It is an immigration ban. It is not affecting goods, it is not affecting capital. Is it legally prohibiting, quote, "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries". It is not an all-encompassing immigration ban, sure. It is targeted to specific countries, arbitrarily. That makes it even worse.
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
It is an immigration ban. It is not affecting goods, it is not affecting capital. Is it legally prohibiting, quote, "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries". It is not an all-encompassing immigration ban, sure. It is targeted to specific countries, arbitrarily. That makes it even worse.
No, it had a well thought through idea. That the left would rather put up a quick, easy and showy bandaid than take the time to actually address real issues. You may not agree with the idea, but it's there. Pretending it's not there is a very left thing to do.
THIS.
Thank you. Someone with a brain.
No, liberals certainly do not support women rights whilst supporting muslim "rights to misogyny". That blanket statement is categorically not true and can not be proved as such. My point is that not every muslim walks around saying "can we get a bit more misogyny up in here??? Misogyny is my right!!!". Some muslims may be, progressive muslims usually aren't. Muslims have the right to practice their religion without discrimination based on that religion. Whether that religion needs to be brought up to speed in certain areas is another topic of discussion entirely, but misogyny isn't a problem that only affects muslims.
I said it in the post you said was devoid of ideas and then repeated it in the post you just replied to.
The poster I originally replied to said the immigration issue was too difficult and Trump should move on. The idea is that the left is like Nero playing his fiddle when his civilization burned around him rather than being a strong leader and trying to save something. The left idea is just take the easy route and have fun while you watch it all crash down around you because fixing things is hard work.
Not at all. You're just making up stuff, or your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor.
I said that it's not an "immigration ban", or a "Muslim ban", which is very different than just "ban". Particularly because the original Bloomberg article uses the term "immigration ban", look it up.
And an "immigration ban" is something essentially ideological, it's clearly defined, so it's easy to oppose it and virtue-signal your opposition.
However a temporary travel ban that applies to 7 specific countries sounds rather administrative, so it's much harder to oppose.
Hence the lie: by framing the actual situation (temporary travel ban) into a imaginary situation (immigration ban, Muslim ban), there's some crusade here to be fought.
[doublepost=1486382968][/doublepost]
It is not an immigration ban, you confuse travel with immigration. Immigration is "the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country". In fact, your very quote states "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry", which is a clear give away that it's not an "immigration ban".
It is a temporary travel ban from 7 specific countries, not an "immigration ban" or a "Muslim ban".
So again, rather than actually acknowledging what I did say, you want to ignore my point of view, then restate your point which is totally irrelevant to what I said, and pretend that you're actually open-minded enough to have a discussion. When all you want to do is ignore the actual discussion and repeat your rhetoric.
Add to that, why do you feel "not every muslim" means anything. Their culture and core essence is Misogynistic. If you find one Muslim out of 1.6 billion who happens to not be, that doesn't change their culture.
Schindler was very good to the Jews. I guess by your logic I can't say Nazi Germany was a tough place for the Jews.
Sounds like a criticism of Donald Trump. He could have come up with a good idea (e.g blocking Saudi diplomats) but instead he rushed in, bull in a China shop style, and made an unconstitutional executive order.
Oh I see. So if there's someone who's not a Muslim but is a misogynist, it somehow changes the fact that the Muslim culture is misogynistic? Really? There's some interesting logic.
Last edited:
Immigrant = a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country, for economic reasons
Non-immigrant = (1) a person who comes to live either temporarily or permanently in a foreign country, in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster (e.g. refugees), (2) a person who is living temporarily in the US (e.g. international students), (3) tourists
Both categories refer to a resident status in the US.
Proof = legal immigrants holding green cards were denied entry in the United States.
Last edited:
That's why all religion is evil.
How so? Which Christians today practice honour killing of women? Which Christians today kidnap young girls sell young girls into sexual slavery calling them child brides? Which Christian countries allow men to mutilate and disfigure said child brides for disobedience? Which Christian countries make it illegal for a woman to go out alone without being escorted by her owner? Which Christian countries allow women to be raped and then punish them by lashing for having sex? Which Christian countries employ morality police to publicly beat women who accidentally let a little bit of hair or skin slip from under their robes? Which Christian countries force women *in the middle of a dessert* to dress from head to toe in thick woollen garments?
Last time I checked, the answer to all of those was "none".
So we are talking about current practices in the Middle East? Not long term culture? In which case I agree. The Middle East is particularly backwards.
So which of the things I listed is only recent?
And, for that matter, I said the "culture is" not the "culture was". How is it not clear I wasn't talking about current practices. Christianity was more misogynistic in the past than it is today. But it's today that's relevant.
Nothing to do with Islam, nor religion. Backwards autocratic governments are pushing these kind of practices. Does this happen in Muslim American communities? No. Does this happen in Islamic-majority democracies (Turkey, Bosnia)? No. Did it happen in the Middle East before the superpowers decided to make the place the XX century great game? No.
Take a look around Paris, London, or Toronto and then say it's not their religion but their governments.
In Toronto, which i know first hand, if a Muslim woman doesn't submit to all of that treatment, her family back home will be punished for her transgression. The Muslim community here reports "back home".
Women here, in Toronto, are regularly beaten by husbands, brothers, fathers, and community leaders. And if they go to the police, their family is murdered "back home". And you believe that's caused by far off governments and not their culture here?
The issue is that in between, say, 600 and 1880 being a woman under Islam would have been superior than under Christianity. It's only in the 150 years since then that that has reversed. Hell it was probably better being a woman under Islam until 1918.
Yes, great Christianity is ahead today, but so what?
So are you OK with me judging Christians on the behaviour of the Spanish Inquisition and indulgences etc etc?
Yes, but this is proof to support what I'm saying. This ban clearly applies to all entries from those specific 7 countries, not only to immigrants, and not immigration in general.
Calling it an "immigration ban" is like saying that Apple makes only desktop personal computers. It's simply false.
You said:
"It's mind boggling that a temporary suspension of travel to the US from citizens of 7 countries is advertised as an "immigration ban"."
I'm saying the reason people are calling it a ban is because Trump himself repeatedly called it a ban. That is why we are using that term. That is why is being talked about as a ban. I can not be more explicit about the reasoning this is being called a ban. Now maybe my reading comprehension is incredibly poor but I'm shocked that you've had to reply to this 8 times to be honest.