Irish PM to Trump's Face: "St. Patrick Was An Immigrant."

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You didn't read very clearly. They listed more countries than that, for instance Tirkey, and made clear they weren't listing all Muslim countries with a Trump hotel.

There's also tons of other articles than these two, these were only the first two I found in Google.

Did you seriously never hear about the hotel think? I find that very surprising.

Also, the fact that the great and conservative Cato Institute is critiquing the stupid ban should really tell you something.

I don't have much opinion on the ban either way. I doubt it will have much effect one way or another. What I am pointing out is that calling it a Muslim ban, which you insist on doing, is very stupid given the facts in play. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are not affected by this order at all and can enter the US as easily as before.

 

[Fyreborn]

I don't have much opinion on the ban either way. I doubt it will have much effect one way or another. What I am pointing out is that calling it a Muslim ban, which you insist on doing, is very stupid given the facts in play. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are not affected by this order at all and can enter the US as easily as before.

Of course it's a damn Muslim ban. The Holocaust didn't kill ALL Jews did it? You don't have to ban all Muslims to have it called a Muslim ban.

1) Trump said in his campaign he'd ban Muslims.

2) He asked Rudy Giuliani how he could legally ban Muslims before making the ban.

3) The original ban excluded Christian minorities from these countries.

Arguing against calling it a Muslim ban is being playing dense.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Of course it's a damn Muslim ban. The Holocaust didn't kill ALL Jews did it? You don't have to ban all Muslims to have it called a Muslim ban.

1) Trump said in his campaign he'd ban Muslims.

2) He asked Rudy Giuliani how he could legally ban Muslims before making the ban.

3) The original ban excluded Christian minorities from these countries.

Arguing against calling it a Muslim ban is being playing dense.

If almost all Muslims are not banned, and a small minority of Muslims are banned, then the criteria for banning is not whether or not one is Muslim.

 

[cooks1]

Maybe Trump doesn't dislike immigrants, but a whole lot of his supporters do. You can play dumb all you want, but you know, in your heart of hearts, that Trump strongly benefited from, and strongly encouraged, a nativist tone in his campaign.

The point Kenny is making is that the US essentially had an open border policy for the majority of its history. Without it, MILLIONS of Irish, Italians and other non-Anglo Europeans wouldn't be here.

Very well said. I think many people do not realize the by far the main reason for illegal immigration over the past 4-5 decades is that for the majority of US history, immigration to the US was fast, easy, and inexpensive. Now it is very hard, very time consuming and very expensive. And I say that as a person who married a citizen from outside the US, had to wait the damn near 2 years, and pay the couple thousand dollars just to bring my own wife legally into the US.

Make legal immigration fast, easy and inexpensive, and 2 things happen.

1) Illegal immigration plummets.
2) More tax dollars get collected as grey and black markets dissipate.

 

[Fyreborn]

If almost all Muslims are not banned, and a small minority of Muslims are banned, then the criteria for banning is not whether or not one is Muslim.

How in the world can you say that's not the criteria when non-Muslims were excluded from the original travel ban?

I suspect you are simply being disingenuous here.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

How in the world can you say that's not the criteria when non-Muslims were excluded from the original travel ban?

I suspect you are simply being disingenuous here.

I'm not being disingenuous. I'm looking at what the order actually does. It does not ban anyone on the basis of being Muslim. The vast majority of Muslims are completely unaffected by this order while a small amount of people who are not Muslims are banned by the order.

 

[Fyreborn]

I'm not being disingenuous. I'm looking at what the order actually does. It does not ban anyone on the basis of being Muslim. The vast majority of Muslims are completely unaffected by this order while a small amount of people who are not Muslims are banned by the order.

The original order definitely banned people on the basis of being Muslim. You can't possibly disagree with that?

The new order is retooled but has the same intent. Thankfully these courts appear wise enough to see through this poor ruse.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/two-courts-find-yes-it-was-muslim-ban-all-along

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The original order definitely banned people on the basis of being Muslim. You can't possibly disagree with that?

The new order is retooled but has the same intent. Thankfully these courts appear wise enough to see through this poor ruse.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/two-courts-find-yes-it-was-muslim-ban-all-along

I'm not talking about the original order, which I never read. If it is as you say, it would seem that it was a Muslim ban. Nor am I talking about Trump's motivations or long term plans related to Islamic countries. I'm just pointing out that this current executive order is not in any reasonable sense a Muslim ban. Calling it that is a political act, not a factual description.

 

[mike sherry]

The original order definitely banned people on the basis of being Muslim. You can't possibly disagree with that?

The new order is retooled but has the same intent. Thankfully these courts appear wise enough to see through this poor ruse.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/two-courts-find-yes-it-was-muslim-ban-all-along

do you see potential for abuse when the courts no longer read the text, but instead try to read the minds of the one pushing the order to prescribe intent?

 

[Fyreborn]

do you see potential for abuse when the courts no longer read the text, but instead try to read the minds of the one pushing the order to prescribe intent?

Not hard to read his intent when he campaigned on banning Muslim immigration, Giuliani openly admitted that Trump asked him to devise a way to legally ban Muslims, and Stephen Miller said the second order was "the same basic policy" with "only minor technical differences".

The Trump administration is making this "mind reading" damn easy for the courts.

 

[KONE]

It's temporary but it's still a ban. Even Trump called it a ban.

...but it was temporary. If Trump disliked immigrants, he wouldn't let them in at all. Not the most complicated thing in the world.

We were already doing vetting of immigrants from these regions - though Trump propaganda would have you believe we weren't. They will make the standards even tougher, to reduce immigration.

reduce immigration doesn't necessarily mean he's against legal immigration though. It means he wants to make sure the wrong people don't get through from massive shithole countries.

He is literally targeting legal immigration, thus you are wrong to say he is only against illegal immigration.

He objectively is only against illegal immigration. A temporary (temporary) ban until they can improve the vetting system accentuates that. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, the facts aren't on your side.

The ban's objective is to reduce legal Muslim immigration from countries that don't have Trump hotels.

Even if you agree we should restrict Muslim immigration, you have to acknowledge he is targetting legal immigration.

No.

You admittedly didn't read the EO. Go back and read it. You focused on the "coverage" of it which was awful and inaccurate. Media would have you believe he was banning refugees. People protested at airports about how "pro refugee" they were even though he was going to let refugees in.

And once again, "muh Trump hotels" is a long debunked talking point as I already stated.

 

[JadeOwl]

St. Patrick was kidnapped by Irish raiders and initially brought to Ireland as a slave.

I thought referring to slaves as immigrants was bad.

He was taken as a slave, escaped, and went home to Britannia.

It was years later that he went back, of his own free will, to convert the Irish.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

He was taken as a slave, escaped, and went home to Britannia.

It was years later that he went back, of his own free will, to convert the Irish.

I am entirely aware of this. This is why I specified, initially. But if the Irish PM can score a few cheap points with an irrelevant half truth, why can't I?

As I've mentioned int his thread, I am an admirer of Patrick, and I read his autobiography every few years on St. Patrick's Day.

I would point out though, that his successful intention to convert the Irish still makes his a cautionary tale when it comes to immigration policy.

 

[mike sherry]

Not hard to read his intent when he campaigned on banning Muslim immigration, Giuliani openly admitted that Trump asked him to devise a way to legally ban Muslims, and Stephen Miller said the second order was "the same basic policy" with "only minor technical differences".

The Trump administration is making this "mind reading" damn easy for the courts.

you didnt really answer the question though. they no longer are using the text to form their legal decision. that isnt atleast a bit concerning?

ignoring your feelings on this case. this isnt a bad precedent going forward?

 

[lecter]

Lol I made Queen Kong tap when I publicly humiliated him for not manning up vs me in a game of looks.

ALL BARK

That's true. All talk, no action. Sad

 

[My Spot]

Not hard to read his intent when he campaigned on banning Muslim immigration, Giuliani openly admitted that Trump asked him to devise a way to legally ban Muslims, and Stephen Miller said the second order was "the same basic policy" with "only minor technical differences".

The Trump administration is making this "mind reading" damn easy for the courts.

You do realize that there are at least 50 countries with a Muslim majority population yet the original order only included 7 of them, right? Right?

 

[My Spot]

That's true. All talk, no action. Sad

KDT literally admitted that he had a hard time sleeping since the election. Cut him some slack.

 

[edirp]

That ginger cuck...

 

[Fyreborn]

...but it was temporary. If Trump disliked immigrants, he wouldn't let them in at all. Not the most complicated thing in the world.



reduce immigration doesn't necessarily mean he's against legal immigration though. It means he wants to make sure the wrong people don't get through from massive shithole countries.

He is reducing legal avenues from immigration from these countries. You said he's only reducing illegal immigration. You were factually wrong.

He objectively is only against illegal immigration. A temporary (temporary) ban until they can improve the vetting system accentuates that. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, the facts aren't on your side.

There was already ample vetting in place. Even let's say there wasn't, his actions are still reducing legal immigration. You look ridiculous denying this.

No.

You admittedly didn't read the EO. Go back and read it. You focused on the "coverage" of it which was awful and inaccurate. Media would have you believe he was banning refugees. People protested at airports about how "pro refugee" they were even though he was going to let refugees in.

And once again, "muh Trump hotels" is a long debunked talking point as I already stated.

Oh? And how was that debunked?

 

[Fyreborn]

you didnt really answer the question though. they no longer are using the text to form their legal decision. that isnt atleast a bit concerning?

ignoring your feelings on this case. this isnt a bad precedent going forward?

I don't see a problem. The original order was *blatantly* unconstitutional. It violated the separation of church and state by giving preferential treatment to non-Muslims.

I am against activist judging, but this wasn't an example of that.