Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

That is what will be tested. Remember that right now the US has a neutral Supreme Court but it will be the Republicans that will determine the makeup in the near future.It is that court that will decide what is a right and what is a privilege and the decision may not be based on morality or reason or logic but rather what is the then current US Federal law.

Is it? Where is that established? Why do I have to get a passport? I honestly don't know.

Quick overview. Basically, interpretations of the Constitution by the courts.
Let me know if you have any questions or feel the need for something more.Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia

I think we should wait for more to come out on this before we jump all over it.Mr. Khan is not commenting. I fear this all may not resolve in a favorable way for Mr. Kahn. But lets see. This may be all that is claimed but until we know more judgement, should be reserved. None of the major news sources are touching this. Until we know how Mr. Khan was informed of the travel review and what it entails there is no way to verify the allegations.

So far it appears that Hawaii and Washington as well as New York, Massachusetts and Oregon will be suing to have the All New and Stupider Trump Travel Ban declared Unconstitutional and the Virginia suit on the subject is still in play but only as it effects Virginia residents.The problem is that a Religious Test by any other name is STILL Unconstitutional and Trump and his Administration have shown their true colors too many times in too many venues.

I'm not completely convinced by this argument for a few reasons.1. Much of the stuff in the order itself that ties the order to a religious test has been removed. I understand that previous rulings used other Trump statements to augment things in the order, but the strength of such arguments is going to diminish over time (or with the issuance of subsequent orders), particularly if it is clear that Trump has made changes to comply with previous rulings.2. The easy unconstitutionality arguments, namely the application to visa holders and green card holders are no long viable as the order no longer covers those folks. I note that Hawaii makes the argument that the families of citizens are still affected. Clearly, US citizens and visa holders do have constitutional rights, but the Supreme Court has previously made rulings that such rights are not fundamental, and are not sufficient to override a Congressional statute contrary to those rights.If there is a discriminatory intent, it is clear that Trump is making the attempt to limit the expression of that intent to folks who it is difficult to argue have rights under our constitution. As odious as that might sound, the Supreme Court precedent is that laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act are constitutional. The Supreme Court also upheld laws that kept folks from India from becoming citizens. These rulings have never been overturned even though the US has in the past issued apologies for its treatment of Chinese.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The idea that we can't discriminate against NONCITIZENS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY on the basis of anything we like, including "religion" is crazeeeeee. And "religion" is a term that Islam doesn't deserve anyway because it's nothing but a totalitarian political ideology that seeks to rule the world whether it has to do it by murdering all dissenters as Mohammed did all the Jews in Medina, or by immigration and growing their population, or whatever tactic comes to hand. After Medina the method of choice was slaughtering its way through most of the world at the time. The Constitution does not support national suicide. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you have anything concrete to add or is "crazeeeee" really your best contribution?

Yes, because it doesn't matter what "legal" justification anyone can make up for it, such a justification can only be Leftist revisionism, as so much else in our justice system is these days, possibly following globalist orders to destroy the nation, and "crazeeee" is the only apt response to it.

The case we are discussing will be decided in a court of law. Neither side is likely to make idiotic arguments that Islam is not a religion, so I guess both sides are engaging in "Leftist revisionism"Got anything more helpful to add?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Oh for sure. But it would help if someone argued that the Constitution doesn't protect the "religion" of outsiders if it has violent goals and methods it seeks to use against the nation's people. If that isn't argued either, that's just another expression of Leftist revisionism. Not really. What I've said ought to be quite helpful if properly appreciated.

Given that Islam is also the religion of a few million insiders, I suspect that making the arguments you recommend would result in the judge considering your representation complete idiots.And of course, your favored argument won't be presented. I've given some suggestion of what might be tried instead and a prediction that such arguments might be more successful. And all without resulting to ridiculous accusations that folks are "possibly following globalist orders to destroy the nation".Whether you like it or not, folks on the left love their country too. I served in the United States military as an officer on submarines which I suspect is more than you've ever done for this country. Yes. Why don't you pass your suggestions on to the Attorney General so he can get them out to his legal team. That way he can look like a moron in court. I understand that this thread is intended to show the wacko "liberal" response. Perhaps we had best move this thread back onto the topic, because what we seem to be discussing here are wacko, wingnut, responses.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I hope our new AG is enough up on Constitutional law to know where it was affirmed that even a religion has no rights if it advocates overthrowing the government.

NoNukes writes:

quote:

---

the Supreme Court precedent is that laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act are constitutional.

---

Technically true, but misleading. The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943 and the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 did away with national origin quotas.The Executive does not have the authority to override the Legislature.As was pointed out in the Washington case, one does not need to discriminate against everyone in order to be guilty of discrimination. The choice of the specific countries is not connected to the justification given for why they should be restricted. Given that Trump specifically campaigned upon a ban on Muslims and specifically contacted Giuliani on how one could carry out a Muslim ban, given that the Department of Homeland Security report indicates that the countries chosen have no connection to terrorism and that such a ban on those countries would be counterproductive, given Trump's financial interests in neighboring countries that are not on the list, given that Iraq was taken off the list because it threatened to retaliate in kind and thus impact the financial interests of American contractors, the spirit and effect of the order cannot be overlooked.It's a Muslim ban.It's very much like the Dover claim: The creationists insisted that because they did not use the word "creationism," that somehow means that "intelligent design" isn't creationism. Because they never identify the "intelligent designer" as "god," that means it isn't religion. And yet, we all know it is. And it's still unconstitutional.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

The idea that we can't discriminate against NONCITIZENS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY on the basis of anything we like, including "religion" is crazeeeeee.

---

Someone hasn't read the Constitution, apparently.Your right to "due process" is guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, let's not play dumb and pretend that means that an Italian can refer to the US Constitution when filing a claim against the Italian government. No, it means that when dealing with the US government, they are entitled to due process.And that is precisely what the Muslim ban denies.Your libel against Islam is noted, by the way.