"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 awar

"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...