|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's obvious to anyone Guiliani hired a team of lawyers to try to make the Muslim ban look legit.
How is that obvious?
In case you missed it, here's the timeline:
1) Candidate Trump proposed a ban on Muslim immigration
2) Candidate Trump walked that back and later proposed extreme vetting from known problem areas
3) President Trump charged the mayor with "making it legal".
If you're skipping a step in the timeline in order to equate "it" with a ban specifically on muslims, you're playing with alternative facts.
Even if you're right, it's obvious that the idea of a religious test was abandoned within about two nanoseconds. The resulting policy contains no religious component whatsoever.
Furthermore, do you not see the dangerous and chaotic precedent that would be set if the legality of official acts could be challenged based on statements made during a campaign?
|
Reply With Quote