"I think that in essence the policy at it's heart is an act of goodwill and meant to be a positive protective act towards the citizens of the United States," - Well you think wrong. It's a nakedly cynical move designed to appeal to a base of voters who are afraid, and who are angry. It won't help anything. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack in the united states are still vanishingly small, and Americans are already really quite well protected from foreign terrorism.

@Occam

Okay. So everything you just described was a legal and lawful institution. They were all eventually declared unconstitutional because they were horrible and sick laws. HOWEVER, the BIG difference is that everything you just said deprived AMERICAN CITIZENS of their rights and deprived them of equality, justice, and due process.

The travel ban doesn't apply to American citizens. The citizens of those countries are citizens IN those countries, not in the United States and the President has the power to enforce immigration law. Nothing he is doing or the travel ban is doing is depriving UNITED STATES citizens of their rights, due process, equality, etc.

Nice try, but you are wrong and you are making a false comparison.

...But the assumption that only the rights of US citizens matter is also pretty obviously inherently bigoted. Come on man, you're not even making this difficult.

Um, the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee the rights of every nation on Earth, bud. It protects US citizens. No one has a right to immigrate here, we dictate who can immigrate here based on our laws and Constitution.

Legal is not just. Just because something does not violate a legal document (up to and including the Constitution of the United States) doesn't mean it isn't bigoted. I'm going to keep repeating this point until you understand it.

Is it bad that when I saw Sealion my first thought was F/G/R alliance?

It took me a second to remember that it has a social justice context.

Yeah, your wrong Occam. Take a constitutional law class that isn't taught by a SJW.

@damian - Haha no not at all. I realized that making that reference might lead to some confusion here.

I'm wrong about what? About whether or not the very concept of justice is perfectly and completely described within the constitution of the United States?

That's exactly what I thought damian...

Your wrong that citizens of other nations are equatable to US citizens under the law and constitution.

Guys, if you're not from the US you're worth dirt. Get it right

"Your wrong that citizens of other nations are equatable to US citizens under the law and constitution." - I'm not arguing that they are. The point I am trying to make is that the legality of something (whatever the grounds for that legality are) is not an argument that that thing is not monstrously unjust.

I know ND is just a silly cartoon character repeating gross talking points, but it still makes me mad every time.

Oh well, we disagree then @Occam because there is nothing unjust about a protective security measure.

So....if I call something a protective security measure, it's always perfectly OK? Wow, who knew it was so easy!

I'm still worried about anti gay violence. I think every single straight person in the world should be arrested and thrown in prison. You know, as a protective security measure.

just remember that at one point, that infallible document the US constitution didn't have the 13th amendment. and previous to that, Slavery was still morally evil, believe it or not.

In all seriousness, some of the gravest injustices of recent history have been carried out in the name of "protection" and "security". Those terms are not some magical talisman against charges of racism or any other form of bigotry, often they're the exact opposite. And if you can't recognize when your fear is being used to manipulate you in this way, then I have a bridge to sell you. Trust me, it's very secure and it'll help protect you.

Yes, let's amend the US Constitution to include provisions for every citizen and nation of the world! Jesus does sovereignty mean nothing to you all?

Save me the SJW/Communist talking points I don't buy into that drivel.

Forget the damn constitution for 30 fucking seconds, forget the legal issues, forget SCOTUS. They aren't relevant to what I am trying to tell you.

Look deep inside yourself where there might be just the tiniest inkling of compassion and try and remember that people, real human people, who live, and have loved ones, are trying to flee for their lives. They're calling out for help, they want to be safe, they want their loved ones to be safe, and are having the door slammed shut in their faces. Imagine looking them in the eye and telling them well technically this is totally fine because you're allowed to do whatever you want, because they weren't born in the US.

"Jesus does sovereignty mean nothing to you all?" - Sovereignty does not mean that you aren't morally responsible for the consequences of your actions. Regardless upon whom those consequences fall; US citizen or otherwise.
I've been trying to make you grapple with some sense of moral responsibility for the world around you. And all you can do is hide behind legal justifications and the US constitution, and who knows how many other pieces of paper.
I am trying to tell you that you need to examine and reckon with the contents of your heart (metaphorically speaking) and your character, and you seem incapable of it. And that refusal speaks volumes.

The Supreme Court did not rule that the Trump travel ban was legal today, nor did they rule that it was illegal. They ruled that the ban should be in effect while the litigation process plays out, rather than remain barred by injunction. This is a standard procedural rule that has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court does or does not believe about the ultimate Constitutionality of the ban itself, because that is not what is presently at issue in their decision.

"I'm sick of how many people you've probably driven away from ever engaging here."

Lmao. I love the irony here that militant leftists like DemonOverlord have probably driven away more people than ND ever could.

@Occam, you have set up a straw man to fight ND with. This thread was celebrating the legality of a law. It has nothing to do with the sentimentalist "morality" you think is so great.

Back in the dawn of WWII, the US and other countries turned away a boat of Jewish immigrants fleeing from the growing anti-semitism in Europe. Others trying to flee the dangers of the Third Reich were told they had to wait, often for years. They had nowhere to go but back to Europe where they likely were killed in the Holocaust. How many more of my family would be alive today if the US had taken them in, we will probably never know. But this is eerily close to the same thing, why would we be blind to history when it tells us so much about the future?

Source: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007652

...I see. So we're only allowed to discuss concepts directly mentioned in the original post? I apologize for my error, I didn't realize conversation here was so tightly constrained.

@leon ND making "Hurr durr #MAGA" posts certainly makes this site pretty vile.

@Leon: Absolutely, correct.

@Valis: They allowed it to remain in effect and also this is not the first time they have ruled it should be in effect. So, at the end of the day it stays in effect and when they issue their final ruling it will be upheld by all indications.

@Occam: This has nothing to do with that. This has to do with what is legal and also what is in the public interest and for the greater public welfare and that is to have firm security protocols.

Discuss what you want Occam, but you aren't making any sense to me. It's a legal document and it isn't disenfranchising any American citizens or anyone else for that matter. If those countries improve their vetting standards and once our vetting standards are updated they will be removed from the list. It's all about security.

c0dyz, by that standard, you probably see anything outside your echo chamber as vile.

As for your relatives, it's completely incomparable. Jews have mingled peaceably with Christians for millenia and are thus compatible with Christian culture. Muslims, on the other, have been at war with Christianity for centuries.