Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

There are lots of idi/otic Republicans. Like a lot of those in Congress right now.

No great debate. Just find the evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And as usual you would lose.The 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War precisely because a segment of the population was being denied citizenship and protection under the laws. They were denied the right to vote, to marry people not of their own race, access to schools and education, were not allowed to eat in many places and a whole host of other injustices.The whole point of the 14th Amendment is that everyone in the US should be granted equal protection under the law and access to due process regardless of their citizenship status.

It applied to people who were born here.

$50, OK then. We still need to agree terms on what counts and who gets to arbitrate.I say the following:a) The opinions of the drafters counts highest, followed by those those that voted for it and the acting President equal second, followed by the opinion of courts third and the views of constitutional experts and historians lastly.b) The opinions of courts closer to the ratification have priority - since they are closer to the 'culture of intention' than the later ones.Once the evidence on either side has been presented the arbitrator decides who has made the best case and who wins the bet. We will then donate the money to the charity in such a way as can be verified by all three parties (and better, everybody).My charity I'd ask you to donate to, should I win the bet would be Muscular Dystrophy Association.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sounds like a good plan for a debate but I don't want to debate. If you can produce the evidence just please do so.And if you don't mind I'd rather send the money to you because I'm on so many charity call lists already it's driving me to distraction. You can send it wherever you want. If I win I don't care about the money anyway, just the topic.

OK. But in the interests of either party squirming out of the bet on the grounds the evidence 'isn't good enough' we still need an arbitrator to make the call. Who do you say? Understanding your concerns of bias, I tried to suggest a number of people with whom I have had disagreements either politically or religiously. Haha, I know that feeling. But yes, that should work. I'll honour my agreement and donate to a worthy cause in the UK.

Trump talked about doing this, but I don't see anything in the order that can be challenged on that basis, and to date, I am not aware of, say Christian Syrians being admitted when their Muslim counterparts were refused entry. How might the argument be made?

Id go with Coyote.

The argument, and I agree it is something of a stretch goes (I believe) something like this:From section 5(b) of the Executive Order:

quote:

---

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.

---

Given most refugees now, and in the forseeable future are applying from Muslim majority countries, prioritizing religious-based persecution claims but only so doing for those cases where the religion is a 'minority religion' may well be not discrimination against a specific religious group prima facie, it could be construed as de facto discrimination against Sunni Muslims.

The citizenship clause applies to people who were born here. The rest of the 14th amendment applies equally well to at least all US citizens regardless of where they were born. Now to your chagrin, much of the 14th amendment (but not all) also applies to "persons" despite the fact that the word citizen was available but was not used.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thanks. Given the text, and what Trump has said in public about prioritizing Christians, I do not find the argument a stretch at all. If I were filing a brief I would certainly make that argument.

"Persons" was probably used because one of the problems that the amendment addressed was the noncitizen status of some people born in the country, blacks in other words. So that has to be taken into account in this discussion. There is no reason to think that foreign noncitizens were intended.

I've sent him a PM. I'll rally my arguments and present them here at such a time as he consents.If he denies, I'll probably bring them anyway, but the bet will be considered null and void.

Mod, I'm afraid I have to sleep for a while, so I won't be able to respond until later. This happens to me a lot these days, sudden sleepiness.