POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Kira100000]

I've been too scared to go outside since Annoying Orange was elected

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

1. Ok
2. But they're being religiously persecuted, which would make them allowed under the EO
3. If they were also illegal why weren't they shot down
4. This is what happens when you rush an order without a section pertaining to letting in certain groups

[Katamari007]

I've been too scared to go outside since Annoying Orange was elected

this. a couple of meathead Annoying Orangekins came up to me yesterday and pulled my pants down and ran off and then ran back and beat the stuff out of me. im still literally shaking from the experience

[Ipquarx]

This part I know for sure is completely legal, that's what the Immigration Nationality Act is.

i haven't looked too into the details, but this amendment to that act may invalidate that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf

unsure if any court cases in the past since this amendment would have clarified this

the original 1952 act seemed to exist partially or largely to allow exclusion based on nationality, and this amendment sought to make that practice illegal, so i would expect that it would no longer be that simple

edit: completely unsure if the act you linked came before or after this tho, tryin to figure that out rn

edit again: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html
seems to still be in effect considering it isn't listed as "repealed" here. i'm assuming logistically there should definitely be restrictions on the president's powers under that provision but the courts would have to be the ones to establish that

1. But they're being religiously persecuted, which would make them allowed under the EO
2. If they were also illegal why weren't they shot down

1. But if they're muslim they wouldn't be allowed in since they're a part of the majority religion in the country
2. I don't know, it's possible nobody went after them for it. I'm no historian.

[Red Spy]

1. But if they're muslim they wouldn't be allowed in since they're a part of the majority religion in the country
2. I don't know, it's possible nobody went after them for it. I'm no historian.

1. Ok this is turning into a "yuhuh" "nuhuh" so I make a spinner wheel
2. That doesn't make sense though. Carter did it, nobody said anything. Bush did it, nobody said anything. Obama did it, nobody said anything. Annoying Orange does it and people are up in arms? If they were all illegal where was the outrage when presidents have been doing it for the last 40 years?

[Ipquarx]

1. Ok this is turning into a "yuhuh" "nuhuh" so I make a spinner wheel
2. That doesn't make sense though. Carter did it, nobody said anything. Bush did it, nobody said anything. Obama did it, nobody said anything. Annoying Orange does it and people are up in arms? If they were all illegal where was the outrage when presidents have been doing it for the last 40 years?

1. I mean the EO says that you can *only* get refugee status if you're being religiously persecuted, AND you're not part of the majority religion. It all depends on whether different sects of muslims count as the same religion, which is an entirely different debate.
2. Just because I'm out of the loop here, can I have links to when bush, obama etc restricted immigration based on nationality?

[SeventhSandwich]

I can't speak for Carter or Bush, but the whole 'Obama did something similar in 2011' thing is thoroughly debunked. Obama never did anything even comparably as drastic.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-Annoying Orange-travel-ban-differs-obama-2011-policy-article-1.2959631

[Red Spy]

None of this is denying my point that Obama's ban wasn't met with the same type of outrage Annoying Orange's got

[SeventhSandwich]

None of this is denying my point that Obama's ban wasn't met with the same type of outrage Annoying Orange's got

Because it was an incomparable ban. Why would the outrage be the same if the action was completely different? That's like weird circular reasoning.

[Decepticon]

[extremely extreme]

https://twitter.com/unspectateur/status/721471965114937346

[RedGajin]

https://twitter.com/unspectateur/status/721471965114937346

theyre clearly just trying to adjust to western culture and playing an improvised game of baseball please dont make assumptions

[Nonnel]

https://twitter.com/unspectateur/status/721471965114937346

april of last year

[LeisureSuit912]

Annoying Orange pulled a Hillary at Mar a Lago
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/watch-president-Annoying Orange-work-join-mar-a-lago-article-1.2971395?client=safari

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't think Sarah Silverman being stupid is a partisan issue.