19 scholars of Mormon history have filed a brief arguing against the Travel Ban

[bsjkki]

Nineteen well known Mormon scholars have submitted a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I recognized many of the names associated with this brief and while their opinions are their own and not the opinion of the church, their arguments against the ban focus on the religious discrimination against Mormons in the 19th century. Their press briefing is found here. http://mormonscholarsbrief.blogspot.com/2017/04/testing-testing.html It state, 

During the 19th century both state and federal officials repeatedly attacked the Mormons because of their religion. During the 1880s, federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants. In some cases, Latter-day Saints were refused entry to the country, in others they were jailed by government officials at the border, and at times federal officials pressured Mormon immigrants to abandon their religion and convert to Protestantism.

 

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that government targeting on the basis of religion sends the pernicious message that some religious believers are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.”  The brief cautions against allowing the government to repeat past errors against today’s Muslims.

 

The entire brief can be read here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxii2wEOc220TnJULU1tR0FZOUE/view

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by bsjkki

[Stargazer]

Oh, jeeze, politics.  Let's see how long this thread lasts...

These people act as if the federal government has no authority to control immigration.  Last time I checked, it does have this authority, as long as the authority is not being exercised in violation of the Constitution.

If the travel ban had a religious test then they would have a point.  But it temporarily limits immigration from certain countries, regardless of religion or any other protected category, and the argument that "federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants"  has no basis in this case.  Just because the countries in question are largely Muslim is not of moment.  Countries with far far more Muslims than all of these few combined are not subject to the ban, e.g. Indonesia.  And did they not catch the fact that the "ban" is temporary? 

And the Hawaii judge's decision on the travel ban that is currently before the 9th circuit was based not on the facts of the executive order in question, but in Trump's rambling statements during the campaign.  In short, the judge's decision was based on emotion, not facts and not law.  And the Mormon scholars are barking up the same wrong tree, AND out to lunch.

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, jeeze, politics.  Let's see how long this thread lasts...

These people act as if the federal government has no authority to control immigration.  Last time I checked, it does have this authority, as long as the authority is not being exercised in violation of the Constitution.

If the travel ban had a religious test then they would have a point.  But it temporarily limits immigration from certain countries, regardless of religion or any other protected category, and the argument that "federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants"  has no basis in this case.  Just because the countries in question are largely Muslim is not of moment.  Countries with far far more Muslims than all of these few combined are not subject to the ban, e.g. Indonesia.  And did they not catch the fact that the "ban" is temporary? 

And the Hawaii judge's decision on the travel ban that is currently before the 9th circuit was based not on the facts of the executive order in question, but in Trump's rambling statements during the campaign.  In short, the judge's decision was based on emotion, not facts and not law.  And the Mormon scholars are barking up the same wrong tree, AND out to lunch.

But it's politics tied to Mormonism so if everybody behaves, the thread may last a little bit. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, jeeze, politics.  Let's see how long this thread lasts...

These people act as if the federal government has no authority to control immigration.  Last time I checked, it does have this authority, as long as the authority is not being exercised in violation of the Constitution.

If the travel ban had a religious test then they would have a point.  But it temporarily limits immigration from certain countries, regardless of religion or any other protected category, and the argument that "federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants"  has no basis in this case.  Just because the countries in question are largely Muslim is not of moment.  Countries with far far more Muslims than all of these few combined are not subject to the ban, e.g. Indonesia.  And did they not catch the fact that the "ban" is temporary? 

And the Hawaii judge's decision on the travel ban that is currently before the 9th circuit was based not on the facts of the executive order in question, but in Trump's rambling statements during the campaign.  In short, the judge's decision was based on emotion, not facts and not law.  And the Mormon scholars are barking up the same wrong tree, AND out to lunch.

Yeh, those "so called" judges are just plain wrong to base their decisions on the facts and the law -- on the anti-Muslim intentions clearly contained in the executive orders.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, those "so called" judges are just plain wrong to base their decisions on the facts and the law -- on the anti-Muslim intentions clearly contained in the executive orders.

I would have thought that using scare quotes or putting words in someone's mouth was beneath you.  Evidently, I was wrong.  It wasn't I that used the term "so called" in reference to any duly appointed federal judge.

So, can you quote the anti-Muslim intentions "clearly contained in the executive orders"?   

I'll help you out here:

• #1 - PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES 
• #2 - PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

#1 does not contain the words Islam or Muslim.  And the only mention of religion occurs in a section which provides an exception "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."

#2 does not contain the word Muslim, and only mentions the word Islam where it refers to the judicial stay given to the first executive order, in connection to the quoted passage above, where it says: "Executive Order 13769 [#1] did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion.  While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion.  That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances."  The only other reference to religion in #2 is where the order mentions "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)".

The basis for the judge's decision on the second EO was not found within the executive order, but within Trump's overblown campaign rhetoric.  I am not a lawyer, but last time I checked, campaign promises or blustering statements of candidates for public office were not codified law or regulations subject to judicial review. The Hawaiian judge, as I said, based his decision upon emotion not upon facts or the law.  If you disagree with that, then you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Darren10]

On facebook Daniel Peterson and I definitely do not see eye to eye on this.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I would have thought that using scare quotes or putting words in someone's mouth was beneath you.  Evidently, I was wrong.  It wasn't I that used the term "so called" in reference to any duly appointed federal judge.

So, can you quote the anti-Muslim intentions "clearly contained in the executive orders"?   

I'll help you out here:

• #1 - PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES 
• #2 - PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

#1 does not contain the words Islam or Muslim.  And the only mention of religion occurs in a section which provides an exception "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."

#2 does not contain the word Muslim, and only mentions the word Islam where it refers to the judicial stay given to the first executive order, in connection to the quoted passage above, where it says: "Executive Order 13769 [#1] did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion.  While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion.  That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances."  The only other reference to religion in #2 is where the order mentions "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)".

The basis for the judge's decision on the second EO was not found within the executive order, but within Trump's overblown campaign rhetoric.  I am not a lawyer, but last time I checked, campaign promises or blustering statements of candidates for public office were not codified law or regulations subject to judicial review. The Hawaiian judge, as I said, based his decision upon emotion not upon facts or the law.  If you disagree with that, then you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

"The basis for the judge's decision on the second EO was not found within the executive order, but within Trump's overblown campaign rhetoric.  I am not a lawyer, but last time I checked, campaign promises or blustering statements of candidates for public office were not codified law or regulations subject to judicial review. The Hawaiian judge, as I said, based his decision upon emotion not upon facts or the law.  If you disagree with that, then you're certainly entitled to your opinion."

You are 100% correct. This amici brief does not target Muslims and its call upon the courts to include the intent of the de facto law via Executive Order is absurd. Judge the EO as is; any changes to it is up to the President.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Nineteen well known Mormon scholars have submitted a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I recognized many of the names associated with this brief and while their opinions are their own and not the opinion of the church, their arguments against the ban focus on the religious discrimination against Mormons in the 19th century. Their press briefing is found here. http://mormonscholarsbrief.blogspot.com/2017/04/testing-testing.html It state, 

During the 19th century both state and federal officials repeatedly attacked the Mormons because of their religion. During the 1880s, federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants. In some cases, Latter-day Saints were refused entry to the country, in others they were jailed by government officials at the border, and at times federal officials pressured Mormon immigrants to abandon their religion and convert to Protestantism.

 

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that government targeting on the basis of religion sends the pernicious message that some religious believers are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.”  The brief cautions against allowing the government to repeat past errors against today’s Muslims.

 

The entire brief can be read here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxii2wEOc220TnJULU1tR0FZOUE/view

 

This is from an "Onion" article right?

[halconero]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, jeeze, politics.  Let's see how long this thread lasts...

These people act as if the federal government has no authority to control immigration.  Last time I checked, it does have this authority, as long as the authority is not being exercised in violation of the Constitution.

If the travel ban had a religious test then they would have a point.  But it temporarily limits immigration from certain countries, regardless of religion or any other protected category, and the argument that "federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants"  has no basis in this case.  Just because the countries in question are largely Muslim is not of moment.  Countries with far far more Muslims than all of these few combined are not subject to the ban, e.g. Indonesia.  And did they not catch the fact that the "ban" is temporary? 

And the Hawaii judge's decision on the travel ban that is currently before the 9th circuit was based not on the facts of the executive order in question, but in Trump's rambling statements during the campaign.  In short, the judge's decision was based on emotion, not facts and not law.  And the Mormon scholars are barking up the same wrong tree, AND out to lunch.

Just an alternative view point on this, coming from someone who worked overtime studying this as it affected a significant part of my client base.

There is a religious aspect to this. There's a clause in the EO which states that individuals from the banned countries could be given exemptions on the basis of their being from a minority religion in those countries. Given Islam's majority status in all of the 7 originally named countries, it's a de facto ban on Muslims from those countries. So while not a ban on International Muslims as a whole, it does favour particular religions from those regions over others.

That combined with the campaign website (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration) still stating the intention of a complete shut down on Muslim immigration raises the specter of a mens rea behing the EO.

Edit: It's silly that we can't do hyperlinking on this forum.

Edited April 21, 2017 by halconero

[thesometimesaint]

If  there is a law that mandates actions designed to primarily effect a certain religious group. It is highly suspect. IE; A city with a minority contingent of Seventh-Day Adventists passes a law that all snow must be removed on Saturday.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Just an alternative view point on this, coming from someone who worked overtime studying this as it affected a significant part of my client base.

There is a religious aspect to this. There's a clause in the EO which states that individuals from the banned countries could be given exemptions on the basis of their being from a minority religion in those countries. Given Islam's majority status in all of the 7 originally named countries, it's a de facto ban on Muslims from those countries. So while not a ban on International Muslims as a whole, it does favour particular religions from those regions over others.

That combined with the campaign website (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration) still stating the intention of a complete shut down on Muslim immigration raises the specter of a mens rea behing the EO.

Edit: It's silly that we can't do hyperlinking on this forum.

This is actually a good point, and could be addressed in the ban by providing that those seeking political asylum as a result of religious or other persecution may apply for a Visa despite the general ban. That would assure that members of minority religions can avoid the ban without making the ban a religious issue. I don't really believe the ban is a religious issue. I believe it is a terrorist issue. The fact that the vast majority of these terrorists historically come from Islamic countries gets woven into the ban language, and is causing the ban problems. 

I personally don't have a problem with a temporary ban. To claim that Donald Trump is prejudiced against terrorists is kind of an absurd tack. Actually I hope he is. What this country (US) doesn't need more of is terrorists coming in like those who did for 9-11. The thing about Islam is that it is not just a religion. It is a political system. Ostensibly the point of Sharia is to replace our Constitution. Those who truly follow Sharia do not recognize the civil rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Instead, they wish to follow Sharia law. I see no valid reason people who believe in imposing Sharia law should be admitted into the US as citizens, and in fact I believe immigrants wishing to enter the country should be expected and asked if they will abide by the US constitution and specifically the various civil rights guaranteed by the US constitution rather than Sharia law or any other form of foreign law. Of course this doesn't mean all potential immigrants will answer truthfully, but I believe those admitted on a Visa, should then be exported should they commit acts in violation of their agreement to abide by the constitution. 

Unfortunately, terrorist intentions to enter the country as citizens has become a major tactic, and we need to address it, and try to avoid it being cloaked as a religious issue or unconstitutional discrimination. The fact that Islam is both a religion and an entire political system is the complicating factor. The point of the US constitution was to allow foreigners wishing to live in freedom to be able to come to the United States to escape political & religious tyranny - not to allow in their political systems. We must recognize the difference and guard against the latter. Since a vast percentage of Muslims view Islam as a political system to be followed, they bring the issue upon themselves. If they wish to live under that political system, they should do it in their own country since many aspects of it would violate rights guaranteed by the US constitution. Allowing them in the US because they seem to be nice people is not the right criterion. Only those willing to abandon the imposition of Sharia law should be allowed in the United States.

Edited April 21, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, those "so called" judges are just plain wrong to base their decisions on the facts and the law -- on the anti-Muslim intentions clearly contained in the executive orders.

Under Obama many Muslims and members of the Muslim brotherhood were placed in US governmental positions. Some key examples were in our Homeland Security Dept. I believe the aim was to get people sympathetic to the cause of Islam into decision-making positions. Further, countries like Saudi Arabia have made large donations to establish Middle East Studies departments in many of our universities. 

The fact that judges are lawyers doesn't always mean they follow the law. Where is the law in that decision of the Hawaiian judge? Using campaign rhetoric to establish the intent of an executive order is valid law? If an "intent" is not evident from a particular executive order, this judge is just using personal feelings to make law, which is a horrible precedent. I believe only Halcanero has brought up a valid point of legal challenge to the executive order ban. However, I don't believe it presents a great challenge although the order does seem to effectively exclude all Muslims from these countries while not excluding all members of other minority religions. The ban just needs to get away from using religious language except to the extent of allowing religious asylum seekers access to the immigration process regardless of religion.

Personally, I don't feel the intent of the ban is founded in religion. For instance Muslims from Indonesia are not banned. I believe the intent of the ban is totally to stop the immigration of terrorists.

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Nineteen well known Mormon scholars have submitted a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I recognized many of the names associated with this brief and while their opinions are their own and not the opinion of the church, their arguments against the ban focus on the religious discrimination against Mormons in the 19th century. Their press briefing is found here. http://mormonscholarsbrief.blogspot.com/2017/04/testing-testing.html It state, 

During the 19th century both state and federal officials repeatedly attacked the Mormons because of their religion. During the 1880s, federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants. In some cases, Latter-day Saints were refused entry to the country, in others they were jailed by government officials at the border, and at times federal officials pressured Mormon immigrants to abandon their religion and convert to Protestantism.

 

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that government targeting on the basis of religion sends the pernicious message that some religious believers are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.”  The brief cautions against allowing the government to repeat past errors against today’s Muslims.

 

The entire brief can be read here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxii2wEOc220TnJULU1tR0FZOUE/view

 

Thanks for this. I think that the scholars brought up very solid points. On a side not, I have a friend that is a Mexican national and currently a freshly minted permanent resident with a Citizen wife and child...but he will not leave the US as it currently stands. Before the inauguration I believed that people who had such fears were being over-reactive. Now I can't say that because of the first running of the ban. It seems like a legitimate and reasonable concern. 

It's astounding to me how easy it is to recycle history by repackaging in or out groups and relabeling the behaviors ever so lightly. The rhetoric of Trump both on the campaign and even after the first ban was shot down. And though it is in "reasonable" terms that a number may find justifiable, it runs on some of the same type of fears that spurred the oppressive policies of Mormons in the mid-late 19th century when immigration quotas and bans based on race, religion, and nationality became more of a thing. To me the connections are so blatantly obvious. Stating it wasn't a religion ban to me, is like saying that the policies criminalizing polgyamy wasn't meant to affect mormons but all polygamists back in the day.

One thing that I didn't see mentioned, but that I've been curious about, is how a hard line and ostracizing approach to mormons as a group continued animosity, increased violence, and may have been tied to what led to MMM. I'm not a historian and it wasn't important for the briefing that they were giving, but I think it's important to look at the validity to hard line, overreaching approaches to perceived threats. A more secure country that was safer for citizens doesn't seem to be what was bred in these times. Instead it fostered animosity, greater extreme rhetoric from both sides, marginalization, and in many cases violence. Mormons were a part of the larger european and american white populations, but the pressure placed, brought them to have a more unified religious-ethnic identity.....in just a few decades! That's kinda insane. And though we've integrated more into the American white majority (particularly in the mid-late 20th century) we still have a sense of cohesion and narrative legacy that is tied heavily to a period of deep persecution and oppression. If that can happen for a group that was from the same genetic and cultural cloth the power of these types of policies and attitudes are potent. And instead of bringing us closer to a better world, it leaves us more separated, suspicious, fearful, and insecure.

 

I could say more, but work calls  

With luv,

BD 

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

.......................................................

Personally, I don't feel the intent of the ban is founded in religion. For instance Muslims from Indonesia are not banned. I believe the intent of the ban is totally to stop the immigration of terrorists.

That is indeed the party line from the White House, but it has no legal standing.  Both of the executive orders are deeply flawed legally, which is the only basis on which they are being challenged.

[Duncan]

When was the last time a foreign national attacked the US? it seems like it's all people born in the US that do all this mischief, a travel ban would solve nothing

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is indeed the party line from the White House, but it has no legal standing.  Both of the executive orders are deeply flawed legally, which is the only basis on which they are being challenged.

Well, you are welcome to make your case... I've made mine. I believe Halcanero has brought up the only real legal issue worth any time.

Despite the Amici brief, I believe LDS are missing some key differences in the President's ban and other immigrants. LDS immigrants were not trying to replace the US constitution but were proponents of it. They largely were religious immigrants migrating for solely religious reasons. Obviously, unless you consider terrorism to be a religion, which I believe these Muslim cowards do, there is no religious motivation to the ban. They prey on women, children, and the fearful which is the whole point of their acts of cowardice. We don't allow animal sacrifices either, and expect Caribbean immigrants to abide by that law. If they don't wish to we should exclude them too even if they view that as a religious discrimination. Sharia law has not just one, but many aspects which directly oppose constitutional civil rights and other aspects of the Constitution. Do you feel we should allow all immigrants irrespective of that? Even if they insist it is their religious right or duty to stone, behead, or crucify those with which they disagree? Or throw temper tantrums in the street and destroy property because their religious leader is criticized? Just because beliefs are cloaked as a religion doesn't mean they are permissible under the Constitution. Our Constitution protects all citizens against such acts. They are not permissible here. They are considered an illegal political imposition. Those who wish to hold them should not be allowed here. If it were only a religious issue we would not be having this conversation. I don't have any issue with Buddhist immigrants for instance, and welcome them with open arms. The US welcomes pagans and all kinds of religious people. We also have some of the best Muslims in the world - many of who came here to escape Sharia law. i just don't wish to see Sharia law come here like it has done virtually everywhere else Muslims immigrate. Once their numbers reach 5-10% of a population, the incessant cry for Sharia law starts.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, jeeze, politics.  Let's see how long this thread lasts...

These people act as if the federal government has no authority to control immigration.  Last time I checked, it does have this authority, as long as the authority is not being exercised in violation of the Constitution.

If the travel ban had a religious test then they would have a point.  But it temporarily limits immigration from certain countries, regardless of religion or any other protected category, and the argument that "federal officials explicitly targeted Mormon immigrants"  has no basis in this case.  Just because the countries in question are largely Muslim is not of moment.  Countries with far far more Muslims than all of these few combined are not subject to the ban, e.g. Indonesia.  And did they not catch the fact that the "ban" is temporary? 

And the Hawaii judge's decision on the travel ban that is currently before the 9th circuit was based not on the facts of the executive order in question, but in Trump's rambling statements during the campaign.  In short, the judge's decision was based on emotion, not facts and not law.  And the Mormon scholars are barking up the same wrong tree, AND out to lunch.

You have argued legality. Care to take a stab at morally defending the idiotic travel ban?

Edit: Also it is targeting on the basis of religious belief. The signer did so in fulfillment of a promise to ban Muslims. His supporters expect everyone to play dumb now and pretend it is based just on nationality from a strict reading of the order. I am not playing that dumb.

Edited April 21, 2017 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I would have thought that using scare quotes or putting words in someone's mouth was beneath you.  Evidently, I was wrong.  It wasn't I that used the term "so called" in reference to any duly appointed federal judge.

.......................................................

I thought that you and everyone else on this board would know who in fact used the phrase "so called" in reference to federal judges.  I was not referring to you.  Sorry that you misunderstood.  The guy who used the phrase evidently does not know that the judiciary is a coequal branch of govt, has never acquainted himself with the law, and tends to shoot from the hip, instead of carefully considering how an executive order might properly be structured so as not to get struck down.  The same guy has failed to fill many appointive govt positions -- which might help him draft such orders, and advise him on the problems which wait for unwary and ignorant executives.

[Duncan]

Just now, RevTestament said:

Well, you are welcome to make your case... I've made mine. I believe Halcanero has brought up the only real legal issue worth any time.

Despite the Amici brief, I believe LDS are missing some key differences in the President's ban and other immigrants. LDS immigrants were not trying to replace the US constitution but were proponents of it. They largely were religious immigrants migrating for solely religious reasons. Obviously, unless you consider terrorism to be a religion, which I believe these Muslim cowards do, there is no religious motivation to the ban. They prey on women, children, and the fearful which is the whole point of their acts of cowardice. We don't allow animal sacrifices either, and expect Caribbean immigrants to abide by that law. If they don't wish to we should exclude them too even if they view that as a religious discrimination. Sharia law has not just one, but many aspects which directly oppose constitutional civil rights and other aspects of the Constitution. Do you feel we should allow all immigrants irrespective of that? Even if they insist it is their religious right or duty to stone, behead, or crucify those with which they disagree? Or throw temper tantrums in the street and destroy property because their religious leader is criticized? Just because beliefs are cloaked as a religion doesn't mean they are permissible under the Constitution. Our Constitution protects all citizens against such acts. They are not permissible here. They are considered an illegal political imposition. Those who wish to hold them should not be allowed here. If it were only a religious issue we would not be having this conversation. I don't have any issue with Buddhist immigrants for instance, and welcome them with open arms. The US welcomes pagans and all kinds of religious people. We also have some of the best Muslims in the world - many of who came here to escape Sharia law. i just don't wish to see Sharia law come here like it has done virtually everywhere else Muslims immigrate. Once their numbers reach 5-10% of a population, the incessant cry for Sharia law starts.

Muslims have been in North America for how many decades now, they haven't tried to introduce Sharia law before so why all of a sudden would they do that now? makes no sense to me

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

These people....

Dan Peterson is one of the signees, iirc.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, you are welcome to make your case... I've made mine. I believe Halcanero has brought up the only real legal issue worth any time.

Despite the Amici brief, I believe LDS are missing some key differences in the President's ban..................................

...............................

The main problem is that govt by tantrum or by tweet is probably not conducive to good order.  Not for anyone.  The issues are being adjudicated in courts of law, not in the streets or in the press.  Certainly not on this board.

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

When was the last time a foreign national attacked the US? it seems like it's all people born in the US that do all this mischief, a travel ban would solve nothing

Virtually all of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, and Saudia is not even on the travel ban list.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

When was the last time a foreign national attacked the US? it seems like it's all people born in the US that do all this mischief, a travel ban would solve nothing

It might be Sept 11, 2001 but i'm not exactly sure.  However, those all came from Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Egypt and Lebanon, which are not on the travel ban.  I don't think we've ever had anyone from the banned countries commit any acts of terrorism against americans on american soil.

Where Americans Terrorists Actually Come From

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

It might be Sept 11, 2001 but i'm not exactly sure.  However, those all came from Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Egypt and Lebanon, which are not on the travel ban.  I don't think we've ever had anyone from the banned countries commit any acts of terrorism against americans on american soil.

Where Americans Terrorists Actually Come From

That's what I was thinking and why this whole thing is so odd!

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Muslims have been in North America for how many decades now, they haven't tried to introduce Sharia law before so why all of a sudden would they do that now? makes no sense to me

For one thing they are too small of a percentage of the population. Did you miss my comment that we have some of the best Muslims in the world here in N. America? Many came here to get away from Sharia law. Here is a Canadian Muslim warning against other varieties of Islam:

 

Secondly, there are many different sects of Islam - just like there are many different sects of Christianity. Some do not seek to impose Sharia on others. The Wahhabi sect (Saudi Arabia) which began infiltrating the US under Obama is "old school" Islam, and seeks to impose Sharia law and rule by Arabs over everyone else.

Lastly, and most importantly - you are incorrect. They have tried to introduce Sharia law in the US. Under President Obama there have already been calls in American courts to render decisions under Sharia law. So the process has begun. A simple google search will verify this fact. It has been seen in several US lower courts, and as a result several states have passed laws to ban Sharia law - 7 states as of 2014. A Texas city also passed an ordinance to ban it due to calls for it. 

If you still believe what you stated I suggest educating yourself about Islam. Here is a great place to start:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page