Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Anchor, was Jimmy Carter a racist when he blocked immigration from Iran?  Or was he protecting America from a known enemy?

Quote:Anchor, was Jimmy Carter a racist when he blocked immigration from Iran? Or was he protecting America from a known enemy?

Maybe not racist, but bigoted? It was a political move based on the hostage crises that resulted from the revolution in Iran.


It was stupid then, and its stupid now... not to mention (arguably) unconstitutional.


But you also do see the difference from excluding access from one nation versus excluding access of all Muslims, right? I mean that's a big difference.


On a side note, during the 70s and 80s of cold war, we didn't exclude all ussr persons from entering the usa. The Soviets were to be feared and despised as much as Muslims are today, yet there was no blanket ban on all of them--at least from my quick Google check.

Quote:On a side note, during the 70s and 80s of cold war, we didn't exclude all ussr persons from entering the usa. The Soviets were to be feared and despised as much as Muslims are today, yet there was no blanket ban on all of them--at least from my quick Google check.

C'mon Anchor, apples to oranges and you know it. The threat then was nuclear holocaust, the threat now is singular and small acts of terrorism being perpetrated by radical Muslims hell bent on killing American non-combatants.

Quote:C'mon Anchor, apples to oranges and you know it. The threat then was nuclear holocaust, the threat now is singular and small acts of terrorism being perpetrated by radical Muslims hell bent on killing American non-combatants.

Point taken.


However, the fear of communist infiltration was also real. I'll give you that it's not a perfect comparison, I think it shows that when America and Americans focus on our ideals, the results are positive.


We shouldn't be demonizing and excluding an entire class of people - it goes against who we are, and is generally found to be unproductive.

Quote:Which racist scum bag are you referring to? Trump?

And, I'm sorry to tell you this, but just because a hypothetical law hasn't been ruled upon doesn't make it constitutional!! That's terrible logic! There was a time when segregating blacks was allowed, was it constitutional just because the ruling of brown v board of education hadn't been ruled yet? No. It was legal under our laws, but it wasn't constitutional.
Jurisdiction dictates that the power of the government can be imposed upon a person. Under our laws and constitution, due process is afforded to those which fall within said jurisdiction--this includes citizens and non citizens alike.

As a class, one would look at the hypothetical of banning all blacks from entering this country, and clearly would see this as unconstitutional...

However, when it comes to Muslims, it becomes more difficult for some people. Trump is playing off this fear and bigotry to garner votes. That's the definition of being a scum bag.

We are still dealing with two separate issues here. Constitutionality of banning specific persons from entering our country and who is actually covered by our constitution.


Regarding constitutionality, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents a president from barring anyone from entering our country, and a precedent has already been set for a president banning entry into the country.


Now about who is covered. Jurisdiction also dictates the area of coverage of those laws. Our jurisdiction ends at our borders, everyone within the borders and the borders themselves are covered by our constitution. The BORDERS are our jurisdiction, not the people trying to cross them. People outside our country have no right to our due process until they step foot over that border. You don't suddenly get covered by our constitution just because you want to come in.

Quote:We are still dealing with two separate issues here. Constitutionality of banning specific persons from entering our country and who is actually covered by our constitution.


Regarding constitutionality, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents a president from barring anyone from entering our country, and a precedent has already been set for a president banning entry into the country.


Now about who is covered. Jurisdiction also dictates the area of coverage of those laws. Our jurisdiction ends at our borders, everyone within the borders and the borders themselves are covered by our constitution. The BORDERS are our jurisdiction, not the people trying to cross them. People outside our country have no right to our due process until they step foot over that border. You don't suddenly get covered by our constitution just because you want to come in.

So first off, the idea of banning an individual from entering is not the main point. When I say "person", I'm making the distinction that an individual has rights whether they are a citizen or not. Just want to make sure we're clear on that point.


The precedent for banning people from entry, in terms of this discussion, is not really relevant. The reason I say this is because the supreme court determines the legality of it, yes there have been instances where entire nationalities have been barred, I believe it was a Chinese ban that was the most recent. But as I mentioned regarding Brown v. Board of education, a precedent does no necessarily imply justice or constitutionality.


In terms of jurisdiction, it looks like this is where the debate really gets juicy. Jurisdiction, by definition is related to one entity and its ability to exercise power/authority over another entity.


In this discussion, it is the government denying the liberty of entry into the nation based on your religion. So, therefore the jurisdiction comes into play in so much that it can be argued that the banning of entry extends jurisdiction to the location of the applicant of entry. From experience in the line of work I do, I've seen first hand that a state's (and the Fed's) authority and jurisdiction can and often does reach out beyond just the drawn out border of the governing entity.


The ability to deny access creates the jurisdiction for the governing body, just by definition. The power to deny access/liberty created the jurisdiction to therefore deny that access. We can all agree on that much, correct? I've merely taken the definition of jurisdiction and applied it to this discussion on immigration.


Now, the jurisdiction giving power to deny access is constitutional so long as the governing body is providing due process.


To me, making a blanket ban based on religion, or race, or nationality is not following due process and allowing for equal protection under the law.


Again, at this moment in time there is no law denying a religion from entering, so the constitutional ruling has not been made. But to think it's a clear cut case is not true.


And, as I have said, is clearly anti American. I mean, you agree that it's anti American to ban an entire religion from entering this country, right?

This past week at a speech in Portland, Maine, Trump implied that the Philippines are now considered a "Trojan horse" terrorist state.


In return, Filipino lawmakers are in process of passing a bill that would ban the comb over himself. This begs the question:


Do you support a ban on 100,000,000 people from the islands of Phillipines?

Quote:This past week at a speech in Portland, Maine, Trump implied that the Philippines are now considered a "Trojan horse" terrorist state.


In return, Filipino lawmakers are in process of passing a bill that would ban the comb over himself. This begs the question:


Do you support a ban on 100,000,000 people from the islands of Phillipines?

Yes, we shouldn't accept 100, 000, 000 people from anywhere. That's a third of our own population, our infrastructure couldn't handle that much influx.

Quote:Yes, we shouldn't accept 100, 000, 000 people from anywhere. That's a third of our own population, our infrastructure couldn't handle that much influx.

Thanks for playing.