In a truly shocking and facially unconstitutional plan, Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump is calling for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. The plan would violate a host of domestic and international protections, as I discussed today with the Washington Post.
Trump stated that “[i]t is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why, we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”
Trump said he would ease the ban in the case of Muslims serving in the U.S. military and allow them to return home. that is still well short of constitutional — or rational — plan. For Muslim citizens, such a plan would be grossly unconstitutional under the first and fifth amendments. The latter prohibits The depriving of individuals of “life, liberty, or property,” without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
It is certainly true that the constitutional protections often turn on whether someone is consider a “person” under the United States Constitution. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute denying funding for education to unauthorized immigrant children. Being present within the United States does afford protections of due process and equal protection. Outside of the country immigrants without resident status face a more difficult challenge. However, international law and conventions afford protections for travel and religion.
The law would harken back to the disgraceful period of the Chinese Exclusion laws. We have long rejected immigration limits based discriminatory classes of this kind. Indeed, the Immigration and Nationality Act protects potential refugees facing “fear of persecution” on account of their “religion.” Yet under President Trump we would now formally impose such a discriminatory element, a move that would make the United States a pariah around the world and immediately extinguish our relations with Islamic countries.
Immigration policy has cleared resonated as a draw for Trump. However, this proposal would openly embrace raw prejudice and blind rage as motivating factors for governmental policy. It would clearly fail in denying reentry for citizens or residents. As for non-citizens abroad, they are accorded protections under international law. Under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, people have the right to leave or enter a country and that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” There is no doubt murky aspects to such rights and a long-standing question of their enforceability. However, this proposal rests on flagrant religious discrimination against one group. It seeks to “protect” the United States by denying the very essence of who we are as a nation.
Po,
This is not all that complicated. I expect anyone that follows a religion and those that have none to want like-minded believers representing their interests in government. I have no problem with ANY special interest group or lobby to also try to ensure their interests are represented. That is what those outside of government are expected to do. Our founding fathers understood this which is why our constitution was written the way it was. Those elected are supposed to honor their oath regardless of the demands placed upon them. I challenge you to identify ANYTHING I’ve said, in any thread, with context, that is inconsistent with our founding principles.
“The dodge happened when you failed to answer my so simple and so fair question. Why are Muslims the only ones to be demanded testimony from?”
Here was my answer, so no, I didn’t dodge: “It is a legitimate question for everyone in the United States to answer whether they consider the constitution as the supreme law of this country. If you or anyone else cannot or will not answer that as yes, then you or they deserve to be considered enemies of the state.”
Tied? Fellow citizens.
olly, the issue is that your question is undercurrenced by the idea making the rounds in some circles that one cannot be Muslim and a citizen at the same time. That same undercurrent suggest Muslims want to establish shariah law in the US.
You would not have built that dichotomy of Muslims and allegiance to the constitution unless there was an assumed conflict. That conflict keeps arising whenever Muslims are spoken of, and only when Muslims are spoken of.
I can take your word for it that you would ask the same of anyone else, but currently you are asking it of Muslims, and of no one else. it is not random.
If you notice, eh other people agreeing with you here are the ones stating very clearly that to be Muslim is to be anti-American…that is a problem. A big one.
Now even the allegiance of our Muslim congressman, keith Ellison, is being challenged…
The same narrative painted Catholics with kennedy, and japanese in WW2, “something about you, people is inherently anti-american, prove your allegiance…”
po – you forgot the Italians and the Germans. However, neither of these had additional laws they expected to overrule American law. Judaism does. And certain sects have interior rules that expect to have obeyed.
Paul, you are being deceptive, again. You are going on the assumption that Muslims do have additional laws they expect to overrule American law!
Prove it?
Would a German and Italian Muslim who immigrates here necessarily require additional laws to overrule American law?
Haven’t I just proven above that the more orthodox the believer ACROSS ALL RELIGIONS, the more he believes divine law overrules secular ones?
As I said before, I am glad you no longer are allowed to teach children.
po – I am retired. I can teach if I want, just don’t want to. Don’t understand why you think I am prevented from teaching. That says so much about your other statements.
Paul, I used to take your statements at face value until you showed me that, yes, one can pretty much make any claim one wants and leave it up to the accused to disprove them.
Just like evidence of non-Muslim terrorism is a possible evidence of Muslim terrorism, your no longer teaching is a possible evidence of your having been fired due to your inability to discern facts from inventions 🙂
po – since I went from teaching to being a fact-checker for the largest textbook publisher in the world, I don’t think I would have been fired for being factually inaccurate. My last teaching position was as Instruction Specialist. As such I oversaw the other teachers and made sure they were following the state standards for their subjects.
uh oh, Paul, that’s even scarier!
Added perspective:
—————————————
Donald Trump vs. the Founding Fathers on Muslims Coming to U.S.
By Juan Cole
In his never-ending trolling of the American public, Donald Trump has now come out and urged banning Muslim immigration into or even entrance into the United States.
Some of the below is revised from an earlier text
Forbidding people from entering the United States on the basis of their religion is inconsistent with the ideals of the Founding Generation of the United States of America, who explicitly mentioned Islam among the cases when they spoke of religious freedom:
‘George Washington asked in a March 24, 1784, letter to his aide Tench Tilghman that some craftsmen be hired for him: “If they are good workmen, they may be of Assia, [sic] Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, [Muslims] Jews, or Christian of any Sect – or they may be Atheists …”
In his letter to the Jewish congregation of Newport, RI, Washington pledged that the “Children of Abraham” would not be made afraid in the United States (implicitly contrasting the new nation’s liberties and personal security with the pogroms of the Old World). It should be noted that Arab Muslims consider themselves, as well, descendants of Abraham through Ishmael:
” The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.
If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—-a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.
May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
Washington underlined that in the new social experiment that is the United States, toleration is not merely the indulgence of one group of people by a dominant elite. It is a right, which requires only that the individual be an upright citizen of the new country, which “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” Donald Trump is himself a bigot not good enough to pronounce George Washington’s name aloud, much less to succeed him in office.
Ben Franklin, the founding father of many important institutions in Philadelphia, a key diplomat and a framer of the US Constitution, wrote in his Autobiography concerning a non-denominational place of public preaching he helped found “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” Here is the whole quote:
‘And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner propos’d, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient sums were soon receiv’d to procure the ground and erect the building, which was one hundred feet long and seventy broad, about the size of Westminster Hall; and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected. Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service. ‘
Not only did Ben Franklin not want to ban Muslims from coming to the United States, he wanted to invited them!
Thomas Jefferson wrote in his 1777 Draft of a Bill for Religious Freedom:
‘ that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right . . . ‘
As I observed on another occasion, it was Jefferson’s more bigotted opponents in the Virginia legislature who brought up the specter of Muslims and atheists being elected to it in the world Jefferson was trying to create. He was undeterred by such considerations, which should tell us something.
British social philosopher John Locke was extremely influential on the Founding Generation, and on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. John Locke had already advocated civil rights for non-Christians, including Muslims, in his Letter on Toleration:
‘ Thus if solemn assemblies, observations of festivals, public worship be permitted to any one sort of professors [believers], all these things ought to be permitted to the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with the same liberty. Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing. ‘
Here is Jefferson again: “The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”
– Thomas Jefferson, note in Destutt de Tracy, “Political Economy,” 1816.
Or: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
The US Senate, full of founding fathers, and the Adams government, approved the Treaty with Tripoli (now Libya) of 1797, which included this language:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The treaty is important for showing the mindset of the fashioners of the American system.
And here is a final point for Mr. Trump and his ilk to consider. The United States was born of a war against the British crown, the state religion of which was the Anglican Church. Those Anglicans who insisted on swearing allegiance to King George III were viewed as the enemy. And, the British custom of ‘establishing’ the Anglican church in many of the colonies, i.e. making it the state religion, was renounced by the revolutionaries. But there was no question that apolitical Anglicans could practice their religion freely, found Anglican (“Episcopalian”) churches anywhere they liked (even in places where the Americans and British had waged fierce battles, like New York), and even go to Britain to arrange for the training of Episcopalian/Anglican priests.
There is more. In 1787, Samuel Provoost was made the Episcopalian bishop of New York. He had been a Whig and a supporter of the Revolution even though an Anglican. In 1789, the US Senate made him its chaplain!
So not only did the Founding Generation not harbor a grudge against the religion of the British Crown (which had tried to crush them), they were perfectly willing to give non-Tory Anglicans high official positions in the new Republic. It would be as though the the current chaplain of the Senate were a former al-Qaeda member who had broken with Bin Laden and declared allegiance to the United States.
That is, the Founding Generation made a key distinction between religious practice and political loyalty, and had granted freedom of religion to non-Tory Anglicans.
John, I sure would like to answer your points but am not sure what your argument is.
Olly,
The dodge happened when you failed to answer my so simple and so fair question. Why are Muslims the only ones to be demanded testimony from?
The irony is that now you and your friends are working incredibly hard to refute the constitutional right of a citizen to not be unfairly treated on the basis of his ethnicity, religion and gender, IN THE NAME of the constitution… In order to do that, you have to go back and rewrite the constitution to fit your narrative, which is what a whole lot of people are doing right now.
Since you are using yourself as an example, slyly overlooking the point I made that there are a great many Christians who are calling for biblical law over the constitution, including [“ Days before Congress adjourned for its August recess, Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) sent a copy of the Bible to all 535 members of Congress, calling on lawmakers to reflect on “God’s word” when deciding on “policy decisions that impact America’s future.”, and also including Ted Cruz, a noted dominionist, Sam Brownback, Justice Roy Moore, michelle Bachman, Sarah palin…], I would use myself as an example and say as you did that ” I am a Muslim and our constitution IS the supreme law of the land.”
Now what? we are tied!
You spoke for yourself, i spoke for myself! it should end there right?
No, for you would then speak about all the other Muslims, and when I speak about the other Christians, you would return to talking about yourself as counter to what obviously does not characterize you.
So any point you can make about Islam can be made in spades about Christianity, and any point you make about Muslims (including that most of them aren’t white), can be said about Christians in spades.
If it is a fair thing to ask that testimony from everyone, then ask it of everyone, not just one group.
Otherwise the claim of parity and fairness is a poorly disguised lie.
Simply!
Olly,
Hear, hear!
The sole criterion is the crime-perpetrating individual or group.
Foreigners without standing may not avail themselves of any aspect of the U.S. Constitution.
A government that does not maintain its nation’s sovereignty is not a government.
_____
Ironically, the ineligible imposter “President” commemorated the unconstitutional 13th Amendment.
Law and amendment may not be brought for the benefit of “property,” foreign citizens or illegal and undocumented aliens who are not U.S. citizens.
The unconstitutional President celebrated an unconstitutional amendment.
We must have passed the “tipping point.”
“Again, why are the Muslims only ones to be demanded such testimony from?”
That’s a dodge; nice try. The United States is not a theocracy Po. You’ll have to cite who is calling for “the bible to be the supreme law of this land?” I am a Christian and our constitution IS the supreme law of the land. Our 1st amendment is intended to protect our right to practice our faith but I understand that my faith cannot be used to violate the unalienable rights of others. That makes my religion subordinate to our secular rule of law.
I swore an oath to defend our constitution and that means I will defend ALL beliefs that place our secular rule of law above all. If being able to make that testimony is a challenge for any resident in this country then why should they be given the benefit of the doubt?
It is a legitimate question for everyone in the United States to answer whether they consider the constitution as the supreme law of this country. If you or anyone else cannot or will not answer that as yes, then you or they deserve to be considered enemies of the state.
PO,
It’s good to know that international law allows for entry, immigration and the killing of Americans as long as
the perpetrators are religious.
It’s kinda like two foreign citizens have the authority to set American immigration policy by having a baby on American soil. Sorry, that baby is a citizen of its parents’ country. Government must establish borders, control immigration and set immigration policy or it is not a government. Government shall not leave immigration policy up to two foreign citizens.
I have one final question. Are you out of your —-ing mind?
That’s as stupid as Lincoln saying the Confederate States did not have an innate or God-given right to secession before government was established – the very same secession that West Virginia, Scotland, Catalonia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the entire USSR availed themselves of. Lincoln was as illegal as a husband who deems divorce illegal and who beats the hell out of his wife to force her to stay in his house and in their “marriage.”
Given the recent commingling of the definitions of “state” and “federal” by the SCOTUS and Obama’s unconstitutional “overreach,” I’d have to say that America is lawless.
Where the hell is that “tipping point?”
Things seem really “tippy” to me.
Certainly not unconstitutional. Where did you get that? The U.S. has the right to exclude any immigration on the basis of any reason.
The great thing about Trump’s announcement is that he has compelled a conversation on the issue. It is frankly insane to follow the path of Europe by having wide open doors to Muslim immigration. For that matter, how well has it worked so far in the U.S.? There have been many attacks by Muslims on Americans as well as provocative acts designed to lead to costly litigation – – Ahmed the Clock Boy anyone?
Worse has been the impact on liberty in this country. The media is terrified of portraying Mohammed cartoons or speech criticizing what is essentially a barbaric religion.
This is a subject that needs to be discussed even if you don’t agree with Trump’s proposal. SOMETHING needs to be done or we will pay dearly for our failure to act. Thank Trump for opening the door to the subject.
John, am not sure what you are saying, but whatever you are saying is not what I said.
Has anyone ever seen po and patriot in the same room together?
Nick, who between the two of us is KNOWN to use aliases?
By the way, John, what do you mean by “mitigated by a religion component”?
————————-
Ralph
How did i know that the quote you offered would not end up being the full quote?
because the paragraphs before it revealed you as not that bright, and not able to make sense of things logically. You are tripping all over your own feet trying to articulate something you read elsewhere and could not fully comprehend.
I’ll pass on that first paragraph, until you can make sense of it yourself, your ignorance is traumatizing to my sensibilities. I’ll leave you with this hint, however: Islam is built upon Judaism and Christianity, and as such, is an Abrahamic religion,as such, ti is derived from the children of Abraham, the patriarch of of all three religions.
A an added bonus, I’ll leave you with this:
Jesus AS is revered in Islam, one is NOT a Muslim who does not believe in Jesus.
The second paragraph reveals you as deceptive and intellectually dishonest:
Here is the full quote by Thatcher:
[In many respects the challenge of Islamic terror is unique, hence the difficulty Western intelligence services encountered trying to predict and prevent its onslaughts. The enemy is not, of course, a religion — most Muslims deplore what has occurred. Nor is it a single state, though this form of terrorism needs the support of states to give it succor. Perhaps the best parallel is with early Communism. Islamic extremism today, like Bolshevism in the past, is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical, well-armed devotees. And, like Communism, it requires an all-embracing long-term strategy to defeat it.
PO,
So you’re saying it’s OK to kill Americans because they’re religious?
Muslims have a history of killing Americans. They have been promised 72 virgins in their heaven for killing Americans.
You’re saying that as long as they claim to be religious, they can enter the U.S. to kill Americans?
It’s a fallacy to say that Trump is basing his statements on “religion,” even if you want to apply that term to Islam. (And Islam is certainly more a cult than a religion, and, in any case, how could a legitimate religion be founded by a pedophile and mass murderer? And if Islam is a “religion,” then why shouldn’t Naziism be a “religion” as well?)
One reasonable legal basis supporting Trump is that Islam is a “totalitarian” party. In fact, that is precisely why Islam is a problem today. Here’s just one of the applicable laws supporting Trump:
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182
8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens
“(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
. . .
(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party
(i) In general
Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.
Even former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher thought Islam qualified as totalitarian. In an article in The Guardian on February 12, 2002, she wrote of Islam that, “like Bolshevism in the past, it [Islam] is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical, well-armed devotees.” Who here can disagree with her?
PO,
Thanks for reading.
Mine was intended to be a question in the form of a request.
It appears that the TARGET in both instances is the ENEMY that is KILLING or ABDUCTING and ABUSING
Americans regardless of value, quality or description.
Are you saying that the murder and wounding of 35 Americans in San Bernardino, as only one example, is
mitigated by a “religion” component?
Sorry, john. carter’s was directed at a nation whose leaders were deemed to be acting against international laws.
Trump’s is directed as people solely because of their religion. The former targeted foreigners from a specific country, the other targets EVERYONE who is a Muslim, including fellow Americans.
Also, are you saying that all Muslims are enemies and are killing and abducting and abusing?
let’s use the BDS movement as a good example. It targets Israeli goods made in the Palestinian settlements, imagine if it targeted Jews instead. All Jews, every Jew?
Do you see the difference?
Americans have a natural or God-given right to private or moveable property BEFORE government is
established.
Government has a natural or God-mandated prerequisite to establish borders and to control entry and
immigration and to establish immigration policy BEFORE government is established.
A government that does not establish borders and control immigration is not a government.
How does one determine that a person who wishes to enter our country is or is not a Muslim? National origin is meaningless as there are plenty of Christians and Jews living in countries such as Syria and Iran.
Religion of the bearer was written into Indonesian passports. I do not know whether that is still the case.
Mr. Trump has said nothing about one specific group of Muslims namely UN ambassadors and their staffs of other countries who are Muslims.
John, what a fallacious argument. Carter’s was a political act, not a religious one.
Trump’s is a religious one.
The former was directed at Iranians, and lest you forgot, there are Christian and Jewish Iranians.
The latter is directed at Muslims, only Muslims, every Muslim…
What’s with this quoting Daniel greenbeans thing?
Olly
1, December 9, 2015 at 1:31 pm
I thank you Po. Until recently, you’ve defended Islam simply as a peaceful religion. Now you’ve moved beyond that in explaining it’s a civilized, 7th century sort of peaceful religion.
I know we have many people in this country that give lip service to our constitution being the supreme law of the land. Do you believe all of those 2 million Americans that identify as Muslims should support our constitution as the supreme law?
————————————————
Olly, you are tripling down on the fallacies…good for you!
i never defended Islam as a peaceful religion. It is just a religion like any other religion. no religion is particularly peaceful or violent. I have taken pains to distinguish between what Islam is, the Quran and sunnah, versus what Muslims do. One prohibits killing and stresses forgiveness, the others comply or not at various degrees, which characterizes EVERY other religion…even atheism.
Do you dare compare holy books?
Do you want to go there?
So either we are talking about what the believers do, and in that case I still contend that christian persuasion is responsible for most of the killings ever and still ongoing, which makes your point about Muslims moot, or we are talking about what the holy books say and you don’t come out of it smelling peachy. Your choice.
Why is it about Muslims’ supporting our constitution when even our political leaders, our elected leaders are breaching it daily?
Aren’t they breaching the separation of church and state every day as they call for the bible to be the supreme law of this land?
Wouldn’t that make us Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Again, why are the Muslims only ones to be demanded such testimony from?
Isn’t it sufficient that, like other groups, we serve in congress (and in the white house :), lose our lives while in uniform, pay our taxes, vote in elections…?
Why the double standard?
What right do you have over and above me that I should be burdened with something you are not?
Why would a White American who converts to islam suddenly turns into a foreigner?
Are you suggesting that the mere fact of practicing islam as a religious choice makes one unable to pledge allegiance to the flag?
isn’t that akin to saying that Christians cannot simultaneously believe that the bible is divine AND support our constitution as the supreme law of this country?
Why would there then be such conflicts about gay marriage?I ins’t that against the constitution?
Darren Smith,
It appears that Jimmy Carter did what Trump suggested.
Would you please address the position of this article:
“Trump is Attacked for Proposed Muslim Ban, But a Democratic President Actually Banned Entry from Muslim Nation”
By Michael Hausam Politics
While progressive outlets are exploding with outrage and assertions of Republican xenophobia are rampant after Donald Trump’s proposal that Muslim immigrants should temporarily not be allowed into the country, Daniel Greenfield of FrontpageMag has reminded people of an uncomfortable historical fact.
Jimmy Carter froze immigration from the Muslim-majority nation of Iran after the 1979 hostage crisis.
Immediately after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979, Carter issued an executive order that all Iranian students in the U.S. had to report to immigration officials within thirty days. Out of a population of over 50,000, there were 15,000 Iranians who were ejected from the country.
An Appeals Court decision upheld the President’s authority for the action, in part saying this:
“The present controversy involving Iranian students in the United States lies in the field of our country’s foreign affairs and implicates matters over which the president has direct constitutional authority.”
More directly related to the current situation referred to by Trump’s idea, a concurring opinion in the decision made this point:
“Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the executive. So long as such distinctions are not wholly irrational, they must be sustained.”
It is important to note that there is no precedent for a religious litmus test, just a national one.
Carter’s second action, five months after the hostages were taken, was to announce formal sanctions against Iran. In addition to closing government offices, prohibiting exports from the U.S. into Iran, and seizing domestic Iranian assets, any entry by Iranian citizens into the U.S. was stopped.
Here’s the pertinent line from Carter’s announcement:
“The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”
BK, not that crazy of a thought…right now no one knows what the hell is going on, other than we are being played somehow.
Jim22
1, December 9, 2015 at 1:43 pm
po – “As I said before, the most tolerant country in the world? Senegal, 92% Muslim.”
I wounder what it’s like to be one of the 8% and not live in a closet.
———————————————–
One of them, a catholic, was the first president of the republic…and he ruled for 20 years…voted in by Muslims and supported by Muslims.
The rest, legitimate citizens… ministers, cabinets members, parliament members, generals, police captains…
Any other argument you need destroyed?