Trump's Travel Ban

[Trunks]

1. Why can't America and England merge into one nation like they were before 1776?
2. Why can't Canada and Russia merge into nation to honour their mutual love for hockey? They could call it Crussia or Ranada...
3. Why can't Switzerland and Saudi Arabia merge into one nation and establish buddhism as their official state religion?

So many possibilities!

It would help me if you explained the point you are trying to convey with the sarcasm, if any.

 

[Bokanovsky]

It would help me if you explained the point you are trying to convey with the sarcasm, if any.

How can two peoples that hate each other so much they've spent the last 70 years fighting non-stop, and that have totally opposite world views in terms of religion and culture merge into one nation "created to honour both ethnicities"? How will this "merger" be implemented? Who's going to agree to it? Who's going to force people who don't get along to suddenly start getting along...and how?

Can you name one historical example of two nations "merging"? There are plenty of examples of countries falling apart along ethnic and religious lines but it never happens the other way around. The only time you have "merging" is when one country conquers another. The only possible exception that I can think of is the EU, and even that was a partial merger that is already failing. And European nations have a lot more in common with each other than Israelis and Palestinians.

 

[Trunks]

How can two peoples that hate each other so much they've spent the last 70 years fighting non-stop, and that have totally opposite world views in terms of religion and culture merge into one nation "created to honour both ethnicities"? How will this "merger" be implemented? Who's going to agree to it? Who's going to force people who don't get along to suddenly start getting along...and how?

Can you name one historical example of two nations "merging"? There are plenty of examples of countries falling apart along ethnic and religious lines but it never happens the other way around. The only time you have "merging" is when one country conquers another. The only possible exception that I can think of is the EU, and even that was a partial merger that is already failing. And European nations have a lot more in common with each other than Israelis and Palestinians.

I agree in principle. Ideally, a nation is composed of people that share a common culture, history, and values. However, the situation has complicated too much for that. Whether right or wrong - imo wrong - the fact is that Israel's settlements (in the West Bank at least) have successfully created an ethnic mosaic within that territory that it would be difficult to carve out a Palestinian state without somehow pushing the settlers and their descendants back to Israel proper (good luck with that). On top of that, there is the problem with Gaza being controlled by Hamas that BlueAlpha mentioned. Notice that my emphasis was a secular state. Palestinians are generally poor, and many would actually jump at the chance of becoming Israel citizens, if only for better economic opportunities.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

I agree in principle. Ideally, a nation is composed of people that share a common culture, history, and values. However, the situation has complicated too much for that. Whether right or wrong - imo wrong - the fact is that Israel's settlements (in the West Bank at least) have successfully created an ethnic mosaic within that territory that it would be difficult to carve out a Palestinian state without somehow pushing the settlers and their descendants back to Israel proper (good luck with that). On top of that, there is the problem with Gaza being controlled by Hamas that BlueAlpha mentioned. Notice that my emphasis was a secular state. Palestinians are generally poor, and many would actually jump at the chance of becoming Israel citizens, if only for better economic opportunities.

I think your assessment is fair but don't believe most Palestinians would be OK with becoming Israeli citizens and sharing the land with the Jews. They object to a place called Israel and refuse to share. They'd rather continue to live as a charity case and eventually see Jews destroyed than move toward peace.

These are the same people who voted in Hamas via democratic majority in 2006, a year AFTER Israel forcibly deported every Jewish settler from Gaza in 2005, a huge gesture to make peace.

There can only be peace in the region when The PA or another nonviolent party replaces Hamas, and a fair arbiter mediates the negotiations. Right now the USA is biased toward Israel, and the entire UN is biased against Israel.

 

[Cosmos15]

Trump is insane. He is just inciting hatred with his unfair immigration policies.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I agree in principle. Ideally, a nation is composed of people that share a common culture, history, and values. However, the situation has complicated too much for that. Whether right or wrong - imo wrong - the fact is that Israel's settlements (in the West Bank at least) have successfully created an ethnic mosaic within that territory that it would be difficult to carve out a Palestinian state without somehow pushing the settlers and their descendants back to Israel proper (good luck with that). On top of that, there is the problem with Gaza being controlled by Hamas that BlueAlpha mentioned. Notice that my emphasis was a secular state. Palestinians are generally poor, and many would actually jump at the chance of becoming Israel citizens, if only for better economic opportunities.

First of all, why on earth would Israel want millions of Palestinians as Israeli citizens? Combined with Israeli Arabs, there is almost as many of them as there are Jews. And with a much higher fertility rate, they would quickly become the majority. And then they would elect Hamas or some other radical group as their government. What happens to the Jews then? Holocaust: Part 2.

As far as Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the largest ones are in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Those will be eventually annexed by Israel. The smaller, more isolated ones will be relocated.I don't think that the Israelis have any long-term strategic interest in holding on to them. They will be used as bargaining chips.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Combined with Israeli Arabs, there is almost as many of them as there are Jews.

This.

All of the anti-Israel conspiracy nuts buy into the propaganda and used charged rhetoric with words like "genocide" and "apartheid". It's. A. Lie.

20% of the residents of Israel are ARAB MUSLIMS.
13 Arabs in the Israeli Parliament
1 Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court
1,100% population increase in Gaza since 1948

THERE IS NO GENOCIDE.

There are only two kinds of Arabs who couldn't live in Israel. Those with ties to terrorist organizations and those who prefer to live as a charity case in Palestine, because it is easier to get free welfare and blame the Jews for everything than it is to abandon your Quran and your upbringing, which dictates it is your duty to drive the Jews into the sea.

 

[Trunks]

First of all, why on earth would Israel want millions of Palestinians as Israeli citizens? Combined with Israeli Arabs, there is almost as many of them as there are Jews. And with a much higher fertility rate, they would quickly become the majority. And then they would elect Hamas or some other radical group as their government. What happens to the Jews then? Holocaust: Part 2.

What makes you think the average Palestinian would be bent on killing Jews if they became citizens of Israel? I am not trying to troll, simply think that the main problem is that neither side trusts the other. I am also predisposed to think that for an impoverished Palestinian who is not an extremist, improving their living conditions would take precedence over hating Israel, if there were protections from the social backlash from more radical Palestinians if they did so.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

What makes you think the average Palestinian would be bent on killing Jews if they became citizens of Israel?

Because that's what they are taught from birth. Children's cartoons in Gaza heard towards 4 year olds teach of the importance of killing Jews.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I called it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-legal-win-234634
President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order suffered its most severe legal blow to date Friday, as a federal judge in Seattle blocked the impact of the directive nationwide.

 

[Trunks]

I called it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-legal-win-234634
President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order suffered its most severe legal blow to date Friday, as a federal judge in Seattle blocked the impact of the directive nationwide.

So the judge in Boston unblocked the ban, but the judge in Seattle blocked it. Where does that leave things?

 

[Bible_Belt]

Next stop is appeals court, where that judge can throw out everything the district judge did, or sometimes just part of it.

It remains to be seen how the appeals will go. Sometimes out of the 9 circuits, the left coast being the most liberal of them, there will be conflicting rulings, and those are the cases that the Supreme Court will pick up most quickly, although fast-tracking the case right now is going to be pointless, because there's not a 7th SC member to break the tie. Even when Gorush gets on the Supremes, I honestly think he is going to rule against Trump in this matter, based upon his previous record as a judge.

 

[logicallefty]

I got this travel ban thing all figured out guys. Check this out.

For any American who is against the travel ban, they should sponsor one refugee family or as many as they can and:
- Allow said family to live in their home.
- NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.
- Allow said family to sleep in their own kids' beds and move their kids to the floor. After all their kids are American and AMERICA SECOND!! Right? Isn't that what they want?
- Be responsible for feeding said family out of their income. Feed the refugees steak, lobster, etc. every day while they and their family eat Ramens and hot dogs. AMERICA SECOND!! .
- Allow said family to use their electricity, their water. Dirty their bathroom, etc.
- Provide refugees with a vehicle so they can drive out to protest how bad America is once they are there. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST!!!
- And if any refugee gets arrested, they pay for the lawyer
- If any refugee gets convicted of a crime, whatever jail time the refugee gets they also serve the same said jail time

There we go, problem solved. If these people want refugees in this country so bad then they need to put their money where there mouth is. Quite literally.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The travel ban has very little to do with refugees. Most of the people caught up in it are westernized, Americanized, speak English, have jobs, etc. The academic and research world is full of them damn fariners. Doctors, scientists, researchers, engineers - these are the people you're chasing away in the name of fighting terrorism.

Oh, and kids, too. Look at that little terrorist face!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fatemeh-reshad-iran-20170204-story.html
Iranian baby will be allowed into United States for life-saving heart surgery

 

[bigneil]

This is the warfare/welfare state. Liberals never ask why we bombed Syria to begin with, they simply ask us to accept Syrian refugees.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Again I ask, how is it Constitutional to ban US CITIZENS from travel to Cuba, but UNConstitutional to ban NON CITIZENS from entering the US?

There was no harm done to the states by the Cuba ban. It's not like we had thousands of Cubans going back and forth regularly when the ban was enacted. Trump's ban is very different. He's sticking it to the states to support all the costs of it, like the way they lose money when he suddenly bans their international students, faculty, and researchers from getting back into the country.

Full text of the Seattle ruling:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_2003_robart_tro_ruling.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council
http://www.westernlaw.org/article/p...er-winter-v-natural-resources-defense-council
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/25/09-35756.pdf

 

[Bible_Belt]

Constitutional means what the judge (a Dubya appointee, btw) says it means. And I'm going to say the same thing even if Trump wins the appeal. That's what it means to respect the Constitution and the legal system we have, which is larger and more important than any one man.

 

[Bible_Belt]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-judge-attack-backfire-234649
Trump’s attack on federal judge could backfire

“Although judges are supposed to be impartial and impassionate, they’re also regretfully human, and the judiciary doesn’t take kindly to it when one of their own is being inappropriately attacked,”

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Not sure how likely this is, but if it goes to the supreme court, and they decide that NOT letting immigrants in is "unconstitutional" that may pose a bit of a problem. Wouldn't that forever eliminate the option of not letting immigrants in?

 

[Bible_Belt]

the Constitution does NOT mean what the judges say it means. It means what it says regardless of activist judges bending words to be completely meaningless.

The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say that all you like, but if you are ever going to work for the government in any capacity, such as police, military, elected rep, judge/lawyer, even government office workers, you are going to take an oath where you swear to defend and uphold the US Constitution. That means you give up your own interpretation of the document and defer to the judiciary, even if you're a billionaire tv star president.