I didn't concede Mod. After all the confusion I simply tried to define what I was trying to say all along, that the Constitution -- as a whole -- doesn't apply to people who have no right to be here.
I understand that, but that wasn't the bet, Faith. The bet was about part of the Constitution, specfically the 14th amendment which defines rules for both citizens and 'persons' which I argued should mean both citizens and non-citizens. You were saying this was 'insane'.
I also had to take note of the fact that parts of the Constitution have to apply to anybody because they are general human rights, which Cat Sci pointed out are given by God. That's not what I meant by Constitutional rights
Again fine, but I was talking about the right to equal protection under the law which applies to noncitizens:
quote:Non-citizens within US jurisdiction are equally protected as citizens.
and to which you replied with
quote: "That's in/sane. THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO NONCITIZENS."
Unless you want to try to prove that the 14th amendment confers citizenship on illegal aliens I don't think there's much left to debate or bet about.
I've not argued that. That wasn't the argument. It was whether 'persons' described in the Fourteenth Amendment covers tourists and aliens - regardless of their legal status. That was what I was arguing. An illegal alien has the right to an attorney, a right to remain silent, a right to a fair trial. That, they have rights to 'due process'. That's all I was saying. That's what you were yelling against.
I get that you got confused - and boy am I glad I asked for an aribtrator because you just moved the goalposts.
But yes, the argument is over.
James Madison argued that aliens...are obedient to the Constitution, do have Constitutional rights, though not ALL Constitutional rights.
vs
BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DEPORT THEM IN ANY CASE IF THEY ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, FOR ANY REASON WHATEVER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
Non-citizens have a right to due process where they fall under the jurisdiction of the United States of America as provided in the Fourteenth (and Fifth) amendment. Even if you won't 'concede' I'm glad you agree with thi point now. As I said back in Message 350
quote:They are both subject to its laws and protected by them.
but it's hard to get much objection to it from the left
quote:violent criminals
quote:The reaction was criminal but more than that it was stupid.
quote:I'm on board with the idea that riots and violence are bad. I don't condone them.
quote: peaceful non-violent protesters do not condone the anarchy group/s in any way shape or form, because the ruin the value of the peaceful non-violent protests by distracting people/media/etc away from the issue of the protest to make it about violence.
quote:crazies
quote:wrong
quote:Dreadful behaviour.
That's from the 'leftists', by your description, here at this site. I suspect you just filter this kind of stuff out.
Religious discrimination would be prioritizing non-Taliban believers over Talibanists. It's done. If religious discrimination is unconstitutional, and that's the argument against Trump, have these judges thought it through?
Whether or not that would be religious discrimination: The right to life outweighs the freedom of religion. Therefore, when the two concepts are in conflict, the right to life wins and therefore it is not unconstitutional. Additionally, one doesn't need to ban the Taliban on religious grounds, but one can ban them on the grounds of belonging to a terrorist organisation or the like.
It would be a problem if similar Christian terrorists were given a pass while Muslim terrorists were not. You should address this as I've said it several times now and it's getting repetitive.
I wasn't aware that anyone had ever shown that all the members of any proscribed religious terrorist group pose an actual threat to the U.S.A. When, where and how was this done?
I cited relevant law in the post you are replying to. See section 212 of the INA. Threat to the USA shouldn't be taken to mean 'likely to defeat it', just 'cause harm to its interests' (eg., it's people, property, economy).
Once again, the American state practises religious discrimination. Attacking Trump on that basis might not be wise.
Once again, discriminating against violent people, or members of a group that incites, practices, funds violence - who are religious - is constitutionally fine due to the right to life outweighing the right to free practice of religion. Prioritizing non-terrorist Christians over non-terrorist Muslims is a problematic policy on religious discrimination grounds.
So, if Muslims are more frequently questioned and searched at points of entry to the U.S.A. than non-muslims, this would be unconstitutional. Right. So, why are the judges making a fuss now, when it's been going on for years?
You make it sound like court cases regarding these matters haven't been going on for years. They have. This particular case however, is newsworthy and discussed for a number of reasons. It is a Presidential Executive Order - the courts 'make a fuss' over some EOs when people raise suits that don't get immediately dismissed. The President in question has been...vocal....about his intentions and desired ends. In the religious discrimination aspect of the case (which is the weakest part of the case), there is publicly available information that suggests animus against a particular religion and that members of this religion, almost all of whom are entirely blameless with no suspicion of being members of a terrorist organisation are being discriminated against without any balancing threat to life that could justify the act.
Are the judges wise to think that equal treatment by the state of all religions is practical?
Their job isn't to determine what is practical, but what is legal. The law, as I understand it, is that religions don't have to be treated equally - but practitioners should be offered equal protections under the law, be given due process, and not face any undue burden as a result of their beliefs. the government should not act to favour or disfavour a particular religion. Further, government action should not be motivated, in part, by animus against a particular religion.
Terrorism is not a religion.
If the CIA and FBI are spending a disproportionate amount of time concentrating on Muslims, should they be told to stop doing so?
This question suffers from vagueness and broadness that renders it impossible to answer. On the face of it, no. Assuming the best of them for the moment they are investigating terrorists, which are presently disproportionally Muslim. But it's their terrorism, not their religion, that generates the scrutiny. That the practical consequence of this is disproportional scrutiny of Muslims is not intrinsically problematic.
Obviously it is possible for any given agency to overstep constitutional lines - and I expect given human nature, the size of those agencies and so on that in some cases they have.
Re: The reality of why we need to restrict Muslim entry into the US
All this legal stuff we're talking about can be a distraction from the real issue.
The real issue is the legal stuff. The legal stuff is the 'wacko leftist response'. If you want to move onto the 'wacko rightist' response why not just bring up some lunatic who couldn't compete in a legal discussion...
Just listened to Chris Pinto's latest radio show, which is on this subject, and as usual...
He lies, dissembles and manipulates his listeners with conspiracy theories that affirm their fears? I invested 3 hours of my life watching his documentary when we debated Constantine Simonides and almost every sentence was demonstrable nonsense or villainous lies (Message 769 in Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries) .
Pinto continues about how Marxism and Islam have become politically aligned recently
Hahahahaha. So Catholics joined forces with Marxists, and now the Muslims? The Catholics and Muslims are no doubt in cahoots with one another now too, presumably? Secret Jesuit invitations to Abu Bakr to meet the pope to discuss how to undermine Precious Protestant Bodily Fluids, I'll wager.
If it's one thing ISIS are known for, its disseminating critical theory along with their lesser known hits of rejection of slavery and anti-authoritarian class struggles.
so that this immigration ban interferes with leftist goals.
Yep - extremist Islam, dedicated to traditional conservative religious views, the hatred of gays, transgender and the oppression of women....are Marxist lefties, exploiting the Jewish school of Marxism that the Catholic Jesuits smuggled into America through the universities. The lies must be stupendous this time around. Talk about a 'wacko response'.
He discusses this video made by a former Marine now living in Iraq who asked some Iraqis how he would be treated if he simply walked into the town. He was told the locals would accost him and behead him.
Sounds like the snowflakey leftist namby pamby violent fascist Marxist thing to do. It is likely true, a private American military contractor is not likely to be welcomed by all in Iraq right now, a society collapsed into an atrocious civil war by American military/political incompetence.
He's probably right, lawlessness and civil disturbance are high all over the place. He's likely to be targeted by violent groups. That's why he is being paid stupendous amounts of money for working security. It is of course a logical error to go from 'some group of people will likely attack and kill you' to 'Iraqis will kill Americans if they have the opportunity'.
Naturally, by making a video generalising Iraqis to justify banning all of them from entry into the US, regardless of age, sex or their cooperation with US security forces - he went from being a security asset to a security liability and he has been shipped home and won't be earning that money any more. I expect he'll make up for it with youtube ad revenue and possibly TV/radio interviews.
People here will call him some kind of name
Steven.
deny he's telling the truth
He's telling the truth, he's improperly generalising from that truth.
deny that ordinary Muslims are any kind of threat
Well the numbers have supported this.
by implication show their willingness to put America in danger.
Well there are approximately equal number of Muslims in the UK as in all of the USA. I live in an area which has a *particular* concentration of them, probably more than in 99% of the USA. Erm. It's erm.... entirely undramatic. I doubt a few tens of thousands more are going to present all that much of an issue for you. Unless you have a President who insists on being a dick. That might present a problem.
Especially when there are people who insist on ramping up the fear. It's not going to help. Rising tensions is more likely to reduce social integration, separation from local culture is more likely to foster an insular bitterness which can be, in the wrong hands, grown into a seed of hate, anger and violence.
Here's hoping I'm wrong, and 'tough' tactics don't backfire, as they do every other time they've been used.
Yes. Most Muslims are not members of terrorist organisations, human traffickers or money launderers.
I suggest taking the ex-Muslims as refugees from Islam and banning the Muslims.
Feel free to suggest what you like. But if you were the President of the USA you would face legal challenges should you attempt to issue an Executive Order to this effect.
Let in the oppressed, not the oppressors.
Since most of the people fleeing religious persecution at the hands of ISIS and the like are Muslims I note a tension between your two ideas that would need resolving. I would have thought, for instance, you would argue that Muslim women are oppressed. That's 50% of them right there.
I also note that you've completely divorced yourself from the argument at this point.
This discussion takes place within a context. That context was the kinds of crimes and associations that would warrant immediate exclusion from the visa or refugee acceptance process to the United States of America.
If you want to strip it of the context of this discussion, then I would be surprised if you could find anybody who is 'entirely blameless'.
you don't need to shift from "almost all" to "most".
It's not a shift of position, just a change of wording to avoid repetition, using different words in your argument is something you are surely used to when using English. "Almost all" Muslims, is as a matter fact 'most' Muslims. You seem to be looking for reasons to be pedantic, and it is utterly needless for the purposes of this debate.
If around 1/3 do believe that ex-Muslims should be put to death, that alone would give any western country reason for heavy vetting on immigration.
And of course, heavy vetting is already in place, and is not the issue that is being complained about in the 'wacko liberal response'.
People can be both oppressors and oppressed. I was suggesting taking in those who don't support the oppressive ideology, rather than importing those who do.
You can try - but it would be a problem if the details of your policy resulted in accepting visas of conservative Jews, who support oppressing women, Muslims and even other Jews, and Christians who support oppressing a variety of people. Hindus, Russians, and also atheists too, who may support oppressing groups in their own ways. That's when you've moved clearly into the religious discrimination territory.
And if your policy does cover all of this, you might run into all sorts of other issues such as the amount of vetting required and the amount of people subject to this scrutiny becomes so onerous so as to be impractical and would likely have an impact on the economy that far outweighs the problems you were trying to overcome.
One of the key problems we face with religious violence is education and culture. We can't do much about this, unless those people are within our sovereign jurisdiction.
I do, despite your efforts to import an ideology that wouldn't allow me to.
I make no such efforts. I do however, want to help people fleeing warzones, even if I think they're social ideas and cultural notions are misguided or even wicked. I do want to show them an alternative way of living. Preferably I'd rather not have destabilized the region resulting in a huge amount of people fleeing, but we are where we are.
I'd sooner help religious conservatives, even ultra-conservatives, live - than put their lives in mortal danger - because of political, cultural and philosophical disagreements and differences of opinion about how best to live.
I'd face legal challenges for having been born in the wrong country to be President, interestingly, considering the 1965 act.
The INA doesn't say anything about being President. That's covered in the document that takes primacy over any law passed in the 60s - except the three amendments to that document passed in that time, which are irrelevant to this question.
And I'm sure that you're right on that. I might stand a good chance in France, though.
When people make cases to French courts over Presidential actions you hypothetically take in France, you can bring it up then, I suppose.
I think what I started on was the point that the freedom of religion challenge to Trump is weak, but you may well agree with that.
More than 'weak', you argued it could backfire in some fashion:
quote:The problem for your courts is getting Trump without implicating his predecessors.
quote:If religious discrimination is unconstitutional, and that's the argument against Trump, have these judges thought it through?
it isn't a simple case of 'religious discrimination is unconstitutional', it is only unconstitutional if it is done with insufficient reason. That is, because of a threat to other rights that take priority over religious ones.
I don't know if you got the impression that I was arguing in favour of Trump's directive as a good thing, but I wasn't.
I just don't get your argument as to why the religious discrimination angle is problematic. My argument as to its weakness is because it doesn't de jure discriminate against Muslims and contains a disclaimer regarding 'as long as it is lawfully done'. Yours seems to be more on the grounds 'but we do discriminate against people'.
But this doesn't hold water, it isn't just discrimination that is the strict issue, it's the nature and reasons for the discrimination. It is fine to imprison someone for sacrificing a human life to their blood god - this is well established in US law regarding balancing life and freedom. Just as there are constraints on the freedom of speech (such as causing panic with the the old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or incitement to violence).
You haven't commented on this, which is in fact my main counterargument to your initial argument.
As for the main topic, I agree with you on some things. Like, for example, that sovereign governments should be able to deny entry to anyone they want to for whatever reason.
Sovereign governments CAN deny entry to anyone they want for whatever reason. Pretty much by definition.
The issue here is that Donald Trump is not a sovereign government. He is the head of a single branch of a government. And that sovereign government has instituted rules regulating what they and their agents can do with regards to accessing the United States.
In summary - the President can only act within the powers he has through Congress, and whether or not he is so doing is decided by the judiciary. A rewrite of the INA, an amendment to the Constitution could both give him the power to exclude Muslims or gays or people that don't like Trump's hair - as long as the Judiciary declares it kosher given the state of the laws at that time.
In short - the United States of America doesn't presently will the exclusion of gays or Muslims or Hindus or women or Chinese people.
Trump was acting under a law that is about as simple and clear as it is possible to get, that gives the President, nobody else, the President alone, the power to restrict the entry of any alien or aliens as he -- he and only he -- determines the need for the sake of national security.
That's basically what I said: The President has the power, but it is limited by the Constitution and the Legislature (for example INA 1965) and the interpretation of those limits is arbitrated by the Judiciary.
In the case of an established written law, it has already been through whatever input is legally required for a law to become law
Well, yes.
there is no further input required
This is, true. But further input can in fact occur. The Judiciary exists to check and balance the actions of the legislature. It is possible for the legislature to enact a law that is unlawful - for instance if it turned out to be unconstitutional.
The law says the President has the power, and that's it.
In your opinion he has the power to do what he has done. Other people disagree. And its the Judiciary's role to arbitrate this disagreement and make a decision.
This is the same system that Obama - and every President - existed under, and the courts did the same to one of Obama's immigration laws too.
No other input is required, and the attempts to interfere with his action are NOT Constitutional, they are illegal, serving only the narrow political interests of Leftist ideology.
It is illegal to seek redress? It is illegal to appeal to the courts? It is unconstitutional to ask a judge for injunctive relief? What nonsense are you trying to pull here? Please cite your legal justification for your statement.
Obama acted under the same law concerning the same nations.
Sure, but the acts were different. Obama's action did not interfere, for example, with student visas. Trump's does. Obama's action didn't cover all people just BECAUSE they were from Iraq.
The law is clear.
Is it?
quote:(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A)
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
(B)
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants
Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
(3) Exception if additional visas available
If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(4) Special rules for spouses and children of lawful permanent resident aliens
(A) 75 percent of 2nd preference set-aside for spouses and children not subject to per country limitation
(i) In general
Of the visa numbers made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants described in section 1153(a)(2)(A) of this title in any fiscal year, 75 percent of the 2—A floor (as defined in clause (ii)) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2).
(B) Treatment of remaining 25 percent for countries subject to subsection (e)
(i) In general
Of the visa numbers made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants described in section 1153(a)(2)(A) of this title in any fiscal year, the remaining 25 percent of the 2—A floor shall be available in the case of a state or area that is subject to subsection (e) only to the extent that the total number of visas issued in accordance with subparagraph (A) to natives of the foreign state or area is less than the subsection (e) ceiling (as defined in clause (ii)).
(ii) Subsection (e) ceiling defined
In clause (i), the term subsection (e) ceiling means, for a foreign state or dependent area, 77 percent of the maximum number of visas that may be made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants who are natives of the state or area under section 1153(a)(2) of this title consistent with subsection (e).
(C) Treatment of unmarried sons and daughters in countries subject to subsection (e)In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, the number of immigrant visas that may be made available to natives of the state or area under section 1153(a)(2)(B) of this title may not exceed
(D) Limiting pass down for certain countries subject to subsection (e)
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(a)(2) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(a)(2) of this title consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 1153(a) of this title under subsection (e)(2) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of such section.
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to subsection (e)
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
quote:
(b) Rules for chargeability
Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. For the purposes of this chapter the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state except that (1) an alien child, when accompanied by or following to join his alien parent or parents, may be charged to the foreign state of either parent if such parent has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa, if necessary to prevent the separation of the child from the parent or parents, and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such parent has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (2) if an alien is chargeable to a different foreign state from that of his spouse, the foreign state to which such alien is chargeable may, if necessary to prevent the separation of husband and wife, be determined by the foreign state of the spouse he is accompanying or following to join, if such spouse has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such spouse has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; and (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien’s birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.
(c) Chargeability for dependent areas
Any immigrant born in a colony or other component or dependent area of a foreign state overseas from the foreign state, other than an alien described in section 1151(b) of this title, shall be chargeable for the purpose of the limitation set forth in subsection (a), to the foreign state.
(d) Changes in territory
In the case of any change in the territorial limits of foreign states, the Secretary of State shall, upon recognition of such change issue appropriate instructions to all diplomatic and consular offices.
(e) Special rules for countries at ceilingIf it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 1153 of this title) in a manner so that
except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 1153(a) of this title is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 1153(a) of this title, and
(3)
except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 1153(b) of this title is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 1153(b) of this title.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 1153(a) or 1153(b) of this title if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 1153(b) or 1153(a) of this title, respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 1153(a)(2)(A) of this title pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
You keep saying it is clear, but you don't explain how it is clear, what part of the law you think is clear, and why it is clear 1152 can be disregarded. There are arguments, but again, the law IS clear that the only way to settle those arguments is through the courts. This is not illegal, it is not unlawful
Objecting to Trump's action is just disgusting political obstructionism
I could argue that that this is in fact the Judiciary's job, again. But I could also point to all the political obstructionism that went on under Obama - can you at least verify you strongly objected when Obama's executive order on immigration was obstructed using the same processes?
If the judiciary did not override it for Obama, to do so for Trump is just proof of their corruption and the demise of this nation if you ask me.
Did anyone bring a case to the Judiciary for Obama's Order, which was to re-vet people who had entered on a specific subset of categories with the consequence that processing existing visas was slowed down?
They were different Orders. One suspends all entry on all visas for seven nations. The other slowed down processing of some visas for one nation. If Obama had issued the same order, you'd have some semblance of a point at least. But he didn't - they were very different.
quote:Today’s immigration laws derive from the landmark 1965 immigration code that laid to rest the barriers on national origins that had bedeviled the country’s immigration policy from 1924. For fifty years since 1965, no President has challenged the iron rule that the considerations for letting in immigrants have had to focus on issues like family reunification, skills, and so forth — and not revert to the national origins grounds of 1924-1965. The courts may well teach Trump that to erect the first ever wall on discriminatory grounds under the 1965 structure, he has to first enact a change in the statutes by going to Congress.
Trump points to a 1952 law that allows the president to suspend the entry of any class of aliens that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States. That Cold War provision represents the zenith of Presidential power to act discriminatorily as to immigration. It may well have been aimed to create barriers to dangerous persons from Communist bloc nations.
However, by 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, as part of the general reform program of the Great Society, had supplanted the earlier structure. The cornerstone of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act became 8 U.S.C. 1152. This provides that no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. This is comprehensive, barring discrimination precisely on the grounds in Trump’s order — nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. Trump has singled out seven Muslim-majority nations, from well-known Iran, Syria and Libya, to Somalia and Sudan, and to the one country that so many American troops died (often alongside native supporters) to hold together, Iraq.
The irony accumulates when looking at the other major nondiscrimination provision of the immigration law. There are employer sanctions to keep employers from luring undocumented foreign migrants. But, the immigration law does not aim for these sanctions to keep green card immigrants out of work. So there is a Prohibition of discrimination based on national origin or citizenship (8 USC sec, 1824b(a)) It forbids employers to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s national origin.
Show me how Obama's Executive Order could be criticized on the same grounds.
The belief that people should be killed because of their religious beliefs, or lack of them, is in direct conflict with the part of the constitution it's being suggested has been contravened. If the judges are going to assess risk to life, which, you say, can be used to justify religious discrimination, assessing the proportion of the religious adherents who hold such beliefs is certainly relevant.
Sure, one could make that argument, indeed one could make the argument for all sorts of people presenting a risk to life - the point again is that if the US decided it want to adopt this kind of criteria, it couldn't only apply it to Muslims. Christians and Jews who think gays should be put to death should face the same scrutiny, for instance.
If that was the case, then it wouldn't be religious discrimination. It might be argued to infringe on the freedom to practice - but that's already established as constitutional in certain conditions, so it wouldn't necessarily be an issue.
While Faith is greatly exaggerating the evils of Islam, it's important that others don't lean too far the other way. I questioned your "nearly all" with the example of the young Brits being 36% in favour of apostate killing.
Well now you know I was talking about membership in terrorist organisations so this point is moot.
However, there are certainly unconstitutional interpretations, and they are certainly fairly popular, and they certainly can be lethal.
The only things that matter for Constitutional arguments is government action. I could deny my child the freedom of speech and it wouldn't be unconstitutional to do so. If it was a broad and long term denial it may well be illegal, but that's a different matter.
Exactly. And this is where the judges are going to have to assess the group concerned, and will have to think in vague terms like "some" , "most" and "nearly all".
And nearly all Muslims are NOT members of terrorist organisations etc, therefore the plain interpretation of the law is clear: The President does not have the power to deny them all visas.
You might have a valid argument here, if Congress had issued a law declaring it valid for the President to deny Muslims on the grounds that most of them have beliefs that are a threat to life - though I'd still argue this was empirically false. Most Muslims aren't murderers, after all.
Believing there should be a death penalty for x or y does not mean one necessarily executes people for those offences.
Mine maybe more to do with the idea that even if it did clearly discriminate against Muslims (like Trump's original suggestion) that still wouldn't make it unconstitutional because it could be justified
The question is, is the justification sufficient? And that's what the courts are there for. I would argue, that banning all Muslims cannot be sufficiently justified on the grounds they pose a threat using the evidence that they don't. There are 3 million Muslims in the USA, nearly as many in the UK. I don't see any evidence they are so much more criminally inclined than anyone else that it would justify denying all Muslims just to be on the safe side.
And it would certainly be a problem if they didn't also deny Christians and Jews etc with the same problematic beliefs as Muslims.
That's why I thought that there might be too much rejoicing amongst some of the wacko liberals around here, although they will still probably be able to rejoice, because, as I've pointed out to Faith, ultimately economic considerations will come into play, and they will trump Donald.
I still don't see why there is too much rejoicing. It doesn't seem like a reasonable proposition to ban all Muslims, no argument has been put forward that justifies the action. So yes, it is good that the Order is suspended pending review, and worth rejoicing. It doesn't seem reasonable indeed to ban all refugees and all students and all construction workers and all scientists and all charitable workers, and diplomats and children from certain countries, so yes it is worth rejoicing when the courts restrain the order to do this.
To me, that seems similar to what you describe as me saying that the U.S. discriminates anyway.
YES!!! That's what I've been saying. Discrimination is not forbidden! Discrimination BECAUSE OF RELIGION ALONE is forbidden, but discrimination on the basis of membership in a religious terrorist organisation or because you have committed murder and intend to continue doing so is perfectly legitimate.
That 36% apostate killers would be compatible with the 17th century West, but isn't with the 21st, 20th or 19th.
Are you claiming that 36% of UK students would actually commit murder? Or have you taken 'should be punished by death' and converted it to 'will kill'?
Given you criticized me for using the term 'most' and 'almost all', which are phrases that are not in disagreement with one another, I think you might consider this a little. I know what you meant pragmatically, and it's silly to argue the semantics, right?
Many UK citizens support the death penalty for serious crimes, that doesn't mean they'd actually kill someone they thought had committed one. They might wish them dead, wish the state would do it, but it's something of a different league to actually kill them.
Our 18th century just didn't happen in the Islamic world, and it's arguably suffering from that fact.
This is, in fact, not true. It did happen. In the late days of the Ottoman empire a strong trend of thought was to embrace Western ideas, reject sectarianism, accept secularism and so on. The most striking modern day remnant of that movement is Turkey (who, for instance, decriminalized homosexuality in the 19th Century, beating the West to that liberal victory by a century).
The movements used the prevailing feeling that Islamic culture needed to change. Unfortunately, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed - Western colonialism decided it was time to move in and divide the land amongst themselves to govern as they saw fit, breeding resentment. The feeling Islamic culture had to change was still there, but now the West had become their overlords - the feeling turned insurmountably against Westernisation. When the societies had stabilized and they demanded independence but were eventually were granted their independence just before or just after the West had finished the mass violence of WWII. Much of the time this independence was nominal, with much power being in Western hands through companies and puppet leaders, resulting in more anti-West sentiment. This takes through the the revolutions of the 1950s through to the 1980s into Western funding of Saddam to take out Iran and then into the 90s with the West taking aim at Saddam into the 21st Century when the region was completely destabilised.
The window opened, but the West caused anti-western sentiment and nationalism to become the order of the day and those hopes were basically crushed.
The liberal movement lives on, in Egypt and in Iran and in Jordan and Kuwait and so on, but there are still many key regions that have not had the freedom and opportunity to secularize.
So in short, they had their 18th century. The republicans lost. The West has a fairly large portion of blame for helping this happen. The only hope from the more recent excesses of evil is it results in a new cultural shift towards Abdolkarim Soroush and Raif Badawi's way of thinking. I don't think increasing resentment of the West by turning refugees and scientists away at the borders is going to maximise our chances at fostering the kind of change we want.
. No, they won't let Trump act on a very reasonable law
The issue at question is, is he acting within that law? This law states:
quote: Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
Could you at least acknowledge this might suggest there could possibly be a legal problem here that needs to be sorted out?
They have no interest in discussing anything, in having political disagreements
I think you'll find discussion is exactly what we're trying to do with you here. You seem to take offense at the disagreements and call us lying twisting knaves for it.
they lost and they refuse to accept it
Says the person who is refusing to accept the court losses.
they feel they have a right to run the country no matter what the other half thinks
Right back at you.
And the courts are just as perverted. They have to make a big issue out of this reasonable commonsensical law Trump just acted on, they have to twist it to take away the power that law gives him
It's their job to assess the limitations on his power that the same law also imposes, also the limitations on his power imposed by the Constitution.
But the Left we've all been oppressed by for all those decades
The LGBT community and the pacifists just altered the earth's orbit with their collective eye-rolling. Oppressed? I am pleased you think what the right is experiencing is oppression, it means you haven't the faintest clue what it feels like to be oppressed.
No. We're already in some kind of civil war. I hope it doesn't get worse but the way things look it could.
Do your bit!
quote:I'm all for the rule of law, until the laws are so twisted they serve an ideology I hate.
quote: they hate national security, they hate national sovereignty, they hate America, they want to turn us into a third world swamp, they want to kill the nation's roots in Christianity, they hate everything the country used to stand for.
This is the kind of rhetoric that makes it worse. We've been making legal arguments. Whether you disagree with them is another matter - but you've been demoninizing the left for years. Whether some on the left are doing likewise is not an excuse to widen the divide with this kind of position.
You both live there. You don't like it when the left has its victories. The left don't like it when the right has its victories. Why descend into 'they hate America'? That's the way to civil war.
quote:I sorely wish there was some way to physically divide the country so that the two sides wouldn't have to put up with the other's politics. I hate you all, you hate me.
That's the path to increased divisiveness, to shutting down communication and losing touch with the perspectives of those you disagree with. It's insular and self-perpetuating. Keep going and you'll be in danger of fulfilling your prophecy.
So come, let's talk. Reasonably, calmly, without hatred. The INA is a big law, one side thinks it and the Constitution inhibit or prohibit Trump's action. What do you think you should do next? You could appoint a conservative member of SCOTUS, you could appeal to the legislature. You could make arguments as to why the existing laws permit it. Asserting that they does not advance the argument.
Conservatives have issued their legal perspectives, go ahead and read your conservative of choice and then come back here and let us know your thoughts. in the spirit of peace, harmony, unity. E pluribus Unum.
So on the one hand 1152a of the INA prohibits discriminating against nations.
Conservative counter: Ah, but 1182f says:
quote: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.
Liberal responds: But that section was enacted in 1952, the 1965 provision was specifically to inhibit this kind of policy and thus has primacy.
Conservative responds: But you forget the Section 1187a12 exception: in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and this was passed under Obama so if temporal primacy rules apply, you still lose sucker.
™ Version 4.2
