The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
I can definitely see the problem with letting people in if there reason is "voice opposition against the government" in this post-DNC age. Otherwise then it's RT authors getting travel visas so they can go spread their whataboutism outside the next Women's March or something.
The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
There were several others who got turned away, including a muslim teen in a track and field team (he was the only one denied entry, in the team).
Several canadians citizens who happened to be muslim were denied entry to the US.
In Yassine Aber's case, they denied him because he had friends in common with a guy who allegedly left to fight in the middle east and had been seen in a picture with the guy/went to the same mosque.
They claim it's not racial profiling, though.
It's not racial profiling because Islam is a religion, not a race.
I'm not being flippant, this is an actual argument put forth by people in defense of this behavior.
And I'm sorry, because I know some D&D posters love to debate about semantics and precise word choice, but no, you do not get to get away with illegal profiling just because you think we used the wrong descriptor of it.
That or bigotry. You can be bigoted against a religion. It does really have a lot to do with being mostly non-white so it is racism as well.
I don't even think racism is THAT far off of a descriptor, because being Arab or South Asian with dark skin is what prompts the bigot to discriminate, because that's the color of person they see as Muslim. I'd imagine Eastern European Muslims who are white receive less grief from bigots.
That works because that's the fear of something foreign or strange, which can apply to either a different religion, or different skin color, or different accent, etc.
I don't know if it's a word that is so easily understood by the public-at-large, however.
That or bigotry. You can be bigoted against a religion. It does really have a lot to do with being mostly non-white so it is racism as well.
I don't even think racism is THAT far off of a descriptor, because being Arab or South Asian with dark skin is what prompts the bigot to discriminate, because that's the color of person they see as Muslim. I'd imagine Eastern European Muslims who are white receive less grief from bigots.
That or bigotry. You can be bigoted against a religion. It does really have a lot to do with being mostly non-white so it is racism as well.
I don't even think racism is THAT far off of a descriptor, because being Arab or South Asian with dark skin is what prompts the bigot to discriminate, because that's the color of person they see as Muslim. I'd imagine Eastern European Muslims who are white receive less grief from bigots.
Yeah I typically cruise through airport security with nary a glance from the TSA. I'm vaguely tan but apparently not enough to set off the brown-detector.
My wife on the other hand gets hassled regularly for her scarf, even though her complexion is somewhere between "snow white" and "vampire." She gets mistaken fairly regularly for a convert.
Yeah, this is pure racism 90% of the time. They say it's about muslims but let's not fucking kid ourselves here, they are assaulting anyone they think looks muslim. And "looking muslim" is defined entirely by a lack of whiteness.
The people shot and murdered in Kansas were indians and the white guy trying to speak on their behalf.
Yeah, this is pure racism 90% of the time. They say it's about muslims but let's not fucking kid ourselves here, they are assaulting anyone they think looks muslim. And "looking muslim" is defined entirely by a lack of whiteness.
The people shot and murdered in Kansas were indians and the white guy trying to speak on their behalf.
Best test is to ask them to name a Muslim athlete.
That or bigotry. You can be bigoted against a religion. It does really have a lot to do with being mostly non-white so it is racism as well.
I don't even think racism is THAT far off of a descriptor, because being Arab or South Asian with dark skin is what prompts the bigot to discriminate, because that's the color of person they see as Muslim. I'd imagine Eastern European Muslims who are white receive less grief from bigots.
See also all the shit Sihks get.
It takes a long time to convince people who have no concept of who they are and what it that means that "No, that guy having a 'knife' is actually a good thing".
The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
No, but I do think that allowing people to come into the country specifically to protest is a bad idea. We can't let our dislike of Trump blind us to the fact that foreign interference in our politics is a big reason why we even got here in the first place. Like, seriously, would we have been okay with Russians coming in to stage protests against Clinton?
The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
No, but I do think that allowing people to come into the country specifically to protest is a bad idea. We can't let our dislike of Trump blind us to the fact that foreign interference in our politics is a big reason why we even got here in the first place. Like, seriously, would we have been okay with Russians coming in to stage protests against Clinton?
That's not what happened though. It's not like some socially-conscious Russian protesters made a big show of supporting Trump.
The people who wanted to subvert the election did so on the sly by manipulating propaganda and probably through some graft. The two things are not equivalent.
Please give context to videos for those of us who can't watch them at present.
Sincerest apologies, posted that before I headed off to work and didn't even think about regional availability. Thankfully someone seems to have corrected my mistake.
The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
No, but I do think that allowing people to come into the country specifically to protest is a bad idea. We can't let our dislike of Trump blind us to the fact that foreign interference in our politics is a big reason why we even got here in the first place. Like, seriously, would we have been okay with Russians coming in to stage protests against Clinton?
That's not what happened though. It's not like some socially-conscious Russian protesters made a big show of supporting Trump.
The people who wanted to subvert the election did so on the sly by manipulating propaganda and probably through some graft. The two things are not equivalent.
That's not what happened because we don't let people come into the country to do it.
The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
No, but I do think that allowing people to come into the country specifically to protest is a bad idea. We can't let our dislike of Trump blind us to the fact that foreign interference in our politics is a big reason why we even got here in the first place. Like, seriously, would we have been okay with Russians coming in to stage protests against Clinton?
Or letting our large contingent of foreign Chinese college and grad students protest the Dalai Lama or something. They certainly have their right to protest him if they want, but doing so while in America creates a misperception about America's position and thus impacts our sovereign ability to conduct diplomacy.
It's also been the case in the past where Irish-Americans went to Canada to agitate against the British, to use another example.
The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
No, but I do think that allowing people to come into the country specifically to protest is a bad idea. We can't let our dislike of Trump blind us to the fact that foreign interference in our politics is a big reason why we even got here in the first place. Like, seriously, would we have been okay with Russians coming in to stage protests against Clinton?
That's not what happened though. It's not like some socially-conscious Russian protesters made a big show of supporting Trump.
The people who wanted to subvert the election did so on the sly by manipulating propaganda and probably through some graft. The two things are not equivalent.
That's not what happened because we don't let people come into the country to do it.
This seems like some serious stretching to try to make your point.
The Canadian case I heard of, if it's the same one, was that she was coming here specifically to join protests against Trump. And tbh, in that case I can see why you'd get turned away. "Why are you coming to our country?" "Oh, going to protest, maybe some light rioting, I promise no looting, though!"
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
No, but I do think that allowing people to come into the country specifically to protest is a bad idea. We can't let our dislike of Trump blind us to the fact that foreign interference in our politics is a big reason why we even got here in the first place. Like, seriously, would we have been okay with Russians coming in to stage protests against Clinton?
Or letting our large contingent of foreign Chinese college and grad students protest the Dalai Lama or something. They certainly have their right to protest him if they want, but doing so while in America creates a misperception about America's position and thus impacts our sovereign ability to conduct diplomacy.
It's also been the case in the past where Irish-Americans went to Canada to agitate against the British, to use another example.
First Amendment protections to Assembly and Speech apply to all persons on US soil, and thank God for that. So long as people aren't conspiring to commit illegal activities, and meet the necessities of their Visa (Canadians don't need Visas) then they should be allowed to enter the country.
That or bigotry. You can be bigoted against a religion. It does really have a lot to do with being mostly non-white so it is racism as well.
I don't even think racism is THAT far off of a descriptor, because being Arab or South Asian with dark skin is what prompts the bigot to discriminate, because that's the color of person they see as Muslim. I'd imagine Eastern European Muslims who are white receive less grief from bigots.
Let's just say that using racial bigotry against a religious minority isn't unheard of in the past century in the western world.
Not sure if anyone's seen this yet, but just in case. Mike MCCain of Harebrained Schemes (and currently the game director on the new upcoming Battletech game) made an art print with Superman devastating a Trump wall. Currently, while the immigration ban persists, he's offering 100% of all art sales proceeds to the ACLU.
Please give context to videos for those of us who can't watch them at present.
I watched it, it's an Irish Senator who is visiting the US to participate in an Irish American protest against Trump's immigration policies on St. Patrick's Day. He says that any Irish American who supports the Muslim ban has forgotten their Irish Heritage, specifically the struggles that Irish immigrants went through in the US.
I don't really know anything about this guy, but I like what I heard in this interview.
Every non native american who supports Trumps muslim ban is a hypocritical moron.
Every native american who supports the muslim ban is a dick,
And insane to boot
I can imagine ignorant racist Latino and Hindu pricks being in favor of the ban
You'd have to be a uniquely stupid Native American to be in favor of it
Immigration didn't work out too well for the people that were here before the Europeans Guy...
A federal judge in Hawaii has frozen President Trump’s new executive order temporarily barring the issuance of new visas to citizens of six-Muslim majority countries and suspending the admission of new refugees.
U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson froze the order nationwide.
Watson was the second of three judges to hear arguments Wednesday on whether to freeze the ban. A federal judge in Maryland said he also could rule before day’s end after a morning hearing, and the same federal judge in Washington state who suspended Trump’s first travel ban was set to hear arguments starting at 5 p.m. Eastern.
The hearing in Hawaii came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state itself. Lawyers for Hawaii alleged the new travel ban, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent and damages the state’s robust tourism industry.
[...]
Justice Department lawyers argued that the president was well within his authority to impose the ban, and that those challenging it had raised only speculative harms.
“They bear the burden of showing irreparable harm ... and there is no harm at all,” said Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who argued on behalf of the government in Greenbelt, Md. in the morning and by phone in Hawaii in the afternoon.
The arguments were similar at the hearing in Maryland, where a federal judge peppered both sides with pointed questions about whether the revised executive order would harm Muslims, refugees and the organizations that serve them.
“I think we’ve been going for quite a while,” U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang said after the nearly two-hour hearing. “I appreciate everyone’s advocacy. . . . I’ll try to issue a written ruling — hopefully today, but not necessarily.”
For example, Plaintiffs point to the following statements made contemporaneously with the implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 and in its immediate aftermath:...
In a January 27, 2017 interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, President Trump said that persecuted Christians would be given priority under the first Executive Order. He said (once again, falsely): “Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.”
CALLED IT. Trump himself has given folks enough ammo not just to discredit him, but to also legally challenge his immigration platform.
Justice Department lawyers argued that the president was well within his authority to impose the ban, and that those challenging it had raised only speculative harms.
“They bear the burden of showing irreparable harm ... and there is no harm at all,” said Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who argued on behalf of the government in Greenbelt, Md. in the morning and by phone in Hawaii in the afternoon.
Posts
Did she say that or is that you making the case that anyone protesting is going to turn to looting and violence? Because the latter seems to be a big problem.
It's not racial profiling because Islam is a religion, not a race.
I'm not being flippant, this is an actual argument put forth by people in defense of this behavior.
And I'm sorry, because I know some D&D posters love to debate about semantics and precise word choice, but no, you do not get to get away with illegal profiling just because you think we used the wrong descriptor of it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That or bigotry. You can be bigoted against a religion. It does really have a lot to do with being mostly non-white so it is racism as well.
I don't even think racism is THAT far off of a descriptor, because being Arab or South Asian with dark skin is what prompts the bigot to discriminate, because that's the color of person they see as Muslim. I'd imagine Eastern European Muslims who are white receive less grief from bigots.
That works because that's the fear of something foreign or strange, which can apply to either a different religion, or different skin color, or different accent, etc.
I don't know if it's a word that is so easily understood by the public-at-large, however.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
See also all the shit Sihks get.
Yeah I typically cruise through airport security with nary a glance from the TSA. I'm vaguely tan but apparently not enough to set off the brown-detector.
My wife on the other hand gets hassled regularly for her scarf, even though her complexion is somewhere between "snow white" and "vampire." She gets mistaken fairly regularly for a convert.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
The people shot and murdered in Kansas were indians and the white guy trying to speak on their behalf.
Best test is to ask them to name a Muslim athlete.
It takes a long time to convince people who have no concept of who they are and what it that means that "No, that guy having a 'knife' is actually a good thing".
No, but I do think that allowing people to come into the country specifically to protest is a bad idea. We can't let our dislike of Trump blind us to the fact that foreign interference in our politics is a big reason why we even got here in the first place. Like, seriously, would we have been okay with Russians coming in to stage protests against Clinton?
That's not what happened though. It's not like some socially-conscious Russian protesters made a big show of supporting Trump.
The people who wanted to subvert the election did so on the sly by manipulating propaganda and probably through some graft. The two things are not equivalent.
Sincerest apologies, posted that before I headed off to work and didn't even think about regional availability. Thankfully someone seems to have corrected my mistake.
That's not what happened because we don't let people come into the country to do it.
Or letting our large contingent of foreign Chinese college and grad students protest the Dalai Lama or something. They certainly have their right to protest him if they want, but doing so while in America creates a misperception about America's position and thus impacts our sovereign ability to conduct diplomacy.
It's also been the case in the past where Irish-Americans went to Canada to agitate against the British, to use another example.
This seems like some serious stretching to try to make your point.
First Amendment protections to Assembly and Speech apply to all persons on US soil, and thank God for that. So long as people aren't conspiring to commit illegal activities, and meet the necessities of their Visa (Canadians don't need Visas) then they should be allowed to enter the country.
Let's just say that using racial bigotry against a religious minority isn't unheard of in the past century in the western world.
Steam: pazython
Personally, I absolutely love the title of the piece: "......and the American way."
Meh. I wouldn't think less of him if he considers himself a citizen of the world.
America didn't invent ideas about humanism or liberalism.
Are the values good because they are loved by Americans? Or do Americans love the values because they are good?
Immigration didn't work out too well for the people that were here before the Europeans Guy...
Judge Blocks Trump’s Second Try at a Travel Ban
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
CALLED IT. Trump himself has given folks enough ammo not just to discredit him, but to also legally challenge his immigration platform.
it's fantastic!
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
i hope very badly. he should do some interviews, post some off-the-cuff tweets. get on record how mad he is and exactly why.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Oh he'll be sure to let us know, in 140 characters or less.
You think it'll be contained in just one tweet?
In very specifically unconstitutional terms.
Irony is dead.
Yeah, they're showing the rally crowd (Nashville) on MSNBC in the bottom right so guess it's pretty soon.
Steam: adamjnet