Was it a Muslim ban, OR a ban on countries sympathetic to terrorism???

[righteousdude2]

The title of the OP is the topic of this debate. I believe that the seven nations listed in the temporary ban had nothing to do with religion as much as it had to do with "hot spots" around the world where terrorism id running wild.

So what say y'all????

 

[Crabtownboy]

If it is not a Muslim ban and is a potential terrorist ban they why is Saudi Arabia not included as it is the main financier of ISIS and it was from that country that almost all the 9/11 terrorists originate from?

Trump's immigration order is unconstitutional as it makes religion a litmus test of immigrants coming here.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The title of the OP is the topic of this debate. I believe...

What you believe has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

...that the seven nations listed in the temporary ban had nothing to do with religion as much as it had to do with "hot spots" around the world where terrorism id running wild.

The seven nations do have problems with terrorism. So do some countries that are not included in the ban. In fact, outside of homegrown terrorism, countries not included in the ban have been responsible for acts of terrorism on U.S. soil.

But beyond that issue, the ban DOES have something "to do with religion" that makes it unconstitutional. The ban was written to cover seven Muslim-majority countries, but only allows exemptions to those who are not of the majority religion (Islam):

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017.
(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.​

Therefore, it results (as intended), to limit consideration for refugee status to those who are non-Muslim. It is definitely a Muslim ban. Moreover, Rudy Giuliani has stated that President Trump asked him how to create a Muslim ban, and he had a large hand in crafting the order.

So from a simple reading of the text and the testimony of someone who was apparently involved, we have a ban on refugees based on religious affiliation.

 

[InTheLight]

There is no record of any people from the seven nations committing terrorist acts on US soil. There are known instances where people from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Pakistan have committed acts of terror here, but those countries are not on the list.

 

[righteousdude2]

The three of you, if not already living in California; should move here, because you definitely would be welcomed with open arms by the liberal left coast elites whom you all emulate so well. . .

 

[InTheLight]

The three of you, if not already living in California; should move here, because you definitely would be welcomed with open arms by the liberal left coast elites whom you all emulate so well. . .

Yes, pointing out facts is SOooo liberal. Give us the right wing conservative reason why the countries that have actually attacked us are not on the banned list. Why is that?

 

[InTheLight]

The three of you, if not already living in California; should move here, because you definitely would be welcomed with open arms by the liberal left coast elites whom you all emulate so well. . .

 

[Alcott]

If it is not a Muslim ban and is a potential terrorist ban they why is Saudi Arabia not included as it is the main financier of ISIS and it was from that country that almost all the 9/11 terrorists originate from?

Trump's immigration order is unconstitutional as it makes religion a litmus test of immigrants coming here.

The obvious question: since virtually all Saudis are muzzlumm, and Saudi Arabia is not, as you said, on the list, then how is religion a "litmus test of immigrants coming here?

 

[Crabtownboy]

The obvious question: since virtually all Saudis are muzzlumm, and Saudi Arabia is not, as you said, on the list, then how is religion a "litmus test of immigrants coming here?

Because it is politically unhealthy to make he Saudi's mad ... and because of the paragraph in the executive order saying that religious minorities will be protected. That alone makes it an anti-Muslim order.

Clause 4B:

(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.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Accidental double post ... sorry.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The obvious question: since virtually all Saudis are muzzlumm, and Saudi Arabia is not, as you said, on the list, then how is religion a "litmus test of immigrants coming here?

My obvious question to you is, why don't you understand what has been provided previously? Consideration for refugee status is denied to persons from seven Muslim majority countries unless they are of a religious minority (non-Muslim). Why are you having trouble comprehending that?

 

[Baptist Believer]

...you definitely would be welcomed with open arms by the liberal left coast elites whom you all emulate so well.

So "liberal left coast elites" actually read and comprehend things that are being discussed? I thought Christians were supposed to do that as well.

If you disagree, why have you not dealt with the content of the posts instead of the tired old name-calling and false labeling that has no place in Christian conversation?

 

[Alcott]

I suppose that's "affirmative action," limiting certain benefits to minorities of some kind. Regardless, it is not a blanket "muzzlumm ban" as was stated. Arguably, those who seek asylum may be religious minorities in the sense that they are persecuted by the 'authorities' for nonacceptance, though they may not be of a different religion nominally.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Regardless, it is not a blanket "muzzlumm ban" as was stated.

The OP asked whether it was a Muslim ban, not specifically a "blanket" Muslim ban.

It definitely bans Muslims from the seven targeted countries.

Arguably, those who seek asylum may be religious minorities in the sense that they are persecuted by the 'authorities' for nonacceptance, though they may not be of a different religion nominally.

Most of the refugees are Muslim because ISIS and their kind save the harshest persecution from those who are Muslim - they believe they are traitors to the faith. Just like certain people here who I assume would be kind to non-Christians are incredibly vicious to fellow Christians with whom they disagree.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Section 4B of the Executive Order proves it is a Muslim ban.

(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.

 

[StefanM]

A bit of both.