2 ms·

As others have pointed out in this thread, if it's a "Muslim ban", it's a "Muslim ban" that bans less than 5% of the worldwide Muslim population, and leaves unt

As others have pointed out in this thread, if it's a "Muslim ban", it's a "Muslim ban" that bans less than 5% of the worldwide Muslim population, and leaves untouched the 5 countries with the largest Muslim populations. That doesn't sound like a very effective "Muslim ban" to me. Logically, when compared with what's actually happened, it makes much more sense to interpret Mr. Trump's comments that specifically mentioned barring Muslims from entering the U.S. as hyperbolic campaign statements. Whatever intentions you wish to thrust upon American officials, the fact is that the Order makes a valid security-based argument and contains no religious test. Those are the facts. We can't argue over the intentions of someone neither of us has ever met, but we can discuss the text of the Order in question. It's possible for reasonable people to disagree with the Trump administration's arguments, to be sure. But that's not justification for subverting the law, nor is it justification for the DoJ to undermine the president and prevent the executive branch from making a case for itself in the forthcoming judicial challenges, as Ms. Yates was doing. In a democracy, we implicitly accept that there will be some successes and some failures, and that we are bound to live under the laws we dislike as much as the laws we favor. If we lose mutual respect sufficient to live with those compromises, we are in big trouble.

davidw 10y ago
There's both a religious test and no valid security argument. Absolutely none. https://twitter.com/FT/status/826470867945283584 https://twitter.com/FT/status/826470867945283584
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  "A religious test" is an actual thing. Please refer to the full text of the EO [0] and let me know where a religious test for travelers is instituted. I am aware of the "religious minority" re-prioritization on the refugee program, but I'm not discussing that right now, I'm discussing the travel restrictions that people mean when they say "Muslim ban", not the re-prioritization of asylum requests that claim religious persecution (which doesn't really rise to the standard of a religious test IMO either, but neither here nor there right now). When I say valid, I mean that the argument as formed and asserted appears to be a real argument, not necessarily a correct one (which is a matter of subjective individual judgment). It's like code that will compile but not do what was intended. The room for disagreement is in whether or not the "program works without bugs" (the Executive Order achieves its intended purposes), not whether the "code compiles" (the argument formed is syntactically legal). I assert only the latter; the EO itself presents a "syntactically valid" argument, which one is free to agree or disagree with personally. This technical crap matters because it's relevant to the DoJ's obligations to represent and faithfully execute upon the legally-valid instructions of the executive branch, and because it's important to keep people from killing each other on the false belief that the republic is being subverted. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu...

davidw 10y ago

There's both a religious test and no valid security argument. Absolutely none. https://twitter.com/FT/status/826470867945283584 https://twitter.com/FT/status/826470867945283584

cookiecaper 10y ago
"A religious test" is an actual thing. Please refer to the full text of the EO [0] and let me know where a religious test for travelers is instituted. I am aware of the "religious minority" re-prioritization on the refugee program, but I'm not discussing that right now, I'm discussing the travel restrictions that people mean when they say "Muslim ban", not the re-prioritization of asylum requests that claim religious persecution (which doesn't really rise to the standard of a religious test IMO either, but neither here nor there right now). When I say valid, I mean that the argument as formed and asserted appears to be a real argument, not necessarily a correct one (which is a matter of subjective individual judgment). It's like code that will compile but not do what was intended. The room for disagreement is in whether or not the "program works without bugs" (the Executive Order achieves its intended purposes), not whether the "code compiles" (the argument formed is syntactically legal). I assert only the latter; the EO itself presents a "syntactically valid" argument, which one is free to agree or disagree with personally. This technical crap matters because it's relevant to the DoJ's obligations to represent and faithfully execute upon the legally-valid instructions of the executive branch, and because it's important to keep people from killing each other on the false belief that the republic is being subverted. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu...