Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 03:44:44 PM
mrclose, I claim it's unconstitutional.  You try to show it's constitutional by citing a federal law?  We've been here already.

It may be impractical but it is not unconstitutional. Immigration law is congresses reasonability and any rights a immigrants have are rights granted by congress to them by federal law! If an immigrant did have full constitutional rights they could not be deported once here!
The concept that congress has full power over immigration was recently upheld in the SCOTUS ruling that the Arizona Immigration law was unconstitutional  because it intruded on congresses powers granted under the constitution. The President can't do this but congress could!

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
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.

IOW, you have no answer to my argument, so you label it a "straw man" and attempt to hand wave it aside. Unfortunately there are a number of precedents on who Congress can allow into this country - using any test they so desire. What possible reason could the US have for accepting these refugees, especially considering that they had already reached a refuge next door in Muslim Turkey. If you want to help the Turks take care of them , that's one thing; but providing a conduit for terrorists is insane. AND WE ALREADY KNOW ISIS IS GOING TO USE REFUGEES AS A CONDUIT INTO THE WEST! In case you missed it, they told us. Not only that, but why aren't these Muslim, Arab refugees being taken in by their rich Muslim, Arab, fellow religionists in the Gulf States? I realize it's cool to stand in front of the mirror and admires the soft glow, put off by the halo of your moral perfection, but I prefer to keep an ocean between myself, my family and people who are sworn to kill them. If you really feel for those Muslim refugees go over to Syria as an aid worker. That worked out really well for David Haines and Kayla Mueller!

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 04:00:40 PM
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...

And now we've hit ad hominem. 

Quote from: Hoofer on December 08, 2015, 03:56:16 PM
"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!

I'd give it a pretty low straw man score since it's not really an argument that they then go on to argue against.  It's more of a willful misinterpretation?  I bet there's an actual name for that nonsense as well but I'm no debate scholar.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 08, 2015, 03:30:14 PM
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.

This.  This here is the best counter-argument implying that a ban on Islam immigration might be constitutional.

You need to look at the specific "right" to figure it out.  The first amendment is specifically worded as a limitation as to what the government can or can not do.  It's not worded as something that a person is allowed to do.  This is in contrast to say, the 4th amendment which is about people and is a great example.

This is why Guantanamo exists.  The 4th amendment more or less doesn't work for a non citizen who has never set foot on US soil.  We can hold 'em as long as we want without charging them.  BUT... in Guantanamo, we do have to respect (some) religious freedoms.  That's why they get their korans and rugs.

Also, immigration law is ultimately decided at the immigration desk, which would mean the person does step foot on US soil, but I think my previous point more fully covers it.

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?

A foreign person has NO RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE....therefore no rights can be afforded by the Constitution...even the deluded Citizen of the world no borders stupidity shared by most leftists.

So next question. Why are Libtards - who are constantly warning us about the "dangers" of the fictitious Christian theocracy - in such a sweat to import the actual Muslim theocracy?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rupert-murdoch-trumps-immigration-stance-846983

QuoteThe GOP presidential candidate shared the media mogul remarks about Muslims to his more than five million followers.

Rupert Murdoch spoke out about Donald Trump's recent remarks calling for a "complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States.

"Has Trump gone too far?" tweeted Murdoch, without answering his own question. "Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense."

Has Trump gone too far? Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) December 8, 2015

The media owned political party is in full on desperation mode, Murdoch being no fool, see's the wisdom in Trump's intent, and so too do tens of millions of American's! I fully believe that the rino establishment is not only capable of intentionally tanking the election, but the nation itself as the reality dawns upon them that they are in the process of being eliminated by the American people!

Quote from: redbeard on December 08, 2015, 04:20:08 PM
It may be impractical but it is not unconstitutional. Immigration law is congresses reasonability and any rights a immigrants have are rights granted by congress to them by federal law! If an immigrant did have full constitutional rights they could not be deported once here!
The concept that congress has full power over immigration was recently upheld in the SCOTUS ruling that the Arizona Immigration law was unconstitutional  because it intruded on congresses powers granted under the constitution. The President can't do this but congress could!

Federal law can not override constitutional law.  The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.

If what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments.  So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause.  Clearly, this is not the case.

Quote from: mdgiles on December 08, 2015, 04:20:17 PM
IOW, you have no answer to my argument, so you label it a "straw man" and attempt to hand wave it aside.

It was a straw man.  Your argument is a rambling mess.  Let me try to deconstruct it.

Quote
Unfortunately there are a number of precedents on who Congress can allow into this country - using any test they so desire.

I don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion.  I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.

QuoteWhat possible reason could the US have for accepting these refugees, especially considering that they had already reached a refuge next door in Muslim Turkey.

This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a ban is constitutional.

QuoteIf you want to help the Turks take care of them , that's one thing; but providing a conduit for terrorists is insane. AND WE ALREADY KNOW ISIS IS GOING TO USE REFUGEES AS A CONDUIT INTO THE WEST! In case you missed it, they told us.
Not only that, but why aren't these Muslim, Arab refugees being taken in by their rich Muslim, Arab, fellow religionists in the Gulf States? I realize it's cool to stand in front of the mirror and admires the soft glow, put off by the halo of your moral perfection, but I prefer to keep an ocean between myself, my family and people who are sworn to kill them. If you really feel for those Muslim refugees go over to Syria as an aid worker. That worked out really well for David Haines and Kayla Mueller!

You seem to be confusing immigration and refugees.  They're different.

You also seem to be confusing a religious test and a country of origin test.  To be clear, It would be perfectly constitutional for the president to decide not to take in any more Syrians (either via refugee status or immigration).

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 04:41:04 PM
Federal law can not override constitutional law.  The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.

If what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments.  So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause.  Clearly, this is not the case.

It was a straw man.  Your argument is a rambling mess.  Let me try to deconstruct it.


I don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion.  I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.

If you would read the constitution you keep referring to Congress is given the sole right to determine immigration law by that same constitution! I do not believe it would be a wise or good course to restrict immigration by religion BUT I do believe the constitution grants them the power!
With that said a smarter way to accomplish the same thing is to put very restrictive quotas on immigration from the effected countries. You can raise the bar to qualify for entry by requiring verifiable identification and history. Is it too much to ask someone seeking Asylum for proof of persecution? Raise the level of red tape and enforce existing law!! 

Quote from: redbeard on December 08, 2015, 05:04:40 PM
If you would read the constitution you keep referring to Congress is given the sole right to determine immigration law by that same constitution! I do not believe it would be a wise or good course to restrict immigration by religion BUT I do believe the constitution grants them the power!

Article I essentially says, "hey congress, only you get to make the laws about immigration"
First amendment essentially says, "hey congress, you can't make laws limiting religion"

They aren't contradictory, and they both apply.  Congress can make laws about immigration that don't limit religion.

Article I does not say, "Hey congress, you get to make any law you want about immigration ignoring the rest of the constitution"

Quote
With that said a smarter way to accomplish the same thing is to put very restrictive quotas on immigration from the effected countries. You can raise the bar to qualify for entry by requiring verifiable identification and history. Is it too much to ask someone seeking Asylum for proof of persecution? Raise the level of red tape and enforce existing law!!

Just don't make a religious test for it.  NO SYRIANS ALLOWED is perfectly legal.  But NO MUSLIMS ALLOWED, no good.

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 04:41:04 PM
Federal law can not override constitutional law.  The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.

If what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments.  So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause.  Clearly, this is not the case.

It was a straw man.  Your argument is a rambling mess.  Let me try to deconstruct it.


I don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion.  I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.

This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a ban is constitutional.

You seem to be confusing immigration and refugees.  They're different.

You also seem to be confusing a religious test and a country of origin test.  To be clear, It would be perfectly constitutional for the president to decide not to take in any more Syrians (either via refugee status or immigration).

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is already settled existent law. It's already been upheld by the Supremes too. Under this law, Donald Trump is actually within the powers of the executive.

The law, already makes accepting refugees from nations such as Syria illegal. From the law itself;

Quote(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In generalAny alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), 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 (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(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 inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Constitutionally, Congress most certainly can, create an act which deals with the issue of immigration.

Constitutionally Congress can enact any immigration law/policy, it wants. That is clearly one of the powers enumerated to the Congress Constitutionally.

In fact, Congressional act, and not Executive Order, IS the actual, correct, Constitutional way such an issue is supposed to be dealt with.

Quote from: Tacoma on December 07, 2015, 03:33:20 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-u-s-n475821

God I love this guy, no matter the outcome, we owe him a great debt of gratitude for slashing through the Marxist/Leninist PC penumbra of destruction enveloping the United States, I would very much like him to serve as Ted Cruz's Secretary of State in the event Cruz wins, and I will vote Trump against any Marxist/Leninist no matter what....

The same guy that said this in May?: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/595406508378173440

Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:28:57 PM
The same guy that said this in May?: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/595406508378173440

This isn't May is it, its December, we just had 14 innocent Americans slaughtered by islamofascists not in the wilds of Syria, or Iraq, but San Bernadino California! You bet you're ass I love him, he has taken the PC culture and thrashed it effortlessly, you owe him a debt of gratitude if for no other reason then that, but there is even more, he has wrenched away the dialogue from the Grubering leftists who control the beloved rino party, and forced it to confront the real issues that real American's are dealing with, or fearing!

You owe this man a great debt of gratitude if for no other reasons! 

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 06:40:21 PM
This isn't May is it, its December, we just had 14 innocent Americans slaughtered by islamofascists not in the wilds of Syria, or Iraq, but San Bernadino California! You bet you're ass I love him, he has taken the PC culture and thrashed it effortlessly, you owe him a debt of gratitude if for no other reason then that, but there is even more, he has wrenched away the dialogue from the Grubering leftists who control the beloved rino party, and forced it to confront the real issues that real American's are dealing with, or fearing!

You owe this man a great debt of gratitude if for no other reasons! 

14 Americans since May?  My fault.  I didn't know Muzzies attacking us was a recent concept over the past few months.

Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:28:57 PM
The same guy that said this in May?: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/595406508378173440

WOW!
Only Trumpsters would let him get away with flip flopping like this.

Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 06:52:23 PM
WOW!
Only Trumpsters would let him get away with flip flopping like this.

Trump takes a position for 5 minutes and the Trumpsters go nuts telling us how great he is.  Too funny.