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?

---