Question most definitely written by a community college professor.

American muslims should be afforded every civil right and liberty granted to all Americans. No exceptions.

Potential immigrants however have no grounds to complain as states are free to manage their immigration policies as they see fit. The executive order primarily addresses countries that do not cooperate with US and have ineffective governments/procedures to properly handle immigration/emigration. Last time I checked there are very few muslims in Venezuela or North Korea.

I'm not scared of muslims and I am not scared of terrorists of any race/creed/ethnicity but this is a country of laws.

I agree generally with everything but the bold is problematic. If one terrorist sponsor state is on the banned list while another is not the banned immigrants should have grounds to complain, not legal grounds persay but legitimate grounds for the conversation to change the law for sure. When you make a law and then justify it with certain criteria those criteria better be consistent, this specific muslim ban doesn't have that. It has countries we like supported and ones we don't banned. If there is no internal consistency that's fine, but it needs to be states as such. Lying justifications undermine the credibility of the law itself if they are being used to cover up potentially illegal circumstances, to put my tinfoil hat on, Saudi kickbacks.

One could also try and work out the circumstances in which humans are bound to each other bereft of state borders in times of crises. Military help isn't the subject there but rather taking in refugees and providing shelter and baseline food to live. That's not an objective conversation but i think we all have a raw number of "safe" refugees we'd be willing to take in to risk another raw number of "insurgent" or "radicalized" refugees. For some they'd happily take in 100 good folks for every bad egg, for others its 1000:1, for some who are heavily radicalized by the right wing it's a million:zero proposition, zero is a number afterall.

I think that's fair. A discussion would probably be the best way to create policies that actually make sense - shocking, I know. I just wanted to make the point that the ban is legal, it is most likely ill-advised but is within the power of the executive branch.

we need to make clear though, the current legislation is "legal". The ban it's infancy was a propaganda piece aimed directly at Muslims. Even devout Trumpets realize the "i meant regions with terrorism" is a convenient cop out, in fact they prefer it that way.

I'd have to do quite a bit of digging but I'm sure it's possible to challenge the law based on it's intent and purposes and then judge it based on whether it achieves those, such as banning state sponsors of terrorism. If that's an explicit goal of the legislation it fails could potentially be challenged, i believe that's the angle the circuit courts are taking, but i'm sure it will fail in the end and a watered down law will be put in the books temporarily.

And it should be said that the ban was supposed to come hand in hand with a new "extreme vetting" procedure that in it's infancy was also a thinly veiled attack on muslims with pundits jokingly calling for bacon taste tests to enter the US. I'm sure almost any drafted version of the stuff on that topic would have been struck down hard.

You are allowed to use inflammatory rhetoric. The actual law must be judged on the text of the order not comments that were made prior to assuming the presidency. As I said before I think it is ill-advised and a waste of time, but at this point he is trying to make it clear that this power does rest with the executive branch. Extreme vetting can mean anything so I don't really have any comment on that unless some actual material rules of vetting are released.

Why do you think we have a problem with terrorist acts?

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520440787/trump-s-campaign-rhetoric-hinders-legal-argument-for-travel-ban

That article covers this topic quite well!

An interesting read no doubt. Even this man seems to imply that the order may be legal and even though he says he isn't judging what Trump believes in his heart of hears, he kind of is:



Why would the legality of an executive order depend on who is the president? It just doesn't logically follow for me. It is going to have to go to the Supreme Court, imo, because the District Courts tend to be quite politically biased one way or another.

I see the logic, EO's are tied directly to a president. so if the intent of that president is what's in question him leaving office should in theory clear that intent, or at the least necessitate that someone prove the incomming potus has the same intent of bias.

I think the key to that article is that the precedent in case law talks about psychoanalysis, whereas here we have direct quotes sometimes with further clarification and repeated many times. Whether or not that type of analysis can be used to prove bias i doubt tho, as you said it needs to get kicked to the USSC.