4 ms·
> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for cli
by graycat 10y ago
> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage
No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for clicks.
Instead, there are two points where can use because. The first point is, Trump asserts that the judge is unfair, and Trump asserts this because of the judge's rulings. The assertion of unfairness is from the rulings with nothing to do with Mexico. Second, as in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE
with
> All I'm trying to do is figure out why
I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.
And a lot of people agree with it. All I
want to do, all I want to do is find out
why I'm being treated so unfairly by a
judge.
Trump was looking for the MOTIVATION of the judge to be unfair. Then it was easy enough to notice that the judge has a Mexican background and is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions on Mexico. So, Trump concluded that the judge's MOTIVATION to be unfair was because of the Mexican stuff.
Trump asserted unfairness because of the RULINGS with nothing about Mexico.
Then, as a second step, Trump asserted that the
judge was MOTIVATED to be unfair because of the Mexico stuff.
So, we have two points and two uses of because. But much of the media, in their search for clicks, conflated those two to assert that Trump said that the judge was unfair because of the Mexican stuff. Nope: That would be poor evidence that the judge had been unfair. Instead, the claim that the judge was unfair was because of the judge's RULINGS. Then, the MOTIVATION for that unfairness was because of the Mexican stuff.
In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that.
The US has, IMHO rightly, decided that racism is a bad thing. Sure, long in the US, people of Western European descent were racist against Native Americans, Africans, Irish, Italians, Asians, Jews, and Mexicans. Well, the US has gone a long way to stopping that. But neither do we want Native Americans, ..., etc. to be racist against others, e.g., persons of Western European descent. We want no racism, from anywhere.
> Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion.
There are at least three really big problems with your statement here:
First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants.
Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs marriages, dress codes, lots of social norms, diets, education, architecture, media, the legal system, foreign policy, government, and, yes, also religion. Each part of Islam regards everyone else as an infidel to be either converted to killed. In this way, the Sunni and Shiite parts of Islam have been at war for 1000+ years, and recent examples include the Iran-Iraq war, the Baghdad-ISIS war, the Syrian civil war, and the high tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, e.g., in Yemen. Islamic religious leaders issue Fatwahs, commands, calling for Jihad, holy war. ISIS has declared war on Europe and the US. Iran says "Death to America", and that cry is also common in parts of Pakistan. Net, when considering immigrants to the US, Islam must be regarded as not nearly just a religion.
Third, the Islamic immigration under most consideration now is heavily from areas of the Mideast awash in Islamic wars and violent Medieval Islamic culture, indeed, from areas that have declared war on the US. And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees". From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US. So, no way should the US admit such people. And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US.
But, a Muslim US citizen has full US citizenship rights as you suggest.
- kbenson 10y ago> In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that. The problem here is that Trump, given behavior from a judge he doesn't like, latched on to the most likely reason, or at least the reason he felt comfortable discussing on national television, being because of the judge's heritage. > First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants. I didn't say non-US citizens had rights, or the right to freedom of religion. I said I'm not sure how you can claim freedom of religion if you are restricting it prior to entry, not because the rights of those people are being infringed, but because you've singled out a religion to exclusion prior to entry,and the effect that has on the population may be to restrict that religion in some aspect. Constitutional rights are not something I take lightly, to be played with and followed in letter but not spirit. I don't see how we can possibly protect something as a right of a citizen but use it as exclusion for the act of becoming a citizen while following the spirit of the law (and spirit of the law is important. Almost all the cased the SCOTUS rules on are seen by them because there are conflicting laws, or laws aren't being followed in spirit, and it needs a panel of judges to clarify). > Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs... Islam is not one homogeneous group with the same views and actions. This is obvious by the Sunni and Shiite war you reference. Islam is made up of many different groups of people. Some of those groups are dangerous, others are not. Should we target Islam, or the actual dangerous groups within it? A lot of US citizens have committed a felony. Should we restrict the whole population to prevent repeat crimes? > And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees". Do you think refugees go through no review process or something? Average time it takes for a refugee to get into the US is over a year[1]. You think this is the first time the US has had to balance humanitarian efforts with national security? As we noted in a previous fact-check, once a case is referred from the UNHCR to the United States, a refugee undergoes a security clearance check that could take several rounds, an in-person interview, approval by the Department of Homeland Security, medical screening, a match with a sponsor agency, "cultural orientation" classes, and one final security clearance. This all happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil. > From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US. You're going to have to link that for me if you expect me to accept it. How many attacks have been carried out by refugees? How many by non-refugees? How many by US citizens (such as the Orlando shooting)? > And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US. If they don't follow US law in the United States, they will be arrested for it. If they state their intention to follow some other judicial system before ours, then they should fail their immigration/refugee interview. As to what their culture is like apart from that, I don't think your opinion matters. The United States is an amalgamation of the cultures of many countries, mixing and responding to each other and evolving over centuries, with new infusions of countries and cultures all the time. At some point in the past, there was likely some group that viewed the immigration of some of your ancestors as bringing cultural aspects that didn't mesh well with that thay considered American culture. What makes you any more right then the centuries of people that expressed that opinion before you (and about a markedly different culture from today at the time, as well)? 1: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-it-takes-almost-year-refugee-be-processed/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...