Trump's Executive Order Halting Immigration & Refugees

Do you support the Executive order halting immigration for 120 days?


  • Total voters
    33
In one hand trying to shut down Berkeley if it "prevented freedom of speech" (AKA: Supporting Trump), and on the other he's violating the very definition of America being a land of the free for religion and race.

His actions are backed by shitty "well, Obama did it first" comments, which in fact are completely irrelevant due to the circumstances at the respective time. It's infuriating to think that he can get away with all the bullshit he spews up.

Trump is a Hitler that doesn't even have the support of his own people.
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-The First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ratified in the Year of Our Lord, 1791.​
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-The First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ratified in the Year of Our Lord, 1791.​

While I have no intention of touching this topic for personal reasons, I will make note that there is an interesting word in this amendment. That word is "Congress." The reason I say that is because it wasn't Congress that made this possible, but the President of the United States, who is an executive authority. What I would like to add to this is, how far does the President's power stretch? Is he, in some sense, above the Constitution, even though every President (including currently) has claimed their intention to strongly uphold it? In a way, I don't think anyone has really tried to challenge the reach of the Executive Branch.

~M
 
In 1965, the United States Congress and Senate passed a law, that was signed by the president of the time, Lyndon B. Johnson, forbidding anyone from passing laws just like this. While it is an executive order, it is, for all intents and purposes, illegal. So, on that side of things, being a Constitutionalist Libertarian, I can't support it. Being an immigrant, I can't support it. The fact that he seems to be avoiding countries he has business ties with? I can't support it.

Nearly all of the largest exporters of terrorism, the reason he claims to have signed the ban, are not on the list. I can't support it. The fact that American citizens, doctors, visa and green card holders are being detained, I can't support it.

There's many more reasons to not support the executive order based on other, more moral reasons, for others, I suppose. All of this together, the legal issues, the moral issues, and the way the ban was applied should be enough for even the most hardcore of Republicans in America to go, "Whoa, slow down, Mr. President."
 
My main thing outlook on this refugee situation is that it seems like the first world is more concerned with some violent act occurring (with the same likelihood of happening as death by vending machine*) as they are about the fact these people are trying to flee inslavement and genocide. Like... priorities people. I fully agree there's concern with stuff like cultural compatibility, but I don't think that trumps preventing people from fleeing what's effectively hell on earth.

*Should be noted I'm strictly talking terror attacks as a result of a refugee. Not terrorist attacks where the terrorist either got in through methods that blocking refugees wouldn't prevent, or was simply born in the country of the incident to begin with.
 
While I have no intention of touching this topic for personal reasons, I will make note that there is an interesting word in this amendment. That word is "Congress." The reason I say that is because it wasn't Congress that made this possible, but the President of the United States, who is an executive authority. What I would like to add to this is, how far does the President's power stretch? Is he, in some sense, above the Constitution, even though every President (including currently) has claimed their intention to strongly uphold it? In a way, I don't think anyone has really tried to challenge the reach of the Executive Branch.

~M
Executive orders can be struck down by the Supreme Court, just as laws can. An executive order is basically a law. Now, I think Congress can pass a law reversing the executive order. So an executive order falls just under the power of a law when directly conflicting. If I remember correctly.

In 1965, the United States Congress and Senate passed a law, that was signed by the president of the time, Lyndon B. Johnson, forbidding anyone from passing laws just like this. While it is an executive order, it is, for all intents and purposes, illegal. So, on that side of things, being a Constitutionalist Libertarian, I can't support it. Being an immigrant, I can't support it. The fact that he seems to be avoiding countries he has business ties with? I can't support it.

Nearly all of the largest exporters of terrorism, the reason he claims to have signed the ban, are not on the list. I can't support it. The fact that American citizens, doctors, visa and green card holders are being detained, I can't support it.

There's many more reasons to not support the executive order based on other, more moral reasons, for others, I suppose. All of this together, the legal issues, the moral issues, and the way the ban was applied should be enough for even the most hardcore of Republicans in America to go, "Whoa, slow down, Mr. President."

This is not happening. Most Republicans I know, fully support this ban. The ones that don't, are actually Christian. This is just in my circle, though. I do have a very large circle 95% conservative republican being in Oklahoma.
In one hand trying to shut down Berkeley if it "prevented freedom of speech" (AKA: Supporting Trump), and on the other he's violating the very definition of America being a land of the free for religion and race.

His actions are backed by shitty "well, Obama did it first" comments, which in fact are completely irrelevant due to the circumstances at the respective time. It's infuriating to think that he can get away with all the bullshit he spews up.

Trump is a Hitler that doesn't even have the support of his own people.

Many presidents have done something very similar to this executive order. In fact, Obama and Bush did. Clinton did. Then farther back, they did as well.



Completely unrelated, my parents marginally support the ban because they feel that any money, effort, and aid we put forth should go to our own country first. Taking care of homeless, veterans, etc.

Hmmm. Should I post my opinion?
 
This is not happening. Most Republicans I know, fully support this ban. The ones that don't, are actually Christian. This is just in my circle, though. I do have a very large circle 95% conservative republican being in Oklahoma.

I know it's not happening, but based on the reasons already stated you would think it would be. Modern Republicans paint the party as the one that upholds American values, but when the American values are threatened there's a silence or support for the very thing that they would be opposed to, and have been in the past.

And, no other president since FDR has passed similar laws. Obama and Bush, included. Bush has always been very adamant about people not targeting Muslims, or anyone, based on their country of origin when it came to things like immigration. His father took a similar stance as president and vice-president. Obama was attacked for taking a similar stance and being seen as weak on terrorism.

I don't know where anyone got the idea that they did same thing from.
 
While I have no intention of touching this topic for personal reasons, I will make note that there is an interesting word in this amendment. That word is "Congress." The reason I say that is because it wasn't Congress that made this possible, but the President of the United States, who is an executive authority. What I would like to add to this is, how far does the President's power stretch? Is he, in some sense, above the Constitution, even though every President (including currently) has claimed their intention to strongly uphold it? In a way, I don't think anyone has really tried to challenge the reach of the Executive Branch.

~M
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
-Presidential Oath of the United States of America.​

While the legalities of the action in question may be argued to be perfectly legitimate, it should be noted, quite strongly, that within the first month of taking office, President Donald J. Trump has failed to uphold the very oath he swore upon.

Even if this isn't illegal, it is so principally vile and unamerican as to be honestly disheartening to watch. America is supposed to be the land of the brave, not the land of people who are terrified of desert peasants who use old soviet era technology and who herd goats for a living.

The orange troll doll has another four years in office. Enjoy them. They should be fantastic for comedians, and confusing for historians. (Not that Donald Trump hasn't done good too. Striking down TTIP was fantastic.)
 
I know it's not happening, but based on the reasons already stated you would think it would be. Modern Republicans paint the party as the one that upholds American values, but when the American values are threatened there's a silence or support for the very thing that they would be opposed to, and have been in the past.

And, no other president since FDR has passed similar laws. Obama and Bush, included. Bush has always been very adamant about people not targeting Muslims, or anyone, based on their country of origin when it came to things like immigration. His father took a similar stance as president and vice-president. Obama was attacked for taking a similar stance and being seen as weak on terrorism.

I don't know where anyone got the idea that they did same thing from.

Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan

Bush instituted the NSEERS

Obama slowed the immigration process for Iraqis.

Whatever the reason and I guarantee you that people somewhere will find a way to support all of these, immigration/refugee acceptance has been affected by other presidents.

Similar things have been done. By similar, I don't mean banning immigrants from countries. By similar, I mean any law or order that slows down, stops, or increases deportation of immigrants/refugees. They all did it. It just didn't get the coverage this one has, and people may have felt it to be justified. You may not find them "similar" because you either support some and don't support others.

Also, This is a completely neutral stance.
 
Personally, I think it is too early to judge too much. In the end, I don't feel the world will truly experience the impact of this presidency for a few more years - for good or bad. Sure, someone is going to say he is already doing things that are unconstitutional or signing laws that are un-American, but in the end, I'm just going to play the long game and seem what washes out in the next few years. Each President does things that others don't agree with, that is just life. Eventually, we will have enough time and policy to set them on the scale. All we can really do is sit back and see how it unfolds. Either way, it will probably be historical.

~M
 
That's what I mean, no one banned people from specific countries since World War 2, and even then not long after things of that nature haven't been do certain since.

Slowing down immigration, taking precautions to revethe certain individuals is not the same as banning people from predominantly Muslim countries because they're Muslim countries.

Like, when America slowed down immigration from Cuba it was because there were too many to handle. America is closer than say, England, so they all came this way.
 
Saying Trump banned immigration from those countries because they are Muslim is assumption. He put those countries on a ban list to protect national security. Whether you agree with it or not.

Inference and assumption is rarely a good basis for judgement.

All the countries were Muslim countries, but those countries do not even represent the majority of Muslims in the world.
 
Frankly I find the executive order a rediculous act of aggression towards those of other religions and ethnicity. I have seen men who were American citizens be deported back to places thier family was from! We can see it from Fox News, Facebook, Twitter, Aol, Cnn, Fox, Live 5, and more! Sure I mean I can see some logic behind it but it rather to narrow. So narrow it makes us more easy prey to our enemies. We have sheep who are following blindly. Do we still have our sheppards? Or are we all doomed to be feasted upon with our Sheppards hands' tied?

Frankly if you look at the 14th admendment it declares it illegal to deny any citizen born or living upon US soil to be denied of thier citizenship or participation in our government. Now if you want toyou really want to become technical our 13th admendment allows all natural d unnatural born persons citizenship and the right to vote. This includes europeans and others. The land orginally was not uninhabited. Infact it was inhabited like many countless countries and lands that were here before our time. We are young and small yet collectively we know we hold keys. Now let me ask this, do you want to be held against your will? Do you want to be upset with no solution and let yourself bleed? If you treat the man next to you as would yourself then it should be expected he treat you the same. Failure to do so is automatically his wrong and that is up to whatever God or being he sees or feels to deal with. Last I checked America and its culture was a mixture because we ourselves were once persecuted. Are we seriously going to turn around and do the same as hypocrites? Sure no one is perfect but we should never be that low in standards and ethics.
 
Saying Trump banned immigration from those countries because they are Muslim is assumption. He put those countries on a ban list to protect national security. Whether you agree with it or not.

Inference and assumption is rarely a good basis for judgement.

All the countries were Muslim countries, but those countries do not even represent the majority of Muslims in the world.

While campaigning for president days after a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

He also said, "I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger, but now many are saying I was right to do so."

And when reminded that his running mate, Mike Pence, once called a Muslim ban unconstitutional, Trump responded, "So you call it territories. OK? We’re gonna do territories.

Asked whether that approach was a "rollback" of his position, Trump said no, adding, "You could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word ‘Muslim.’"

So, you're right. Inference and assumption don't make for good judgment. I decided to use the man's own words verbatim.

He clearly wanted a Muslim ban, he is doing a Muslim ban without actually calling it that. He's walking around with a shoe that clearly fits him and people still think they're too big.

And, yes, I know those countries don't represent of all the Muslims in the world. I was raised Muslim myself.

I also know that the countries on the list are not among the biggest exporters of terrorism to the west. Those would be the several not on the list in the same region.

That, as I mentioned before, Donald Trump has a business past and present with.
 
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That - quoted on our statue of liberty - largely sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Also of the mind that families shouldn't be being torn apart, because of a president chasing headlines and throwing around orders that actually accomplish nothing and harm our citizens in the process. The president should be protecting our citizens, not hurting them to get his jollies off.

Note: If someone can convince me on how it's actually going to impact terrorism (when some of the most terrorist prone countries got omitted), I'll revoke the bit on 'accomplishing nothing', but the rest stands.
 
Ok, I am recovered (for the most part) from my surgery. So I can respond without the influence of (hopefully) the drugs.

Saarai, that is a personal opinion that you hold. Not actual fact. You are allowed to hold those opinions, but they must be distinguished from fact.

It CANNOT be a Muslim ban because not all Muslim countries are banned. It cannot be a Muslim ban because it is not listed as a Muslim ban, first and foremost. It doesn't even cover the majority of Muslims in the world.

It was a suspension of immigration from certain countries regardless of religion. There was no religion test. They could have been Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, and Scientologists. They still wouldn't have been allowed in.

If you wish to believe if was a Muslim ban, that is fine. However, factually, it is not a Muslim ban.

Now I can go back to the more constructive things.

Tiko, That is one reason why I don't support the order. I also cannot support it, because of my religious views. The Bible clearly states that we are to welcome aliens. So if you see a Christian that supports this idea, they need to be kindly reminded that they are not following God's word.
 
Saarai, that is a personal opinion that you hold. Not actual fact. You are allowed to hold those opinions, but they must be distinguished from fact.

I quoted the President's exact, recorded on TV, words. That's not a personal opinion. I even linked to one of his interviews.
 
Honestly i'm neutral on this for reasons because i was not yet old enough to vote when it happened. My grandma is obsessed with it though so thats the only reason i know or have to listen about this.
 
Back
Top