Quote:LOL, OK at least we're getting somewhere...  

 

As I mentioned...  the discussion regarding the Constitutionality of banning relgious or ethnic groups from entering the country is open for debate as the Supreme Court has not really weighed in on it.  But it's clearly Anti-American.  Would you agree with that?

 

As for Mr. Khan, speech, he clearly was making the statement in regards to trump's statement that he would ban all muslims or Muslim countries from entering.  Which would then have resulted in his son not serving in the Military.  It's a rhetorical leap, but it's effective and I think fits within the context of Mr. Khan's speech.

People think it's anti American to burn the flag, but that's not unconstitutional either.


Trump never claimed it would be a permanent ban on Muslims, just until further vetting is done. Since you love context so much, the context here is that while the Khans might have been delayed in entering the country, upon being properly vetted, they would have been allowed to enter the country thus still resulting in Khan Jr.'s military service. The only way they would have not been allowed to enter the country is if there was something shady in their background that would have precluded them from being approved. Since no one is making those claims, there wouldn't have been an issue.

---