Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
The plain language of the order passes constitutional muster as it specifies countries rather than religion, and excludes most majority-Muslim countries (including the largest, Indonesia), targeting countries known to have produced problem emigrants to other countries.
Here, you're confusing the travel moratorium with the refugee suspension, which specifies a 120-day moratorium on new admissions worldwide, which does not trigger Article 8 of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees as it is non-discriminatory. The indefinite suspension specifying Syria may also not trigger the application of Article 8 as Syria is not a signatory to the Protocol. In any case, the 1967 Protocol is primarily concerned with deportation of recognized landed refugees, with a primary concern for preventing refoulment. The US handicaps itself by recognizing refugees in situ (i.e., prior to landing), but there is no danger of refoulment as the refugees are in camps either in Turkey or in areas of Syria outside the control of the Assad regime (i.e., there is no deportation).
You're entitled to your opinion, of course.
|
Dammit, when you respond with hard information instead of rhetoric, then you're not playing the game right!
Ok, still — Trump made a campaign promise to specifically impose a shutdown on
Muslims entering the U.S. Now, he's patting himself on the back for following through on campaign promises. So whether or not the specific language of the orders contains direct references to a specific religion, there is still a string probability that the orders were motivated by a religious prejudice.
What I'm saying is: maybe every official document "passes constitutional muster," but that doesn't actually say anything about the motivation behind the actions. Trump is essentially saying in a roundabout way, "This is that Muslim shutdowns I was talking about."