Great! That's a statement, at least, we can agree upon.
Individuals are inherently biased either towards love or selfishness....every other position proceeds from that chosen polarity.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Joins Nearly 100 U.S. Firms to File Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Immigration Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great! That's a statement, at least, we can agree upon.
Individuals are inherently biased either towards love or selfishness....every other position proceeds from that chosen polarity.
By the way, Today's Trump Lie (aka BIG FAT LIES FROM THE BIG FAT LIAR): The US murder rate is the highest it's been in 47 years.
Absolute and complete crock of ****, just like the man who uttered it. But like I said early on, there's a Trump lie every single day. It's hilarious watching the Cons (so appropriate) deny and deflect.
Absolute and complete crock of ****, just like the man who uttered it. But like I said early on, there's a Trump lie every single day. It's hilarious watching the Cons (so appropriate) deny and deflect.
1. Nope: You brought it up as related. Not I.
2. Not based on religion, but terrorism. If they were Christian countries there would still be a temporary ban if they were practicing the same. FYI...Even the Christians in those countries are in the same boat.
3. Don't care if it is at an all time 1000 year low. I bet if there were one gun death per year you would scream how we must get rid of them. BTW...maybe it is at an all time low (did you provide a link?) because of better vetting. So why would you have an issue with improving it even more?
4. No matter how often the liberals try to say "fear monger" we know it is garbage.
5. He actually seems to give a much of a darn (not sure you can curse on PRSI), and seems to be working toward a more thriving economy that will in turn out to help the American people. He has looked at why labor is not being hired in the US instead of hiring over seas when there are people here available and willing to do the job. He has kept companies from leaving, and therefore helping the working class keep their jobs.
6. Nope. I am not the one that will have to put up with a wrecked country. The person currently doing that is named Donald Trump.
7. You are welcome to stay away as long as you like. During that time hit an anger management class or 2. Wishing impeachment or death on the pot isn't really all that normal.
American companies pay to build that capacity around the world. Why do you think India wanted Apple build a factory so badly? What America doesn't have is people willing to work 100 hours a week in unpleasant conditions for a wage that still leaves them in poverty.
Other countries may be willing to torture their masses to make the elite rich, but it is disgusting that companies like Apple take advantage of the situation while also putting local workers out of business.
The other side is the American consumer. How many buy Allan Edmonds made in USA shoes? STIHL power tools? Snap On or Mac hand tools that are still made in USA? People are unwilling or unable to pay the premium. Look at what happens when WalMart opens. People stop buying local to save a buck.
Alot of this outrage seems VERY hypocritical and EXTREMELY hyperpolitical.
While I actually do buy Snap On tools and swear by them, I get your point.
That's why many countries have protectionist laws; a pure free market does not work. It will always implode as the people with the wealth just fight for he biggest piece of the shrinking pie.
Is that sarcasm? Or do you have a time machine? Nothing's been decided, though it's clear Trump wanted to ban all Muslims during his campaign, which IS illegal.
"I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Mr Giuliani told Fox News. He said Mr Trump had called him up and asked him to "put a commission together" to show him the right way to "do it legally". Coming up against US religious discrimination laws, Mr Giuliani said that he instead advised making the ban about "danger" instead of religion.
For me, legality isn't even the issue. His actions are likely to unleash more haters and will make us more susceptible to terrorists, not less.
Not to mention, it goes against everything America stands for; equality, tolerance and human rights. At some point, we were all immigrants and came here for various reasons: better opportunities, religious freedom, escape war, persecution, evil rulers, etc.
Trump won't make America great by destroying the very principles upon which it was founded.
...Because he lost the popular vote and all the people that voted against him despise him....and he's only lost supporters since then for doing things like this. O yes, and because the majority of the people on Earth hate Trump....statistically relevant. Why would you believe the opposite? Because Breitbart told you so?
It has nothing to do with the thread at all. German was a very popular second language up until WWI. When it was dropped due to being seen as anti-American, and people stopped speaking it in public save for a few select towns in middle America, Texas and Arizona. Families with Germanic surnames changed them to more American or Anglicized variants.
Since you've thought about this a lot I have a simple question... Should America (via President or Congress) place ANY restrictions on immigration or refugees ?
WW 1 had some interesting stories around that. Dachshunds became Liberty Pups, people ate Liberty Sausages. Muellers became Miller, Schmidt was now Smith. Nimitz's family had dropped the von from their name long before Chester was born. Eisenhower didn't become Ironhuer which would have been an odd name. We also had Rickenbacher and Luke flying for us. Towns like Berlin changed their names. Germans were forced to register and prove their alligence. Eventually sanity returned.
We were not alone in that, many Allied nations did the same.
WW 2 was similar, although eventually people distinguished between the Nazis and Germans. That was fortunate because we avoided making the same mistakes when we won as we did post WW 1.
In the end, our Germans were better than theirs as the 2 wars proved as were ours vs the Russian's in the space race.
Last edited:
Does it make sense to you that the 7 countries named have been responsible for 0 deaths on US soil for at least 20 years but other countries not on the list like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been the source of thousands of deaths on US soil, not to mention abroad.
[doublepost=1486540759][/doublepost]
What exactly is his message seeing as (has been widely reported) the countries named are already well vetted and either in spite of this or because of this, no deaths on US soil have eventuated in the recent decades, but hotbeds of active terrorism like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are apparently of no concern?
[doublepost=1486540882][/doublepost]
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?
Because you're assuming that the wars that have been raging for the past 15 years are conventional wars against other nation states. They aren't.
This is "asymmetric warfare" where enemy combatants don't care about silly things like borders. ISIS moved from Iraq proper to Syria. Al-Qaeda is in several of the listed states.
I really don't blame you for your ignorance. Most Americans/Westerners are so ignorant of modern warfare and complacent about what's going on overseas that they're completely clueless. Especially when they say things like, "Does it make sense to you that the 7 countries named have been responsible for 0 deaths on US soil for at least 20 years but other countries not on the list like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been the source of thousands of deaths on US soil, not to mention abroad?". As if we need to wait for an attack to institute a temporary travel ban.
Ask those who've been raped or killed in Brussels, France, Germany, Canada, the US, etc by "refugees" if they wish their government had instituted a travel ban?
The reason why countries like Saudi Arabia are not on the list is because in the case of the Saudi government, they have actually done a lot to clamp down on home grown terrorists to include, but not limited to, working with the US Government and striking terrorist hot beds like those seen in Yemen. I know this is hard to accept but the bad guys are not going to stay and operate in the same places forever. They move around ... a lot.
Last edited:
No it isn't, not in the least. For the 3 millionth time, the election is won by getting the most electoral votes, full stop. End of story.
*yawn* Completely irrelevant.
I agree that some of that campaign trail nonsense was pathetic and wholly inappropriate, but I posit things have stepped up an order of magnitude now that Trump is President.
It doesn't have to, to be unconstitutional. Regardless of what you think, we should have a court decision within the next few days.
Parroting debunked talking points don't make them true.
Right-wing fears and protectionism is so easily triggered - as we can see almost anywhere in the world - that you can bet your ass it won't come to that.
Whenever I hear this argument I cannot help but wonder how much of your intellectual abilities must have been lost to subscribe to the basic concept of grasping history and politics.
No, not everyone can be an expert, but some people apparently want to live in fear and shock.
To be frank, it's hard to objectively analyze these trains of thoughts without sounding insulting, because quite honestly, you can't analyze incompetence and point to it without calling it out.
Glassed Silver:win
Anyone who thinks that any country should not stringently vet people entering from Yemen is NUTS.
Yes, there are already limits to how many refugees and immigrants can enter the US every year.
I'm all for better intelligence and more stringent background checks to keep this county safe, but what Trump did was really outrageous and potentially put us at greater risk IMO. Those Muslim countries he placed a ban on constitute a small fraction of the world's Muslim population, for example, and it has done nothing but fuel more hatred against the US.
Like a lot of his tweets, this ban was hasty and not well thought out.
Yawn.....
[doublepost=1486607416][/doublepost]
Time machine ? It's written into law. Not even sure how you guys keep arguing this. There is nothing to argue, it's fact.
OK judge. Let me know when you've made your decision public. In the meantime, you may want to read what I wrote and how that could be used to prove that discrimination, not safety, was the reason behind the ban which would in fact make it illegal.
It seems the only person arguing here is you. If it were black and white, the case would've been decided already.
There is nothing discriminatory here. The POTUS has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do this. I am not going to continue to argue back and forth on it.
And just in case you missed it...
"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
"
Now, keep arguing all you like, you're incorrect. The LAW is on his side. Residents of other countries have ZERO constitutional rights. Period.
Last edited:
However, Congress amended the law you refer to in 1965 to include prohibiting “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” So the court very much can decide if POTUS has the legal authority, and how far the authority goes.
In case you want to read the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 you can find a link here:
http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html
However, even absent such an amendment courts can decide if the President carried out his authority in a legal manner. In fact, even if Congress passed a law giving him specific legal authority courts, up to SCOTUS get to rule on it and SCOTUS ultimately decides the constitutionality of a law.