6 ms·
Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration, which is a major reason for San Francisco's federal appeal court to suspend it. The fact that it's not an
by erispoe 10y ago
Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration, which is a major reason for San Francisco's federal appeal court to suspend it. The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question.
- paulddraper 10y ago> The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question. It is precisely the question. What the ban is is much more important that what it purports to be. For example, if it purported to be a ban on terrorists but actually was as ban on Muslims (and I mean, a bonafide ban on all Muslims), would that not matter?
- baddox 10y agoNo, that would still be illegal, because a ban on Muslims is illegal. It is illegal to ban Muslims, and it is illegal to intend to ban Muslims. The latter reason is the one provided by the Ninth Circuit.
- paulddraper 10y ago> Thoughtcrime, they called it. - George Orwell, 1984
- baddox 10y agoI don't see the comparison. One is criminalizing citizens having negative thoughts about an oppressive government. The other is prohibiting rulers from promising to discriminate against a religion and then passing a thinly-veiled bill to do so.
- paulddraper 10y agoIf an action that is normally legal becomes illegal if you have wrong thoughts while doing it, you are essentially legislating thoughtcrimes. The immigration suspension ought to be legal or illegal because of what it is, not what its author thinks.
- baddox 10y agoI think there's a clear difference between all thoughts and intentions. Intentions are a subset of thoughts. There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so. I don't consider that thought crime. To clarify, I don't think it would be illegal for the president to establish immigration restrictions (that are otherwise legal) while thinking something bad about Muslims. The problem is intending the restrictions to target Muslims.
- paulddraper 10y ago> There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so. The difference is between manslaughter and homicide. We take age, sanity, and intent into account, but hitting someone with your car is illegal no matter your mental state. Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional). In either case, the action is illegal, and due taxes must be paid.
- baddox 10y agoI don't follow your argument. This car example seems to qualify under your definition of thought crime.
- paulddraper 10y agoSorry for being unclear. I mean to say that intent (and other aspects of mental state) can influence the severity of punishment. It shouldn't determine whether something is legal, however. Hitting pedestrians ought to be illegal regardless of whether you intended to do it or not.
- foldr 10y agoAccidentally killing someone is not, in general, illegal. It typically would be if you did it while driving a car, as in this instance it would probably result from negligence on your part. But if you, say, trip over, bump into someone and then accidentally knock them off a ledge, you haven't committed a crime.
- humanrebar 10y agoBut the ACA mandate was supposed to be a mandate or a penalty, not a tax. The Supreme Court ruled that it looked like a tax and quacked like a tax, so it's legal as a tax. Why can't the same principals be applied here? That the pitch and language of a rule aren't important, just the implementation.
- paulddraper 10y ago100% agree. It doesn't matter whether Obama intended it to be a tax, or a mandate, or a duck. It was a tax because it was. It doesn't matter what Trump thinks about the order. It's legality is the same no matter who signed it.
- hueving 10y ago>Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration Do you have a source for this? There is so much political noise that the only place I've heard it is second-hand from people trying to avoid the contents of the actual executive order and block it based on feelings.
- patrickyan 10y agoGiuliani said on national television that Trump asked him how he could legally ban Muslims. He boasted that he came up with the idea that banning countries would be legal because it's based on nationality, not religion. When asked why he didn't ban countries that we know sponsored terror attacks like Saudi Arabia, he said they have changed.