Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
Hopefully, we can all agree that the order does not mention Muslims or Christians by name?
The argument being made is that Muslims have been singled out implicitly, not explicitly.
Thus the order can be seen as a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
As evidence of discriminatory intent, Trump's challengers cite:
* The exemption that the immigration order provides for religious minorities.
* Comments made by him and his colleagues whilst campaigning.
They additionally argue that the action violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of "due process of the law" by denying entry to individuals with valid visas.
|
I understand all of that but it was quite clear that such a ban, based on religion, was unconstitutional and unlawful, therefore the order that was made avoided or evaded such.
So it doesn't matter what was said in the campaign or what people perceive implicitly.
He has tried to apply his policy the best he can, within the the law, and still this ****, acknowledging the initial issues around green cards and stuff.