Reality - "90 day travel suspension from 7 countries"
As someone who did not vote for Trump I can detect an ovious bias on just how that one story alone was covered. I could spend days going over every way the media speaks incorrectly\lies about things.
What I find most sad is often "intelligent" people will buy into the bias because they take a political side instead of sticking to the truth.
No one is going to have a different position if you do that.
EDIT: In case, it wasn't clear, I mean that his opponents will see it as a Muslim ban and dislike him for it and his fans will see it as such and like him for it. He ran on that platform. There's nothing disingenuous here.
At least report facts as facts and warranted supposition as warranted supposition.
Else we wind up in a post-factual society.
The media does no one any favors by just making things up.
[1]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-e...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
starting with:
> (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate ....
are permitted to deny entry to any alien outside the US for essentially any reason or no reason. In particular, a "Muslim ban" would be perfectly legal. I repeat, as is fully clear from the law, "essentially any reason or no reason". So, suppose there is a Muslim ban? So what? Whatever the answer, such a ban would be both constitutional and legal.
For more detail, is Trump against all Muslims? Nope. Evidence: IIRC, at the Republican convention, the last speaker before Trump accepted the nomination was a long time Trump friend and Muslim.
It is fair to conclude that Trump is trying to keep terrorists out of the US. Are all terrorists Muslims? Nope: Not in the world and not even just in the US. But: In recent decades, somehow too many terrorists have been Muslims, from "radical Islam". Europe has seen a lot of that in Nice, Paris, etc. The US saw a lot of that in 9/11, Orlando, and San Bernardino.
A good summary of the threat of radical Islam with recent data was from Newt Gingrich at the Republican convention as at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos
There is a nice introduction by Newt's wife, but watch and listen to his actual speech, especially his list of events from radical Islam from "the last 37 days".
Or, to keep out radical Islam, a good first step is to carefully vet all Islamists. There's so far not much sense in looking for radical Islamist terrorists among Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Jews.
For violating the establishment clause, I heard about that and regarded it as laughable. E.g., the US has lots of institutions for essentially any religion on the planet. So, no way can actions at the border for immigrants "establish" a state religion in the US.
Rather than have me (poorly) explain the hearings to you, I think you should just take an hour to listen to them directly. Again: I think you're going to find that the analysis you just presented doesn't hold up well.
There are issues with the CA9 stay --- standing, and nationwide applicability --- but they're not based on the idea that the President can simply declare Muslims dangerous.
What "one" law? I gave a clear reference to a law that clearly says that the POTUS can block anyone he "deems" whatever -- he can block for essentially any reason or no reason.
You claim that there is another law that limits the law I quoted, but you did not name such a law or give a reference.
Name your law, and I'll read it.
Maybe after reading your law, I'll also listen to the judges argue that the law I listed does not justify what Trump did.
Okay, at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GfzISGJo7Y
I listened to the arguments before the Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit.
The arguments mentioned both
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states
as at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152
and
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
as at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Section (f) of 1182 has been quoted in this case, including by me in this thread.
So to address one of your claims,
Q. Does 1152 limit, modify, constrain, weaken section (f) of 1182?
A. Apparently a little: 1152 has in part:
> (A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
But clearly the part of this law with "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence" is nonsense because just try to get into the US if you are from North Korea or Iran. Lots of luck! One of the judges mentioned this point.
Next, if the US denies a Visa to a US alien outside of the US based on some of "race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence", does that person have standing to sue in the US courts? I doubt it. Why not? The US Constitution does not provide legal right to US aliens outside of the US.
The law 1182 is mostly about the POTUS protecting the US, and 1152 doesn't restrict the POTUS from protecting the US as in 1182.
The court kept asking if the POTUS could block all Muslims?
Apparently 1152 and 1182 don't say he can't. E.g., the POTUS might notice that radical Islamic terrorism is a threat to the US, that all radical Islamist terrorists are Muslims, and that until he can tell the difference between a safe Muslim and a dangerous one he can block them all.
Maybe the 9th Circuit would like to spend a few years in legal cases on that point.
To help such a case, when some e-coli is detected in a four ounce sample of 10 tons of hamburger, we block all 10 tons.
In line with section (f) of 1182, The POTUS might notice lots of evidence that lots of Muslims believe that their religion demands that they regard everyone else as an infidel and kill or convert them and, thus, admitted to the US would be a risk to US national security. Or, a violent religion is not just a religion but is violent and can be banned from the US because it is violent even though its practitioners believe it is a religion.
The hearing had lots of wacko nonsense:
(1) E.g., suppose I'm in the burka business; the Trump executive order (EO) will reduce the number of Muslim customers for my business; so, I have standing to challenge the EO as harmful to my business. The EO should be blocked until we have a court case where I can show the damages to my business.
Nonsense.
(2) The establishment clause is
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
So, in Yemen I create a new religion that worships death for everyone else, claim that the EO blocks my "free exercise" of my religion in the US; thus the EO should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Gads.
(3) The judicial role is to say what the law says.
So, each time the POTUS wants to use a law, we need to have long legal cases to question in court what the heck the law means.
So, the POTUS can't use a law unless every possible wacko objection to the law has spent months in the courts and been struck down.
So, we don't have any laws at all until, one law at a time, the Judicial Branch has their say, modifications, vetoes, etc.?
More nonsense.
(4) Can't just block all Muslim aliens outside the US from entering the US because, as mentioned in the hearing, there is "religious motivation".
Nonsense.
The law 1182 says that he can block people for reasons he "deems" .... That's darned broad.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that aliens outside the US have rights, i.e., a right to have their religion ignored when they want to enter the US. Instead, both current practice, e.g., keeping people from North Korea out in spite of 1152, from 1182 and "deems" the US can block immigrants on eye color, ability to run a 100 yard dash, or anything or nothing. Aliens outside the US have zip, zilch, and zero rights under the US Constitution.
Apparently the courts want to claim that some huge range of legal cases can change the meanings of all the laws passed by Congress. There be monsters and chaos. In that case, in general, the POTUS can't do anything because anything he does might hurt someone; for each POTUS action legal cases could go on for years.
Nonsense.
Net, so far the most reasonable explanation is that this whole EO case and its appeal is a bunch of lawyers making a mess just so that they can stick it to Trump -- tie him up in endless legal nonsense -- because they don't like him.
Maybe Trump's approach now is to have some major fraction of all the best lawyers in DC write him a new EO that not even the 9th Circuit dare question.
Resolving either complaint will likely require a constitutional amendment; the Establishment Clause is literally a clause in the US constitution, and the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and in deciding when a statute or regulation is contrary to the Constitution has been practiced throughout the entire history of the US since the Constitution's ratification.
I don't, and I never so claimed.
You misrepresented what I wrote to set up a false straw man in order to knock it down.
Just read again what the heck I wrote.
But just for you, again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, I did claim, e.g., that saying that the establishment clause on "free exercise" of a religion basically forces the US to admit a Muslim is nonsense.
Or clearly the context of the US Constitution is people inside the US, mostly US citizens. That some Muslim alien in Yemen wants to immigrate is irrelevant.
For judicial review, sure, but in this case 1182 is so crystal clear that supporting the TRO against the EO is nonsense.
Or, 1182 says that the POTUS has essentially unlimited powers to keep US aliens out of the US. That an EO to keep out US alien Muslims in Yemen might deny a US university a speaker from Yemen, disappoint a US woman expecting to marry a man from Yemen, hurt some US burka clothing business due to fewer Muslim customers in the US are all just irrelevant; no way did the founding fathers or the authors of 1182 think of such distant side effects; issuing a TRO against such an EO is nonsense.
Or the university, the woman, and the owner of the burka clothing business needed to think ahead that they were counting on US aliens outside the US being able to enter the US, and there was no such guarantee.
Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, if consider such obscure indirect effects, side effects, secondary, tertiary, ..., effects, then no action on anything will be possible.
E.g., I could ask for a TRO to keep Trump from using Air Force One because the amount of jet fuel it burns will tend to raise the price of gasoline for me and, thus, reduce what I can buy for myself. Gee, I should file a class action with plaintiffs all over the country! Yup, that would be such an indirect effect. But such a TRO would be nonsense.
I better not come up with more such examples or the 9th Circuit will be supporting such TROs.
Law 1182 is just crystal clear. Making that law look complicated -- e.g., that some university may have to cancel a lecture from a speaker who can't enter the US -- is just being really mixed up between the ears.
Again, the believable explanation is that those two courts out west just wanted to stick it to Trump, to show that the Judicial branch could, anytime it wanted to, so tie up Trump in legal cases that he couldn't even have a sandwich for lunch.
That, from what I wrote you wrote
> If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense,
shows that you were deliberately misreading what I wrote. Why? Basically you hate Trump and want to fight with me. I'm being clear, rational, and objective, and you are just flailing away in a political fight.
Why do you hate Trump? A lot of people do. Why? The Hillary campaign spent about $1 billion and the MSM went along passing out just dirty, but unsupported and totally false, propaganda about Trump, and a lot of people believed a lot of it.
The people had either to (A) believe some of the propaganda or (B) treat as sewage to be flushed nearly everything they heard from the Hillary campaign and the MSM. Case (B) required flushing so much that it was scary; so people believed (A).
The Jefferson remarks show that we should accept that at times nearly everything from the MSM can be just sewage.
A lot of people really swallowed that Hillary-MSM propaganda, were so convinced that after Trump won they wanted to scream, throw things, leave the US, etc.
They really, really believed that propaganda.
All such people have to do is just review what objections they have with Trump and, for each, find some solid evidence. At the end of that review, they will have discovered that they have essentially no evidence at all for anything significantly wrong with Trump.
E.g., in this thread, on the claim that Trump is a racist, I gave the URL of the story on his efforts at Palm Beach. I got an answer back that there is plenty of evidence that Trump is racist. I asked for some such evidence, and so far I've received none. No wonder: I paid fairly close attention to the election, and I saw no such evidence at all solid.
Other times on this thread I asked for evidence of something bad about Trump and didn't get any.
In a sense, the TRO on the EO is really good news: If that is the strongest shots the Trump enemies can fire, then Trump must be squeaky clean.
I don't know if Trump doesn't understand this or if he really does understand it and wants another terrorist attack on the US so he can gain more power.
Net, there is a lot of confusion on this subject, and I can't clear it all up quickly here.
Tell me a little about pastebin, and I will try.
https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/donald-trump-white-house
Here's an early piece from them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-...
Here's the lead:
President Trump on Friday closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world, ordering that families fleeing the slaughter in Syria be indefinitely blocked from entering the United States, and temporarily suspending immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.
It's Rudy Giuliani who was running around calling it a Muslim ban.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE&feature=youtu.be...
If you're suggesting the media is wrong for trying to investigate the motivation behind policy decisions, I don't know what to say to you. I think this is absolutely what the media should be doing, as long as it's backed up by evidence.
Headline: "McDonalds refuses to hire blacks for being inferior".
Reality: A racist shift store manager of a single store owned by an absentee franchiser is caught discriminating in his hiring practices and promptly fired.
Is the headline misleading? It's a factual statement that a McDonalds in the context described above did do exactly what they were accused of.
So back on point, yes it was a Muslim ban and no it wasn't a ban on Muslims. Both sides are trying to frame it for maximum affect and the result is we grow further divided as a people.
Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order.
Surprised so many in here are defending the press making things up...but goes to show how the bias is effective.
How much more do you personally feel you'd need to have before you'd be OK with someone using the term "Muslim ban" to refer to it?
Also, most MSM articles do not refer to it as a Muslim ban.