http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-muslims.html?_r=0

QuoteAs denunciations rained down on him from Washington and around the world, Donald J. Trump on Tuesday defended his call to block all Muslims from entering the United States, casting it as a temporary move in response to Islamic State terrorism and invoking President Franklin D. Roosevelt's actions toward Japanese, German and Italian aliens during World War II as precedent.

Critics ranging from the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, a Republican, to the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, a Democrat, assailed Mr. Trump's proposal as self-defeating and un-American. "Tell Donald Trump: Hate is not an American value," Hillary Clinton wrote on Twitter.

The "super PAC" supporting Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, unveiled its first attack ad against Mr. Trump, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called him a "xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot."

But Senator Ted Cruz, who is vying for much the same base of support that Mr. Trump now enjoys, declined to join in the scolding. "I commend Donald Trump for standing up and focusing America's attention on the need to secure our borders," he said at the Capitol.

Trump has totally outed the rino party, only an idiot would think that party conservative, they are tripping over themselves in their leftist zeal to strike out at America and keep it from re-emerging in greatness, Trump's proposal is perfectly sound, and perfectly legal and constitutional, not to mention marinated in common sense, and get this, its not even close to as savage as what the democrats did to the Japanese American's in WW II, not even remotely!

You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional? 

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?

No, of course it isn't constitutional. 

Immigration laws have to be decided by Congress.  They couldn't limit immigration by religion, but they could do it by country.  But, being Islam is practiced in every country in the world, it would be hard to eliminate it.

Unfortunately, this recent attack was carried out by an American born terrorist. 
Same with most of the terrorists in Paris. They were home grown too.

If you think that is a strawman argument, than you don't know what a strawman argument is.  What I described is literally what Trump is proposing, please let me know how it differs.

Islam is well recognized in the U.S. as a religion.  Just because you don't want it to be, doesn't make it so.  In general, the government doesn't place many criteria on what a religion is, for very good reason.  That's why religions like the pastafarians and jedis are legally registered religions in the U.S.   If you want to push this line of reasoning, do so with law and not fantasy.

I say it wouldn't be constitutional and you reply with a federal law?  The constitution clearly trumps any federal law.  I don't even understand why I would need to type that sentence.  Anyone with a basic understanding of the constitution should get it.

A president could easily exclude everyone immigrating from muslim dominated countries.  He would not be able to exclude only Muslims from those countries.

ok.. Here's one way a president could constitutionally exclude all muslims...  He could completely turn off immigration to anyone.

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?

It is legal, and constitutional, its been done before, and Obama is doing it right now, and you and the other Grubered presence on the page are completely unaware of it, in other words, you are perfect examples of what is commonly referred to as, "low information voters!"

Currently Barack Hussein Obama and his state department are refusing to accept, and in some cases even returning(deporting)any Christians attempting to immigrate to the USA via Syria, Libya, and Iraq!

Immigration is not a right of anyone, indeed the USA closed down all immigration for different periods of time during the last century, lifting the ban as recently as 1965!

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

No room in America for Christian refugees

QuoteAmerica is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year.  There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted. Why? Because the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status. The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christian children do not count. No matter how moved Americans were this Christmas season by the plight of their fellow Christ followers in Syria and Iraq, no matter how horrific the visuals of beheadings, enslavement, and mass murder, the Christians fleeing death do not engender the compassion of this president.
The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope. And this technicality is being adhered to with all the tenacity with which President Franklin D. Roosevelt's State Department manipulated quotas and created subterfuges  to keep out the Jews fleeing the oppression of Nazi Germany. Obama no more wants the Middle East's Christian refugees than Roosevelt wanted Europe's Jewish refugees.

We have seen in the last several weeks that President Obama has no difficulty using his "phone and his pen," as he dramatically boasts, to circumvent the law. When it comes to immigration, he had no difficulty enacting an amnesty that a federal judge  subsequently ruled unconstitutional. He has had no problem circumventing Congress to change the relationship with Cuba. This president has shown that he will push back on the constraints of law when he wants to get something done.

But there are not even such constraints when it comes to the Middle East's Christians fleeing the brutality of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Department of State chooses to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government. What difference does it make which army imperils the lives of innocent Christians?  Christians are still be slaughtered for being Christian, and their government is incapable of protecting them. Does some group have to come along—as Jewish groups did during the Holocaust—and sardonically guarantee that these are real human beings?

ISLAM IS NOT JUST A RELIGION. THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO GET THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
It is a social system. it is a political system (a theocracy). it is economic system. It is completely and utterly totalitarian!
In all of these, it is completely and directly opposed to everything the United States stands for.
NO MUSLIM CAN TRUTHFULLY TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE US and that includes our Muslim Congressmen.
They cannot swear to uphold our Constitution, since no man made law can be greater than the Koran.
Unlike every other religion that has ever come to this country, it demands that its adherents conquer, all other religions.
It creates different classes of citizens. Muslims claim religious freedom, when their own religion forbids it. No religious test? Islam demands it.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Anyone who is in favor of allowing people sword to our destruction to move into this country is a traitorous dog, who wants to destroy the US and should be shot as the mad dog they are. Islam is at war with every other population on the face of the Earth. Someone needs to explain to liberals that every situation is NOT and analogy of the way blacks were once treated in this country, so they need to stop feeling guilty and/or acting as if they are. There is something insane about letting Muslims - OUR ENEMIES - into the country. While we keep out Middle Eastern Christians - OUR FRIENDS. If you feel such great guilt over the way the US acted in the past, slash your own wrists, don't assuage your guilt by bringing in some 7th century savage to do it for you - along with those of your neighbors.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!!! They believe they can hold rational conversations with madmen.

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 02:22:25 PM
It is legal, and constitutional, its been done before, and Obama is doing it right now, and you and the other Grubered presence on the page are completely unaware of it, in other words, you are perfect examples of what is commonly referred to as, "low information voters!"

Currently Barack Hussein Obama and his state department are refusing to accept, and in some cases even returning(deporting)any Christians attempting to immigrate to the USA via Syria, Libya, and Iraq!

Immigration is not a right of anyone, indeed the USA closed down all immigration for different periods of time during the last century, lifting the ban as recently as 1955!

Religion is not currently used as a test for immigration outside of conspiracy theories.  Just because someone of a religion is denied entry does not mean they were denied because of that religion.

But that doesn't matter, because even if Obama was doing it now, it would still be just as unconstitutional.

As I said, the president is free to close all immigration.  He just can't make a religious test part of the criteria.

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 02:43:59 PM
Religion is not currently used as a test for immigration outside of conspiracy theories.  Just because someone of a religion is denied entry does not mean they were denied because of that religion.

But that doesn't matter, because even if Obama was doing it now, it would still be just as unconstitutional.

As I said, the president is free to close all immigration.  He just can't make a religious test part of the criteria.

Yes he can, immigrants have no constitutional rights whatsoever, the same reason the children of illegal aliens have zero constitutional expectation of birth right citizenship applies! You are proceeding upon your emotions, not from factual precedent....


http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/09/obama-set-to-admit-tons-more-syrian-refugees-but-look-who-hes-deporting/

Obama set to admit tons more Syrian refugees...but LOOK who he's deporting

QuoteAs reported by Bloombergview.com, "The Obama administration is preparing to announce a plan to admit more refugees over the next two years, but at this point the numbers being proposed are too small to relieve the crisis streaming out of Syria. Wednesday at the White House, the most senior national security officials will discuss raising the limit on the number of refugees from around the world allowed to enter the United States — from 70,000 this year to 85,000 next year and 100,000 in fiscal 2017, according to three administration officials. If members of the National Security Council Principals Committee agree on the plan, it will be sent to President Obama's desk, and administration sources say he is likely to quickly approve it.

President Obama spoke about the refugee crisis Tuesday at the White House alongside the king of Spain. He said it was important for the U.S. to "take our share" of Syrian refugees and reinforced his pledge to allow 10,000 more into the country than previously planned in 2016.

"This is going to require cooperation with all the European countries and the United States and the international community in order to ensure that people are safe; that they are treated with shared humanity; and that we ultimately have to deal with the source of the problem, which is the ongoing crisis in Syria," he said."

However willing the Obama administration is to bring in more Syrian Muslims, it is apparently not so welcoming to Christians. As World Net Daily reports, "more than half of the 27 Iraqi Christians the Obama administration has been holding for the past six months at an ICE detention center in Otay Mesa, California are set to be deported in coming weeks,

Too many people in this country are so caught up in showing how "inclusive" and "unprejudiced" they are, that they've lost all survival instinct. Why would you want to allow people sworn to kill you into this country? The only way I'd be in favor of letting Muslims in was if they promised to kill only politicians and/or Hollyweird stars! And if you think thats a terrible thing to say, remember, these people who always travel with armed guards, are trying to bring in people to attack us regular folks!

Quote from: mdgiles on December 08, 2015, 02:34:58 PM
ISLAM IS NOT JUST A RELIGION. THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO GET THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
It is a social system. it is a political system (a theocracy). it is economic system. It is completely and utterly totalitarian!
In all of these, it is completely and directly opposed to everything the United States stands for.
NO MUSLIM CAN TRUTHFULLY TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE US and that includes our Muslim Congressmen.
They cannot swear to uphold our Constitution, since no man made law can be greater than the Koran.
Unlike every other religion that has ever come to this country, it demands that its adherents conquer, all other religions.
It creates different classes of citizens. Muslims claim religious freedom, when their own religion forbids it. No religious test? Islam demands it.

I believe you are correct.

Quote"Islam is much more than a formal religion:  it is an integral way of life.  In many ways it is a more determining factor in the experiece of its followers than any other world religion.  The Muslim ("One who submits") lives face to face with Allah at all times and will introduce no separation between his life and his religion, he politics and his faith.  With its strong emphasis on the brotherhood of men cooperationg to fulfill the will of Allah, Islam has become one of the most influential religions in the world today."  (Islam fly cover, John Alden Williams 1962) 

I think we use the term "religion" rather loosely, mdgiles, you are correct, it is a system that completely envelops its adherents.   ... almost like liberalism...!

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?

I don't think that a person who lives in another country, was born there, and has never set foot in the US has Constitutional rights.

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 02:51:14 PM
Yes he can, immigrants have no constitutional rights whatsoever, the same reason the children of illegal aliens have zero constitutional expectation of birth right citizenship applies! You are proceeding upon your emotions, not from factual precedent....

Again, what you want to be legal precedent, and what actually is legal precedent are very different.

Wait.. you're just trolling me now, right?  No birth right a legal precendent?  I mean, giving a counterexample to your own argument?

Quote
Obama set to admit tons more Syrian refugees...but LOOK who he's deporting

Again, deporting someone who happens to be Christian is not the same as deporting someone because they are Christian.  It's an easy concept to understand.

Quote from: mdgiles on December 08, 2015, 02:54:07 PM
Too many people in this country are so caught up in showing how "inclusive" and "unprejudiced" they are, that they've lost all survival instinct. Why would you want to allow people sworn to kill you into this country? The only way I'd be in favor of letting Muslims in was if they promised to kill only politicians and/or Hollyweird stars! And if you think thats a terrible thing to say, remember, these people who always travel with armed guards, are trying to bring in people to attack us regular folks!

Tacoma, pay attention here!  This is what a decent straw man argument looks like.

First, he paints a ridiculous argument.  In this case that ridiculous argument is wanting to be inclusive and unprejudiced as a reason for accepting muslim immigrants, and then he easily knocks it down.

It'd be a perfect straw man if he directed it strictly at me, but by generalizing to "many people", I'll have to only give it 6/10.

mrclose, I claim it's unconstitutional.  You try to show it's constitutional by citing a federal law?  We've been here already.

Interesting discussion....


"Republicans are afraid of widows and infants" - how does that rate on the strawman scale?

yeah, it didn't do anything to endear me, either!

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
Again, what you want to be legal precedent, and what actually is legal precedent are very different.

Wait.. you're just trolling me now, right?  No birth right a legal precendent?  I mean, giving a counterexample to your own argument?


Again, deporting someone who happens to be Christian is not the same as deporting someone because they are Christian.  It's an easy concept to understand.

Tacoma, pay attention here!  This is what a decent straw man argument looks like.

First, he paints a ridiculous argument.  In this case that ridiculous argument is wanting to be inclusive and unprejudiced as a reason for accepting muslim immigrants, and then he easily knocks it down.

It'd be a perfect straw man if he directed it strictly at me, but by generalizing to "many people", I'll have to only give it 6/10.

Trolling you? You're a double digit IQ'd D-bag, ignorant of what the law is and is not, your whole supposition preposterously kooky...