Stacking the Deck: The Muslim Ban

[Aquila]

What most aren't getting is that the ban on Muslim travel, refugees, and immigration is an ingenious political move. We all know that terrorists are going to strike again at some point. When that happens Trump has stacked the deck.

You see, in the wake of an attack, if the executive order isn't overturned and stands.... the Trump administration can claim the measure is justified and push for broader domestic powers to track and spy on Americans and restrictions on those entering the country.

If the executive order is overturned before an attack.... Trump will be able to place blame on the courts and push for broader domestic powers to track and spy on Americans and restrict those entering the country.

It becomes a win/win for Trump, setting him up for a massive power-grab. In either circumstance, if we are faced with a grim terrorist attack with a high death toll, Trump is set up to move and abolish limitations that prevent the use of the military as it relates to domestic police action, the expansion of detainment centers, torture, limitations on media access, registries, CIA black sites, and warrantless searches and surveillance.

With such vocal opposition among Democrats, he is also set up to politically slaughter the Democrats after such an attack, saying that liberal opposition to the ban shows that they are out of touch and incapable of keeping America safe. And if the ban is overturned, he'll blame the courts and the Democrats for "allowing it happen".

Frankly, Trump has chosen an ingenious political position with the Muslim ban. Even his attacks on the media, though outlandish, will seem justified in the wake of an attack.

The Democrats have no clue that their protest, no matter how altruistic, liberty minded, and civil rights based, will be used to politically hang them.

Now, all Trump needs is a significant attack on US soil. And I'm sure such an attack will be best exploited if it is just before the Midterm Elections. Thank God the Trump Administration wouldn't ever just allow such an attack to take place.

Let's see what happens....

[votivesoul]

It's not a Muslim ban. Non-Muslims from those same 7 countries are not allowed to travel here, per the EO, if they don't carry the visas outlined in the EO, even as we await the fallout from the restriction by a federal judge.

Here is the EO in full:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...T.nav=top-news

Neither the word Muslim or Islam is anywhere in the EO.

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It's not a Muslim ban. Non-Muslims from those same 7 countries are not allowed to travel here, per the EO, if they don't carry the visas outlined in the EO, even as we await the fallout from the restriction by a federal judge.

Here is the EO in full:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...T.nav=top-news

Neither the word Muslim or Islam is anywhere in the EO.

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

Exactly

[Esaias]

It wouldn't matter if Trump ran on the Bahai platform or what, a major "terror attack" would result in restrictions on freedom here in the USA. Why? Because most Americans value security over freedom.

On a side note, the "protests" are paid astroturfers and useful idiot SJW types who do not reflect anything but their handlers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It wouldn't matter if Trump ran on the Bahai platform or what, a major "terror attack" would result in restrictions on freedom here in the USA. Why? Because most Americans value security over freedom.

On a side note, the "protests" are paid astroturfers and useful idiot SJW types who do not reflect anything but their handlers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Exactly

Thank you for being intelligent

Cooking bacon in oven tonight.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It's not a Muslim ban. Non-Muslims from those same 7 countries are not allowed to travel here, per the EO, if they don't carry the visas outlined in the EO, even as we await the fallout from the restriction by a federal judge.

Here is the EO in full:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...T.nav=top-news

Neither the word Muslim or Islam is anywhere in the EO.

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

God bless smart people who read the information, listen to the information, and understand the information.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

Apparently the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. However, any measure taken by the POTUS cannot be in violation of the Constitution.

Here's an article that explains why so many feel that Trump's immigration order is unconstitutional:

Why Trump's Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...utional-214722

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Apparently the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. However, any measure taken by the POTUS cannot be in violation of the Constitution.

Here's an article that explains why so many feel that Trump's immigration order is unconstitutional:

Why Trump's Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...utional-214722

And that is precisely the kind of thinking that will lead us to more conflict.
How many majority Muslim countries have a representative government and freedom of religion for all religions?
Give me one.
The go to for years on this was Turkey. Not so anymore.
And in almost all of these countries the penalty for converting from Muslim to another religion is death.
Until the Muslim religion has a dynamic shift away from violence, we will be at war with those who take their religion seriously.
Sadly, I see no way for this shift to happen.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

And that is precisely the kind of thinking that will lead us to more conflict.
How many majority Muslim countries have a representative government and freedom of religion for all religions?
Give me one.
The go to for years on this was Turkey. Not so anymore.
And in almost all of these countries the penalty for converting from Muslim to another religion is death.
Until the Muslim religion has a dynamic shift away from violence, we will be at war with those who take their religion seriously.
Sadly, I see no way for this shift to happen.

Speaking of representative governments. The reason the 7 countries are on the list is solely because they do not have mechanisms in place in order for us to properly vet the people coming from those countries. That is the main reason for the EO.

It's about the vetting.