I agree with all of that, kind of. I would find it to be an issue if it was a total ban on all Muslims, but the context of the order makes it clear it's not. These are countries that have issues with terrorism, while Trump has said things that make this order seem to have bad motives, there is nothing in the order itself to show it's the beginning of a total ban of Muslims.

Until the administration does something that is clearly discriminatory, I won't see the issue in all of this. All I see this as is partisan moves to make it impossible for the president to move forward with his order.

Do I agree with everything that the order does? No, I don't personally believe that these countries pose any real risk to us with our current vetting process, I just don't take issue with the new administration wanting to see if it's good enough. I think it is, but I'm not in the state department.

I don't want to make this seem like I am ignoring the courts position and decision, I just don't fully agree with the motives. Like I said, once the administration bans all Muslims, I won't see this as anything that is unconstitutional. The last order, yes the 9th circuit said it was unconstitutional because it effected visa holders and green card holders, this one doesn't.

Thanks for the response, it's nice to be able to have actual discussion, even if we may not agree.