Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon

Where do you want to start? The fact there are far more muslims being slaughtered in the middle east than Christians? The fact that religous leaders are saying that to differentiate on the basis of religon those fleeing persecution will be even more divisive? The fact that its plain wrong to stigmatize people on the basis of nationality?

There are far more Muslims. So it's a given that more of them would be killed. Islam however isn't being erased from the Middle East. Christianity is. There are so few Christians left that your statement is ludicrous. Of course there are more Muslims being killed. The Christians are now so tiny in numbers.

Religious leaders don't decide national policy. Thank God.

No it is not. If Scotland was a failed state with a whole lot of problems preventing the US from vetting you I would fully support Trump cutting you off from entering America. America is under no obligation to accept you. Nor is Scotland under any obligation to accept me if the US was a failed state.

The refugees can still leave their countries. They just can't come to America. For 90-120 days. Why don't you and Scotland take them in for us?

No, you don't. And you know absolutely nothing about my politics and voting history, but in your narrow mind anyone who opposes Trump is a "leftist".

Jesus wept.

You've been on this board from it's beginning. You claiming to not be a leftist is ridiculous. You've always been one. No one on this board has ever mistaken you for someone on the right.

And my mind is no more narrow than anyone who called me and others racist because we opposed Obama.

As someone on the left, WAB, is NOT a leftist. For a Canadian, he's Conservative. Just like For a Brit, Chup is Conservative.

And that despite the fact that the genpop of the affected countries is overwhelmingly Muslim

There should be many times as many Christians accepted as Muslims.

And if we need to add more genocidal campaigns targeted at Christians to make that happen, so be it!

So. Fucking. Dumb.

how does moving the few that are left out of the Middle East change that? I'm for saving lives of course, but if the argument is "there will be no Christians left in the Middle East"- bringing them to Europe and North American doesn't really change that.

Actually, at the moment, that is EXACTLY what's going on - just a different set of religious leaders than the ones Stallion is referencing.

As it turns out, a leader of Scotland (I'm not sure if she's the top of the pyramid) has said, effectively, y'all come.

why?

In Syria, for example, before the war Christians made up a mere 5% of the population. Mathmatically it's easy to conclude it would be virtually impossible to do what you propose, short of an outright ban on Muslims period.

It is true that the animals spend an inordinate amount of time killing each other but repressing and outright slaughtering Christians and other religious minorities is one of their favorite past times. Protecting and giving sanctuary to the truly vulnerable, meaning those facing Muslim oppression without returning it, seems much more noble than given freebies to vile animals. We can fully fill the quotas without letting in terrorist filth so it makes good sense to do that.

Fuck the muslims.

Why?

They are far more deserving as they are attacked and persecuted even the best og times and are widely marginalized. As an added benefit they adapt much better to life in the West and are not terrorist threats.

That should be enough of a reason.

how many Muslims can you point to that have not adapted peacefully to life in the U.S.?

I'll wager I can point to more dead bodies dropped by white male Christians who spent their whole life here as you can dropped by poorly assimilated Muslims born in the Middle East.

To paraphrase you "80% of the population is a bigger number than 3% of the population".

Yes, we know that, please stop being dull and pretending it is some how profound. What matters are crime rates. Care to take a stab at that?

Crime rates are not what you were speaking of when I replied.

Where's that moving goalpost emjoi at?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38789821

1) The dual national thing does not effect anyone unless they are arriving from one of the banned terrorism hot spots so Mo's claim was a lie from the beginning.

2) Nova, please stop being a complete tard. The only way to compare criminality, or really anything, between two groups is by comparing rates. If you don't know something so basic then I don't know what to tell you beyond that you are ignorant of basic science.

Turns out that this ban is in violation of the Geneva Convention, and Merkl had to explain that to Trump.

Where did she get the hand puppets on such short notice?

She's German. The Germans are an efficient people

All Obama's restriction said was that if you're from those countries, you need a Visa in order to come here for business or travel. The VWP was selective from it's inception, so this was no more than a tweak of the existing law in light of the current situation. I think it was a good idea. Trying to equate that with an outright ban of all Muslims from those countries is a stretch IMHO.

I thought everyone in Boston was Irish.

Obama and his team choose these countries for reasons of national security. The people in those countries where given extra scrutiny. It's reasonable that Trump puts further temporary restrictions in until a new vetting system can be setup. It's a temporary system to deal with countries where it is extremely difficult to vet someone due to lack of records. It's not a permanent ban.

It is legal and it is constitutional as well. Before you chime in with the Federal Judges who've recently ruled know this: they didn't rule on whether the EO was proper or not. They simply dealt with the people stuck at the airports.

I don't see a problem.

I see this as a problem with leftists not knowing how to pick their battles. They are literally going to protest themselves into being ignored by everyone.

I can't wait to see the cries of protest over his SCOTUS pick this week. (perhaps today)

Did she explain how she's not in violation of it then? Because this is a lady who ordered the deportation of 100,000 migrants.

Denying asylum where applications are deemed invalid is not in violation of the Geneva Convention. Denying all applications regardless is.

Well that's good to know. Trump too is not denying everyone. Only from countries where people can't be vetted properly and only until a new system is in place to vet those people. That's certainly reasonable.

Good to know you're on Trump's side.

A blanket ban against asylum applicants from any country or countries is a violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees