Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

quote:

---

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

---

That's right in the Constitution. Non-citizens within US jurisdiction are equally protected as citizens. If you want to say the Constitution is insane and dangerous go right ahead. Is that what you meant?

And so you start with utter bullshit. Yes, the US Constitution applies to anyone in the US, citizen or non-citizen. And simply continue posting even more bullshit, falsehoods and absurdities. The US cannot discriminate against anyone, citizen or non-citizen based on religious beliefs; Thank God. And end up with yet another falsehood.Three for three Faith.

That's in/sane. THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO NONCITIZENS. NEVERTHELESS WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEPRIVING ANYONE WHO HAPPENS TO BE HERE OF ANY HUMAN RIGHTS, BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DEPORT THEM IN ANY CASE IF THEY ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, FOR ANY REASON WHATEVER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

The loyalists were considered traitors. Marxism can and has been described as a non-theist religion, and is certainly a belief. When I first went to the U.S. "are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party" was a standard question.What about someone who believes that the laws of their god super-cede all laws made by man? Could Trump claim that it is valid to refuse such a person entry to the U.S. as they would not accept the rule of U.S. law? Or would the courts be right to overrule him on the grounds that he was practising religious discrimination (which he certainly would be doing)?Is it always easy to understand?

quote:

---

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Note, when it is speaking of citizens, it says 'citizens'. Then it says ANY PERSON. This is in contrast to citizens. ANY PERSON. So yes, that includes non-citizens. They are people under the jurisdiction of the United States. They are both subject to its laws and protected by them.If you think that is insane, you need a 2/3 majority in the legislature. The President can't ignore this. That's the Constitution, Faith. If a President goes against it, it's the Judiciary's responsibility to step in.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

How so?

An individual has this religious belief that you'll happily defend, but if you were a U.S. immigration official and you knew of this religious belief and refused him entry due to that religious belief, are you being unconstitutional?

It may or may not be unconstitutional (I think it is but what do I know), but it may be illegal because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Ironic if it is, because it was created to allow Christians to refuse to serve Teh Creeping Gay.How Trump's Executive Order on Immigration Violates Religious Freedom Laws - Just Security

Yes and a country needs to govern non-citizens too. Please provide your source for your argument. Have you read the Constitution at all?

quote:

---

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Do you notice how it talks about citizens and then talks about persons. Do you think non-citizens are not persons? you really should not offer opinion on things you seem to know nothing about. You are wrong. Again. Still.

It does apply to government agents issuing and honoring visas. Since when?

Caps make you look petty, foolish and more wrong than you are. The large font caps make you look like a ridiculous child. Yelling is for people without an argument.

You are speaking treason. I can't believe such seditious talk is allowed. If you don't like the Constitution you should leave.

The only thing many of these people are "guilty" of is believing that Muhammad was a prophet of God.These people have already gone through an extensive vetting procedure that lasts 1 to 2 years. They have had background checks, had interviews, and so on.Trump wants to claim that he wants time to install "extreme vetting", but everyone has already seen what that means with respect to his own cabinet. He didn't even vet the people working with him in the White House. We all know what this is. It is a Muslim ban where the sole basis for denying entry is for believing that Muhammad is a prophet of God.

Groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc. aren't just political organisations. They are theological sub sects, and their theologies are very important to them. I'm assuming that if someone is known to be a believer in one of these sects by the U.S. government, they will certainly face discrimination if attempting entry into the U.S., and this would have been happening for a long time.Is this unconstitutional?The problem for your courts is getting Trump without implicating his predecessors.

You are painting an entire religion using the actions of a minority. There are millions of muslims that live peacefully in the US, love the US, and are not involved in any criminal behavior. They have more compassion for the fellow Americans in their little finger than you do in your whole body.