Trump is Attacked for Proposed Muslim Ban, But a Democratic President Actually Banned Entry from Muslim Nation
While progressive outlets are exploding with outrage and assertions of Republican xenophobia are rampant after Donald Trump’s proposal that Muslim immigrants should temporarily not be allowed into the country,
Daniel Greenfield of
FrontpageMag has reminded people of an uncomfortable historical fact.
Jimmy Carter froze immigration from the Muslim-majority nation of Iran after the 1979 hostage crisis.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/489202-r...t=politics
Banning people from a single nation from entry and banning an ENTIRE RELIGION from entry are nowhere near the same. If you can not grasp this simple concept than I hope there is someone around to keep you away from pointy and/or small objects.
Quote:Banning people from a single nation from entry and banning an ENTIRE RELIGION from entry are nowhere near the same. If you can not grasp this simple concept than I hope there is someone around to keep you away from pointy and/or small objects.
There was a bill in congress pushed by Senator Rand Paul that banned nearly every Muslim majority nation specifically and North Korea from immigrating to the US. Would you consider that banning an entire religion? Or not since North Korea was in there?
Funny thing Drifter, Trump doesn't even want to remove Muslims already within the country. Just those from entry. It is a fascinating spin job by the press.
Also, a certain president halted Iraq refugee requests in 2011 for 6 months to ensure proper procedures were in place. What kind of bigot racist president would do such a thing?
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-...s-in-2011/
Plus it's not a permanent ban...it's only until we can get a vetting system in place that actually works. I would think everyone would be in favor of that.
Quote:Plus it's not a permanent ban...it's only until we can get a vetting system in place that actually works. I would think everyone would be in favor of that.
None of that makes it any less unconstitutional.
DF, you worry about your country, Let the people that actually LIVE in the U.S.A. worry about ours.
Quote:None of that makes it any less unconstitutional.
It's not unconstitutional.
Quote:None of that makes it any less unconstitutional.
You are trolling now, right?
Can you quote me in the constitution where this is not allowed?
As explained in the other thread (which you apparently ignored), it is not unconstitutional, and is supported in our law.
8 U.S. Code § 1182
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182' title="External link">https://www.law.corn...ode/text/8/1182</a>
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
Quote:It's not unconstitutional.
Only by the most facile of arguments.
Quote:
You are trolling now, right?
Can you quote me in the constitution where this is not allowed?
As explained in the other thread (which you apparently ignored), it is not unconstitutional, and is supported in our law.
8 U.S. Code § 1182
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182' title="External link">https://www.law.corn...ode/text/8/1182</a>
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
<div>
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
</div>
You can write all the laws, codes, regulations or executive orders you want. They are all still made null and void if they are found to violate the US constitution. That's one of the primary reasons why there's a Supreme Court; to judge whether the laws made by Congress are constitutional in the first place. Most recently a whole bunch of laws in a whole bunch of states were made completely void because the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Some states had written it into their own Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman and all that is completely irrelevant because the US constitution trumps (hehe) all.
Quote:Only by the most facile of arguments.
You can write all the laws, codes, regulations or executive orders you want. They are all still made null and void if they are found to violate the US constitution. That's one of the primary reasons why there's a Supreme Court; to judge whether the laws made by Congress are constitutional in the first place. Most recently a whole bunch of laws in a whole bunch of states were made completely void because the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Some states had written it into their own Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman and all that is completely irrelevant because the US constitution trumps (hehe) all.
That is great and all, but quote me in the constitution where pausing Islamic immigration is unconstitutional. Even the NYTimes begrudgingly admits it is constitutional. (
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinio...ional.html). Saying it
should be unconstitutional means absolutely nothing.
Now, the burden of proof is on you. Pay up, por favor.
Congress has the power to regulate immigration. Courts will almost never interfere since it involves foreign policy and national security. Plus, I'm not sure we should be trying to afford US Constitutional rights to people who aren't citizens and aren't even in the country.
PS...I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to Constitutional Law.
Quote:That is great and all, but quote me in the constitution where pausing Islamic immigration is unconstitutional. Even the NYTimes begrudgingly admits it is constitutional. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinio...ional.html). Saying it should be unconstitutional means absolutely nothing.
Now, the burden of proof is on you. Pay up, por favor.
And here the Wall Street Journal using the exact same argument and reaching a conclusion that is basically "We're not sure".
And I read the NYT article before you posted it and you seem to ignore this passage: "But here’s the interesting thing: Just because Mr. Trump’s proposal has a judicial pedigree, that doesn’t make it “constitutional” in a broader sense. "
The article is very clear on the point that the jurisprudence on this old (1880's) and hasn't been updated for modern times. So like I said; it's constitutional by the most facile of arguments.
Quote:And here the Wall Street Journal using the exact same argument and reaching a conclusion that is basically "We're not sure".
And I read the NYT article before you posted it and you seem to ignore this passage: "But here’s the interesting thing: Just because Mr. Trump’s proposal has a judicial pedigree, that doesn’t make it “constitutional” in a broader sense. "
The article is very clear on the point that the jurisprudence on this old (1880's) and hasn't been updated for modern times. So like I said; it's constitutional by the most facile of arguments.
Wrong. The burden is on those who oppose it to make the case that it's unconstitutional. Can you point to any legal precedent that would indicate it's unconstitutional?
Quote:And here the Wall Street Journal using the exact same argument and reaching a conclusion that is basically "We're not sure".
And I read the NYT article before you posted it and you seem to ignore this passage: "But here’s the interesting thing: Just because Mr. Trump’s proposal has a judicial pedigree, that doesn’t make it “constitutional” in a broader sense. "
The article is very clear on the point that the jurisprudence on this old (1880's) and hasn't been updated for modern times. So like I said; it's constitutional by the most facile of arguments.
So you are saying because something is old it should be invalidated? Very interesting. Guess we should scrap the entire constitution. It is pretty old, after all.
Until that point, Donald Trump's proposition is constitutional and legal.
Quote:Trump is Attacked for Proposed Muslim Ban, But a Democratic President Actually Banned Entry from Muslim Nation
While progressive outlets are exploding with outrage and assertions of Republican xenophobia are rampant after Donald Trump’s proposal that Muslim immigrants should temporarily not be allowed into the country, Daniel Greenfield of FrontpageMag has reminded people of an uncomfortable historical fact.
Jimmy Carter froze immigration from the Muslim-majority nation of Iran after the 1979 hostage crisis.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/489202-r...t=politics
Huge difference between blocking immigration from a country and blocking immigration of a certain religion. One is ethical, legal and rooted in precedent. The other is rooted in bigotry, fear-mongering and ignorance.
Quote:DF, you worry about your country, Let the people that actually LIVE in the U.S.A. worry about ours.
You. You are the reason people hate America.
Quote:Huge difference between blocking immigration from a country and blocking immigration of a certain religion. One is ethical, legal and rooted in precedent. The other is rooted in bigotry, fear-mongering and ignorance.
How is banning a 99% Muslim nation specifically from immigrating better than saying no one from that nation who is Muslim can immigrate here? Are you saying we shouldn't allow Hindus from India because it has a large Muslim population? What did Hindus do wrong? What about Buddhists? Sikhs? What did they do wrong?
Also, what exactly are you claiming makes it ignorant?
Of course the U.S. can decide who it will allow to settle here. All sovereign nations have that power. At this time, the U.S. cannot properly vet citizens of Syria since their government is not responsive to our requests, probably because we are at war with them.
Quote:DF, you worry about your country, Let the people that actually LIVE in the U.S.A. worry about ours.
What's so funny is, the one person participating in this thread that really makes the most sense doesn't even live in the US. Ironic, huh?