Trump Travel Order argued at Supreme Court
At issue: Executive Branch power to control who enters the country, and whether judges can substitute their own risk assessments.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning on Trump’s Travel Order No. 3, which restricts visa travel to the U.S. from seven countries, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.
The Travel Order is not a “travel ban,” it’s an order regulating who can come into the United States. It’s no more a “travel ban” than the U.S. immigration laws. But “travel ban” is how the media and even many Trump supporters refer to it — at one point Trump himself capitulated to this media characterization as to earlier versions of the travel order.
It’s not only not a “travel ban,” it’s not a “Muslim travel ban,” which is the rallying cry against it. It does apply to several majority Muslim countries, which were on an Obama-era list of countries that posed the greatest risk of foreign fighters sneaking into the U.S. under visas. It also applies to North Korea and Syria. But it doesn’t apply to most Muslim-majority countries or most Muslims in the world.
For background see our prior post, Supreme Court to hear Trump Travel Order No. 3:
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the government’s appeal from the 9th Circuit/Hawaii District Court order regarding Travel Order No. 3.
The Supreme Court Order accepting the case for review stated:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue Question 3 presented by the brief in opposition.
Here are the three questions presented in the petition:
1. Whether respondents’ challenge to the President’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable.
2. Whether the Proclamation is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad.
3. Whether the global injunction is impermissibly overbroad.Here is Question No. 3 in the Opposition:
3. Whether Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause.
What this means is that even though the 9th Circuit decision did not rest on a constitutional provision, the Supreme Court wants to here the Establishment Clause issue.
Prior to taking the case on the merits, the Supreme Court issued a stay of most of the lower court’s injunction. While that doesn’t necessarily predict a victory for Trump, it was one in a series of Supreme Court stays of lower court injunctions limiting Trump’s ability to control who enters the country, as I wrote in December 2017, Supreme Court allows Trump’s Third Travel Order to take effect:
This is a complete slap down of the lower courts, and something that was well deserved. When Hawaii issued its injunction, I wrote:
I can’t say I’m surprised by the result, considering that the Judge involved here already has ruled against Trump. The problem in this decision, as it was in prior decisions by this and other lower courts, is that the Judge is substituting his evaluation of risk for that of the executive branch.
I also noted, when the 9th Circuit stayed much (but not all) of the Hawaii injunction:
These District Court judges are acting like the litigation in the Supreme Court never took place. While it’s true that SCOTUS never ruled on the merits, the fact that it issued stays of lower court injunctions and scheduled the case on the merits (later dismissed as moot) should have been a message to all but the most tone deaf lower Court judges how to handle subsequent litigation.
Maybe the lower courts will finally get the message.
The oral argument will be finished this morning, but the audio and transcript will not be available until later today. So in the meantime, we’re stuck with punditry from people who attended.
I’ll add that punditry as it rolls in.
UPDATES
— Here we go:
Obviously can't draw too many conclusions from oral argument, but #SCOTUS seemed to be leaning toward a ruling for the government in #travelban litigation.
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) April 25, 2018
In #travelban case, Breyer seemed concerned about whether availability of waivers from ban was real possibility or instead "window dressing," but seemed to think that order could survive as long as waiver process was legit
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) April 25, 2018
Roberts and Alito seemed very reluctant to second-guess executive branch's national security determinations
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) April 25, 2018
Only Sotomayor and Ginsburg appeared to be squarely in challengers' camp.
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) April 25, 2018
Reuters: Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said #Trump's proclamation "does not look at all like a Muslim ban" #travelban
— MTV English News (@MTVEnglishNews) April 25, 2018
Just got out of travel ban arguments at SCOTUS. I stand by my prediction that the justices will uphold it—probably in its entirety—though it could demand more robust exemptions. https://t.co/GmCRzmmLul
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 25, 2018
Just out of travel-ban hearing at SCOTUS: it seems Trump has at least 5 votes to uphold the ban, maybe 6 or 7.
— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) April 25, 2018
NEW: Argument over. Conservative justices indicate they will back Trump over the travel ban. Kennedy and Roberts both appear to have concerns about second-guessing the president on national security
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) April 25, 2018
I’ll say one thing: A majority of this Supreme Court appears inclined to treat Donald Trump just like any other president overseeing immigration policy.
— Cristian Farias (@cristianafarias) April 25, 2018
If there was an expectation otherwise, it shows how much #TheResistance has misled its followers https://t.co/8mijuO9jqR
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) April 25, 2018
https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/989161435220541441
"most shocking" is that some legal pundits actually expected #SCOTUS would be as hostile to the president because he's Trump as they are https://t.co/j7JeEhPApA
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) April 25, 2018
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
At what point do the Supreme Justices categorically spell out for the lower Courts that the President of the United States has the power to regukate/restruct/control who comes in to America?
Does he? As far as I know, the last time the Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue, more than a century ago, it said Congress had plenary power over immigration, and the president has only as much authority as Congress chooses to give him. Which is why 0bama had no right to implement DACA or DAPA.
The order currently at issue does seem to be well within the authority Congress has given the president, so the only issue before the court is whether Congress itself had that authority, and therefore could give it to the president. And if the court sticks to what it said last time the answer will be yes, plenary means plenary.
But Trump isn’t allowed to rescind the unconstitutional DACA and has just been ordered by another judicial tyrant to reinstate it in it’s entirety. Seems some judges aren’t even pretending the Constitution exists anymore.
I haven’t read the latest decision yet, but the two previous decisions both explicitly said he can revoke DACA, so long as he really wants to. All he has to do, according to those two judges, is order it shut down because it’s now his policy that these people should not be allowed to stay. This is extremely weird, and I think ultra vires, but not brazenly challenging the executive’s constitutional role. If the new order says he can’t change DACA even if he wants to, then that would go way beyond all previously known territory, out into “here be dragons”.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/04/reopening-door
Judge Bates- petit tyrant.
According to current reports, Judge Bates said the executive branch can shut it down, in theory, if it can explain convincingly to Judge Bates why, and he says they have not convincingly explained, basically by arguing in an unprofessional and shoddy manner that prevents him from ruling in favor for the government on the basis of any particular legal theory, because none of note was presented. He has provided time for the government to make such arguments.
Seriously, if he’s right, what on Earth has Sessions permitted at DoJ? I’m curious if you agree with those critics once you sink your teeth in, but no, he didn’t close the constitutional door.
I still haven’t had time to read the decision, but going on your description this is worse than the previous two. The previous two judges didn’t demand that Trump explain his reasons and ask for the judge’s approval. All they demanded was that he state that this is his policy, and not hide behind the legal advice he’s received, saying “I’d love to keep DACA going but my lawyers tell me I can’t”.
Even that, I believe, exceeds the judges’ powers. “I’ve received legal advice” is a perfectly good reason, and it’s not up to them to second-guess it. But at least they’d accept “I’m doing this because I want to”. From your description it sounds like this judge thinks the president’s policy decisions are subject to his approval, and for the sake of our constitution he needs to be told bluntly that Trump’s reasons are none of his cotton-pickin’ business.
Frankly put, some of these judges need to be “put out” … maybe a little illegal insurrection is in order. They seem to think invasion is OK, and once the invaders are here, they have full Constitutional rights that citizens have.
1. Illegal immigrants are not invaders. No matter how many times you repeat this it only makes you sound like a hysterical nut.
2. Once they are in the US they do have the full protection of the constitution. Denying this only exposes you as ignorant of the constitution and therefore not worth engaging with.
Milhouse: I don’t know about you, but anyone who pulls for the Mexican National Soccer Team for a game played in the US against the U.S. National Soccer Team . . . is an invader. /s
Also I see the meeeeja has been very quiet about Arizona 8 election yesterday. Almost as if The Resistance ™ has been put on hold or something? 🙂
No, they’re establishing their excuses. So far it seems like they’ve settled on “Trump won that area by 20% so anything under 19% win by the Republican is really a total loss and the Dems will take over all of the House and send Trump into impeachment and raise taxes and take your guns and froth..foam…howl…”
I’m of two minds about the court wanting to hear the first amendment issue. I would like to think they want to slap it down, but I’m afraid that since this isn’t a ban on Moslems the administration will find it politic to concede that such a ban would indeed be unconstitutional, and I think that sets a bad precedent.
I believe that a total ban on all Moslems entering the USA would be very bad policy, but that it’s nonsense to claim the first amendment forbids it. I would almost like to see the president order such a ban just so the issue could finally be had out in public.
Your first paragraph made sense, the second made none.|
What you are neglecting is 1) Islam commands its followers to conquer, by violent or any other means, literally the entire planet, and 2) Islam isn’t just a religion, it is an entire political, economic and judicial system as well.
Its an ideology posing as a religion, and an incredibly violent one at that.
All of the above is why, in both theory and actual practice, Islam is absolutely incompatible with our system of government, our economic system, and particularly our Constitutionally protected Civil Rights.
POTUS certainly had full authority, and it was good policy, to ban Communists coming here. Absolutely no reason why any POTUS couldn’t do the same for Islam – and, yes, doing precisely that may prove to be absolutely essential to the survival of our system of government. Not to mention the survival of the citizens that would be murdered, in great numbers, to empower Islamic Law and moot, and eventually abolish, our Constitution.
Just look what Muslims have actually done in EVERY other country they’ve migrated to.
Banning Muslims from entry is no different than excluding Nazis during WW2.
It is extremely different, but not, I think unconstitutional.
Ever since 9/11 we have been at war with Islam and because of this we should prevent Muslims from entering the USA.
Islam was founded by a bloody warlord for the purpose of attracting followers to his cause. The goal, crystal clear in their ‘prophets’ own words, is world conquest by violence or any other means available.
Islam has been at war with EVERY other civilization from Day 1.
To be fair, the NAZI’s were FAR more tolerant and killed only a trivial number of people by comparison.
Islam only differs from Naziism, communism, or any other totalitarian ideology because it contains a promise of hell for those who don’t adopt the gang code (non-Muslims) and for those Muslims who violate the gang code.
And one of the most serious violations of the gang code a Muslim can commit is failing to demand Sharia law. Which is completely incompatible with among other things our principles of free speech, freedom of conscience, and equality before the law. It’s the unforgivable sin of shirq. In fact, it’s greater shirq, or shirq akbar.
Surah 6:114
“[Say], “Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.”
Sharia is Allah’s law. Many Muslims don’t want to live under Shariah any more than you or I would like it. But if a Muslim expresses a preference for our Constitutional order and laws passed by our elected representatives and signed by our President, then the are elevating human beings to equality with Allah as lawmakers. This is an act of apostasy, and apostates must be killed.
Hence the rejection of freedom of conscience.
Sharia establishes a cast system. At the top is the Caliph. Just below that are the ulema or the scholars. Then are the male Muslims. Below them are the female Muslims. And at the bottom are the non-Muslims whose existence is only tolerated as long as they pay onerous taxes and agree to live a life of humiliation and degradation under conditions of inequality that make Jim Crow look like a product of the enlightenment.
So, Milhouse, since when can a religion demand that women (Muslims) only be permitted to inherit half of what a man in her family can inherit? That a woman’s testimony in court is worth only half that of a man, and a non-Muslim’s testimony in court is worthless compared to a Muslim’s? That if a non-Muslim kills a Muslim the non-Muslim must be executed, but if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim he can only be fined? Because Sharia law places higher value on a Muslim man’s life than a Muslim woman, and next to no value on a non-Muslim’s life.
Surah 3:110
“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.”
The “you,” of course are Muslims; those who believe in Allah and accept Muhammad as Allah’s prophet.
Surah 98:6
“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.”
The people of the Scripture are primarily Jews and Christians. Note the Quran accuses us of being the worst of creatures. So we are lower than unclean animals that Muslims are supposed to despise such as pigs. In fact, Muslims are supposed to persecute Jews and Christians.
Surah 9:14
“Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people”
Surah 9:74
“They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.”
The “them” and “they” in these ayat are the Jews and Christians. And the Muslims are the tools of Allah’s vengeance on us in this world. After violently subjugating us, of course.
Surah 9:29
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
Again, “from those who were given the Scripture” refers to Christians and Jews.
In order of importance the sources of Islamic law are the Quran, the traditions biographies of Muhammad, analogy, and reasoning. So that means reasoning can never trump analogy, analogy can never trump Muhammad as a source if Islamic law, and if there’s any conflict between Muhammad’s teachings and example that can never trump the Quran. This is the same for Sunni and Shia schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Their differences are essentially political; since they all share the same Quran and prophet the Sunni Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, and Hanafi schools agree on 85% of matters with the twelver Shia Jafari school. The Shia schools are more complicated, and they also rely on the biographies of the rightly guided imams, but they all wind up at essentially the same place. They only differ on the margins. So the Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali schools say that all apostates must be killed. But the Hanafi and Jafari schools agree that only male apostates must be killed. Women are inferior to men per the teachings of Islam, so it’s assumed that it is easier to break their will. They are supposed to be imprisoned on a bare subsistence diet and beaten five times a day to remind them they are supposed to be praying.
The Quran is essentially a declaration of war on non-Muslims. At least half of it is a screed against Jews, Christians, polytheists (that’s how they categorize Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.) You will not find a single verse in the Quran that says Muslims are supposed to live in peace with non-Muslims, or that non-Muslims are supposed to have equal rights with Muslims. The Quran says the exact opposite, which is why there has never been any such Muslim society (the idea that al-Andalus was a tolerant, multicultural paradise is complete fiction) Oh, and polytheists don’t have the option of paying a crippling tax and living a life of degradation. They have to convert or die.
Fortunately most Muslims don’t know what’s in the Quran, let alone what’s in the traditions of Muhammad or his biographies (which are all essentially fiction, anyway; it’s quite clear from the historical record, archaeological evidence, numismatic evidence, and most importantly the manuscript evidence from the earliest Qurans none of which date back to the same century as Muhammad’s supposed death that the Arab conquests of Persian and Byzantine lands came first and Islam was invented later to provide a “divine” justification for a state of eternal war and conquest).
Unfortunately the ones who do know what their canonical texts are the radicals. They’re the most knowledgeable, which is why they always win their arguments with the so-called moderates. The moderates simply don’t have a theological leg to stand on.
And the radicals are not only terrorists. They would include the Muslim men in England who formed grooming gangs to rape little girls. Because non-Muslim girls and women only exist for the sexual pleasure of Muslim men. After all, Muslims and in particular the men are the best of peoples, while non-Muslims are the worst of created beings and don’t deserve any consideration. Actually, Muslim women don’t deserve much in the way of consideration, either. All women are property. Surah 2:223 says wives are fields for cultivation of their seed, and Muslim men can enter their fields and plow their fields however and whenever they wish. Just like a field can’t say no to the farmer, wives can’t say no to their husbands when the men want sex. It’s why there’s no such thing as marital rape under Sharia law.
And it’s worse to beat your donkey than your wife.
I don’t really care if someone wants to pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, or go on the Hajj. But we can not permit Sharia or the Sharia supremacist who demand Sharia and lie and say it doesn’t conflict with the Constitution into this country. If we only screen for known terrorists we’re doing it wrong. Sharia supremacists are also radicals, even if they’re not wearing suicide vests. Sharia supremacists are just as bad as your average 1930 Aryan supremacist of the master race.
Muslims flee Muslim S-holes,reproduce like crazy on host’s dime, and then try to make their host countries into S-holes.
Host countries need to wise up, and not allow S-hole creators on their turf.
There is an interesting and scary article on what happens to countries that are 10% Muslim, 20% Muslim, 30% Muslim, …, 90% Muslim, etc. Absolutely scary … but our “so-called leaders” and lib-dem progs cannot see the facts … or refuse to believe them. Even moderate Muslims are slightly in favor of replacing the Constitution with Sharia law.
Churchill had it right … he always had it right.
Yes, he did.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-on-islam/
The UK actually arrested an MP for daring to quote from that speech in public.
“…the fact that it issued stays of lower court injunctions and scheduled the case on the merits (later dismissed as moot) should have been a message to all but the most tone deaf lower Court judges how to handle subsequent litigation.”
Uh, yes, but when your ears are stuffed with resistance hashtags, looney left highjinks ensue.
Aren’t these lower courts under the supervision of SCOTUS? Does SCOTUS have authority to discipline or sanction these judges with their hashtag hysterics?
Just asking the question ’cause I don’t know…
I am really tired of District Court Judges ruling as if they were little Gods. The politics above law practice has not been this bad since the mid 1800s, nor as stupid as when the Court decided a small wheat field for home use was interstate commerce.
ConradCA | April 25, 2018 at 12:53 pm
Banning Muslims from entry is no different than excluding Nazis during WW2.
Milhouse | April 25, 2018 at 1:13 pm
It is extremely different, but not, I think unconstitutional.
……well actually the Nazis had a totalitarian oppressive government that was built on the foundational idea of supremacy that they believed gave them the right to conquer or kill anyone who was not them… And Islam is more of a form of totalitarian oppressive government than anything else also built on the foundation of supremacy they feel gives them the right and duty to kill or conquer anyone who is not them..the house of war and the house of Islam… . So yah so wrong as usual Milhouse
Islam is a religion. National socialism is a political ideology. Whether you like it or not, the constitution gives religion a privileged position over other kinds of ideology.
Islam is NOT just a religion. More like a cult founded by a barbarian who looted, pillaged, murdered and raped women and children on a grand scale. Then he declared himself to be above any criticism on pain of a horrible death.
It is interesting that practitioners of Islam stagnated while the rest of the world overall became more civilized. It is also interesting that countries dominated by Islam have average IQs ranging from dull normal to morons (87 to 60).
Please post the origin of your IQ data.
“Please post the origin of your IQ data.”
Just google “average IQ by race” and read any of the hundreds of articles on the subject.
For Islam, and additional factor here is their cultural tradition of inbreeding. Cousin marriages, in particular. As with any race that inbreeds, IQ suffers substantially, and violent tendencies increase markedly.
The subject is taboo, because of liberals’ insanity over our genetic racial differences, but the data supporting it is conclusive. Extremely so. Billions of standardized IQ tests given the world over, for a century or more.
Pseudo-scientific bullshit!
In genetics, “close-breeding” or “line-breeding” is how you aggressively select FOR desirable traits (though you do risk enhancing the expression of some undesirable traits as well). There are stats that show that Pakistani enclaves in Britian suffer from high expressions of some birth defects. But that is a knife, genetically, that cuts both ways. You may expect to see a higher expression of some desirable heritable traits, as well.
But this leads us to another genetic concept. “Out-breeding”, or deliberately inducing hybrid vigor is an important concept in genetics, and it is what we get when we interact with others. This MAY, in fact, be one of the things that makes Americans so successful; we’re highly mongrelized. This is likely true both literally (genetically) and metaphorically (culturally).
I have a HUGE problem with the ridiculous notion that IQ tests are administered in a reliable way across cultures and languages and over time, and even that they actually ARE reliable indices of ONE form of what we call “intelligence”.
Another reason for stagnation is that Muslims are quick to murder anyone who steps outside of what the group thinks. It is damn hard for a group to evolve when they kill everyone who might drive them doing so.
Rags, you should have put this at the end of your rant.
“Pseudo-scientific bullshit!”
And, outbreeding with someone from a group with low average IQ is not at all good for one’s offspring, even if the specific individual is much smarter than their group’s average.
Maybe it is your mental disorder, but you can’t think about individuals, and seem to have to fixate on groups.
What I’ve said is scientifically sound, and ANYBODY should be very chary about uncritically accepting IQ averages as ANY kind of sorter for immigration purposes…or judging the value of any individual from anywhere or from any group.
Rags, IQ does measure analytical capabilities well. It does not measure other traits, such as tenacity, ethics and so much more. So, potential immigrants should should be rejected for severe deficiencies in any one of many traits. When any group produces large numbers of low IQ people, it is probably that even exceptional individuals from said group will produce low IQ offspring.
For example, we have a group with an average IQ of 85, that group at best will produce exceptionally higher IQ offspring about one/1500th as often as caucasians. Another way of looking at this is that an engineer generally needs an IQ of 130 or more to be competent in the profession, so for every 1500 caucasian engineers, we could expect one from a group with an average of 85. I am simplifying for your benefit, because there are other nuances such as standard deviation.
“For example, we have a group with an average IQ of 85, that group at best will produce exceptionally higher IQ offspring about one/1500th as often as caucasians.”
More bullshit. Intelligence is only SOMEWHAT heritable. It’s FAR more nuanced than, say, physical attractiveness. We all know very attractive people who produce butt ugly children, and visa versa. We all know, and history is replete with examples, of very ordinary parents who produced stellar geniuses. Where genius comes from is not “consensus science”, and neither are the mechanics of the heritablity of intelligence.
I will add this; you may be the genius you claim. You’re also a person who should never be given power, or any access to powerful people. There’s little, if any, distinction between your thinking and Cass Sunstein’s. Your lack of humanity may be an incident of your mental disorder, but you still have the responsibility to not entertain the crap you’ve both advocated and (much more darkly) hinted at here.
“produce butt ugly children”
Like Chelsea Clinton,who does look just like her biological father. What was Hillary thinking when she inflicted that mug on a daughter?
High intelligence does run in families. It strikes me that you spew much PC nonsense and that you have drifted far off topic. No one has a right to enter America illegally, and we should not allowing anyone to do so which is unlikely to assimilate.
Boy, Trump sure does a great job of leading opponents like Rags around by their nose one tweet at a time.
“It strikes me that you spew much PC nonsense and that you have drifted far off topic. No one has a right to enter America illegally, and we should not allowing anyone to do so which is unlikely to assimilate.”
You’ve dropped the pretext of anything “scientific” here.
You’re the nutter who introduced all this “low IQ” pseudo-science on this thread.
Asylum-seekers are not, pro forma, “entering America illegally”. They are, on certain conditions, submitting themselves to the laws of the United States.
Now you’re trucking the goal-posts to another state with your “unlikely to assimilate” bullshit.
I think you’re done. It’s been a pleasure doing you.
“Pseudo-scientific bullshit!
In genetics, “close-breeding” or “line-breeding” is how you aggressively select FOR desirable traits (though you do risk enhancing the expression of some undesirable traits as well). There are stats that show that Pakistani enclaves in Britian suffer from high expressions of some birth defects. But that is a knife, genetically, that cuts both ways. You may expect to see a higher expression of some desirable heritable traits, as well.”
Close-breeding or line-breeding are useful terms when practiced by livestock breeders. But only when balanced by outcrossing. Livestock breeders keep records so that they can select for certain traits, and outcross in order to introduce unrelated strains to retain “hybrid vigor.”
But that’s not what is going on in the Muslim world. Nobody is keeping records, nobody is breeding for desirable traits. Cousin marriages are arranged in order to keep the wealth (i.e. the dowries, inheritances) within the family. It is purely a bad thing, and there is nothing good about cousin marriages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byQ-ZxAifUg
“Islamic Inbreeding”
The Apostate Prophet is an ex-Muslim who abandoned Islam for the same reasons you so irrationally defend Islam.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/02/its-just-a-photo/
Close-breeding is limited to SOME Muslim subcultures. It’s also limited to SOME Jewish subcultures.
When it is practiced, random expressions occur. They can be good or bad.
I still want an answer to my question from JusticeDelivered.
Something specific; NOT just Google bla-blah.
Rags, I do not think you have the cognitive ability or higher math skills to comprehend an answer.
From what I have seen, every group which fares poorly on IQ tests is desperate to not believe those results.
In any event, your beliefs have little credibility when there is a great deal of peer reviewed research which says otherwise.
So, gratuitous ad hominem, straw man, and “consensus science”.
Gotcha. In every possible way.
Delusions of “Gotcha”, pathetic.
Literally all of the available evidence contradicts you. And there is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence. Literally billions of IQ tests.
Intelligence, like many other traits, is GENETIC. It varies substantially by race.
This has been proved conclusively by everyone that’s ever studied it.
The initial point above, that you objected to, that Muslims come predominantly from races with low IQ is simply a scientific FACT.
Here’s my initial comment…
6. the “data-point” that the caravaners are “low IQ people” is risible…who the fluck administered any IQ test?… and what nut-hatchery published that consummate bullshit?;
7. according to Dr. Thomas Sowell, IIRC around mid-century in the U.S., Jews were testing with low IQ;
Which had nothing to do with Muslims. See?
Now, you can get all stompy-foot, but JustAssDelivered and you are both simply trying to use “science” to justify your bigotry. A lot of the same notions were used by eugenicists in the U.S. and by Nazis.
There is no significant difference between Islam, Nazism, Communism and Progressive Fascism. They are enemies of liberty and the lies they use to justify the evil they do are irrelevant.
@caseoftheblues Actually, the Nazis didn’t have any intent on taking over the world, and they were very clear about their limitations. In fact, the Nazis didn’t even originally want to destroy the UK since they believed that the UK would be a valuable supporter against the real enemy – the USSR. Not saying they were nice -(just in case someone wants to misinterpret)- but they did have rather limited objectives in the overall scheme of possibilities.
In the interest of some much-needed reality here…
1. asylum-seekers are NOT even “illegal aliens”…yet. And they may or may not become illegal aliens after their claims are given due process;
2. very few asylum-seekers are innocent of any economic motive…staying alive, out of prison, and healthy are the most basic economic interest one could have;
3. the “first safe nation” stuff batted around here by instant international law experts demands the premise Mexico is a “safe nation”…a very open question;
4. net migration of Mexicans over the last several years shows them leaving, not “invading”;
5. from accounts, some…maybe many…of the caravan are making asylum claims in Mexico;
6. the “data-point” that the caravaners are “low IQ people” is risible…who the fluck administered any IQ test?… and what nut-hatchery published that consummate bullshit?;
7. according to Dr. Thomas Sowell, IIRC around mid-century in the U.S., Jews were testing with low IQ;
8. killing people on the border would result in a convulsion of sympathy among Americans FOR illegals already here or coming;
9. how many ISIS infiltrators are there among the 300? Likely none. ISIS has fighters with valid British, Canadian, etc. passports who could fly into the U.S. first class and stay here legally for a nice visit;
10. this isn’t a unique…or even new…phenomenon. It happened every year for the last several years at just about this time of year;
11. 300 people approaching our southern border is not an existential threat to the U.S. It’s hardly even a point-load problem for the LEOs, who see this kind of thing many times a year.
Illegal immigration is NOT an intractable problem. Simple, rational steps…rather obvious steps…are all that’s required. I’ve spelled them out enough times I’m sick of the exercise, but if someone in good faith asks, I do it again.
Milhouse I suggest you educate yourself about Islam. It falls very short of being an actual religion… Its a totalitarian form of governance that has as its one single goal the submission of the entire world. There’s some great writing by some great minds out there that clearly make the case for it not being considered a religion… Its just a supremist violent world conquering cult that deserves neither respect or the protections you so desperately want to give it… Virtue signal much?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/the-daca-decision-and-the-judicial-threat-to-the-rule-of-law/
That is a very good piece that will help some understand what’s in play before the Supremes.
Let me go out of my way to thank you and Milhouse for keeping the legal issues front and center, important issues that need resolving. Milhouse said this judge saying the policy required his (judicial branch) approval seemed like something in need of a smacking down, and I think the case for that is indeed strong.
I’ll keep an open mind about just how awful the DoJ arguments were, though. I don’t like what I’ve heard. The President is as entitled to competent legal representation as any party.
Thank Ragspierre and Milhouse. My long fight with HTML continues.
Thanks for the thanks.
Rags said:
“Close-breeding is limited to SOME Muslim subcultures. It’s also limited to SOME Jewish subcultures.
When it is practiced, random expressions occur. They can be good or bad.”
What is it, Rags, that unites the “subcultures” of Islam of Mali and Pakistan if not Islam? Here’s a map of the world showing the percentage of cousin marriages throughout the world.
http://i.imgur.com/I5dEUIn.png
Anybody can click on the link. So defend yourself and your position. It’s a map of the Islamic world. What puts Nigeria on the map is that the northern states have been Islamicized, while the the southern Christian states have not.S And first cousin marriages have boomed in the north precisely because their prophet married his own cousin.
Surah 33:21
“There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.”
Surah 4:59
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.”
(In which Allah commits Shirq Akbar by making the “prophet” his partner)
Surah 33:21
“There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.”
This is not an exhaustive list. I have more, much more. I have the Quran, the traditions of Muhammad (both the six books of Sunni Islam or Khitub al Sittah and the four canonical books of Shia Islam the Khitub al Arba) and the Sirah or biographical literature (both Sunni and Shia).
So I point out that what unites the “subcultures” of Islam from Mali to Pakistan is in fact the example of Muhammad, who married his cousin. For the same reason the Islamic world won’t ban child marriage, because the perfect man who is the moral example for all mankind for all time married Aisha at age six (please challenge me on this) and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Yet you seek to deny all this. Why? I’m trying to understand the suicidal phenomenon.
“When it is practiced, random expressions occur. They can be good or bad.”
Rags, hands down, most are bad. And Palestinians are examples of this.
The slowest people of the world are in Africa. IQ gradually increases as people get further from Africa. Higher IQ seems to be driven by hardship, ice ages, famine? I wonder how many people had to die to produce higher average IQs?
Rags, your grasp of these issues are limited.
According to the Islamic historical legend, Muhammad married Zaynab bint Jahsh, who was not only the daughter of Umaimah bint Abd al-Muttalib, one of his father’s sisters, but the wife of his own adopted son Zayd ibn Muhammad. Before the “prophet” conveniently received verses that A) commanded him to marry the beautiful Zaynab to demonstrate that it was no problem to marry the wife of an adapted son, as marrying the wife of a natural son would still be incest, and B) abolish adoption.
So Zayd ibn Muhammad reverted to Zayd ibn Haritha.
Do you deny this?
I largely agree it’s all b&&&S*** but what I’m asking is, is this not the official Islamic narrative? And why do you appear to fail to understand why it’s important?
That central American caravan is as quiet as a mouse after looming large this week.
It was cruel the way they played those impoverished refugees as pawns to be discarded.
Poor American taxpayers. When America was accepting lots of immigrants, they care here expecting to immediately find work and earn their own way. Today, they go on welfare. I object to paying their way.