statement would only make sense if the United States fit that category, as opposed to a nation where many religions converge into one body.

Not how I meant it, I meant that they don't face the same threats in the US as they do wherever they're fleeing from, by and large there aren't in the US roving bands of Islamists (or anything-ists frankly) executing believers in something , or instituting taxes to worship, or whatever it is that strikes a Quran literalists fancy.

Your "triage" is still a violation of the First Amendment and it's awfully convenient that Christians will get to take up all those stupidly low slots.

That I think is arguable. The way it's written this gives preference to those fleeing religious persecution where they are the minority religion

"The Executive Order in Question"

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

Personally I think a case could be made under the law for accepting multitudes of Rohinga or Yezidi immigrants (the Rohinga are a Muslim minority in Burma), whether it's ethnic or religious persecution is somewhat academic. The Yezidi are animists that Iraqis occasionally nickname "devil worhsippers". If that were the case it would be harder to run a first Amendment case. Assuming you did though, there are some interesting arguments on this, one view is the disparate impact view, it wouldn't be required to show that the law was explicitly favoring a religion, just that this had a negative impact on one particular religion. An interesting argument, however I think the constitutional orientalists (who will probably be the majority in a few weeks) have some issues with how this is related to foreign policy, see this for example Link. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. However the way the act is written, there is the opportunity for non-Christians freeing religious persecution to get preference as well. But regardless of that, there's case law that seems to suggest the first amendment doesn't extend to non-citizens seeking admittance

Link

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. "In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit," Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. "One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

It doesn't seem that a first amendment challenge will succeed, and it's debatable that Trump's actions violate it. There are other challenges which seem more fruitful. As in those that have visa's already should be admitted (maybe this is justified under the full faith and credit clause? or existing legislation about visas?). Another challenge to the way the law was implemented is those that were detained without lawyers, using this to strike down the law will probably be overturned, as it seems the law doesn't instruct indefinite detention (so the case would mostly result in overturning the detention and seeking redress for the violation).

[Gerald Tarrant]

Your case that Christians need to be urgently accepted is somewhat undercut by the fact that Mr. Trump just banned them from entering the country for 90 days if they come from one of those regions. The religious minority exemption kicks in after 90 (or 120, depending on circumstance) days. So, we urgently need to "triage" to let Christian refugees in from Syria...in April or May.

Not so urgent, then, I guess?

Still more at risk than Muslims in their home country? So... still a priority then? And are you conceding the point that they are at risk or debating it? Frankly irrespective of this action it was never urgent, the program seemed to have an 18 or 24 month application to acceptance time.

Edit: Also where did I say urgent? I thought my argument was strictly that they face more danger in their home country than Muslims do.

[Ralin]

I've read stories about ISIS imposing the jizya tax, so the organized targeting of Christians by ISIS seems plausible, there's an argument to be made that they're facing worse danger as a result of their faith.

...Wouldn't that imply that those Christians are in less danger, since the whole idea of the jizya was to let Jews and Christians in Muslim countries pay a special tax in exchange for being tolerated and allowed to go about their lives unmolested?

I mean, ISIS by all accounts is very big on considering themselves to be the real old-school true Muslims, so if they're throwing that term around then presumably what they mean by it at least resembles the historical version.

[Gerald Tarrant]

I've read stories about ISIS imposing the jizya tax, so the organized targeting of Christians by ISIS seems plausible, there's an argument to be made that they're facing worse danger as a result of their faith.

...Wouldn't that imply that those Christians are in less danger, since the whole idea of the jizya was to let Jews and Christians in Muslim countries pay a special tax in exchange for being tolerated and allowed to go about their lives unmolested?

I mean, ISIS by all accounts is very big on considering themselves to be the real old-school true Muslims, so if they're throwing that term around then presumably what they mean by it at least resembles the historical version.

That doesn't seem to be how they've behaved, both the EU and the US have recognized ISIL's actions with regard to Christians as a genocide, so the protection money doesn't seem to have bought anything.

[Terralthra]

Triage means to assign degrees of urgency to various people's needs for care. Using the word implies some degree of urgency. If they are facing danger in their home country such that we need to carve out exemptions in bans from travel (because a muslim terrorist would never lie about their religion to infiltrate another country?), then we probably shouldn't be waiting 4 months to even begin considering whether to let them in.

And no, I do not cede that Christians are at any more risk of dying in a war zone than Muslims. Some of these countries are war zones. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are dying, and I've yet to see much substantial evidence that Christians are dying out of proportion. Some others of the countries (Iran), by the same token, have no ongoing war and don't persecute Christians nor Jews nor Hindus, particularly, but minority religion adherents are nonetheless exempted from the ban because...?

[Ralin]

That doesn't seem to be how they've behaved, both the EU and the US have recognized ISIL's actions with regard to Christians as a genocide, so the protection money doesn't seem to have bought anything.

So...which is it?

[Gerald Tarrant]

Triage means to assign degrees of urgency to various people's needs for care. Using the word implies some degree of urgency. If they are facing danger in their home country such that we need to carve out exemptions in bans from travel (because a muslim terrorist would never lie about their religion to infiltrate another country?), then we probably shouldn't be waiting 4 months to even begin considering whether to let them in.

Non-medical useage, because I wasn't describing a hospital or a surgery, or even anything as dubiously medical as a hangnail, here you are; oxford

The process of determining the most important people or things from amongst a large number that require attention:

And no, I do not cede that Christians are at any more risk of dying in a war zone than Muslims. Some of these countries are war zones. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are dying, and I've yet to see much substantial evidence that Christians are dying out of proportion. Some others of the countries (Iran), by the same token, have no ongoing war and don't persecute Christians nor Jews nor Hindus, particularly, but minority religion adherents are nonetheless exempted from the ban because...?

Because the argument is that it's more than just the threat form a war. There is stuff like this Link. The EU and the US both recognized it as a genocide, that's in addition to the the risk of arbitrary death from war. Pre-war Iraq's Christian population was 1.2M, now it's estimated as about 200,000.

The insecurity faced by Christians in the Middle East has seen their population decrease drastically in recent years. As of July 2015, a third of Syria’s 600,000 Christians had fled; Lebanon’s Christian population share has shrunk from 78 percent to 34 percent over the previous century; and only a third of the 1.5 million Christians who lived in Iraq in 2003 remain today, according to the New York Times.

link

That doesn't seem to be how they've behaved, both the EU and the US have recognized ISIL's actions with regard to Christians as a genocide, so the protection money doesn't seem to have bought anything.

So...which is it?

It doesn't seem like the Jizya purchases any protection, it seems like they're in extraordinary danger for their religion. Is that the scope of your question?

[Simon_Jester]

The cap was lowered per Trump's executive order.

Yes you are correct, I was wrong.

So, in fact, Trump has worsened your little triage situation. How unfortunate then, that Christians exclusively will have the opportunity to take up those "stupidly lower" slots.

No. Popular sentiment would have done it too, Trump rode it along. Link The US has generally had fairly mixed to poor feelings on refugee resettlement. President Trump, or congress one of them was going to do this.

President Obama increased it above the historical (low) refugee resettlement rate, so Trump or Congress one of them would have lowered it. Trump did first, congress will probably enshrine this number in law given the option.

Does this mean they get a free pass for the consequences of their actions, such as the death or suffering of innocent people?

Fear of refugees as potential terrorists has been whipped up by the right wing and played a key role in putting Republicans into power in 2016. They cannot be absolved of blame

Nor does any of this justify religious discrimination when everyone is fleeing a war zone, nor does it justify arbitrary imprisonment. Nor does it justify ignoring laws stating that people have a right to talk to lawyers, or to apply for asylum on arriving in the US.

I'm sorry, but there really is no interpretation of Trump's executive order besides "this is a heavy-handed, discriminatory gesture motivated by bigotry and a desire to appease supporters demanding to throw Muslims out of the country. A demand Trump himself has whipped up, ever since the days when he was a leading figure in the birther movement, lying about Obama and slandering him, claiming that he was secretly a foreign Muslim infiltrator out to undermine America. Because of course brown people are evil foreign spies with evil religious beliefs.

I do hope you still remember that isn't true. And that the whole birther movement, which Trump prominently connected himself with, was a complete lie from top to bottom.

Just to sum it up:

Trump and the congressional Republicans have personally profited from the rise of xenophobia and anti-refugee sentiment in America. They have done their best to encourage this sentiment. Under no circumstances can they shrug and say "well, people want refugees kicked out and left to die, so that's what we're going to do." Not after they went to such lengths to promote terror and hatred of refugees as a way to secure their own path to power.

[jwl]

Talking about being in danger in relation to Isis or whatever is a waste of time, since very few refugees are coming directly from their home countries, they are coming from refugee camps in Turkey or whatever. So the priority should be more given to the minorities which are more likely to get mistreated in refugee camps within the region.

[Civil War Man]

I count three mentions of Jews in President Trump's remarks

“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

Unless it's your argument that no Jews fit in the category of victim, survivor, or hero, in which case fuck you. There has been a long-standing tradition of giving special mention to their losses during the holocaust, I personally thought we ought to continue that practice, but a bad rhetorical device doesn't make Trump a Secret Anti-Semite.

I just wanted to make a comment on this part specifically. Others have already largely covered my views on the other topics in this thread.

Thing is, language like what was in that announcement is fairly common among Holocaust deniers who are trying to be subtle. They talk in general terms like victims, survivors, and heroes, and when called out on not specifically mentioning the Jews, they point out that other groups (LGBT, mentally or physically handicapped, political prisoners, etc) were also targeted. It's true in the purely technical sense, but they cite that as a way of trying to diminish the fact that Jewish people were targeted on a much larger scale. By speaking generally, they try to make it seem like Jewish people weren't specifically targeted.

As I've heard it put elsewhere, this announcement basically "All Lives Matter"-ed the Holocaust.

As to how much of it is Trump's doing, it's hard to say, but considering that he's been surrounding himself with people who do have a history of being anti-Semitic (cough cough Bannon cough cough), it is not remotely out of the question that there was an anti-Semitic motivation to the wording of the message, regardless of whether the wording was Trump's idea.

[Simon_Jester]

Trump definitely didn't write this statement himself and (I can't believe I'm saying the following words) that does not reflect poorly on him personally as such, all modern presidents had staff for that kind of thing.

The catch is that Trump's staff includes people like Bannon, and Trump did that on purpose knowing who and what Bannon was, and Trump isn't going to be subtle or clueful enough to pick up on subtleties of wording and go "hey Bannon, how the fuck did you write a press release about remembering the Holocaust without saying the word 'Jew?'

I mean, the man started his campaign by saying what a great businessman he is. Well, I don't expect a businessman to know foreign policy, and I can stretch to imagine a businessman being competent despite being "flunked high school civics" level ignorant of why civil rights are important and the Constitution matters.

But how in hell does a "successful businessman" go through life without knowing how to select trustworthy advisors who will give him the kind of advice he needs? It is impossible to believe that Trump doesn't know how to do that. Therefore, IF he is indeed a 'great businessman,' it follows that he knows exactly what he's doing by appointing the senior advisors he does.

[Zaune]

Thing is, language like what was in that announcement is fairly common among Holocaust deniers who are trying to be subtle. They talk in general terms like victims, survivors, and heroes, and when called out on not specifically mentioning the Jews, they point out that other groups (LGBT, mentally or physically handicapped, political prisoners, etc) were also targeted. It's true in the purely technical sense, but they cite that as a way of trying to diminish the fact that Jewish people were targeted on a much larger scale. By speaking generally, they try to make it seem like Jewish people weren't specifically targeted.

As I've heard it put elsewhere, this announcement basically "All Lives Matter"-ed the Holocaust.

Which sucks giant wet donkey balls for anyone who's actually sincere about bothering to remember that people other than Jews were targeted by the Final Solution and just wants to talk about it without listing every single persecuted group by name.

[Flagg]

As has been said before, inference from the fact that Mr. Trump talked explicitly about making things easier for and helping Christians, and from the fact that the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement made literally no mention of Judaism or Jews. Immigrant detainees over the past 4 days have reported they were asked if they were Christian, not if they were Jewish. If you're waiting for these assholes to come out and say "Jews aren't welcome", you're going to be waiting a while, because they've gotten smarter than to say such things out loud. There will simply coincidentally be very few Jewish refugees approved, while Christian refugees are approved in much larger numbers.

While I despise what they are doing, at least the Jews can seek refuge in Israel, AFAIK.

[Flagg]

Funny, Trump seemed relatively happy to keep the company of Klansmen and Neo-Nazis when they were supporting a presidential bid with better chances at success sixteen years later...

What Klansmen or Neo-Nazis has Trump been seen in company with? Steve Bannon is the only one anything like it I can think of. Admittedly he's a nationalist and a nativist, and pretty much a jackass from what I've read, but distrust of immigration is not the same as Neo-Nazism. There's overlap, Neo-Nazi's definitely don't like immigration from the "wrong" groups, but control over borders is something nations are allowed to exercise. And if you're unfamiliar with it you should read up on "Operation Wetback", looks lie Ike was a Neo-Nazi too. Or maybe immigration is a persistent concern.

I think what it comes down to is that if he has private opinions they don't matter, because he's willing to throw anyone to the pack of dogs he uses as a core support base.

1) Are you suggesting that the Neo-Nazi's and their ilk, represent a significant enough political force that President Trump cares about them?
2) I mentioned this, and you apparently missed it.

Restricting immigration as a policy predates Donald Trump, the Executive Order Trump signed is a more stringent version of a bill which was attempted in 2015 Link..

The countries that were are all problem spots exporting terrorism, this is not a phenomenon that started with Donald Trump. This is painting with a broad brush, but it predates him and the recent Alt-Right American National Socialist Party movement. Donald Trump just extended it.

Fixed your mentioning the AmeriNazis using a dog whistle nickname, fuckface. Can I call you fuckface? Good, glad we're on the same page, fuckface.

So why is it that Muslims from Saudi Arabia are allowed entrance into the United States when they are clearly an exporter of terrorism given that 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis and the leader of their Alt-Right terrorist organization was a member of one of the richest and most powerful families in Saudi Arabia? Could it be that President Pussygrabber (You know him as "The Fuhrer") does a fuckton of business with that country and it's Theocratic Islamist regime?

In fact every majority Muslim country President Pussygrabber does business with is excluded from the cattle car list even if they do export terror? Do you think it's appropriate for the Cheif Executive of the United States should put their own business and money making ventures before the security of the American people, fuckface?

[Flagg]

I've read stories about ISIS imposing the jizya tax, so the organized targeting of Christians by ISIS seems plausible, there's an argument to be made that they're facing worse danger as a result of their faith.

...Wouldn't that imply that those Christians are in less danger, since the whole idea of the jizya was to let Jews and Christians in Muslim countries pay a special tax in exchange for being tolerated and allowed to go about their lives unmolested?

I mean, ISIS by all accounts is very big on considering themselves to be the real old-school true Muslims, so if they're throwing that term around then presumably what they mean by it at least resembles the historical version.

That doesn't seem to be how they've behaved, both the EU and the US have recognized ISIL's actions with regard to Christians as a genocide, so the protection money doesn't seem to have bought anything.

How can you "genocide" Christians? Does your DNA change once the tap water some child molester waived his hand over is poured over an infants head?

[Flagg]

Thing is, language like what was in that announcement is fairly common among Holocaust deniers who are trying to be subtle. They talk in general terms like victims, survivors, and heroes, and when called out on not specifically mentioning the Jews, they point out that other groups (LGBT, mentally or physically handicapped, political prisoners, etc) were also targeted. It's true in the purely technical sense, but they cite that as a way of trying to diminish the fact that Jewish people were targeted on a much larger scale. By speaking generally, they try to make it seem like Jewish people weren't specifically targeted.

As I've heard it put elsewhere, this announcement basically "All Lives Matter"-ed the Holocaust.

Which sucks giant wet donkey balls for anyone who's actually sincere about bothering to remember that people other than Jews were targeted by the Final Solution and just wants to talk about it without listing every single persecuted group by name.

No shit. I remember when I was young and innocent, a mere babe in the woods on the internet. I was in a chat room and people were talking about the Holocaust and talking about how 6 million Jews were murdered and you know, history. I brought up that in total 11-12 million were killed including Homosexuals, Communists, Atheists, Gyptsies, and Mentally/Physically Disabled and I rarely if ever hear that mentioned. That's the first time anyone ever called me a Nazi (Ha!) or an Anti-Semite (Ha!). It reminded me of that Columbus Day episode of The Soprano's where the Jewish character and the South American of native descent character went from good friends to sworn enemies in 2 minutes due to fighting over which genocide was worse (it was the American Indian genocide, mostly because it's still going on). It's pathetic, tragic, and funny in a "fuck humanity" kind of way.

[MKSheppard]

Fixed your mentioning the AmeriNazis using a dog whistle nickname, fuckface. Can I call you fuckface? Good, glad we're on the same page, fuckface.

So why is it that Muslims from Saudi Arabia are allowed entrance into the United States when they are clearly an exporter of terrorism given that 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis and the leader of their Alt-Right terrorist organization was a member of one of the richest and most powerful families in Saudi Arabia? Could it be that President Pussygrabber (You know him as "The Fuhrer") does a fuckton of business with that country and it's Theocratic Islamist regime?

In fact every majority Muslim country President Pussygrabber does business with is excluded from the cattle car list even if they do export terror? Do you think it's appropriate for the Cheif Executive of the United States should put their own business and money making ventures before the security of the American people, fuckface?

"Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/ ... -refugees/

The revelant section of trump's EO (see the full quote at the bottom of this post) appears to be:

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

Looking around it appears to be this section

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187

(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern
(A) In general Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—
(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—
(I) in Iraq or Syria;
(II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and
(ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—
(I) Iraq or Syria;
(II) a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D).

doing some digging finds this list

Dept of State Supporter of Intl Terrorism List

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979

and this:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs ... er-program

Release Date: February 18, 2016

WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.

Basically, it's the most he can do with the current setup of the executive branch still in flux, and Congress still fucking around on pass/no pass on his appointees instead of passing bills he wants passed.

[Shroom Man 777]

Does he have business dealings in the KSA like he does in the UAE?

[Gaidin]

Does he have business dealings in the KSA like he does in the UAE?

The way Sheppard is showing it I'm not sure it matters as it appears none of the countries he has done or is doing business with are on State and DHS lists for this. Either he threaded the needle nicely, just legitimately used the Intl Terrorism List and such, or Congress needs to just do stuff.

[Broomstick]

Which sucks giant wet donkey balls for anyone who's actually sincere about bothering to remember that people other than Jews were targeted by the Final Solution and just wants to talk about it without listing every single persecuted group by name.

Or, you know, you could say "the six million Jews and also six million other people besides them".

[Civil War Man]

Which sucks giant wet donkey balls for anyone who's actually sincere about bothering to remember that people other than Jews were targeted by the Final Solution and just wants to talk about it without listing every single persecuted group by name.

Yeah, it's kind of like how it's difficult to talk seriously about the marginalization of male rape victims these days because MRA shitheads bring them up as a prop in order to try to shut down any discussions about the mistreatment of female rape victims.