I don't think I've articulated this well enough, so I'm going to try again. The executive order is worthy of opposition on multiple levels:
-
-
2) The executive order is bad policy. Rather than enhancing, it will undermine national security and make the country less safe.
-
See, for example, this thread about what the ban means for interpreters who worked with American soldiershttps://twitter.com/kirkwjohnson/status/825830075278823424 …
-
3) But I really hope people don't lose sight of this last point. The ban is immoral. It is unethical. It is cruel. It is hateful.
-
This overlaps with the constitutional and utilitarian policy aspects, but it's ultimately a separate point. The EO is morally wrong.
-
That in itself is adequate reason to oppose it.
-
I wish I had the ability to describe this without resorting to talk of souls or sin or karma. But there's a collective harm in allowing evil
-
We are all harmed by the evil acts that have been committed in the name of national security. At some point, you have to fight for your soul
-
So in sum, the Muslim ban is unconstitutional, illegal, a bad idea, and immoral. And those are different things.
-
You can't just try to tweak it so that the utils balance out and it's no longer a net loss. You can't just lawyer your way into a loophole.
-
It's wrong. Even after the constitutional concerns and policy considerations, it's wrong. And it's wrong to collaborate to tweak it.
- 1 réponse de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.