PDA

View Full Version : Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal




robert68
01-31-2017, 02:04 PM
By David Bier
This article appeared in The New York Times on January 27, 2017


President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.

But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.

But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could 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.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.

Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.

While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.

The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”

To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.

Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-immigration-ban-illegal

fedupinmo
01-31-2017, 02:32 PM
Article 4, Section 4.

Ender
01-31-2017, 02:45 PM
Article 4, Section 4.

If THIS was actually important to the present government, they would get out of unconstitutional wars, stop creating "terrorists" and bring the military home to protect the US.

Even as a kid I knew that when Bush did none of this after 911, that it was all a hoax to build the empire and world government.

fedupinmo
01-31-2017, 06:21 PM
If THIS was actually important to the present government, they would get out of unconstitutional wars, stop creating "terrorists" and bring the military home to protect the US.

Even as a kid I knew that when Bush did none of this after 911, that it was all a hoax to build the empire and world government.
Sure, but if WTP don't push in that direction, the slope gets faster...

PierzStyx
01-31-2017, 06:25 PM
Amash gave a great explanation for why it is illegal as well.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/01/rep_justin_amash_trumps_unlawf.html

euphemia
01-31-2017, 07:26 PM
It's not a ban.

CPUd
01-31-2017, 07:27 PM
826060143825666051
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

Influenza
01-31-2017, 07:28 PM
It's not a ban.
whatever the fuck you trumpers call it, it's unconstitutional

Influenza
01-31-2017, 07:29 PM
It's not a ban.
and by the way, even ur idiotic president calls it a ban. please get on the same page

enhanced_deficit
01-31-2017, 07:40 PM
Could be but we need to find less hypocritical messengers for such messages.

If NYT did not call Obama's drone killing of thousands of children/civilians illegal, they probably don't have much authority to speak on this issue.
It's almost like neocon Chuck Schumer jerking fake tears on demand over "plight of refugees".

CPUd
01-31-2017, 07:46 PM
Two documents that show how mixed up the White House is over Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’

One day it’s ‘extreme vetting’, the next day the policy is ‘not extreme’


Donald Trump’s shock ban on all travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries has sparked confusion and outrage around the world since it was announced without warning on Friday.

But it seems that the uncertainty inspired by the President’s executive order extends to those inside the White House itself.

On 29 January, two days after Mr Trump had signed the order banning people from three African and four Middle Eastern countries – as well as suspending all refugee programmes – his administration issued a statement “Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting”.

Mr Trump has been calling for “extreme vetting”, in his words, since early on in his candidacy for the 2016 election. In a speech in Ohio in August last year, he set out the plan to make it tougher for applicants to get US visas as a way of combatting Islamist extremism.

His Sunday statement on “extreme vetting”, issued by the office of press secretary Sean Spicer, said America “will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression… while protecting our own citizens and border”. “We will keep it free and keep it safe,” he said.

Fast forward just one day, and on Monday a new statement from Mr Spicer’s office said explicitly that Mr Trump’s new immigration policy was “not extreme”.

The statement was defending Mr Trump’s decision to sack acting Attorney General Sally Yates, for speaking out against his executive order and ordering Department of Justice officials not to defend it.

Ms Yates, who has now been replaced with Trump supporter Dana Boente, “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States”, the new statement read.

“It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Before she was sacked, Ms Yates she had a responsibility to ensure the DoJ’s actions were “consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”.

“I am not convinced that the defence of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-white-house-extreme-vetting-not-a7554801.html

Brian4Liberty
01-31-2017, 08:05 PM
In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”

Then Johnson turned around, winked and said: "I'll have those immigrants voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Jamesiv1
01-31-2017, 08:10 PM
whatever the fuck you trumpers call it, it's unconstitutional
No it is not.

You might want to do some research before you embarrass yourself again.

euphemia
01-31-2017, 08:11 PM
and by the way, even ur idiotic president calls it a ban. please get on the same page

It's not a ban, whatever anyone calls it. Do some homework. Read the actual order. It's a 90 day suspension of admission of people holding visas from seven different countries.

CPUd
01-31-2017, 08:15 PM
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're totally prepared. It's working out very nicely. We'll have a very, very strict ban and we'll have extreme vetting.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-29-17-sean-spicer-sen-mitch/story?id=45112815

Influenza
01-31-2017, 10:01 PM
It's not a ban, whatever anyone calls it. Do some homework. Read the actual order. It's a 90 day suspension of admission of people holding visas from seven different countries.
I refuse to be lectured by a racist idiot who said the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on these forums. "Colin Kaepernick turned his back on his white family by not standing for the national anthem."

Influenza
01-31-2017, 10:04 PM
No it is not.

You might want to do some research before you embarrass yourself again.

how can I be embarrassed when I'm among trumphumpers such as yourself who have convinced themselves they are somehow supporting liberty while blessing the executive orders of some doofus who knows even less about the world around him than the average american?

But yes, restricting the movement of people without due process WHO ARE DUAL CITIZENS (citizens of the US and one of the 7 countries) is unconstitutional, and you have to be breathtakingly retarded to argue otherwise.

Created4
01-31-2017, 10:08 PM
But yes, restricting the movement of people without due process WHO ARE DUAL CITIZENS (citizens of the US and one of the 7 countries)

Please provide evidence that "dual citizens" were banned from entry.

TheTexan
01-31-2017, 10:08 PM
It's perfectly legal, Trump's lawyers said so

TheTexan
01-31-2017, 10:09 PM
I'm also pretty sure the Commerce Clause authorizes this

Created4
01-31-2017, 10:12 PM
https://youtu.be/XSyhgFYRPwc?t=39s

Rand Paul (starts at 39 seconds):


The Constitution doesn't apply to people who live in other countries. It frankly has no application to them.

euphemia
01-31-2017, 10:18 PM
I refuse to be lectured by a racist idiot who said the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on these forums. "Colin Kaepernick turned his back on his white family by not standing for the national anthem."

It's not a stupid thing to say. Kap was adopted by a white family. His birth mother is white. That makes him biracial, not black. Lack of gratitude there. And standing with people who never stood with him, well, that's not exactly the smartist thing.

Name calling. Wow. Almost as mature as Senate Democrats not showing up for committee hearings. It's not a ban according to the actual order. Read the text of the order. It is a 90 day suspension. It is not a ban.

By the way, what do your neighbors look like? You want to talk about racisim, let's talk.

Chester Copperpot
01-31-2017, 10:21 PM
its not unconstitutional

Krugminator2
01-31-2017, 10:22 PM
whatever the $#@! you trumpers call it, it's unconstitutional


Feel free to point out the language in the Constitution that makes this unconstitutional.

Jonathan Turley, the man Ron Paul listed as a top Supreme Court choice if he were elected President, says it is clearly Constitutional.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?239586-Ron-Paul-suggests-Jonathan-Turley-or-Napolitano-for-SCOTUS-nomination

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/law-professor-trumps-immigration-ban-constitutional-admin-had-right-fire-ag/

CPUd
01-31-2017, 10:26 PM
People are talking about 2 different things here, not necessarily mutually exclusive- unconstitutional vs. illegal.

Ender
01-31-2017, 10:48 PM
Amash gave a great explanation for why it is illegal as well.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/01/rep_justin_amash_trumps_unlawf.html

Justin Amash


Justin Amash
January 28 at 4:48pm ·

Like President Obama's executive actions on immigration, President Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system. It's not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.

The president's denial of entry to lawful permanent residents of the United States (green card holders) is particularly troubling. Green card holders live in the United States as our neighbors and serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve better.

I agree with the president that we must do much more to properly vet refugees, but a blanket ban represents an extreme approach not consistent with our nation's values. While the executive order allows the admittance of immigrants, nonimmigrants, and refugees "on a case-by-case basis," arbitrariness would violate the Rule of Law.

Ultimately, the executive order appears to be more about politics than safety. If the concern is radicalism and terrorism, then what about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others?

Finally, we can't effectively fight homegrown Islamic radicalism by perpetuating the “us vs. them” mindset that terrorists use to recruit. We must ensure that the United States remains dedicated to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and liberty. It can't be stated strongly enough that capitalism creates prosperity and improves assimilation into society.

timosman
01-31-2017, 10:50 PM
whatever the fuck you trumpers call it, it's unconstitutional

I am sorry, I am unfamiliar with the logic. Would you care to explain?

Jamesiv1
02-01-2017, 08:15 AM
how can I be embarrassed when I'm among trumphumpers such as yourself who have convinced themselves they are somehow supporting liberty while blessing the executive orders of some doofus who knows even less about the world around him than the average american?

But yes, restricting the movement of people without due process WHO ARE DUAL CITIZENS (citizens of the US and one of the 7 countries) is unconstitutional, and you have to be breathtakingly retarded to argue otherwise.You sir, are no lover of liberty.

Origanalist
02-01-2017, 08:28 AM
It's not a stupid thing to say. Kap was adopted by a white family. His birth mother is white. That makes him biracial, not black. Lack of gratitude there. And standing with people who never stood with him, well, that's not exactly the smartist thing.

Name calling. Wow. Almost as mature as Senate Democrats not showing up for committee hearings. It's not a ban according to the actual order. Read the text of the order. It is a 90 day suspension. It is not a ban.

By the way, what do your neighbors look like? You want to talk about racisim, let's talk.

I have neighbors that aren't white too. Isn't it great to not be racist?

tod evans
02-01-2017, 08:39 AM
By the way, what do your neighbors look like?

We have many 'races' out here in the sticks..

http://www.ruckmansfarm.co.uk/images/largeBullWestoner.jpg

http://ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/white-tailed-deer-herd.jpg

Lots of 'blacks' too.....

http://www.blackinkwithcab.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MOcowclf_12781.jpg

A few 'whites' ;

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/omnibuilder/f185287d-1af8-4a02-ba9a-1b01e946220d/a1fb8538-526d-4ef6-b88c-b1b385a2a242.jpg

And waaaaaaay too many copsuckers!

http://mypullzsone.mikerindersblog.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/herding-sheep.jpg

euphemia
02-01-2017, 08:48 AM
I have neighbors that aren't white too. Isn't it great to not be racist?

That's not all of it, but it really cracks me up for people who talk a good game but don't back it up in real life. And when people believe everything they see and hear in the mainstream media. Don't read news articles. Read the actual EO. During the campaign, Trump said we would be taking a break, and this executive order is exactly that. It's a 90-day break from admitting people from seven different countries. Just those seven. Not everyone, and not all Muslims.

Ender
02-01-2017, 09:23 AM
It's not a stupid thing to say. Kap was adopted by a white family. His birth mother is white. That makes him biracial, not black. Lack of gratitude there. And standing with people who never stood with him, well, that's not exactly the smartist thing.

Name calling. Wow. Almost as mature as Senate Democrats not showing up for committee hearings. It's not a ban according to the actual order. Read the text of the order. It is a 90 day suspension. It is not a ban.

By the way, what do your neighbors look like? You want to talk about racisim, let's talk.

According to American tradition, 1 drop of black blood makes you BLACK.

And Kap has the constitutional right to sit or stand or sleep or whatever during the socialist- created flag ceremony. Seems like freedom-lovers would support that.

TommyJeff
02-01-2017, 10:46 AM
If THIS was actually important to the present government, they would get out of unconstitutional wars, stop creating "terrorists" and bring the military home to protect the US.

Even as a kid I knew that when Bush did none of this after 911, that it was all a hoax to build the empire and world government.

isnt fedupinmo offering opposition of the Trump illegality sited in the forum topic?
how does that relate to government war prior to the inauguration of Trump?

TommyJeff
02-01-2017, 10:49 AM
Amash gave a great explanation for why it is illegal as well.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/01/rep_justin_amash_trumps_unlawf.html

I was shocked to learn this because I like Amash on so many issues. But this particular order doesn't change any law. I'd really like to see specifics from Amash. It's a shame this article or his statement didn't explain how and where and why this isn't constitutional. Does anyone have this info, explaining in more detail?

Also, as I would have asked of any liberal calling out this order, I'd also ask if anyone can provide the Amash quote explaining how Obama Ban of Iraqis isn't legal. He may have made a statement, but I'd like to know he was opposed to the last president in this situation.

donnay
02-01-2017, 10:54 AM
Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump

Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245946368

EBounding
02-01-2017, 11:08 AM
I'm also pretty sure the Commerce Clause authorizes this

The General Welfare clause too.

Ender
02-01-2017, 11:09 AM
isnt fedupinmo offering opposition of the Trump illegality sited in the forum topic?
how does that relate to government war prior to the inauguration of Trump?

Uh.... because we're still in the same war?

TommyJeff
02-01-2017, 11:15 AM
Uh.... because we're still in the same war?

Yes and we have been for decades. And it's wrong.
But how are decades of war thanks to past presidents related to this specific executive order and it's unconstitutionality? That's my only question

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
02-01-2017, 01:22 PM
restricting the movement of people without due process WHO ARE DUAL CITIZENS (citizens of the US and one of the 7 countries) is unconstitutional, and you have to be breathtakingly retarded to argue otherwise.

DHS clarified yesterday that it doesn't apply to dual citizens. You have to be breathtakingly retarded not to know that.

PierzStyx
02-01-2017, 01:23 PM
https://youtu.be/XSyhgFYRPwc?t=39s

Rand Paul (starts at 39 seconds):

And this is why Rand Paul is a traitorous, unlibertarian joke.

The Constitution doesn't authorize federal immigration restriction, nor does it give rights to people. It was meant, in theory, to restrict the government and stop it from abusing the rights of people. It starts off with the understanding that all people are created equal with equal rights no matter where they live and that when they interact with the US government their rights need to be protected from federal power. This includes immigrants.

And you know what? Rand knows this. You can tell how he dodges by saying this isn't explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. What a Leftist Progressive argument. Any decent constitutionalist knows that the Tenth Amendment limits the powers of the federal government strictly to those powers enumerated, named specifically, in the Constitution. If the power isn't given then the government doesn't have it. A the Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate or limit or ban immigration, this ban is unconstitutional. Rand knows this. But he dodges and justifies like any good Leftist, more concerned with power and position than he is human rights and limited government.

Notice he also writes off all the people who have legal right to be here who are impacted by this ban and whose legal rights are violated.

For Rand Paul to defend Trump's illegal and unconstitutional actions just demonstrates how useless Rand Paul is a supposed defender of liberty. He isn't a "constitutional conservative." At least those like Amash who are concerned with growing federal power, the few there are, have stood up against the illegal and unconstitutional ban. They are friends of liberty, at least. Rand Paul is just another bootlicking neoconservative wearing his fathers name as libertarian sheepskin.

PierzStyx
02-01-2017, 01:25 PM
I was shocked to learn this because I like Amash on so many issues. But this particular order doesn't change any law. I'd really like to see specifics from Amash. It's a shame this article or his statement didn't explain how and where and why this isn't constitutional. Does anyone have this info, explaining in more detail?

Also, as I would have asked of any liberal calling out this order, I'd also ask if anyone can provide the Amash quote explaining how Obama Ban of Iraqis isn't legal. He may have made a statement, but I'd like to know he was opposed to the last president in this situation.

Yes. Follow the link to his Facebook post where he lays it out, in detail. Follow the links.

Also, it doesn't matter what Obama did or didn't do when talking about what Trump is doing. That your crazy third cousin was a rapist doesn't justify you being one.

Ender
02-01-2017, 01:44 PM
Yes and we have been for decades. And it's wrong.
But how are decades of war thanks to past presidents related to this specific executive order and it's unconstitutionality? That's my only question

Because Trump could stop it all now, if he wanted to- but it looks like that will not happen.

RJB
02-01-2017, 01:45 PM
And this is why Rand Paul is a traitorous, unlibertarian joke.. You should move to Saudi Arabia. I'm sure you'll be happier with their politicians.

Ender
02-01-2017, 01:45 PM
Yes. Follow the link to his Facebook post where he lays it out, in detail. Follow the links.

Also, it doesn't matter what Obama did or didn't do when talking about what Trump is doing. That your crazy third cousin was a rapist doesn't justify you being one.

'Zackly.

shakey1
02-01-2017, 01:51 PM
Endless EO's are no way to run a republic.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-01-2017, 01:56 PM
I am sure there must be a line in a movie that addresses the whole unconstitutional/illegal thing. If not, then there should be. I will just make one up for now. Let's see. Instead of Dirty Harry, this character is called Filthy Dick.



Guy talking to Filthy Dick: "Isn't that illegal.?"

Filthy Dick: "Not if you don't get caught."

Guy: "But it's still illegal."

Filthy Dick: [Beats the crap out of Guy]

euphemia
02-01-2017, 02:11 PM
According to American tradition, 1 drop of black blood makes you BLACK.

Tradition is not science.


And Kap has the constitutional right to sit or stand or sleep or whatever during the socialist- created flag ceremony. Seems like freedom-lovers would support that.

He does. I have a right to an opinion about it, but so-called liberty thinkers don't agree.

And, apparently, it is not RPF correct to read an actual EO and understand what the language means.

90 days is not a ban, all immigrants are not refugees, and the US is a sovereign nation.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
02-01-2017, 02:31 PM
The Constitution doesn't authorize federal immigration restriction,

You are lying about the Constitution. That is a a seditious, traitorous thing to do.

Why do you hate America?

Have you considered leaving the country and swearing your fealty to the Crown?

Contumacious
02-01-2017, 02:49 PM
And this is why Rand Paul is a traitorous, unlibertarian joke.

The Constitution doesn't authorize federal immigration restriction, nor does it give rights to people. It was meant, in theory, to restrict the government and stop it from abusing the rights of people. It starts off with the understanding that all people are created equal with equal rights no matter where they live and that when they interact with the US government their rights need to be protected from federal power. This includes immigrants.

And you know what? Rand knows this. You can tell how he dodges by saying this isn't explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. What a Leftist Progressive argument. Any decent constitutionalist knows that the Tenth Amendment limits the powers of the federal government strictly to those powers enumerated, named specifically, in the Constitution. If the power isn't given then the government doesn't have it. A the Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate or limit or ban immigration, this ban is unconstitutional. Rand knows this. But he dodges and justifies like any good Leftist, more concerned with power and position than he is human rights and limited government.

Notice he also writes off all the people who have legal right to be here who are impacted by this ban and whose legal rights are violated.

For Rand Paul to defend Trump's illegal and unconstitutional actions just demonstrates how useless Rand Paul is a supposed defender of liberty. He isn't a "constitutional conservative." At least those like Amash who are concerned with growing federal power, the few there are, have stood up against the illegal and unconstitutional ban. They are friends of liberty, at least. Rand Paul is just another bootlicking neoconservative wearing his fathers name as libertarian sheepskin.



That is 100% correct.

In 1798 fedgov adopted an immigration Law.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson reminded Congress that it had NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT AND DEPORT. THAT THE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION. The "Law" was allowed to expire in 1800. We had no federal immigration law for 89 years. In the late 1800's the Chinese insisted they wanted to work in the California Gold Mines . Congress found that the Chinese decision to compete against "our people" was an emergency. In cases of emergencies fedgov is allowed to , I guess, USURP.

Please see the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.


.

.

Krugminator2
02-01-2017, 02:55 PM
They are friends of liberty, at least. Rand Paul is just another bootlicking neoconservative wearing his fathers name as libertarian sheepskin.

Except Ron Paul proposed a variant of Trump's plan twice starting in 2003 and then again in 2007. It seems he had no problem using the federal government to control immigration from countries that sponsor terrorism https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217

You know, that neocon Ron Paul. And Ron Paul's choice for the Supreme Court, Jonathan Turley, just so happened to weigh in on the constitutionality of this action, and surprise, he says it is Constitutional.

Plenty of liberty people take this much farther than Trump.

Thomas Sowell has long thought immigrants from certain parts of the world should be restricted. Here is Sowell in August 2016 on immigration. https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/08/16/abstract-immigrants-in-an-abstract-world

Leonard Peikoff thinks it is legitimate to take into consideration using religion to restrict immigration.

Who are all these libertarian thinkers that take your radical open borders view, even taking it so far as to say you can't restrict immigration from terrorist hotbeds? Rothbard didn't think like that. Milton Friedman didn't.

Contumacious
02-01-2017, 03:11 PM
Except Ron Paul proposed a variant of Trump's plan twice starting in 2003 and then again in 2007. It seems he had no problem using the federal government to control immigration from countries that sponsor terrorism https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217

You know, that neocon Ron Paul. And Ron Paul's choice for the Supreme Court, Jonathan Turley, just so happened to weigh in on the constitutionality of this action, and surprise, he says it is Constitutional.

Plenty of liberty people take this much farther than Trump.

Thomas Sowell has long thought immigrants from certain parts of the world should be restricted. Here is Sowell in August 2016 on immigration. https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/08/16/abstract-immigrants-in-an-abstract-world

Leonard Peikoff thinks it is legitimate to take into consideration using religion to restrict immigration.

Who are all these libertarian thinkers that take your radical open borders view, even taking it so far as to say you can't restrict immigration from terrorist hotbeds? Rothbard didn't think like that. Milton Friedman didn't.



B U L L S H I T

The Constitution does not authorize the government to create, finance and defend a Jeiwsh State.

FDR cautioned Truman that recognizing Israel would necessitate a permanent US presence in the middle east.


.

PierzStyx
02-01-2017, 05:45 PM
. You should move to Saudi Arabia. I'm sure you'll be happier with their politicians.

Ah the comeback of the person who knows all basic logic and facts are against them- the childish schoolyard taunt.

Face reality. This video demonstrates quite well that Rand Paul doesn't even have a basic grasp on the Constitution.

RJB
02-01-2017, 05:52 PM
Ah the comeback of the person who knows all basic logic and facts are against them- the childish schoolyard taunt.

Face reality. This video demonstrates quite well that Rand Paul doesn't even have a basic grasp on the Constitution.Calling Rand traitorous was a bit hysterical. Was that done tongue in cheek as a cry for attention or are your hormones out of wack?

PierzStyx
02-01-2017, 06:20 PM
Responses in bold.


Except Ron Paul proposed a variant of Trump's plan twice starting in 2003 and then again in 2007. It seems he had no problem using the federal government to control immigration from countries that sponsor terrorism https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You people are a JOKE.

The summary from both your links: "To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts."

Contrast this to Trump's ban which completely cuts of entrance from all people, immigrant, nonimmigrant, visa or otherwise.

To conflate a bill that would limit visas to an executive order that bans people no matter what they're legal standing is an act of idiocy. Anyone can discern the difference and if this is the best you got then you've got nothing.

You know, that neocon Ron Paul. And Ron Paul's choice for the Supreme Court, Jonathan Turley, just so happened to weigh in on the constitutionality of this action, and surprise, he says it is Constitutional.

I'll give you this: Ron is highly inconsistent on immigration. In both Liberty Defined and Swords Into Plowshares he talks about immigration laws letting human capital -i.e. immigrants- flow freely between borders and even says it will lead to greater peace and freedom. In other places he talks about "securing the border" though he does so incredibly euphemistically. For example, take he recent bit against Trump's wall. He talks about increasing border security by ending the welfare state and foreign military interventions. These will make us safer, but they don't do anything to actually restrict immigration. In fact the more I read from Ron the more he sounds like the only thing holding him back is his fear that open border could hurt the nation because of welfare, though that is a nonsensical argument.

In any case, trying to equate Ron Paul's positions to Rand's or Trump's is silly. Especially as he has openly come put against it in a recent Liberty report.

Plenty of liberty people take this much farther than Trump.

Thomas Sowell has long thought immigrants from certain parts of the world should be restricted. Here is Sowell in August 2016 on immigration. https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/08/16/abstract-immigrants-in-an-abstract-world

Leonard Peikoff thinks it is legitimate to take into consideration using religion to restrict immigration.

Who are all these libertarian thinkers that take your radical open borders view, even taking it so far as to say you can't restrict immigration from terrorist hotbeds? Rothbard didn't think like that. Milton Friedman didn't.

As for everything else, I don't need to appeal to others to do my thinking . The appeal to authority is a fallacy and is not thinking but a replacement for thinking. It doesn't matter what Friedman (not a libertarian) or Sowell think. Nor for that matter Rothbard, though his abandonment of a lifelong stance for open borders just before his death is disappointing. Perhaps he went senile, otherwise an anarchist is going to have a hard time justifying state ran borders. In any case, what matters is logic. And the logic is simple.

You do not own the property near the border. Therefore you have no right to say what happens on it or to prevent people from entering or exiting it for the same reason you do not have a right to tell me who I can and cannot have on my property- YOU DO NOT OWN IT. Property rights dictate that you only control your privately owned land and nothing else. For you to assert control over property you do not own is tyranny. For you to violently assault people who have done nothing to you, are no threat to you, and who are not violating any property rights you have, is not only a violation of the NAP but is tyrannical itself. It is that simple.

Now you can claim that you have some right to regulate land you do not own because it is "your" country- but that isn't libertarianism. That isn't property rights or small government or the US Constitution. That assertion is collectivism, specifically national socialism that asserts all land is owned and controlled by the state. If you believe this you are free to do so, but you are not a libertarian.

This link does explain the basics well: http://www.fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/

PierzStyx
02-01-2017, 06:22 PM
Calling Rand traitorous was a bit hysterical. Was that done tongue in cheek as a cry for attention or are your hormones out of wack?

He is a traitor. Anyone who claims to support the Constitution but supports this ban is a traitor. The ban is blatantly unconstitutional. His attempt to warp the issue otherwise is sickening.

Contumacious
02-01-2017, 06:33 PM
He is a traitor. Anyone who claims to support the Constitution but supports this ban is a traitor. The ban is blatantly unconstitutional. His attempt to warp the issue otherwise is sickening.

Federal Judge Orders ‘Sweeping’ Stay of Trump’s Immigration Ban

Says officials may not remove, detain or block entry of those with valid immigration visas. (http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/01/federal-judge-orders-sweeping-stay-of-tr)

Krugminator2
02-01-2017, 06:54 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You people are a JOKE.
How do you cope with life? Instead of just disagreeing, anyone who differs from your specific views is a traitor or neocon or has some other moral failing. You behave like a degenerate.



The Constitution doesn't authorize federal immigration restriction, nor does it give rights to people.

A the Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate or limit or ban immigration, this ban is unconstitutional.


To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

Clearly Ron Paul thinks the federal government should regulate immigration and that it is constitutional.

RJB
02-01-2017, 07:12 PM
How do you cope with life? Instead of just disagreeing, anyone who differs from your specific views is a traitor or neocon or has some other moral failing. You behave like a degenerate.





Clearly Ron Paul thinks the federal government should regulate immigration and that it is constitutional.

You can't take him seriously. He accused me of me of making a school yard taunt--. Of which I freely admit to doing. He however, throws those labels around that you mention but arrogantly believes that he is above it all.

The thing he doesn't realize is that most of us just temporarily go to that level for a laugh. He on the other hand lives and wallows in it I almost every single one of his posts. School yard taunts are his forum history.

seapilot
02-01-2017, 07:13 PM
That is 100% correct.

In 1798 fedgov adopted an immigration Law.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson reminded Congress that it had NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT AND DEPORT. THAT THE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION. The "Law" was allowed to expire in 1800. We had no federal immigration law for 89 years. In the late 1800's the Chinese insisted they wanted to work in the California Gold Mines . Congress found that the Chinese decision to compete against "our people" was an emergency. In cases of emergencies fedgov is allowed to , I guess, USURP.

Please see the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.


.

.

If this is true then what Arizona was doing before Obama cracked the federal whip was legal. It would be interesting because then people could not move from state to state like they do now. I think the government creation of US citizens before there were any,caused the federal immigration to come into being.

Ender
02-01-2017, 07:31 PM
Tradition is not science.



He does. I have a right to an opinion about it, but so-called liberty thinkers don't agree.

And, apparently, it is not RPF correct to read an actual EO and understand what the language means.

90 days is not a ban, all immigrants are not refugees, and the US is a sovereign nation.

It wasn't "tradition" it was law. The marriage license came about to prevent racially mixed marriages.

As far as a "ban"- how about these Christian Syrians who were sent back after preparing for 15 years to come, LEGALLY, to the US?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/us/syrian-family-trump-travel-ban/

Superfluous Man
02-01-2017, 11:48 PM
No it is not.

You might want to do some research before you embarrass yourself again.

Seriously?

How do you figure?

Superfluous Man
02-01-2017, 11:50 PM
It's not a ban, whatever anyone calls it. Do some homework. Read the actual order. It's a 90 day suspension of admission of people holding visas from seven different countries.

So, people who hold visas from one of those countries are banned from entering the USA for 90 days.

Is that right?

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 07:50 AM
Because Trump could stop it all now, if he wanted to- but it looks like that will not happen.
we don't know that he isn't stopping it. I assume he isn't, like you, but if he were to pull out he would do it slowly and quietly and not announce a date as was done in the past.

Assuming you're right and he isn't stopping the wars, I don't think he's stopping them either, I still don't understand how continued wars make this specific order, illegal. Would you explain?

klamath
02-02-2017, 07:54 AM
This is where it is unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

From Trump's EO.


(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.
The constitution does not apply to foreigners but the president is breaking the first amendment by making it an executive order specifically mentioning "Minority Religion". The Sunni's were by far the minority religion in Iraq but that didn't stop them from persecuting and slaughtering by the thousands the (60%) Shiites.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 07:54 AM
Yes. Follow the link to his Facebook post where he lays it out, in detail. Follow the links.

Also, it doesn't matter what Obama did or didn't do when talking about what Trump is doing. That your crazy third cousin was a rapist doesn't justify you being one.
Thank you, I will follow the links.

Also I didn't point out specifically what "Obama did or didn't do", my question was asking what Amash did or didn't do in his very recent past when faced with a similar situation. It doesn't change how we view this event but as this is one of the only areas where Amash and I have disagreed, I'd like to see consistency relating to his unconditional claim

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 08:04 AM
This is where it is unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Trump isn't a part of congress. And this wasn't a law
From Trump's EO.


The constitution does not apply to foreigners(correct) but the president is breaking the first amendment by making it an executive order specifically mentioning "Minority Religion". The Sunni's were by far the minority religion in Iraq but that didn't stop them from persecuting and slaughtering thousands of Shiites.

where in the EO is there a law opposing a specific religion? Congress (maybe unconstitutionally) authorizes refugees to come to the USA by claiming religious persecution. This EO doesn't change that, it directs the priority to a minority religion. One may assume that it's more difficult to claim religious persecution when the person practices the same religion as the majority of a country. But those are not specifically stated so we can't know why the EO directs the priority list in this way. Blame congress if you'd like but this EO doesn't make a law outlawing a religious person from immigrating.


See red above

fedupinmo
02-02-2017, 08:06 AM
The General Welfare clause too.
There is no General Welfare grant of power in the Constitution. It is a declaratory clause on the possible reasons for <s>theft</s> taxation.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 08:10 AM
Yes. Follow the link to his Facebook post where he lays it out, in detail. Follow the links.

Also, it doesn't matter what Obama did or didn't do when talking about what Trump is doing. That your crazy third cousin was a rapist doesn't justify you being one.

After reading his Facebook page I still don't see it. I see no part of this EO which rewrites law. If Amash was making the case that congressional law in the past violate Artivle 1 section 8 by offering non-uniform naturalization, I'd agree with him. But he's doing no such thing and I fail to see how this EO is changing law rather than explaining how a law will be carried out.
Maybe you can do a better job explaining it to me. I'm all ears.

euphemia
02-02-2017, 08:12 AM
So, people who hold visas from one of those countries are banned from entering the USA for 90 days.

Is that right?

Their privilege is suspended for 90 days. During the campaign Trump said we need a break. This is a break.

This is not new. Fifty or sixty years ago many countries would not allow entrance to those who even visited certain places. It was standard, and that was before terrorism became a way to wage war.

fedupinmo
02-02-2017, 08:23 AM
That is 100% correct.

In 1798 fedgov adopted an immigration Law.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson reminded Congress that it had NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT AND DEPORT. THAT THE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION. The "Law" was allowed to expire in 1800. We had no federal immigration law for 89 years. In the late 1800's the Chinese insisted they wanted to work in the California Gold Mines . Congress found that the Chinese decision to compete against "our people" was an emergency. In cases of emergencies fedgov is allowed to , I guess, USURP.

Please see the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.


.

.

The Constitution specifically prohibited the fedgoob from interfering with immigration until 1808, other than taxing each one ten bucks.

Article I, Section 9, clause 1:
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.


Now throw in Article IV, Section 4 and it isn't pre-1808 any longer... illegal migration into this country is Invasion... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

fedupinmo
02-02-2017, 08:25 AM
Sorry, wrong button. :D

klamath
02-02-2017, 08:28 AM
See red above
OK I get it. Since the president isn't congress he can issue executive orders against specific religions. Muslim Obama should have just made an executive order banning the Christians, because after all it only applies to CONGRESS. Maybe it has something to do with the fact the executive department was NEVER meant to make laws!
Get real. It was the Ghouls sloppy attempt to make an exception for Christians. The Majority religions are well documented to be Muslim in those countries, so when it excepts the majority religion from appeals it means Muslim.

euphemia
02-02-2017, 08:30 AM
Obama pretty much did issue orders against Christians. They were the ones denied entrance, even though they were being burned out of homes and churches, or just slaughtered outright.

klamath
02-02-2017, 08:36 AM
dup

klamath
02-02-2017, 08:37 AM
Obama pretty much did issue orders against Christians. They were the ones denied entrance, even though they were being burned out of homes and churches, or just slaughtered outright.
Maybe he did maybe he didn't but cite your sources on how he did this? I am only on this forum because I am absolutely fed up by the fake news and undocumented statements on FB.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 08:51 AM
OK I get it. Since the president isn't congress he can issue executive orders against specific religions.
You quoted part of the constitution which doesn't pertain to the executive.
Also I never said, nor does this EO make a law, infringing on a specific religion. You may prove me wrong and tell me exactly where the 'law' is found in this EO and exactly which religion did the EO single out?

Muslim Obama should have just made an executive order banning the Christians, because after all it only applies to CONGRESS.
only congrsss can make law. The executive branch is in violation for making any law. Again, you quoted the wrong part of the constitution. If Obama made a law after leaving the senate, he violated the constitution, but not because of the first amendment.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact the executive department was NEVER meant to make laws! Exactly!!!
Get real. It was the Ghouls sloppy attempt to make an exception for Christians. The Majority religions are well documented to be Muslim in those countries, so when it excepts the majority religion from appeals it means Muslim. Actually Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims. And there are dozens of other nations who's majority religious belief is Muslim. If you like to get real, can you explain why they aren't on this list?



Still in red. Still waiting to see proof of either your law claim or religious ban claim.

Id also like to add that the constitution offers zero protection to non citizens outside the USA boarders and this EO only talks about non citizen prior to entering inside the boarder. How can you relate the first amendment to them?

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 08:52 AM
Maybe he did maybe he didn't but cite your sources on how he did this? I am only on this forum because I am absolutely fed up by the fake news and undocumented statements on FB.
It's unfortunate how the mainstream media is pushing the fake news and undocumented statements too.

Nice having you on the forum.

klamath
02-02-2017, 09:11 AM
Still in red. Still waiting to see proof of either your law claim or religious ban claim.

Id also like to add that the constitution offers zero protection to non citizens outside the USA boarders and this EO only talks about non citizen prior to entering inside the boarder. How can you relate the first amendment to them?
The mention of proportions of religions in the executive order makes it about religion in those 7 counties. Only one religion would NOT be giving exceptions and that is the muslims. But if you want to expand it out to other countries, a good question would be why aren't the Saudis, Egyptians on the list? That is where the terrorists came from. There is swamp gas wafting all over those exceptions.
An EO is an attempt to circumvent laws passed by congress. There IS no law passed that give the president authority to issue an EO allowing people into, or barring people into this country based on minority or majority religion and if there is Congress did NOT have the authority to pass it. A President trying to favor certain religions entry into the country, is unconstitutional.

klamath
02-02-2017, 09:15 AM
It's unfortunate how the mainstream media is pushing the fake news and undocumented statements too.

Nice having you on the forum. There is lot's of non main stream media pushing fake news as well and a lot of people pushing known false statements.

euphemia
02-02-2017, 09:17 AM
Those seven nations do not have recognized central governments, so we don't really have any way to verify who's coming. The other nations do. There are reasons that have nothing to do with racism.

Eagle Forum has been publishing this information for at least two years. Please visit their site and look through the archives.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 09:31 AM
The mention of proportions of religions in the executive order makes it about religion in those 7 counties. Only one religion would NOT be giving exceptions (it doesn't say exception it says priority. In the ER they take the patient with a gun shot wound before the patient with a dislocated shoulder. That prioritization is only about the order and not telling the shoulder dislocation person they can't be treated second) and that is the muslims. But if you want to expand it out to other countries, a good question would be why aren't the Saudis, Egyptians on the list? (Because those were not part of the list congress passed in 2015 which pointed out specific nations without a form of stable government and thus, an impossible vetting process. It's good to emphasize Trump did not make this "list". But you knew that, right?). That is where the terrorists came from. There is swamp gas wafting all over those exceptions.
An EO is an attempt to circumvent laws passed by congress. (The executive branch carries out the law. When the president directs the executive branch as to how they will carry out a law or prioritize an immigration process, that doesn't infer circumventing congress.) There IS no law passed that give the president authority to issue an EO allowing people into, or barring people into this country based on minority or majority religion (does the EO say this? I thought it says prioritize. Check the EO) and if there is Congress did NOT have the authority to pass it(why not? The 1st amendment doesn't protect non citizens in other countries, does it?) . A President trying to favor certain religions entry into the country, is unconstitutional (quote the constitution- where do you find this?).

more red

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 09:34 AM
Those seven nations do not have recognized central governments, so we don't really have any way to verify who's coming. The other nations do.
.
Exactly right

euphemia
02-02-2017, 09:55 AM
Step one of vetting: Call the country issuing the visa to see if it's legit. If nobody answers the phone, then it will be a 90 day wait.

Adding: Neg reppers crack me up. They repeat verbatim exactly what the msm tells them.

klamath
02-02-2017, 10:11 AM
more red I don't necessary disagree that a strong vetting process needs to happen and if a ban until that process can be sorted out that is fine, but the wording of the EO on religion IS unconstitutional. This has nothing to do with medical triage.
"provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion"
Very specifically and COMPLETELY eliminates Muslims in those countries, no matter how certain sects are being tortured and killed and I guarantee many more Muslims are being killed and tortured in those countries than Christians. I am old enough to remember when the Israeli army over watched the Christian Phalange slaughter 700 to 3000 Muslims in Lebanon.
But I can see it is pretty much useless to continue as I am sure you would find a way to defend trump no matter what he does.

Ender
02-02-2017, 10:25 AM
more red


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So according to you, it's OK for El Pres to do what he wants because he's not Congress? The president has no jurisdiction in making any law.

Ender
02-02-2017, 10:26 AM
Those seven nations do not have recognized central governments, so we don't really have any way to verify who's coming. The other nations do. There are reasons that have nothing to do with racism.

Eagle Forum has been publishing this information for at least two years. Please visit their site and look through the archives.

Are you really saying that Iran has no central government?

klamath
02-02-2017, 10:32 AM
Are you really saying that Iran has no central government? There are no trump hotels in Iran so that equates to no central government....

timosman
02-02-2017, 10:34 AM
There are no trump hotels in Iran so that equates to no central government....

Spicy! :rolleyes:

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 10:51 AM
A President trying to favor certain religions entry into the country, is unconstitutional.

An easy way to settle this. Show me exactly where it says it's unconstitutional for a US president to favor a religion of a foreign person.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 10:55 AM
There is lot's of non main stream media pushing fake news as well and a lot of people pushing known false statements.
I agree.
But there is implied ethics, journalistic integrity and fact-finding, when reading or viewing the mainstream media. That makes for a huge problem as the media was (and is) so trusted. A person reading a blog may mistakenly trust or believe it but their isn't a similar inherent trust applied to all bloggers on the internet

euphemia
02-02-2017, 10:56 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So according to you, it's OK for El Pres to do what he wants because he's not Congress? The president has no jurisdiction in making any law.

Who is doing this? Nobody is. The EO specifically deals with seven nations without strong central governments. People holding visas from those countries are not allowed in for the next 90 days because nobody is manning the phones over there to be able to verify the legitimacy of those documents. It's not religion. It's identity.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 11:00 AM
I don't necessary disagree that a strong vetting process needs to happen and if a ban until that process can be sorted out that is fine, but the wording of the EO on religion IS unconstitutional. This has nothing to do with medical triage.
Very specifically and COMPLETELY eliminates Muslims in those countries, no matter how certain sects are being tortured and killed and I guarantee many more Muslims are being killed and tortured in those countries than Christians. I am old enough to remember when the Israeli army over watched the Christian Phalange slaughter 700 to 3000 Muslims in Lebanon.
But I can see it is pretty much useless to continue as I am sure you would find a way to defend trump no matter what he does.

ok, maybe we need to focus on the wording of the EO. possibly thats where we disagree. To me, prioritizing a group is similar to triage. Are you saying this EO doesn't prioritize but rather goes beyond that?

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 11:05 AM
But I can see it is pretty much useless to continue as I am sure you would find a way to defend trump no matter what he does.

This is quite unfounded.
I would like you to back up your unconstitutional claim. I didn't defend trumps actions, I denied your claim of unconditionality. Please I ask you to just back up that claim with fact, but there is no need for comments linking me to anything trump does(ridiculous!).

timosman
02-02-2017, 11:09 AM
Who is doing this? Nobody is. The EO specifically deals with seven nations without strong central governments. People holding visas from those countries are not allowed in for the next 90 days because nobody is manning the phones over there to be able to verify the legitimacy of those documents. It's not religion. It's identity.

Ender was always a SJW. The vow of poverty may do that to you. :cool:

klamath
02-02-2017, 11:15 AM
An easy way to settle this. Show me exactly where it says it's unconstitutional for a US president to favor a religion of a foreign person.
First amendment but better you show us where in the constitution the president is given the right to regulate travel to this country?

timosman
02-02-2017, 11:24 AM
First amendment but better you show us where in the constitution the president is given the right to regulate travel to this country?

This is sigworthy. The POTUS should only play golf and be telling us how great the economy is doing. Zippy for president! :cool:

klamath
02-02-2017, 11:27 AM
ok, maybe we need to focus on the wording of the EO. possibly thats where we disagree. To me, prioritizing a group is similar to triage. Are you saying this EO doesn't prioritize but rather goes beyond that? Yes. They can get a waver providing that they are the minority. It isn't prioritizing it is ONLY giving the chance for a waver to the minority religion. There is no option to be evaluated in second priority for a waver for the majority religion. There IS NO option to be considered if you belong to the majority religion in any order of priority.

timosman
02-02-2017, 11:32 AM
Yes. They can get a waver providing that they are the minority. It isn't prioritizing it is ONLY giving the chance for a waver to the minority religion. There is no option to be evaluated in second priority for a waver for the majority religion. There IS NO option to be considered if you belong to the majority religion in any order of priority.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xjEvBKid_mg/UH1Tnt5BwkI/AAAAAAAAgxQ/PrmEUOuB2nA/s1600/grasping-at-straws1.jpg

klamath
02-02-2017, 11:34 AM
This is sigworthy. The POTUS should only play golf and be telling us how great the economy is doing. Zippy for president! :cool: And execute the laws passed by congress. As the EO states it is based on a law passed by congress it better NOT have religious exception in it because then it is in violation of the first amendment. Trumps Executive order cites a congressional law as authority it better faithfully follow that law.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 11:52 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So according to you, it's OK for El Pres to do what he wants because he's not Congress? The president has no jurisdiction in making any law.

I never said that, did I?
I specifically said this EO didn't create law. Right?

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 11:54 AM
First amendment
WHAT?
The first amendment relates to a foreign person????

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 11:57 AM
Yes. They can get a waver providing that they are the minority. It isn't prioritizing it is ONLY giving the chance for a waver to the minority religion. There is no option to be evaluated in second priority for a waver for the majority religion. There IS NO option to be considered if you belong to the majority religion in any order of priority.

I don't remember reading this, though I did read the whole EO, so can you please reference the section of the EO you're discussing here? I will read it and then reply. Thank you

klamath
02-02-2017, 12:02 PM
WHAT?
The first amendment relates to a foreign person???? Yes. If congress passes and immigration law that specifically allows only one religion to immigrate it is a violation of the first amendment. If congress passes a law the specifically allows only people with one religion to visit and interact with the people of the US it is in violation of the first amendment.

klamath
02-02-2017, 12:09 PM
I don't remember reading this, though I did read the whole EO, so can you please reference the section of the EO you're discussing here? I will read it and then reply. Thank you

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

timosman
02-02-2017, 12:13 PM
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

This is clearly an exception for people who want to avoid a religious prosecution in their home country. Do you have a problem with that? You think you nailed it?:cool:

klamath
02-02-2017, 12:16 PM
This is clearly an exception for people who want to avoid a religious prosecution in their home country. Do you have a problem with that? You think you nailed it?:cool: Only for minority religions In case you missed the PROVIDED or do you even know how to read a legal text?

timosman
02-02-2017, 12:23 PM
Only for minority religions In case you missed the PROVIDED or do you even know how to read a legal text?

It is hard to be a subject of a religious prosecution if you are the majority religion. Is it simple enough for you? :cool:

klamath
02-02-2017, 12:37 PM
It is hard to be a subject of a religious prosecution if you are the majority religion. Is it simple enough for you? :cool: In case you didn't know I spent a year in Iraq. The 20% Sunni's were absolutely prosecuting the 60% Shiites under Hussein. So Wrong.

timosman
02-02-2017, 12:40 PM
In case you didn't know I spent a year in Iraq. The 20% Sunni's were absolutely prosecuting the 60% Shiites under Hussein. So Wrong.

No disagreement here. What's our role in all of this? Bring them all here cause they do not know how to cope with an aggressive minority and establish the rule of law? :cool:

Ender
02-02-2017, 12:52 PM
There are no trump hotels in Iran so that equates to no central government....

LOL!

klamath
02-02-2017, 01:12 PM
No disagreement here. What's our role in all of this? Bring them all here cause they do not know how to cope with an aggressive minority and establish the rule of law? :cool: You were the one trying to praise Trump for making exceptions for the religious minority and then stated a minority can't be prosecuted.
My issue is the unconstitutionally of that section of Trump's EO as I stated from the beginning. That is the name of this thread.

Ender
02-02-2017, 01:20 PM
Ender was always a SJW. The vow of poverty may do that to you. :cool:

I'm hoping that's sarcasm. ;)

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 02:18 PM
Yes. If congress passes and immigration law that specifically allows only one religion to immigrate it is a violation of the first amendment. If congress passes a law the specifically allows only people with one religion to visit and interact with the people of the US it is in violation of the first amendment.

So, you are explicitly saying that the United States Constitution pertains to non citizens who are not on US Soil?
am I correctly understanding you?

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 02:20 PM
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

Are we reading the same thing?
this says there will be priory (or triage - my word) to organize the groups of people.
And you're saying you read this to say "only" minority religions will be reviewed and possibly waivered?

klamath
02-02-2017, 02:29 PM
Are we reading the same thing?
this says there will be priory (or triage - my word) to organize the groups of people.
And you're saying you read this to say "only" minority religions will be reviewed and possibly waivered? I think the problem is you guys don't know how to read a legal document. When it says "provided" it is modifying the first part of paragraph (b) to only "prioritized refugee claims" IF they are an "minority religion"

Superfluous Man
02-02-2017, 02:39 PM
Their privilege is suspended for 90 days. During the campaign Trump said we need a break. This is a break.


It sounds like your answer to my question is yes.


This is not new. Fifty or sixty years ago many countries would not allow entrance to those who even visited certain places. It was standard, and that was before terrorism became a way to wage war.

And one perfectly appropriate word that we use for such policies is "ban."

Superfluous Man
02-02-2017, 02:42 PM
I never said that, did I?
I specifically said this EO didn't create law. Right?

But it does try to change the law without the legislative branch.

Haven't we already been over this? You even made a remark about Amash's criticism.

klamath
02-02-2017, 02:51 PM
So, you are explicitly saying that the United States Constitution pertains to non citizens who are not on US Soil?
am I correctly understanding you? Congress cannot pass a law giving authority to the president to exclude people based on religion. They can broadly exclude people but NOT narrowing it down by religion. That is giving the federal government the power to favorably, Only allow immigrants of a certain religion. It is especially true at that time when the country was taking in huge numbers of people. If congress was not limited the dominant religion could have forced congress to exclude all religions they didn't like, thereby limiting the free exercise thereof.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 02:59 PM
I think the problem is you guys don't know how to read a legal document. When it says "provided" it is modifying the first part of paragraph (b) to only "prioritized refugee claims" IF they are an "minority religion"
With your legal background can you explain how modifying paragraph (b) excludes the majority religion?
im not a lawyer though I've read many legal documents. This says a minority religion moves to the top of the list. It does not say the majority religion is removed from the list.
If I missed something please quote it for me.

klamath
02-02-2017, 03:16 PM
With your legal background can you explain how modifying paragraph (b) excludes the majority religion?
im not a lawyer though I've read many legal documents. This says a minority religion moves to the top of the list. It does not say the majority religion is removed from the list.
If I missed something please quote it for me.
When it says "provided" that means the prioritized list will only be made from the minority religion applicants. The SOS and SHS will make exceptions on a "basis of religious-based persecution" ONLY if the persons are from a religious minority in that country. There is NO other way to read that. The majority religion of that country will NOT be considered for exceptions, period.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 03:22 PM
Haven't we already been over this?

Yes. We are having a chat under a different subject heading. And I'm enjoying your pov.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 04:03 PM
When it says "provided" that means the prioritized list will only be made from the minority religion applicants. The SOS and SHS will make exceptions on a "basis of religious-based persecution" ONLY if the persons are from a religious minority in that country. There is NO other way to read that. The majority religion of that country will NOT be considered for exceptions, period.

In your reading and interpretation are you including the words prior to your bolding above; "to the extent permitted by law"?
If its not permitted by law (congrsssional law) it's not happening. How is this unconstitutional? I'm still not understanding your view

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 04:14 PM
Congress cannot pass a law giving authority to the president to exclude people based on religion. They can broadly exclude people but NOT narrowing it down by religion. That is giving the federal government the power to favorably, Only allow immigrants of a certain religion. It is especially true at that time when the country was taking in huge numbers of people. If congress was not limited the dominant religion could have forced congress to exclude all religions they didn't like, thereby limiting the free exercise thereof.

How do you define a broad exclusion vs a narrow one? Is it broad to exclude all Muslims (not done in this EO, no matter how much you pretend it to be), and is it narrow to exclude counties listed in a piece of 2015 confessional legislation?
To say something can broadly exclude but cannot narrowly exclude is a difficult proposition. Who defines broad vs narrow?

also, the first amendment specifically means the exercise of religion within the USA jurisdiction. It does not pertain to a religious belief or a personals religion who is a non US citicen and/or not on US soil. This is a pure fact and cannot be disputed. I'm not sure if I may just be misunderstanding your point but to suggest the 1st amendment relates to a foreigner on Non-US soil isn't true ... it's that simple.

klamath
02-02-2017, 04:39 PM
In your reading and interpretation are you including the words prior to your bolding above; "to the extent permitted by law"?
If its not permitted by law (congrsssional law) it's not happening. How is this unconstitutional? I'm still not understanding your view That is a disclaimer thrown in but when it specifically includes language that is clearly against the constitution it is flawed. Nothing in the law that it is based, that I read, says the president can exclude by religion. If it does it is unconstitutional and can be struck down. With His EO he is NOT faithfully executing the law as congress passed it but trying to make a law say something it doesn't which is overstepping the power granted to the Executive branch. That also would be unconstitutional. To say otherwise would be the same as a president issuing a EO that states, "to the extent permitted by the second amendment and the Brady act I hereby order the confiscation of all privately owned firearms in America.

klamath
02-02-2017, 04:48 PM
How do you define a broad exclusion vs a narrow one? Is it broad to exclude all Muslims (not done in this EO, no matter how much you pretend it to be), and is it narrow to exclude counties listed in a piece of 2015 confessional legislation?
To say something can broadly exclude but cannot narrowly exclude is a difficult proposition. Who defines broad vs narrow?

also, the first amendment specifically means the exercise of religion within the USA jurisdiction. It does not pertain to a religious belief or a personals religion who is a non US citicen and/or not on US soil. This is a pure fact and cannot be disputed. I'm not sure if I may just be misunderstanding your point but to suggest the 1st amendment relates to a foreigner on Non-US soil isn't true ... it's that simple.

So let me get this straight. You believe Congress has the authority to pass laws specifically allowing people of only the religion they chose to emigrate to this country?

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 05:21 PM
That is a disclaimer thrown in but when it specifically includes language that is clearly against the constitution it is flawed. Nothing in the law that it is based, that I read, says the president can exclude by religion. If it does it is unconstitutional and can be struck down. With His EO he is NOT faithfully executing the law as congress passed it but trying to make a law say something it doesn't which is overstepping the power granted to the Executive branch. That also would be unconstitutional. To say otherwise would be the same as a president issuing a EO that states, "to the extent permitted by the second amendment and the Brady act I hereby order the confiscation of all privately owned firearms in America.

Now you're really confusing me.
So now you're suggesting that some words are 'thrown in' without meaning or purpose and others are not. On top of it all you're suggesting that you know the difference? Do you realize these words are in a continuous sentence? You can't pick some words and ignore others....I thought you claim to understand legal documents and thus, understand how the English language is written.



Based on your last sentence, the EO would not confiscate any firearms. So what's your point?

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 05:23 PM
So let me get this straight. You believe Congress has the authority to pass laws specifically allowing people of only the religion they chose to emigrate to this country?

I couldn't help but notice how you ignored my opening point. Would you explain how I know the difference between broad and narrow exclusions which you mentioned earlier?

euphemia
02-02-2017, 05:35 PM
So let me get this straight. You believe Congress has the authority to pass laws specifically allowing people of only the religion they chose to emigrate to this country?

Maybe you should go back to reread the order. Nothing about religion. Seven nations mentioned. There is currently no way to verify documents issued by a non-government.

klamath
02-02-2017, 05:36 PM
I couldn't help but notice how you ignored my opening point. Would you explain how I know the difference between broad and narrow exclusions which you mentioned earlier? Tired of arguing the point. Feel free to read the below. Just bear in mind the if we defer to "necessary for national defense" the legal precedent especially if ruled that way by the SC will open the door wide for the next democrat to Declare Global warming a threat to national security superseding all of the bill of rights. Next the domestic war on terrorism will supersede the right to own and bear arms. People never learn. I will do great things with the ring of power...

http://law.emory.edu/eilr/recent-developments/volume-30/essays/first-amendment-muslim-emigrants-denied-entrance-united-states.html


The First Amendment and the Claim That Muslim Emigrants Be Denied Entrance into the United States
Vincent J. Samar *


Abstract

Terrorist attacks throughout the world and particularly within the United States have given rise to a new chapter in the ongoing debate over liberty versus security. The most recent manifestation of this dispute focuses on whether Muslim refugees can be denied entry as a class into the United States, based on their religion alone, for fear they might be harboring potential terrorists. This Essay shows that such a policy cannot be justified under the First Amendment Establishment Clause, as well the United States’ expressed international commitments to preserving international human rights. What can be done is to engage a broader set of investigative approaches that are more likely to provide greater security than any policy focused on religion alone.

Introduction

Recent terrorists’ killings in Paris, France and in San Bernardino, California have caused some in the United States (U.S.) to argue that no Muslims be allowed to emigrate into the United States. 1

This Essay will consider whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution disallows the government from denying any group of people entry into the United States based on religion alone. It also considers what impact the United States barring Muslims from entry would have on its international human rights obligations. Based on the assumption that such a restriction would not normally be within the constitutional power of the government to act, this Essay will also consider whether that limitation might be overcome by a compelling interest on the part of the United States to protect national security. Part I presents a very brief history of the Establishment Cause as a structural limitation on the power of government to act. Part II discusses the U.S.’s obligations under international human rights law to protect both the freedom to emigrate and the freedom of religion. Part III considers the compelling interest of the U.S. federal government to protect national security and the fact that this interest must be narrowly drawn when it would override other fundamental human rights. Finally, Part IV evaluates the practical implications of the present claim that potential Muslim emigrants into the United States can be denied entry based on religion alone.

I. The Establishment Clause

Since I have elsewhere dealt at some length with the Establishment Clause, how it came about, and what it means today, 2

I will keep my remarks here more focused on laying the groundwork for the present issue of Muslim emigration. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in pertinent part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” 3

This provision was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791 to fulfill a compromise reached in 1788 in Massachusetts between those who sought to create a strong central government and those concerned with protecting states’ rights and personal liberties. 4

The early history of the republic shows that many of the colonies were founded not so much out of fear of European state-established religions, but more out of fear that the state would force conformity and membership in a state religion. 5

Unfortunately, as several colonies in the New World sought to establish a particular religion, not all were tolerant of outsiders’ religions. 6

James Hudson provides a concise summary of the state of religion at the founding of the American Republic:

Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the Old World theory that sanctioned it, the need for uniformity of religion in the state. Once in control in New England, they sought to break “the very neck of Schism and vile opinions.” The “business” of the first settlers, a Puritan minister recalled in 1681, “was not Toleration, but [they] were professed enemies of it.” Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, a fate that in 1636 befell Roger Williams and in 1638 Anne Hutchinson, America’s first major female religious leader. Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661. Reflecting on the seventeenth century’s intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659 Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that “if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature.” 7


One of the most enlightening indications of early intolerance was the Virginia Declaration of Rights. “After declaring that ‘all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,’” Article 16 of the Declaration continued “that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” 8

Five states—New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina, and to some degree, Maryland—“continued to have tax-supported established churches.” 9


Concerns such as these would later lead James Madison to note in the Federalist Paper No. 10 that “[a] zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points . . . have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good.” 10

As a consequence, when the new Constitution of 1787 was proposed to replace the Articles of Confederation, it specifically provided that

[t]he Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 11


Anti-Federalists’ sentiment regarding the relationship of government to religion was more inconsistent. 12

Still, even the Constitution’s exclusion of a religious test as a way to avoid too much government involvement with religion would hardly have satisfied the Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson, who would later come to propose a “wall of separation between Church and State.” 13

Justice Reynolds would later elevate Jefferson’s proposal in Reynolds v. United States, 14

the 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a federal law prohibiting polygamy in the then territory of Utah, by saying it “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] [A]mendment thus secured.” 15

Indeed, the idea of a wall of separation would subsequently be invoked by Justice Hugo Black to also apply to states in Everson v. Board of Education, a case involving state reimbursements to parents for transportation of children attending public and parochial schools. 16

There, Justice Black held that the Establishment Clause applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, while still upholding New Jersey’s law permitting reimbursement of transportation expenses. 17


More recent commentary on the Establishment Clause describes the approaches taken by different Supreme Court Justices as “strict separation,” “neutrality theory,” and “accommodation/equality.” 18

The basis for these seemingly different approaches no doubt stems from the fact that the amendment itself does not clearly state what exactly constitutes an establishment of religion. This lack of clarity is especially poignant when, at times, it appears that the government can use religion in furtherance of various independent objectives, such as allowing state funding of religious-based drug and alcohol treatment centers. 19

Still, Everson demonstrates that the Court will inevitably interpret the Establishment Clause alongside the Free Exercise Clause, causing it to walk a tightrope between the two clauses. This would have been necessary in Everson, where some parents would have chosen to send their children to parochial rather than public schools. Still, the outer parameter of how far any accommodation to religion can go before it becomes an establishment of the state seems clear in Justice Black’s statement in Everson that the

“establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. 20


Despite the subtle differences between various government benefit programs that involve religion, the clear line between accommodation and establishment is where the government’s action will “aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” 21

That is especially true, as Justice Black noted, not only where a criminal punishment may be involved, but also where the government imposition is in the form of a tax or a mere regulation that favors one religion over another. 22

The clear message Justice Black set out is that government cannot in any way favor one religion over another if the government is acting on the basis of religion alone. 23

Thus, if the effect of the government’s actions is to benefit one religion over another, it must in all cases be based, at least in part, on some independent, legitimate reason that the government has a powerful obligation to promote.

II. International Human Rights Law

Several international human rights documents address the rights to emigrate and of religious freedom. For example, Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations in 1948 states: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” 24

The Article goes on to provide that the right can only be asserted by those suffering from political, not civil, persecution. 25

Although it was originally believed to set forth only aspirational goals for U.N. member states to achieve, “the reference to [it as] customary law has become a standard argument in discussions of the legal nature of the Declaration and individual provisions thereof,” which would make it binding on all member states. 26

Additionally, Article 18 of the UDHR provides: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” 27

Particularly important when analyzing Article 18 of the UDHR is its subsequent inclusion in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has almost identical wording. 28

This fact is crucial in understanding that the rights to emigrate and of religious freedom are binding treaty obligations on ICCPR signatory states, which includes the United States. 29


Reading these two documents—the UDHR and the ICCPR—together creates an obligation for the nations of the world to assist people escaping political persecution in their home countries and to do so without regard to their religious biases or prejudices. While the UDHR does not prescribe how many emigrants escaping persecution a country must admit, the UDHR, read alongside the ICCPR, clearly requires that the determination not be based on religion alone. That said, it would certainly be within the normal sovereign authority of any nation-state to provide appropriate quotas and vetting to ensure its own national well-being within the broader humanitarian purposes these treaties set forth. What would not be legal would be for a nation-state to refuse to admit an immigrant solely on grounds of the petitioner’s religion, while immigrants with other religious beliefs are easily admitted. This limitation is especially true where a nation-state has already agreed to admit persecuted persons, because the UDHR obligation is not even an issue in that case; rather, only the closing of the door to immigrants based on their religious belief would be a problem, should it happen.

Here it is important to also note that the ICCPR has the authority of federal—not just international—law. Under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution,

all Treatises made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be [along with the Constitution itself and the Laws of the United States which are made in Pursuance thereof] the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 30


Since the ICCPR was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, it is binding on the United States not only as a matter of international treaty law, but also as a matter of domestic federal law. 31

This means that, both as a matter of international and federal law, the United States cannot conduct its own immigration policy in a way that discriminates against immigrants based strictly on their religion. But what exactly would that policy look like?

In accordance with its obligations under the UDHR, the United States has an immigration policy designed to address incoming refugees seeking asylum from political persecution. 32

U.S. Immigration Policy is rather complex but can be briefly summarized as follows:

Refugees are admitted to the United States based upon an inability to return to their home countries because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to their race, membership in a social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. Refugees apply for admission from outside of the United States, generally from a “transition country” that is outside their home country. The admission of refugees turns on numerous factors such as the degree of risk they face, membership in a group that is of special concern to the United States (designated yearly by the President of the United States and Congress), and whether or not they have family members in the U.S. 33


This policy both provides the criteria for who can be admitted to the country and affords the President a fair amount of discretion in making decisions about which groups are designated for admission. Still, it is clear from the language of the ICCPR and the U.S. Constitution, as discussed above, that religion by itself can never be a basis for refusing admittance, especially where the persecution is itself connected to religion. If religion could operate as the sole determinant for admission to the country, it would create a conflict between the government’s constitutional authority to provide a system for immigration and naturalization 34

and the Establishment Clause’s limitation on the government’s ability to act in these circumstances.

III. Protecting the National Security of the United States

By now it should be clear that because the United States cannot constitutionally favor one religion over another and because its international obligations and domestic policy require it to provide refuge for those fleeing political persecution, a general ban against Muslim emigrants fleeing persecution is not legally tenable. This does not, however, mean that appropriate procedures cannot be put in place to ensure the security and safety of those living in the United States. The problem that arises here, as with most areas where different legal (including, in this case, constitutional) obligations intersect, is knowing exactly where to draw this line.

As a general constitutional matter, the state cannot establish religion. But what if religion is itself an indicator of a potential threat to the homeland? Can the federal government then potentially refuse to grant refugee status to Muslims outside the United States fleeing persecution in order to safeguard the homeland? In other words, even though most Muslims are not terrorists, can refugee status be refused to all Muslims if a significant number of terrorists are Muslim? On the one hand, the First Amendment does not permit states to favor one religion over another, and refusing entry to Muslims would in fact be favoring non-Muslim refugees over Muslim refugees. Of course, the alleged reason for the United States restricting entry for Muslim refugees would not be because they are Muslim per se, but because the government views being Muslim as an indicator that the refugee is a terrorist. The problem is not avoided by claiming that non-nationals do not have a constitutional right to emigrate; the issue here is a structural limitation on the power of the U.S. government to establish religion—not to whom the right is being denied. While non-national refugees of any faith have a right to the possibility of asylum under the UDHR, their claim must be juxtaposed with the U.S. government’s constitutional obligation and sovereign authority to protect its own national security interests. I would present this latter obligation as the focus when deciding whether any group can be excluded from entry into the United States based on the compelling interests of national security and protection that every government shares and has a right to pursue.

The Constitution acknowledges this compelling interest when it states: “We the People of the United States . . . [are empowered to] provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity . . . .” 35

In so doing, it affords to Congress the specific power to raise an army and a navy, 36

and says that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual service of the United States . . . .” 37

But does the Constitution’s acknowledgement of these specific security interests automatically legitimize excluding any Muslim non-nationals from emigrating into the country, even if statistical support suggests that the exclusion of Muslims is likely to advance security? If it does, then this would seem to be a far greater extension of the federal government’s reach of power than the framers of the Bill of Rights intended when they adopted the Establishment Clause as a structural limitation on the scope of government power.

IV. Evaluating Muslim Refugees Entering the United States

It has been suggested that the Muslim refugee issue might bring about a rerun of the situation in Korematsu v. United States, 38

only now applied to Muslim non-nationals rather than Japanese-American citizens. In Korematsu, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive Order after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

designed to safeguard “against espionage [and] against sabotage,” and providing that certain military commanders might designate “military areas” in the United States “from which any and all persons may be excluded, and with which right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions” the “Military Commander may impose in his discretion.” The West Coast program established for persons of Japanese ancestry included curfews, detention in relocation centers, and exclusion from the West Coast area. 39


In 1943, following a unanimous upholding of the curfew orders in Hirabayashi v. United States, the Court upheld the exclusion order by majority vote in Korematsu. 40

That decision has since been deeply regretted by subsequent members of the Supreme Court, most recently by Justice Stephen Breyer in his 2015 book, in which he points out that there was not a shred of evidence to support the government’s alleged need to exclude American citizens of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and to intern them in detention camps. 41

The case was decided based on a perceived but unsubstantiated notion of military necessity. 42

It was a racial classification, but the Court was willing to accept the government’s interest as a sufficiently compelling justification, regardless of whether it applied strict scrutiny.

The present situation involving Muslim refugees does not exactly mirror Korematsu because the Muslims in question are not American citizens with the full range of constitutional rights that American citizens possess. However, once we move beyond this difference, the motivation for banning Muslim refugees from entering the United States parallels the motiviations in Korematsu: they are based on fear following armed attacks by a particular group. In Korematsu, the government reacted to the widespread fear in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Now, it wants to react to the widespread fear following the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernadino by radical Muslims.

The problem with fear is that it can lead to poor assessments of the real dangers Americans and the world face. Are not most of the refugees that a blanket ban on entry into the country would exclude themselves fleeing the same destabilized dangerous conditions that Americans are now so concerned about? Could not a terrorist just as easily enter the country posing as a non-Muslim European or even an American returning home to engage in a terrorist act? Indeed, while the husband in the San Bernardino attacks was a Muslim, he was also an American citizen, whom one would not normally exclude. 43

It would seem like the idea that religion should be the single factor deciding who enters and who is kept out of the United States would actually decrease the real level of security that the ban is supposed to create. Without denying that there is a real compelling interest for security and protection, all this goes to say that the measure being focused upon, namely being a member of the Islamic faith, is both over- and under-exclusive as a matter of law. It is over-exclusive in that it keeps out potentially thousands of non-terrorists fleeing persecution, and in that sense puts the country in the position of not living up to its own values and international legal commitments. At the same time, it is also under-inclusive in allowing those who too easily present themselves as non-Muslims or with some other seemingly legitimate connection to potentially slide under the vetting radar. A far better alternative would be to reform the measure by basing the determination on how likely the person is to actually present a threat to national security.

Such an alternative would not merely focus on any single measure, especially one as elusive as religion, but would consider a spectrum of activities and behaviors, such as past and present associations, as well as serious psychological assessments, 44

including the person’s commitment to finding a job and making a life for themselves and their family and living in a diverse community. It would also look at present behavior and ask immigrants to report what could be considered suspicious or potentially harmful criminal activity, regardless of where it occurs or by whom. Granted, this is not a full-proof way to ensure safety and security. There is no such thing as a full-proof guarantee of safety and security any more than employees going to work or teachers going to school can be absolutely certain that a threat will not make its way into their lives. But this is certainly a far more effective way of ensuring security than bringing into what is already a dangerous situation widespread fear, which would not only put the United States in the untenable position of violating its own values and legal commitments but encourage a general distrust of Muslims. Such a distrust would only serve to engender reciprocal fear and distrust from Muslim immigrants. At a time when the United States and its allies need to work together with both Muslims living in the U.S., as well as the nations of the Middle East, especially the Muslim nations, the focus must be to bring people together under the values and ideals established by our constitutional order and international commitments. We must not squander these opportunities by giving into irrational fears that will not provide us real security and, in the long run, will probably do more harm than good by making us complacent in the belief we have solved the security problem.

Conclusion

In this short Essay, I have tried to show—by pointing out how one misguided suggestion that would ban a whole group of people from entering the country based on their religious belief—that the challenges posed by global terrorism will not be resolved by breaking faith with those constitutional principles and international human rights values that have allowed us to develop as a nation and to protect the human dignity and freedom that we have all come to cherish. I have further tried to demonstrate that only by continuing on this path of developing those principles and values along with the institutions that can sustain them will we be able to ensure the future and avoid the darkness of fear that might otherwise inhibit our development as a free people. We stand at an epic crossroads with the other nations of the world over what kind of future we shall impart to the next generation. Hopefully, it will be one where the dignity of the individual matters constitutionally across the globe, so that people are judged by how they act, and not by what they believe.

Ender
02-02-2017, 06:00 PM
Maybe you should go back to reread the order. Nothing about religion. Seven nations mentioned. There is currently no way to verify documents issued by a non-government.

Maybe you should.

Iran DOES have a central government- the TPTB just doesn't like it.

fedupinmo
02-02-2017, 06:21 PM
I think the problem is you guys don't know how to read a legal document. When it says "provided" it is modifying the first part of paragraph (b) to only "prioritized refugee claims" IF they are an "minority religion"

Pondering the 20/60 split in Iraq mentioned above... if the persecuted side is a majority, they need to man up and fix their own plight, where a minority would not be able to overcome a majority already in power.
Also, the claims to be prioritized in your quote are not on the basis of religion, but on that of persecution for the reason of religion.

Superfluous Man
02-02-2017, 06:28 PM
Maybe you should go back to reread the order. Nothing about religion.

Seriously?

Maybe YOU should go back and reread it. It definitely does mention religion. And Trump has talked specifically about that provision, saying that the point of it is to give preference to Christians over Muslims.

Ender
02-02-2017, 07:12 PM
Judge Nap on the subject:


The President and Immigration

By Andrew P. Napolitano

February 2, 2017

This past weekend, we all saw massive public outrage in major cities throughout the country. It was directed at the Jan. 27 issuance of an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump, addressing immigration. With the executive order, the president ordered the suspension of entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, as well as anyone from Syria for an indefinite period and anyone from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days.

The crowds of protesters, which included members of Congress, called the president a tyrant. The president argued that he was lawfully protecting the country from those who might facilitate terrorist attacks here. Can he legally do this?

Here is the back story.

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to regulate naturalization, which is the process of becoming an American citizen. It does not expressly give it the power to regulate immigration, which is the process of legally entering the country. From 1776 to 1882, Congress recognized this distinction by staying largely silent on immigration, and thus, anyone could come here from anywhere, with the only real regulation being for public health.

In 1882, Congress gave itself the power to regulate immigration, contending that although the Constitution was silent on the issue, the concept of nationhood gave Congress the ability to regulate the nation’s borders and thereby control who was permitted to enter from foreign countries and under what circumstances.

In response to economic competition from Asian immigrants in California — and in the midst of anti-Asian racial animus — Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which limited the number of immigrants from China for 10 years. In 1892, Congress extended the law for another 10 years, and in 1902, Congress made the law permanent. In 1924, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, which restricted entry into the United States through quotas with respect to national origins. The quotas were capped in 1929, reduced in 1943 and substantially expanded in 1965.

In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly authorized the president to suspend the immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons.

The courts have upheld this presidential power because under our system, immigration materially affects the nation’s foreign policy and foreign policy is constitutionally the domain of the president — with Congress’ role being limited to the senatorial confirmation of treaties and ambassadors and to authorization of money for the president to spend. Yet the courts have limited the president’s exercise of this power so that he cannot base it on First Amendment-protected liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, religion and association. So he cannot bar an immigrant because of the immigrant’s political views, religion or colleagues.

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter exercised this presidential power to bar anyone from Iran from entering the country until the hostage crisis was resolved. In 2011, President Barack Obama used this presidential power to bar anyone from Iraq from entering the country for six months.

Enter President Trump.

As a candidate, Trump promised that he would secure the nation’s borders from those whom he deems harmful to national security for limited periods of time — at least until he and those under him could determine a more accurate mechanism for separating the true refugees from the ones seeking entry for nefarious purposes. On his eighth day in office, he did just that.

The reaction was swift, loud and seemingly everywhere as foreign-born people, many with green cards and visas, were stopped and detained at the nation’s international airports last Saturday. Over the weekend, federal judges in New York City, Boston, Virginia and Seattle ruled that Trump’s order could not apply to green card holders or those who received valid State Department-issued visas based on the pre-executive order protocol.

To its credit, the government recognized that the language of the executive order needed to be clarified because green card holders, no matter the country of origin, have the same right of exit and entry as citizens. Moreover, the government cannot constitutionally give anyone a benefit — such as a visa — and then nullify the benefit because it changed the issuing standards afterward. So the Trump changes can be prospective only.

Where does this leave us?

Expect numerous challenges in Congress and in the courts to Trump’s order because, the challengers will argue, though its stated purpose was not to bar a religious group, its effect is largely to bar Muslims. For sure, the courts will address this. The purpose/effect distinction — which exists in many areas of the law, such as school desegregation, legislative apportionment and voting rights — has not been accepted by the courts against a president for a temporary immigration ban because the courts have often deferred to presidents on foreign policy.

Is the ban just?

Everyone knows we are a nation of immigrants. Three of my grandparents immigrated here as children. Most people recognize that all people have the natural right to travel, which means they can seek entry here; but the country has accepted the ideas that our borders are not open, that the welfare state here is not without financial limits and that in perilous times such as today, immigration is largely and legally in the hands of the president, whether one has voted for him or not.

Yet like all governmental powers, particularly those that often clash with natural rights when they are exercised, the power to regulate immigration must be exercised narrowly. Many reading this are here because someone left another country for the freedoms that are respected here. Those freedoms are natural to everyone and will always draw people here.

The government can only morally and constitutionally interfere with personal freedom for the most compelling of reasons and utilizing the least restrictive means. Is the government faithful to that well-recognized rule? We shall soon see.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 07:18 PM
Tired of arguing the point.
you make a comment about broad vs narrow exclusions. I ask you twice to explain. You can't. And now you throw in the towel in such a way as to pretend you are simply tired, rather than unable to explain or defend your position. There is no shame in changing your mind with more information or admitting you made a poor comment about narrow exclusions.
Not sure why you're arguing in the first place. I was asking questions to better understand positions of some (not only you as I've engaged others here too) so it's unfortunate to learn that this wasn't a discussion back and forth but rather you took this as a 'dig your heels in' style debate.


I will continue asking questions so you shouldn't feel the need to quote me in the future and I won't quote you. But know that my continued comments are to try and understand how and why people are fighting this EO so hard. I'm not sure I've ever seen an EO I've liked. I've made hard claims of unconstitutionality to many if not all other meaningful EO's but to me, this specific one doesn't fit into the same box. Trump has already made other EOs i label as unconstitutional and I look forward to being on the same side of those issues with you in the future.

+Rep to you as I appreciate all your time discussing this with me.

TommyJeff
02-02-2017, 07:29 PM
Judge Nap on the subject:

The judge is great. Thanks for posting.

He point out (you forgot to bold it), that this isn't a Muslim or religious ban.

It also sounds like every single congressional immigration law is and was unconstitutional.

A little pet-peeve of mine is when people say we are a nation of immigrants.... not so. We are a nation of citizens.


And now, where does that leave us? A president made an EO directing the executive branch how to carry out an unconstitutional congressional law:confused:

RJB
02-02-2017, 07:35 PM
Haven't we already been over this? .

That might have been under one of your other sock puppet accounts.

PierzStyx
03-01-2017, 01:44 PM
Responses in bold.


How do you cope with life? Instead of just disagreeing, anyone who differs from your specific views is a traitor or neocon or has some other moral failing. You behave like a degenerate.

I don't dance around things as they appear. These conversations are meaningless unless you're willing to be real. And so I keep it real.

If you claim to be loyal to the Constitution but then call for massive big government programs not just not authorized but specifically forbidden by the US Constitution (through the ban of the Tenth Amendment) then you are betraying the cause which you wish to support. That makes you a traitor. It also falls directly in line with neocon propaganda where they say all the right words about following the Constitution but then violate it as a matter of course.

There is nothing degenerate about this. Quite the opposite in fact. What is degenerate is this feel good snowflake culture that is so afraid of hurting the feelings of someone else that they allow for all kinds of immorality, hypocrisy, backbiting, and lies to slide by as if they were of equal value to the truth.



Clearly Ron Paul thinks the federal government should regulate immigration and that it is constitutional.

As I've argued elsewhere, Dr. Paul's arguments on regulating immigration are highly mixed. In some places he sounds as if he is willing to regulate immigration at a national level and in other places he talks about having absolute free trade by having borders so porous human capital can move through it at will.

Zippyjuan
03-01-2017, 01:50 PM
Responses in bold.



As I've argued elsewhere, Dr. Paul's arguments on regulating immigration are highly mixed. In some places he sounds as if he is willing to regulate immigration at a national level and in other places he talks about having absolute free trade by having borders so porous human capital can move through it at will.

A truely free market allows for the free movement of both labor and capital.

PierzStyx
03-01-2017, 05:18 PM
A truely free market allows for the free movement of both labor and capital.

And to betray my own bias perhaps, I think that is what Ron Paul truly supports. In the primary elections he always talked about having the soldiers come home and "guard America's borders," which some took to meant he was saying he thought soldiers should prevent illegal immigration. But I'm not convinced he meant it that way as much as he wanted the nationalists in the Republican Party to think he meant it that way. He never actually said it and one could argue that the army would "guard America" simply by being back IN America. Remember he also talked about drastically cutting military spending, which would require the shrinking of the Army as a necessity.

Going along with this you have to pay attention to how he couches his language about "limiting" immigration. He has outright called for amnesty for illegals -giving them a green card but not citizenship, perhaps ever- here in the US, he openly derides any verification of citizenship for employment regulations like E-Verify, he opposes any sort of barrier like a wall, and his "solution" to so many illegal immigrants coming to America is to get rid of the welfare state.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/september/05/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem/

Do any of those sound like they're federal government actions to actually limit or prevent immigration in any way to you? Because they don't sound like that to me.

To go along with this, in "Swords Into Plowshares," Dr. Paul openly says that if you want true peace then you have to have completely free markets where all capital, even human capital, can freely move between nations without restriction. And if that doesn't sound like open borders then I don't know what does.