SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the what-separation-of-powers department:
The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
The NY Post adds:
The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:33AM
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations
Does the Trump's edict have any religious test? I don't think so (please correct me if I'm wrong.) And in general, "beliefs, statements, or associations" are 100% falling into the primary test for a visa. If the applicant is known for chanting "Death to America!1!" and/or hanging out with OBL's buddies, he should not be permitted to enter.
There is no conflict here because of the "if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States" clause. Harmless beliefs, like in Santa Claus, are OK. Clearly prohibited beliefs (like OBL) are no-go. Anywhere in between is up to the government (all parts of it) to decide. If Trump is not even asking the immigrant who his friends are, then he is acting legally. If he asks, then he might be in hot water. The law is written such that it is much easier to block immigration from a whole country than to stop a few militants - because then the criteria of selection will be endlessly debated in courts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:55AM
> Does the Trump's edict have any religious test?
Yes it does. It says there is special privileges for people from minority religions. That's literally a religious test.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:14AM
Yes it does. It says there is special privileges for people from minority religions. That's literally a religious test.
You made me curious, and I read the full text of the executive order [cnn.com]. I found that these words do exist there... but they do not apply to the ban! They apply to RESUMPTION of the immigration after the 90 day period expires. I highlighted relevant phrases.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
It seems like they are giving priority to immigrants who are about to be killed by the majority, unless they are admitted. It is hard to find much wrong here if the total number of immigrants is limited. It's obvious that some Muslims would also like to get out of those hellholes, but at least they are not asked to convert or be beheaded on the spot - they are already Muslims, and Quran protects believers from other believers (how well - that's a different story, but at least they probably won't be killed for sport.)
In any case, this executive order in this aspect only instructs the officials to propose changes to the policies. These changes have to be within the law, and they will have plenty of chance to be stopped by courts if need be, as they are not urgent acts. They will probably take months to formulate and approve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:47AM
It's obvious that some Muslims would also like to get out of those hellholes, but at least they are not asked to convert or be beheaded on the spot
Not entirely. Islam is split in two groups (Shia and Sunni). They hate each other just as much as the three main groups of Abrahamic religions (Christians, Jews and Muslims). That is, the extremists want to kill anyone from the other groups, and the moderates can live peacefully together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:11PM
> Not entirely. Islam is split in two groups (Shia and Sunni).
Its not just shia and sunni, islam is hugely fragmented, much more than christianity.
For example, there are sufis, which are the source of their greatest artists and poets and are also universally looked down on.
And within the sunnis there are qutbists and whabbi who are the ultra-crazy and are nearly as happy to murder mainstream sunnis as they are to murder shias.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16PM
> These changes have to be within the law,
You know just saying that in the order doesn't make the order lawful.
Kinda like the democratic peoples republica of korea isn't really democratic.
> that's a different story, but at least they probably won't be killed for sport.)
The sophistry is weak in you. Muslims are overwhelmingly the largest number of victims of extremist violence.
Other religions are just a sideshow, its conventional muslims who are real enemy of the extremists.
Did you not see that guy daesh burned alive in a cage?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:57AM
Also, from the mouth of Trump-stooge Rudy Giuliani himself: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-rudy-giuliani-how-legally-create-islam-us-immigration-entry-visa-new-york-a7552751.html [independent.co.uk]
Trump wanted to ban muslims, this was intended as a muslim ban. It is a Muslim ban with a thin (and inadequate) veneer of legality plastered on top.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:42AM
Does the Trump's edict have any religious test? I don't think so (please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Yes, you are wrong. Have you heard of the Thirty Years War? Oh, American, sorry, I forgot that you are all geographically and historically disabled. Yes, Religious War, Protestants against Catholics, Dutch again the Austro-Hungarians, and the Fucking Spaniards fit in somewhere. So are you a Jew? Here, eat this bacon. No? Drop trow, and let us see your Johnson! Mostly, we just wanted to see your Johnson, like Peter Thiel wants to. But the point is, Religious test? Fuck yeah! Muslin? Wrong fabric! Calico? Gingham? Now those are true American Fabric! So let them through! Why does Steven Bannon insist on calling Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove? And why are they all rolling in Chiffon?