The Republican Party is broken if it can’t call a duck a duck.
I’m tired of fighting these stupid arguments, and I’m tired of not being “sure” of what I think. I’m done with it. I’m tired of trying to defend bad ideas, and I’m tired of “going along to get along.” If you can’t even call out bullshit when you see, especially racist, biased, TERRIBLE bullshit, then there’s a problem.
I’ve spent the past 3 day trying to talk to members of my own party about the Muslim Ban. Every time I bring it up I’m told the same thing: “It’s not a Muslim Ban.” That is, quite frankly, an Alternative Fact.
The legal and technical aspect is this: No, it is not a “Muslim Ban.” It does not ban people of the Muslim faith from entering America, but it is insane to describe it as anything else.
Here’s why, despite all the yelling, this IS a Muslim Ban:
1. The list of countries, regardless of where it came from, focuses on 7 countries with Muslim-majority populations of 90% or more.
2. The “ban” may be for only 3 to 4 months, but at that point it is “reviewed”. But during that time the majority-religious people from those countries (MUSLIMS) are not allowed to enter. I believe that is the textbook definition of a ban.
3. The list of countries are Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya. In the last 40 years not one refugee from those countries has caused an act of terror. Only 17 have tried, but none before they got here. We have conquered Iraq and Libya, Iran has a treaty with us, and despite all of this we’re ignoring all of that just because Obama made the list last. It makes no sense.
4. The countries not-mentioned that have had terrorists come to America not on the list are Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and that’s just to name a few. Saudi Arabia had 17 people come on 9/11, Chechnya had the Boston Bomber, the San Barandino shooting was done from someone from Pakistan.
5. The Executive Order references 9/11 multiple times, yet does not mention ANY of the countries involved in the ban.
6. Despite what people keep pointing to, 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens, Section F, is not a legal protection for this rule. The name of the section if “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President”. The rule was passed in 1952, and it was over-ruled in 1965.
7. 8 U.S. Code § 1152 – Numerical limitations on individual foreign states was passed in 1965, Section A, Sub-Section 1, A states clearly: “Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” THIS OVERRIDES THE 1952 LAW!!
8. While I can agree that giving preference to refugees to Christians from those countries sounds good and may have some basis, we also need to keep these facts in mind: 38,901 Muslim refugees and 37,521 Christian refugees were let in last year. The U.S. has, in fact, been open to both religions coming in.
9. Rudy Guliani himself came out and said he was asked to come up with a LEGAL way to implement a Muslim Ban. This is the result.
10. It LITERALLY defies the Geneva Convention! Article 3 states you can’t discriminate against refugees. Article 8 states you can not take exceptional measures against a refugee solely on account of his or her nationality. In fact, ARTICLE ONE forbids it: “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
While I was writing this, it came out that two things happened: Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General of the United States, stated that as long as she was in charge that the Muslim Ban would not be enforced. She was then fired 3 hours later.
But to my point of my part being broken:
They’re looking at this and are bending over backwards to defend it. They’re sticking with technical arguments to defend a mad-mans law, and the second you point to these facts, any of these facts, they dismiss them!
They constantly say they’re okay with immigration, yet I’ve seen them take glee and comment over and over again about how they’re glad that even people with Green Cards and Visas, people here LEGALLY, can’t get in because they’re “dangerous.” I’ve seen people boycott Starbucks for wanting to hire refugees, LEGAL immigrants.
I can not sit by and watch this madness, and that is what this is: Madness.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a duck. So lets call it what it is.