Unconstitutional, per the Supreme Court's ruling in [I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman"]Lemon v. Kurtzman[/URL][/I]. It manages to fail on all three prongs of the test formulated by that case - it has no secular purpose, it has a primary effect of advancing a particular religion, and it would require excessive entanglement with a religious body (I assume Trump doesn't want to take refugees' word on it that they're christian).
Once someone with a modicum of legal training has a look at this plan, it's likely to change to "prioritize members of religions subject to persecution in their home country", which in the case of Syria and Iraq would include Christians as well as Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Druze, and arguably Shiite Muslims. If no religious bodies are put in charge of "vetting" refugees' religious beliefs, I think that could squeeze by the Supreme Court even with some conservative replacements. Lemon was a near-unanimous 8-1, and was reaffirmed under the right-leaning Rehnquist court, I doubt anything short of replacing half the court will change it.
[QUOTE=agentalexandre;51738310]It's hilarious reading the comments in this thread. I'm of Assyrian ethnicity and my relatives in Iraq have been persecuted for over a century. I'm the last person to agree with Trump but it's nice to be remebered once in a while. The west has ignored the plight of the Christian minorities in the Middle East for many a decade so to see someone (even as despicable as Trump) shedding light on this situation is refreshing.
And just so you guys know, its very easy to tell the difference between Assyrians and other ethnicities in the region. Assyrians have a distinct culture and their own language. It would be very easy to test for that.[/QUOTE]
I know what you are talking about. I know a guy of Assyrian ethnicity, christian family that fled yeeears ago because of the persecution. Now he is saying that the people that they fled from came here now with the mass immigration wave. They're considering moving again.
[QUOTE=agentalexandre;51738310]The west has ignored the plight of the Christian minorities in the Middle East for many a decade so to see someone (even as despicable as Trump) shedding light on this situation is refreshing.[/QUOTE]
How has the west ignored the plight of Christian minorities in the Middle East and what should be done to change things? As far as I can tell Trump didn't shed light on any situation, he just made a massive generalization that isn't readily verifiable.
[editline]27th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51738346]I know what you are talking about. I know a guy of Assyrian ethnicity, christian family that fled yeeears ago because of the persecution. Now he is saying that the people that they fled from came here now with the mass immigration wave. [B]They're considering moving again.[/B][/QUOTE]
To where?
Because [I]why[/I] would you declare, firstly, to prioritize Christian refugees? Not only does this tend to the flames of tensions, but Trump literally said that he would not accept any refugees [I]period[/I]. Now he's going back on his word, and only supporting Christians in the refugee crisis.
Secondly, there's [I]barely[/I] any Syrian refugees in the United States. It's laughable to think that people think that only Christians have been persecuted in the Middle East, when its brain-blisteringly obvious that [B]Muslim citizens[/B] are the majority dying day-to-day in the Middle East.
I'm not saying that Christians aren't persecuted at all in the Middle East, that's stupid. It's very obvious that religious minorities have been "blasphemed" in Wahhabi and fundamentalist nations like Saudi Arabia. But where is Trump's promise of "no refugees"? Is this another backpedal, only in favor for people of the Republican ilk?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51738349]How has the west ignored the plight of Christian minorities in the Middle East and what should be done to change things? As far as I can tell Trump didn't shed light on any situation, he just made a massive generalization that isn't readily verifiable.
[editline]27th January 2017[/editline]
To where?[/QUOTE]
Norway. Why you wondering?
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
(No muslims)
yeah, because shi'ite muslims and jews haven't been persecuted for decades in those regions or anything.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51738296][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Muslim_world[/url]
Just one of the countries quoted:
Maybe to you that is gentle, but to most that is savage. I see your agenda of trying to downplay their suffering.
As soon as someone is critical of islam it is "this person hates brown people". Find a new mantra, it is worn out and lost its color.[/QUOTE]
Not every muslim country is Saudi Arabia though?
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51738356]Norway. Why you wondering?[/QUOTE]
Whats appealing about Norway as opposed to Sweden?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51738365]Not every muslim country is Saudi Arabia though?[/QUOTE]
I don't remember typing that? Read the texts I linked there.
Honestly if there is a priority on refugees it should be given to Christians, Yazidis, Druze, Shi'a Muslims etc. and anyone else who potentially face genocide at the hands of ISIS and other extremist groups.
But then again I doubt the Trump admin will prioritize gays.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51738382]Honestly if there is a priority on refugees it should be given to Christians, Yazidis, Druze, Shi'a Muslims etc. and anyone else who potentially face genocide at the hands of ISIS and other extremist groups.
But then again I doubt the Trump admin will prioritize gays.[/QUOTE]
Let's not forget atheists, either. There are lot of groups that face persecution in middle east.
While proposal it might appear to have good intentions, it is either poorly worded/thought-out or just favouring Christians. And unconstitutional, to boot, as shown earlier.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;51738360]"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
(No muslims)[/QUOTE]
I think the election of Donald Trump has proved once and for all that America is no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave, the refuge for those seeking shelter. It is a culture dominated by fear of everyone and everything outside its walls - and fear of everyone and everything even within. and where there were no walls before, they're being built now. Trump's US-Mexico border wall is the ultimate act of cowardice.
[QUOTE=Sasupoika;51738612]Let's not forget atheists, either. There are lot of groups that face persecution in middle east.
While proposal it might appear to have good intentions, it is either poorly worded/thought-out or just favouring Christians. And unconstitutional, to boot, as shown earlier.[/QUOTE]
I have (unfortunately) gotten stuck listening to old fucks who idolize Trump and believe Breitbart and random facebook posts about literally anything (just today they were chatting about how sad the Democrat voters are that Obama didn't pardon Blagojevich before leaving office).
It turns out there's a fair bit of talk in those circles of what's essentially a new crusade - send the troops in, kill all the evil muslims and save the good christian souls. To that end, there's constant hyping of the plight of Christians in the middle-east, particularly Syria (because ISIS). They muddle up their own cases to make it seem like Saudi Arabia also executes christians, and then make shit up about places in America where Sharia law gets enforced by gangs... typical "your culture is under attack, you must fight back!" agitprop, but they eat it up.
If Trump is floating this "christian refugees first" idea to appease that segment of his supporters, the actual welfare of christian refugees doesn't factor into it. They don't vote, after all. He's just keeping his most frantic supporters at a fever pitch, for various political reasons - they help "his side" of any news story circulate, they show up to counter-protests, and they keep his poll numbers out of the single digits. And such blatant support for a vaguely-defined christian group might improve his support from evangelicals.
Or, it might be as a way to avoid blame for not stopping refugees, which is a rather prominent promise Trump made that he probably can't fulfill. This way, he can either change the story to "only christian refugees allowed" (and hope that nobody pays attention to the flip-flop, or blatantly lie and hope his followers believe it), or change the story to "Trump tried to do it but the Supreme Court/Democrats/Obama stopped him", thus absolving him of failure.
I think Trump's proposal was worded exactly as it was intended to be - but it's primary goal isn't to become policy, but to affect public opinion.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51738654]I think the election of Donald Trump has proved once and for all that America is no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave, the refuge for those seeking shelter. It is a culture dominated by fear of everyone and everything outside its walls - and fear of everyone and everything even within. and where there were no walls before, they're being built now. Trump's US-Mexico border wall is the ultimate act of cowardice.[/QUOTE]
America was doomed to fail from day one in my opinion. It was a country born out of violent revolution which instituted a government more tyrannical than the one that had come before. Not only that, but this new nation prided itself on being a republic and a democracy and on the notion of being free, all the while shackling themselves to a monarchic and repressive religion (Christianity). How can a true democracy ever succeed if the majority of citizens view the order of things (the universe) to be monarchic in nature? The answer is it can't, the two are incompatible, and now America is one step closer to having itself a proper monarchy, with Trump at its head. And let's not pretend that things would be significantly better with Clinton at the helm either, a sinking ship will sink regardless of who captains it.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51738870]America was doomed to fail from day one in my opinion. It was a country born out of violent revolution which instituted a government more tyrannical than the one that had come before. Not only that, but this new nation prided itself on being a republic and a democracy and on the notion of being free, all the while shackling themselves to a monarchic and repressive religion (Christianity). How can a true democracy ever succeed if the majority of citizens view the order of things (the universe) to be monarchic in nature? The answer is it can't, the two are incompatible, and now America is one step closer to having itself a proper monarchy, with Trump at its head. And let's not pretend that things would be significantly better with Clinton at the helm either, a sinking ship will sink regardless of who captains it.[/QUOTE]
Many people say I'm horrible for being am acceleration ist. No, I'm ahead of the curve. It also known as being g black pilled.
You been black pilled.
Don't lose hope. It means instead of holding on to how things now, you can begin building the seeds for the world to come. There is freedom with that thought.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51738870]America was doomed to fail from day one in my opinion. It was a country born out of violent revolution which instituted a government more tyrannical than the one that had come before. Not only that, but this new nation prided itself on being a republic and a democracy and on the notion of being free, all the while shackling themselves to a monarchic and repressive religion (Christianity). How can a true democracy ever succeed if the majority of citizens view the order of things (the universe) to be monarchic in nature? The answer is it can't, the two are incompatible, and now America is one step closer to having itself a proper monarchy, with Trump at its head. And let's not pretend that things would be significantly better with Clinton at the helm either, a sinking ship will sink regardless of who captains it.[/QUOTE]
That's because while America followed a Christian religion, its style of government was secular, and one that emphasized individual liberties and an individual pursuit of meaning. It had its golden age, but those days are gone now, and institutions and corporations vying for ever more power, wealth and political influence have dug in, bought out politicians, and changed the role of government from representing the people to maintaining the status quo. This will ultimately go terribly wrong. And Trump has accelerated this.
[editline]27th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51738886]Many people say I'm horrible for being am acceleration ist. No, I'm ahead of the curve. It also known as being g black pilled.
You been black pilled.
Don't lose hope. It means instead of holding on to how things now, you can begin building the seeds for the world to come. There is freedom with that thought.[/QUOTE]
I still think accelerationism is bunk. Isak described exactly why in this post of his:
[quote]It's like you didn't even read my entire post last time this came up.
There has never been a case in human history where the rapid collapse of a democratic regime led to anything other than tyranny, authoritarianism, and oppression. The default reaction when democratic institutions fail isn't forward-looking positivity and new ideas and a golden age, like you seem to think. It's a dictatorship. There are hundreds of examples of democratic regimes collapsing to coups and outside pressure and such, and every last one collapses into greater authoritarianism and violence when all is said and done.
You're advocating that we should jump off a cliff instead of slide down a mountain.
I have a hard time seeing you as anything other than a thirteen year old kid or some edgy high schooler with this perspective you keep spouting. It's self-defeatist and irrational on a surface level. I'm studying political science and there's absolute loads of theory, backed up by historical evidence, that shows that collapse of democratic regimes is not a good thing for society. You're advocating for regime collapse, and I really really think you don't understand the scale of what you're calling for. The institutions you want to collapse are much further-reaching than the surveillance apparatus. They're rule of law, civic nonviolence, the judicial system, public goods, the job market, civic engagement, education, norms of a peaceful society, cooperation towards goals, peacekeeping - they're all underlying traits of a stable democratic society that you want to shred and replace with "some new ideas people can come up with later." Those new ideas don't exist and won't exist - they'll be authoritarian. You can see this time and time again. Your destructive pessimism towards modern norms of society is followed up by just a plainly naive optimism of future norms of society, flying in the face of all evidence.
But you'll ignore this post and continue to take for granted the safety and peace provided by the democratic institutions you want to tear down. You're standing on top of a giant skyscraper saying "we haven't replaced the foundations in years, tear them up and start again," without realizing that the entire tower will collapse with you on it if you do that.[/quote]
Humans are shit. We have consistently proved to be shit throughout history, and we're shrewd opportunists. Humanity and human nature are why we cannot have nice things. It's why anarchists, libertarians, accelerationists and communists are idiots. Only through a system that marries the public and private sectors, with clearly defined boundaries and proper regulation, can we have anything approaching a balance.
And if the US goes down, mark my words, what will rise from the ashes will be more horrific than any travesty the world has ever seen - a lawless wasteland of violent, hateful tribes, ruled by whomever seizes the resources and wealth first - with the most weapons and will to use them.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51738886]Many people say I'm horrible for being am acceleration ist. No, I'm ahead of the curve. It also known as being g black pilled.
You been black pilled.
Don't lose hope. It means instead of holding on to how things now, you can begin building the seeds for the world to come. There is freedom with that thought.[/QUOTE]
stop with the /pol/ memes and use some critical thinking for once
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51738886]Many people say I'm horrible for being am acceleration ist. No, I'm ahead of the curve. It also known as being g black pilled.
You been black pilled.
Don't lose hope. It means instead of holding on to how things now, you can begin building the seeds for the world to come. There is freedom with that thought.[/QUOTE]
I've responded to you like three times now and you've never responded to any of my criticisms of your worldview. I'll throw you concrete examples of why accelerating or encouraging regime collapse is [I]disgusting[/I], and how effectively every regime, whether democratic or not, that has experienced a rapid, accelerated decline has defaulted to widespread violence, suppression of basic human rights, and the establishment of more authoritarian political actors.
Liberia between 1980 and 2003 is a good example - military coup overthrows democratically-elected leader, falsifies elections, rebel group attacks, rebel group gains power, other rebel groups attack, and all things done over a tenth of the country is dead and nearly 65% are displaced. The first coup was initiated because of corruption and ethnic tension. The second rebel victory was about instituting democracy - and then the president was indicted for crimes against humanity for mass rape, summary executions, drafting child soldiers, and slaughtering political opponents. The only way to maintain power in that vacuum was autocracy - and the only reason it was resolved was because of international donors and international pressures for peacebuilding.
Or, you know, Yugoslavia, a fairly developed and controlled state under Tito that absolutely collapsed completely and entirely, like you seem to think is a [I]great[/I] idea. What's that? Ethnic cleansing? Mass rape? Mass civilian casualties? They'll just come up with some sick new ideas to solve all that and fix everything - no need for international intervention at all. Oh, wait, people intervened and re-established those social structures so people would stop being [I]massacred[/I].
But your only response is "it's called being black pilled." No, it's called being naive and getting your political opinions from apocalypse porn and Fallout 3.
I mean, if you really think that the optimal way to solve severe acne is dousing yourself in gasoline and burning your skin off clean to the bone so you can "make a new skin," go for it. I'll just use Accutane.
Accelerationism is about as rational as ISIS's belief that bringing about the apocalypse will lead to paradise.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51738886]Many people say I'm horrible for being am acceleration ist. No, I'm ahead of the curve. It also known as being g black pilled.
You been black pilled.
Don't lose hope. It means instead of holding on to how things now, you can begin building the seeds for the world to come. There is freedom with that thought.[/QUOTE]
In my earlier post I referred to America as a sinking ship. This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, for if a ship sinks slowly, we can safely evacuate those on board, but if you accelerate the process it's going to end in travesty.
So essentially what I'm saying here is that I do not share your view of accelerationism. I believe that any positive change takes time to achieve, and that trying to push rapid change never works and often leads to terrible violence and atrocity (political revolutions). This is why I have a general disdain for any radical movements on the left and right side of politics.
Also, I'm not black pilled. I actually had to look the term up because I've never heard it before in my life. And to me it seems like some stupid reddit term for what is essentially nihilism. While I do tend to see a lot of doom and gloom in the world, I am actually an idealist. Even in the darkest instances of my life there's always that small ray of hope, that light at the end of the tunnel, that is driving me forward.
[QUOTE=Blazyd;51738200]I'm still not used to the term "President Trump" tbh[/QUOTE]
Hopefully you won't have to get used to it for long. At this rate, he'll be either impeached or thrown out before the year is over.
I don't see how America could collapse unless either our economy becomes totally fucked, or all our allies turn on us due to something majorly wrong/stupid happening. Sure we might suck for a bit but America is too important for the world stage to collapse without fucking everyone else up as well. It will be a rough presidency but that doesn't mean we are doomed as a country
Can't a refugee lie and say that they're Christian when making the procedures? If so, then this is a stupid move in a consistent series.
If Trump was so concerned about protecting the most persecuted groups fleeing the middle east he would prioritise homosexuals, atheists, and women.
But then, that's not good for the Republican party, because those are all groups that they also seem to enjoy persecuting.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51738190]Maybe it is because christian refugees from majority-muslim countries are persecuted and don't enjoy the same freedoms and rights there - and therefore have a much stronger claim for asylum then their muslim refugee counterparts from said country? They're a minority.[/QUOTE]
You can't pretend you are genuinely concerned about persecuted religious minorities if you arbitrarily elevate one above others. If you are, you support case-for-case vetting that accounts for individual situations. While christian plight needs more attention, it does not mean that other religions can be ignored with good conscience, because making decisions by grouping always harms the rights of individual. There are other groups persecuted, like yazidis, hindus, minority sect muslims and atheists. Then there are those persecuted for their individual beliefs like dissidents and liberals.
Sweeping bans and favoritism plays to identity politics on the assumption that christians are inevitably closer to westerners in values. This is necessarily not so, because values and habits vary widely by geography and even by individual. So religion is not even a very reliable candidate for vetting out those most suitable for transition to western liberal society.
This seems open to abuse, honestly. And the "Well they're the persecuted minority" reasoning doesn't hold up when you have even smaller groups being actively genocided such as the Yazidi that aren't offered the same protection.
[editline]28th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=fulgrim;51739603]If Trump was so concerned about protecting the most persecuted groups fleeing the middle east he would prioritise homosexuals, atheists, and women.
But then, that's not good for the Republican party, because those are all groups that they also seem to enjoy persecuting.[/QUOTE]
This too.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;51739319]Hopefully you won't have to get used to it for long. At this rate, he'll be either impeached or thrown out before the year is over.[/QUOTE]
But that means we'll be referring to President Pence instead. And while I like the alliteration, that's just about where the list of good things about that fuckstick ends.
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51738162]This seems like it is setting a dangerous President.[/QUOTE]
FTFY.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51738346]I know what you are talking about. I know a guy of Assyrian ethnicity, christian family that fled yeeears ago because of the persecution. Now he is saying that the people that they fled from came here now with the mass immigration wave. They're considering moving again.[/QUOTE]
then why are you supporting the persecution of Muslim's who are fleeing war because they refuse to conform to the radical extremist ideology of ISIS
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
