Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Sure it is, nobody says that you can't pick up that chair leg to defend yourself with.

As I understand it, in Canadian law (and most civilized jurisdictions) self-defense is not a "natural right" but a mitigating factor - i.e. your punishment may be less if you acted in self-defense.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada is explicit in justifying you defending yourself from unlawful assault.

Self-defense is more usually a legal defence - ie. if you can demonstrate that you had good reason to feel in danger of physical harm and used reasonable force to defend against it, you are not guilty of a crime.If you used unreasonable force, the fact that you we're attacked may be a mitigating factor, but if you chased after a burglar and stabbed him 20 times in the back, you can't hope for much sympathy - in the UK at least.

Hi Faith, I understand - I went to bed too, but I'm 5-8 hours ahead of you so it was no problem in any case.Coyote politely declined to arbitrate, so the be is null and void - but that's just as well for you since you seem to have conceded the point now anyway.You seem to have been arguing that non-citizens don't have the right to enter the USA with impunity.I was arguing that there is a deliberate distinction between person and citizen in the Constitution. A person, for instance a tourist, a visitor, or a man still subject to the Emperor of China is bound by the laws of the United States, but also granted the protections of the right to a fair trial, a right to a jury, a right to appeal, a right to remain silent, a right to free speech and freedom of religion. That is: they have equal protection under the law - but not all the same rights as citizens (they don't have the right, necessarily, to stay indefinitely, they don't have the right to vote etc).That is to say: they have a right to due process whether they are citizens or not. My principle evidence at hand was Yick Wo v Hopkins, already cited:

quote:

---

The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

​

Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.

---

That court composed of many judges who were on the Supreme Court when the Fourteenth was ratified - so they have pretty good access to what the intention was, and in fact, by the rules set out in the Constitution, get to essentially clarify any possible ambiguity in meaning.

You're good at fake news, maybe you should apply to CNN.What do you think you are proving with those photos anyway? We know anti-Trump protests are big, but their size doesn't prove anything about the popular vote. Also we know that those protests have been violent, maybe infiltrated by paid agitators that turned them violent, but it's hard to get much objection to it from the left, who seem to like to avocated assassinating Trump and blowing up the white house and that sort of wonderful American peaceful transition sort of thing. And we know that anti-trumpers beat up people who they thought rightly or wrongly voted for Trump.We also know there weren't any pro-Trump demonstrations. Why should there be? He won. His campaign rallies, however, were huge. Interesting you don't put up a photo of a rally. (Also infiltrated by violent demonstrators).

And if a court could unravel such a device, it would might still be unconstitutional. If Trump had been mouthing off about keeping Muslims out of the country before passing such a law, a court would consider such ranting as evidence of Trump's intention to pass a law that does not meet the requirements of the first amendment.

quote:

---

This has become such a tangled mess of confusion I don't know if it's possible to sort it out

---

Let me help you.Until the last day or so you were arguing that Trump's order was legal because non-citizens had nor rights that could be violated.Now you have changed your position, admitting that non-citizens do have the rights that your opponents claimed and now arguing that Trumps order was legal because it didn't target anyone who already had a visa even though we already know that it did (and was even intended to target Green Card holders).Instead of confusing yourself by trying to pretend that your position hasn't changed you could take the honest approach of admitting that you were wrong.

That's true. In fact, Canadian law justifies deadly force in some situations.

quote:

---

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

​

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

​

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

---

Further, it appears that the burden of proof that a defense does not apply is on the Crown rather than on the defendant. That makes self defense somewhat easier to use than in the US.The problem for your argument is that this is a statutory right and not a natural right.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I didn't concede Mod. After all the confusion I simply tried to define what I was trying to say all along, that the Constitution -- as a whole -- doesn't apply to people who have no right to be here. I also had to take note of the fact that parts of the Constitution have to apply to anybody because they are general human rights, which Cat Sci pointed out are given by God. That's not what I meant by Constitutional rights; of course anyone has those basic rights, but they don't have all Constitutional rights, and there is no Constitutional right to enter this country. The "noncitizens" in the 14th Amendment are slaves who should have been made citizens because they were born here or live here.I may not be getting it said right here either.But I may have said it more clearly in Message 455Unless you want to try to prove that the 14th amendment confers citizenship on illegal aliens I don't think there's much left to debate or bet about.

You are severely confused. Nobody is claiming that green card holders are citizens. They were not born here. The claim is that "persons" means more than folks who are eligible to become citizens.Further, how does the 14th amendment grant citizenship to slaves who were not born here? You assert that in view of words to the contrary without offering any argument for your claim. The issue of whether non-citizens have rights under the constitution, regardless of how odious folks thing they are, was decided in court 150 years ago. If you have a better argument other than, Faith hates Islam, now might be the time to present that.

What did I say that was "fake"? Not much, I'm just enjoying myself. http://thehill.com/...-washington-yields-zero-arrests-reportNo arrests made during massive Women's March in downtown Los Angeles - ABC7 Los Angeles Oh, there've been plenty. It's just that they've been tiny.

Generally speaking, foreigners do not have that right, but once the country grants them such rights, then they do have something that requires due process to take away. That is not what the bet is about. Of course neither legal nor illegal aliens are citizens. Nobody is debating that idiotic position.

Well yes and no. The belief that it is justified and imperative to kill US citizens isn't strictly a religious belief, even if some people justify this using their religion. But regardless of how you slice it - nobody is suggesting that one's freedom of religion outweighs the right to life, liberty etc. I don't see how this is relevant to Trump's order, however.Trump's order is not about prohibiting people based on their intent to cause harm. Where religious discrimination may enter into it is focussed on prioritizing non-Muslims (esp Christians) over Muslims for visa/refugee processing. Indeed, the Immigration and Nationality Act is an important issue in this case. The debate is about weighing section 1152a1a

quote:

---

Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

---

against section 212f:

quote:

---

Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of certain subparagraphs of this paragraph, see subsection (h).

---

Sectoin h, in summary:

quote:

---

Any alien who commits or conspires to commit human trafficking offenses

​

BENEFICIARIES OF TRAFFICKING

​

MONEY LAUNDERING

​

-Any alien who-
(I), (II) has engaged in a terrorist activity, or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity
(III) has with an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity
(IV) is a representative of a terrorist organization,a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization
(VI) unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training ) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years
is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization

---

Other sections such as 215a1 may also come into play:

quote:

---

Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful-
for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe;

---

Maybe so, but this is Law - you'd need to define what you mean by 'any group' as it is too broad (for the sake of readability I cut out all the "as defined in clause (vi)(I), (vi)(II) or (vi)(III)" stuff in the above law quote). After all, all visa applicants belong to the group 'human', who would definitely meet the criteria you laid out. 'Muslim' is a bit too broad too, and unreasonably specific at the same time - ie., it is too arbitrary. Why not 'Abrahamic faiths'? If you try to define the group carefully, but cannot actually show that all members of that group pose an actual threat to the USA, you are going to risk running into Establishment Clause, Freedom of Religion, Equal Protection....etc etc.

Chris Christie stated that he did what Faith wants. The courts currently considering Trump's ban are allowed to take note of such statements and consider the motives of the people involved.