Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

The ban includes Muslims who don't believe they should fly airplanes into buildings.

That's impossible. The Citizenship Clause was written so that persons who weren't technically citizens would be citizens. That would never work if it was not intended to apply to non-citizens.

It's true DA. I've read some pre-election polls that had Hillary winning by as much as 102%!

I'd defend that statement of jars.
But it's probably best if he speaks for himself.To me, jar's statements have to do with beliefs.This things you're talking about... Flat Earth Society, neo-Nazi rallies... have to do with actions based upon those beliefs.I fully side with you that these certain actions based upon those beliefs are rightfully denounced and fought against.
But I fully side with jar that the beliefs themselves should be protected and kept by anyone with the desire or will to keep them.What if, tomorrow, those who hold such beliefs come up with some very beneficial actions that are good for everyone?
What if they come up with an idea that is only good for one person... but you are unable to come up with that idea for that one person?
Do you doom that single person to never get that benefit simply because you don't like a few ideas?I, for one, am not willing to take your word for it that it's impossible for such beliefs to provide a pathway that has the potential to lead us towards other helpful, beneficial ideas.Separate.Beliefs are ideas.
Actions affect people.Promote, develop and protect any and all beliefs (ideas) because who knows where they might lead?
Monitor and sanction and control actions because they have affects on other people.

Yes but all this is now a huge semantic mess. I've been talking about noncitizens in the sense of people from other countries who are either here illegally or want to come into the country, as not having Constitutional rights because the Constitution applies to citizens.So the 14th amendment was held up as an example of noncitizens who have Constitutional rights. Turns out the main class of people that applies to were slaves who live here already, were even born here, and now jar points out were just brought here, but didn't have citizenship. I certainly did not have them in mind. The amendment can't possibly be granting citizenship to anyone who just happens to come into the US and demand it; it has to be granting citizenship to people who clearly should have it, such as the slaves who already lived here, even those brought here to be slaves.Dr. A pointed out that James Madison argued that aliens who are here by "favor," that is, by permission, and are obedient to the Constitution, do have Constitutional rights, though not ALL Constitutional rights. This is not the 14th amendment but an overarching condition that would affect it if it has any kind of legal status, and I don't know, but it applies to noncitizens who have a clear right to be here, and I haven't had them in mind either.It doesn't apply to people here illegally or people who want to come in who have not been given permission or any kind of legal right to come in, which I think fairly well defines the groups I'm talking about, as I understand it so far anyway. The only Constitutional rights that could apply are the basic rights to life, liberty, property etc.; Those aren't the Constitutional rights that have been concerning me.The bet I supposedly have with Modulous to my mind is about whether the 14th amendment was originally intended to give Constitutional rights beyond the basics to noncitizens who have no right whatever to be here, since that's really what I've had in mind all along.This has become such a tangled mess of confusion I don't know if it's possible to sort it out. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again Faith, you are simply wrong. Even people here illegally have a Constitutional right to equal protection under the laws including the right to Due Process.

Read what I wrote; I already agreed to that. as the "basic rights" but not the ones I've been screaming about. Fourth paragraph down, last two sentences.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, it seems you simply are not capable of reading. I did not say support any organization but rather that I support peoples rights to believe even really stupid stuff including that the Earth is flat, the Earth is Young, that there was a Global flood during the period humans existed and even Neo-Nazi beliefs. I would gladly contribute to a legal defense of a Neo-Nazi to believe and even speak in favor of his beliefs if necessary here in the US.But do you have a Constitutional Right to Free Speech or Free Association? The courts first deal with the cases brought before them. Dealing with individual acts of discrimination seems counter productive when you can deal with the origin of orders to discriminate.

The people that were effected already has Visas Faith.

Message 414

This country does it. KKK leaders, for example, have been refused visas because governments don't like their ideas. Are we really missing much? That's very much in the original Islamic tradition. At what degree of politicalness does a ban on a religious sect become constitutional, I wonder?

Don't forget, though, that some of the rights in the Constitution are not granted by the Constitution, itself, but are merely identified as natural rights that all people have, regardless, and that the government cannot take away.In that sense, they would certainly apply to non-citizens. Also some the native americans who were here that weren't slaves nor citizens. There's the part about "jurisdiction" where if you happened to be in a State's area then technically you were a citizen even if you weren't really to begin with. And free speech, and arming yourself, and assembly, etc. Those are natural rights that every human has regardless of any constitution existing or not. The original intent was to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights.The 14th amendment was passed right after the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Citizenship Clause was intended to mirror citizenship rules of that Act directly into the Constitution. The formal title of the Act was "An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication"."All persons in the US" is a pretty clear statement of intention.The only grey area I see, and is what I was getting at earlier, is with people who are subject to a foreign power. I'm not sure how the rules work when there's another government involved.

Too funny.Faith, the issue was discrimination of people already vetted and with Visas based on the predominate religion of their nation of origin.The US Constitution says we can not discriminate based on sex, race, national origin. The individually impacted by Trump's stupid order were already vetted and he never showed ANY possible reason to deny them entry, and threat to the US posed by their nationality or religious beliefs.The problem is the man is just plain dumb and ignorant.

Arming yourself is not seen as a "natural right" in most places outside the US.

quote:

---

This country does it. KKK leaders, for example, have been refused visas because governments don't like their ideas. Are we really missing much?

---

A defence against tyranny perhaps - although I expect what they intended to do has rather more to do with the bans than you suggest. Also it must be admitted that there is a big difference between banning leaders on a case-by-case basis and blanket banning anyone who might be sympathetic to even the KKK.

quote:

---

That's very much in the original Islamic tradition. At what degree of politicalness does a ban on a religious sect become constitutional, I wonder?

---

In practical cases, probably never. Da'esh doesn't seem to be a sect, rather a political organisation attached to a religion.