I think if there’s one thing we have learned this week, it’s that Trump’s declarations are not the final word.
Eh, it aint over yet. He seemed pretty willing to throw Article III out the window and only barely backed down. The reality is he could override the Courts and if the GOP was unwilling to impeach nothing would stop him from doing it. He has Jackson’s picture up in the Oval Office for a reason and it’s not that he really hates government corruption or the electoral college (though he does hate Native Americans, probably because they compete with him with their casinos).
Edit: Case in point from the White House:
Also… mem-member how this whole ban isn’t supposed to be happening because of laws and stuff?
That was great.
He wasn’t banned. You can’t ban someone with a US passport from entering the US. You can detain them and ask them questions, but you eventually have to let US citizens into the US even if they refuse to answer any questions. That’s the whole point of a passport: it announces to the world that you are the US’s problem, not theirs. As you can imagine, the countries you visit need to be assured that there is a place they can send you if you wear out your welcome.
On the other hand, the stuff you bring with you can always be inspected and even confiscated, regardless of your nationality. That might require you to choose between unlocking your electronics and surrendering them. But this is not new, it was going on under Obama as well, and also occurs in Canada and other countries. The EFF has been fighting this for years.
Do you remember when Trump actually talked about revoking US Citizenship for things like flag burning:
those born in the US
He uses threat of revoking citizenship like it’s just a driver’s license.
I don’t know about banning our US citizens but there are a number of incidents about extraordinary citizens having trouble at our borders. You can only imagine what the ordinary citizens are going through.
Sure, Trump could sue to revoke someone’s citizenship. For that matter, I could file a lawsuit to revoke someone’s citizenship. Neither one of us would get anywhere, though. It’s a settled issue, you cannot involuntarily revoke citizenship from a natural-born American.
My point is, let’s not pretend Trump cares anymore about US Citizens than he does non-citizens. He will step on anyone and everyone to get what he wants. if they’ve been instructed to go after anyone whose name sounds funny or looks foreign, US citizens are going to get hit by that; Trump and Trump supporters won’t care. They still consider those people the “others”.
I agree with you.
This is painted with too broad of a brush.
It’s really not. It’s how the Trump supporter brain, if that’s even the proper word anymore, functions.
I can support parts of Trump’s agenda. I can promise you I don’t look at people as you describe them.
You don’t get to pick and choose.
While you may not entirely embrace all of Trumps agenda, you are at least complicit with all of it. That is, all of it is at least acceptable to you, if you support Trump and do not fight against those things.
While I don’t want to put words into your mouths, the usual argument is that Trump is racist and he’s banning all Muslims, etc. which I disagree with. So, if there is no other possibility in your collective minds, then it serves no purpose to discuss. But, if I’m projecting too far with my assumptions then please accept my apology.
In a country overflowing with racially-motivated behavior, astoundingly few people self-identify as racist. It’s not a determination anyone should have supreme confidence in.
Explain what you believe he is doing.
Asking some questions might be more appropriate.
Is is possible to ethically, morally, and legally deny entry into the United States to a non-US citizen? If your answer is that there can be no other basis than ‘racism’, then we won’t get far in our discussion.
Is it racist to profile and submit people to a higher degree of scrutiny due to their national origin and/or religion or other information determined to be concerning to those whose job is to keep United States citizens safe? If your answer is that there can be no other answer than ‘racist’, then we won’t get far in our discussion.
I have heard arguments that ‘we are a nation of immigrants’ (yes, we are) or ‘it’s un-American and against the Constitution’ (a pause to ensure citizens are safe is not un-American as sovereign nations are supposed to do this for their citizens and the Constitution whose ideals are a beacon to others does not provide legal rights to non-citizens).
If you presume that people are racists because that is the easy answer which confirms your feelings, then you are committing an injustice to those who have other ethical, moral, and legal grounds for the same actions.
Of course, that’s what the visa or refugee processes are for.
While perhaps "racist"is not the correct term here, I would argue that is certainly wrong, and indeed what you describe here is the very definition of bigotry.
I mean, look at what you just said. Just your own words. Is it ok to profile people based on their religion? No, of course it’s not.
To do so would constitute our government taking a position of favoring some religions over others. This is clearly wrong, not only from an ethical positive, but from a constitutional one.
Ignoring your previous error, let’s address this one.
How does the current executive order make anyone safer?
You are suggesting that the oppression of people is justified, because it will result in some necessary and tangible benefits.
Explain exactly what that is, and exactly how it is achieved. Be advised, I’m not going to let you off the hook of you try to dodge this. So you midaswell just deal with it straight up.
People are being judged based on their actions and their beliefs, not simply because those beliefs are different.
The Constitution does not provide rights to non-citizens outside of US territory. But once someone is here, the 14th amendment spells out that the same rights apply to citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants.
In fact, the word “citizen” does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. That’s why it’s a Bill of Rights, and not a Bill of Privileges.
Yeah. As regards other amendments, some apply to citizens, and others apply to “any person” or similar language.