Ill try again since mentioning the darkies gets me ignored




>imports millions of people willy nilly
>mad when the average gradually gets excluded

See my edit.

We will have to see how this pans out but it does show how ludicrous the divide is over in america when even the supreme court acts on affiliation bias instead of the ACTUAL LAWS.
Clearly there should be guidelines in place for just about everything and if there is a new point of contention it should also have guidelines drafted.
This whole "I side with trump because i am a conservative" or "I side with whoever the hell the liberal leader is right now because i am a liberal" nonsense should be beneath a supreme court justice.
Sickens me, we have similar issues in australia though not as bad.

Blah, blah, blah. The LAWS say that illegal immigration is ...illegal. They also say that the president is allowed to decide when immigration from certain countries constitutes a national security threat.

Except america has had a total of ZERO attacks from anyone from any of the listed countries, meanwhile your mates in saudi arabia were behind just about every attack committed on american soil and they dodged the ban easy.
You completely dodged my point though, the supreme court is arguing their interpretation on laws based on their own party bias, when the laws should be clear cut and direct.

Do you think trump shouted "HERR DERR I THINK WE SHOULD BAN TRAVEL FROM ERRR CANADA BECAUSE ITS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK" there would be an uproar?, yet canada has committed the same amount of attacks on american soil as any of the other countries listed on his ban.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 27 2018 10:50pm

'Number of attacks on american soil from people of this country' isn't the only relevant criteria that should be looked at and is not representative of current security risks.

These same countries were identified as countries of concern under the Obama administration.
It should be easy to see how immigration from wartorn middle eastern countries might be considered a risk, especially when screening is compromised and inadequate, and especially compared to a country like Canada.

No previous attacks on american soil by people from a Libya or Syria is irrelevant if they have recently been ravaged by war with radical islamic terrorists roaming around.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 27 2018 11:16pm

Care to explain the saudi exemption?

It wasn't Saudi Arabi that went on the internet and said: Just run people over with trucks, use bombs, use knives, use w/e comes to hand.

The people who said all of that were inspired by the saudi 9/11 hijackers.

You can spin things to suit your beliefs. But all that encouraging to use any means was recent, like in the last year.
Saudi hyas been our ally since before that.