|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1765 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
AN IN/SANE AND DANGEROUS REVISIONIST POSITION quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 160 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The Constitution does not apply to noncitizens. And so you start with utter bullshit. Yes, the US Constitution applies to anyone in the US, citizen or non-citizen.
Faithy writes: 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. 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.
Faith writes: 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. And end up with yet another falsehood. Three for three Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1765 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Non-citizens within US jurisdiction are equally protected as citizens. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2798 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: 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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO NONCITIZENS. quote: 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
bluegenes writes: The U.S. will have been discriminating against believers in certain sub-sects of Islam for some time in its immigration policy. Where were the courts? How so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2798 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: bluegenes writes: Those who are arguing against Trump on freedom of religion grounds might end up defending people who believe that their god would want them to fly aeroplanes full of people into skyscrapers full of people. 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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
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: 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.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Faith writes: The Constitution does not apply to noncitizens. It does apply to government agents issuing and honoring visas.
The US can "discriminate" against any noncitizens it wants for whatever reason, including religions. Since when?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
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.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
You are speaking treason. I can't believe such seditious talk is allowed. If you don't like the Constitution you should leave.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
bluegenes writes: 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2798 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Taq writes: bluegenes writes: The U.S. will have been discriminating against believers in certain sub-sects of Islam for some time in its immigration policy. Where were the courts? How so? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Faith writes: 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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025