Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

The Constitution does not apply to noncitizens.

​

The US can "discriminate" against any noncitizens it wants for whatever reason, including religions. It is in/sane to think otherwise. We have no obligation to let anyone into the country we don't want to let in.

​

Islam properly speaking is a political ideology more than a religion anyway, an ideology that is dangerous to any nonMuslim nation on the planet, as well as some Muslim nations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes it does. The Constitution and the US courts prove you wrong. Where are you getting your info from?

Freedom of religion was always understood not to include a religion that endorsed any kind of criminal behavior according to the laws on criminality. Religions that practice human sacrifice are therefore excluded, as is a religion that practices violent jihad against "infidels". Unfortunately such a commonsense rule is rejected by the prevailing craziness these days. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In actuality the Constitution does not apply to citizens or non citizens. It applies to the government.

That's a lie. Revisionist claptrap. A Constitution is written for the governing of a nation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What about banning someone who believes in banning Catholics on religious grounds? But, as I pointed out, a religious believer in the divine right of King George to rule would be banned from office, and Marxists would be turned away by immigration officials.

Sounds contradictory. Surely the court has some doubts, which is why they issued a TRO. Trump has been elevated preemptively as being beyond reproach? No executive order can be questioned? If he ordered the execution of all Christians you would not question his constitutional power to do this? Yes he does, unless, for example, he were to say something to the effect 'Christians are a danger to the security of the nation so all Christian aliens are banned'. Additionally, certain aliens (eg., those that have been given visas already - especially those that have lived in the US on those visas) have a right to due process. Rushing is neither necessary nor wise for a President.

quote:

---

But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.

---

NY TimesWrong.

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. Wrong wrong wrong. Right. However, just like 'Right of admission reserved' in a club means you can refuse admission - you still can't refuse someone because they are black or a Christian without breaking the law.And the President is only the representative of one branch of government. Th representatives of 'We the people' includes a legislature and a judiciary. So their opinion also comes into play too.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I DID NOT SAY THAT. I SAID THIS BAN IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND TRUMP IS RIGHT ABOUT IT. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

AN IN/SANE AND DANGEROUS REVISIONIST POSITION Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What about banning someone who believes in banning Catholics on religious grounds?

---

They can't be pre-emptively banned from office but they should be in a world of trouble if they tried to put that belief into practice.This isn't hard to understand.

quote:

---

But, as I pointed out, a religious believer in the divine right of King George to rule would be banned from office, and Marxists would be turned away by immigration officials

---

You will have to provide evidence for the first. I am not even convinced of the second although I doubt that Marxists would be a protected class.

The religion of Moses would certainly be excluded, then, wouldn't it?

You do have equal protection under the law regardless of your religion. There are other rights in the Constitution. They are weighed differently. The right to life outweighs one's right to practice one's religion freely, and thus freedom of religion loses. This is well established. Denying someone due process because of their religion runs into the freedom of religion. I happily defend the rights of people who want to fly aeroplanes into buildings. However, if they attempt to do it, the right to life trump's their right to practice their religion and they should be prevented. However, they should still be given due process and equal protections. We should still give them a right to remain silent, a right to an attorney, the right to a jury etc etc etc.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

THIS STUP/IDITY ALONE IS GOING TO DESTROY \AMERICA IF IT IS ACCEPTED.

You said any such action is not justifiable. That's what I was referring to. I think you were saying something without considering what it implied: It gives the President carte blanche. I know you probably don't believe that, but that is the consequence of what you said.

The "stupidity" of the Founding Fathers hasn't managed to destroy America yet.Maybe you should give them a bit more credit.