Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Just like the Aryan Nation church and other Christian based white supremacist groups are a sub-sect of Christianity.

If the person was known to intend to fly into a building then their credible and immediate threat to life would outweigh their religious freedom, so no.If the person merely believed killing people, even non-combatants, was justified by their religion, then there might be a problem, but on its own I think it'd pass constitutional muster to deny them access to the US.If the immigration officer allowed Christians with the second belief through, but not Muslims, that's definitely a problem.

In the bit you quoted, the "religious belief" is the specific one that the individual's god would want him to fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers, not just any Muslim. The individual has done no crime. If he's refused entry, aren't the courts obliged to defend his rights?

Indeed. And I personally would not want to live in a country with a written constitution which would prevent discrimination against them. The U.K. sometimes refuses entry to members of sects like the KKK and Nation of Islam.I'm a great believer in religious discrimination!

I don't quite see how, and I think it's problematic for them. I'm sure the individual would be refused entry, but it's because of this kind of case that I think the courts might have trouble with Trump, and I was questioning some of the rejoicing on this thread.

First, please stop screaming. A word or two in all caps for emphasis is tolerated but screaming whole paragraphs is not.Second, all persons, repeat, ALL PERSONS subject to US law, are protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments and cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without the DUE PROCESS of LAW.See SCOTUS: Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953)This case makes the protections of all due process rights as well as First Amendment and other rights applicable to citizens, legal resident aliens, illegal aliens and anyone else within the legal purview of the United States.There are separate rights reserved for citizens, such as voting and holding certain elective offices, but legal due process rights are guaranteed to all. Even poor Juan from El Salvador who snuck into this country in a suitcase cannot be deported without a hearing, represented by legal council, in accordance with law. Our law allows us to kick him out but he is entitled to a legal hearing before we can slam the door on him.That is our way. That is our law.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

"Jurisdiction" doesn't mean "physically within geographical borders," it means "within the power of the law," which may or may not apply to a particular piece of geography, or to any particular persons. As written there is no reason to read it as applying to anyone but US citizens. A person may be within a state's borders without being within its jurisdiction. Applying it to noncitizens is imposed on the law by the courts, who are beyond nuts to make such interpretations.No, what you are calling "our way" has been so revised by legal nut cases over the last century it no longer resembles anything that was originally intended by the Constitution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes there is. SCOTUS said so. And under our Constitution and rule of law this is part of our law until the congress and the states say otherwise.

SCOTUS IS AN IDI/OT

It may be, not Constitutionally. If the agent was only applying the standard to one religion but not another (Christian's who believe violence can be justified get a pass, but Hindus don't, for example), that would be a larger problem - and as a government representative it would be constitutionally problematic.But if all people with a certain notion that killing noncombatants was justifiable were being denied - regardless of the deity or religious texts they use, then the only problem might be to his employment due to not following the rules of when to deny entry or something. I doubt it (if its just 'violence can be justified' style thinking). If it is 'violence is imperative and the US is a valid and mandated target', then yes, I'm sure they would. Nope. Trump has the authority to issue executive orders to deny all sorts of people entry, for all manner of reasons.He cannot (it is argued) issue an order to deny entry to someone who has been been given permission by another agency (ie been given a student visa) - without that person being given the benefit of the due process of the law, and he cannot (it is argued) exempt Christians, or otherwise structure his order such that it singles out Muslims.Trump has not issued an order to specifically target those that believe attacking the United States is a good idea, supported by his God and/or intends or plans to do this. Indeed, much of this is already covered and Trump doesn't need to impose such an order.He issued a blanket order that essentially prohibits scientists with visas working in the USA from leaving and returning, or students that were on a 'winter break' and visiting their parents, from returning in time to attend classes. It covers children who, regardless of their beliefs, lack the capacity to overpower pilots and fly planes into buildings. It means (it may be argued) that a Muslim child born in Iraq may be denied entry but a Christian one permitted entry (though I think the actual wording may protect Trump on this). It may well deny children who are Iraqi citizens born of parents from somewhere else (say Swedish). It covers blind disabled elderly ladies who completely repudiate terrorism and its tactics, who provided the US vital intelligence in the first Gulf War and has served as a Farsi translator during 'Enduring Freedom', from travelling to Canada for a private medical operation they can't afford at US rates and being able to return to their child (who happens to be a well respected US Senator whose finances are all tied up in investing in an orphanage and who has reached the end of their credit) who was caring for them.And, if it is successfully argued, the aforementioned lovely old lady is entitled to due process, and if it is argued that because she could not get the medical operation, she was harmed - she may be able to sue due to the unconstitutional nature the way the order has impacted her.Denying someone who was a threat to the US or its citizens is permissible - as Congress has given the President the power to do this. Congress has not given the President the power to deny the right to travel to the old lady. Denying someone who is a threat, because their religious beliefs inspire them to carry out those threats may be inhibiting religious freedom but is constitutionally allowed because the right to life has been established to outweigh this freedom. It is not religious discrimination unless it is only applied to Muslims or whomever. The Judiciary checking the President's assertion of power is exactly its job and its duty. It is worth celebrating when it carries out that duty.

True, in some very particular cases. But in those same cases, if the commit a crime they cannot be arrested by US police or charged in US courts as they would have no jurisdiction. A power they have been given by the Constitution.
The same document that gives the President their powers.You can't argue that the Constitution is essentially wrong in the same thread you are arguing that Article I, Section 8 gives the President, through Congress, the power to enact the Executive Order in question while denying the third branch also setup in that same document, the powers given to it by that document to interpret what that document means when a dispute arises. You know, your voice on SCOTUS is in the process of getting louder. There is a reasonable chance an anti-abortion judge is going to break ties soon - and there are a whole bunch of anti-abortion laws being drafted in State legislatures.I'd look to the future and defer to the wisdom of the court if I were you. You may well be in a position soon where the SCOTUS is going to be making many decisions you actually agree with. Otherwise, I guarantee you, 'SCOTUS IS AN IDIOT' will be retorted to you whenever you try to defend those decisions.

I would bet you anything the 14th amendment was not originally intended to apply to noncitizens. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, just another instance of a court doing idiotic things. Remember this ruling by SCOTUS was in 1953. Brown v Board of Education anyone? In 60+ years neither congress nor the states have objected -- to either. How republican!Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

There should be ample legal jurisdiction already invested in the states to deal with criminal acts by noncitizens, with no need for it to be granted by the Constitution.

$100 to the non-religiously oriented charity of choice of the winner, which will be declared and agreed upon up front? The bet will be settled with a Great Debate, the rules for which we must both first agree upon with an arbitrator deciding who loses.Who could arbitrate? I dunno, Phat is religious - Catholic Scientist and I disagree on politics a lot. Coyote is not religious as far as I know, but conservative. These seem like good potential aribtrators.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.