Posted on 03/08/2017 9:51:56 AM PST by Puppage
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) – Just like President Donald Trump‘s first travel ban, the second one signed this week is drawing criticism from democrats, civil rights groups, and Muslims. All three spoke out at the Capitol in Hartford this morning.
This new executive order bans travel from 6 Muslim countries instead of 7. Iraq came off the list. It is supposed to be worded in a way that is less likely to get held up by the courts, but that does not make it any better in the eyes of critics.
Governor Dannel Malloy just held a press conference with the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. None of them like the idea of banning travel from countries because they are mostly Muslim in population.
Governor Malloy said it was especially problematic to ban refugees, whom he called the most defenseless people in the world. He also said that no immigrants are vetted more than refugees. Mongi Dhaouadi, the head of the Council on American Islamic Relations said this is just another attempt at achieving the Trump administration’s simple goal.
“And we know what that goal was. It was declared during the campaign, it was reiterated after the campaign that it’s going to be a Muslim ban,” Dhaouadi said. “They just wanted to package it in a way that maybe seems legal.”
All of the speakers said that there is no reason this ban should not run into the same legal trouble as the last one. Despite the new language and more coordinated rollout, critics say this ban has the same flaw: It is not constitutional to ban people from this country based on the religion of their country.
The White House has said all along that this ban is necessary to secure our borders and prevent attacks from within. The Trump administration is rolling this new ban out over 10 days, which is designed to make things less confusing at the nation’s airports. It is scheduled to be in place a week from tomorrow, and it lasts 90 days.
What’s wrong with a muslim ban?
Not a thing.
This is not a Muslim ban - 90% of the World’s Muslims live outside of these 6 countries.... and those Muslims are welcomed into the United States.
Stopping Germans from coming to the United States during World War II wasn’t a “Christian Ban” either.
Malloy is low IQ stupid.
With no ban on travel from places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia which are predominantly Muslim this assertion is total BS
I wish it was a muslim ban, but it left out 51 muslim countries.
He said squat when Barry did it. This man is a hypocrite. His opinion is worthless.
Is that the left's argument? Once Muslims kill off every other religious group in their country, we are no longer allowed to restrict immigration from there because it is now a "Muslim Majority" nation? Ludicrous.
They say “Muslim ban” like they thought it was a BAD thing.
The United States did remarkably well for a couple of hundred years with little or no presence of Muslims.
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” - attributed to Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, 1391.
If President Trump wants to stop all Muslims from coming into the US he could just do it by denying visas. I’m so sick of these whiners
I am kind of torn. Given if I would had to choose between a muslim ban or a Democrat ban not allowing traveling Democrats
reentry to the country, it would be a most difficult decision.
Are Bangladeshis banned? Saudis? Indonesians?... No? Then it’s not a Muslim Ban (NTTAWWT).
Malloy is as dangerous as he is stupid.
If it were really a muslim ban it would include Indonesia.
A permanent ban on Muslims would be nice.
Too bad, so sad.
Malloy must have coordinated this dog and pony show with that slime Murphy introducing a Senate bill to reverse Trumps EO.
It’s not, but so what if it is?
Carter banned muslims too.
I’m starting to think Democrats are politically motivated ....
Is there one sane person left in the state of Connecticut?
“”He also said that no immigrants are vetted more than refugees””
Has he or any other democrat actually seen the vetting that takes place or the report at the end of it? How can they be so blunt/stupid to certify to everyone else that it’s been done properly? On faith? In who/what?
Would they take ANY of those thoroughly vetted refugees into their homes? JUST ONE MAYBE?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.