US President actually can legally bar any group from entering the US

[Damajin]

I love when conservatives argue in favor of more government and less freedom, it's hilarious.

It's not more government, it's already existing.

Less freedom for who, citizens? Because at the end of the day that's all that matters, non citizens are only a factor inasmuch as goods and services can be exchanged. We're under zero obligation to those people, and especially in the pretext of them being a threat at the worst and completely incompatible with our culture at the least.

[Stormdash]

Already had this explained to you. The Constitution is a restriction on government, not an empowerment of individuals. The government isn't exempt from 1st amendment restrictions when targeting non citizens.

Except the 1st Amendment is not implicated by the proposed policy, at all. "Because religion" doesn't actually = 1st Amendment issue. It would only be a free exercise issue if you were claiming that somebody had a religious duty to enter the United States and it was being obstructed by the policy.

[Wells]

Easy, you just list specific nations and site the reason as security concerns, boom done.

And when the ACLU takes it to court how does the government defend these "security concerns"?

[Theinquisition]

Which ones? No court is going to buy "We're not banning muslims, we're just basing our ban on how many muslims are in that country"


No one who makes this argument ever makes it honestly.

We cite security concerns, given whats going on in Europe, im sure most Americans with an iota of common sense would agree. unless you're for attacks at concerts and parades.

- - - Updated - - -

Already had this explained to you. The Constitution is a restriction on government, not an empowerment of individuals. The government isn't exempt from 1st amendment restrictions when targeting non citizens.

The gov't can restrict immigration for any reason at any time. Period. end of story.

[Machismo]

For the 1st Amendment to bar a state action, the state action must impute one of the rights listed therein.

-- the free press
-- the freedom of speech
-- the exercise of religion
-- to peaceably assemble
-- to petition the government

None of those are implicated by a federal statute or regulation that prohibits entry into the US by someone without legal status here already (again, citizenship or a green card, basically). You do not have a religious right to enter the US. You do not have a speech right to enter the US. You do not have a journalistic right to enter the US. The 1st Amendment is no more implicated by immigration policy than is the 7th Amendment.

Likewise, the 5th/14th Amendment due process clauses do not apply to whether or not you are admitted/excluded from the US. The person excluded doesn't even have a way to legally challenge the decision, and nobody else has standing to do so on their behalf.

But standing can be made by those within the country, and the person outside the country can have legal recourse. It's not about having a religious right to enter the country, it's about the government being able to restrict you from entering based on one's religion. The law itself falls under the jurisdiction of the United States, and must pass constitutional scrutiny. Once again, I'd be more than willing to bet how it would go down in the SCOTUS. Of course, we will never see such a thing in our lifetimes.

[Wells]

Except the 1st Amendment is not implicated by the proposed policy, at all. "Because religion" doesn't actually = 1st Amendment issue. It would only be a free exercise issue if you were claiming that somebody had a religious duty to enter the United States and it was being obstructed by the policy.

Courts rightly don't take into account the merits religious dogmas when ruling. If someone says their religion requires entry to the US the court just rolls with the assumption that their faith does in fact do that.

[Theinquisition]

I love when conservatives argue in favor of more government and less freedom, it's hilarious.

I'm sorry, a restriction on immigration is a restriction on citizens freedoms how?

[Wells]

We cite security concerns, given whats going on in Europe, im sure most Americans with an iota of common sense would agree. unless you're for attacks at concerts and parades.

Except there are tons of very very dangerous nations that aren't muslim dominate. You're clearly picking based on religion and then constructing a post hoc justification.

The gov't can restrict immigration for any reason at any time. Period. end of story.

Yes, but the government also can't make laws with respect to religion. Your ban is pretty clearly that.

[Machismo]

Easy, you just list specific nations and site the reason as security concerns, boom done.

And that would be perfectly acceptable to do. The idea would be to come up with a different reason other than purely on religious grounds.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Wait people thought this wasn't possible?
How can this be a surprise to anyone at this point.
That's why Trump has the potential to be so dangerous.

[Machismo]

It's not more government, it's already existing.

Less freedom for who, citizens? Because at the end of the day that's all that matters, non citizens are only a factor inasmuch as goods and services can be exchanged. We're under zero obligation to those people, and especially in the pretext of them being a threat at the worst and completely incompatible with our culture at the least.

That is more government. The idea for less government would be to get rid of the restrictions. See, more government.

Freedom is universal. If you only care about freedom for some, or some freedoms, then you don't actually care about freedom at all. Muslim control is the same as gun control.

[Ausr]

what value is that?

Once again, we are under NO obligation to just let anyone in at anytime.

That was a general Americans values line. Which, again, I guess we should just give up and give into terrorism, amirite? Too scared to let people in anymore. /shrug

[Stormdash]

And when the ACLU takes it to court how does the government defend these "security concerns"?

They don't; they win dismissal because there is no standing nor a present case or controversy, or a summary judgment on the merits since the power to exclude is a plenary power.

[Theinquisition]

And when the ACLU takes it to court how does the government defend these "security concerns"?

First of all, the ACLU would have nothing to stand on since, NO ONE outside of citizens have the explicit right to enter the nation. This has already been addressed. The
Secondly, yeah we can point at terror attacks at home and abroad by foreign nationals for justification.

I don't get it wells, do you legit WANT more people in our nation who agree with persecution, and murder of gays, atheists and non-believers?

[Machismo]

I'm sorry, a restriction on immigration is a restriction on citizens freedoms how?

It's a restriction on freedom, I never said it was just for citizens. If you think freedom should end at an imaginary line in the dirt, then you should really ask yourself if you actually support freedom, or oppression.

[Wells]

They don't; they win dismissal because there is no standing nor a present case or controversy, or a summary judgment on the merits since the power to exclude is a plenary power.

So they find someone with a relative who's trying to enter the country. Standing. Again, this is so clearly a violation of the 1st amendment's restriction on government action its astounding someone would defend it.

[Damajin]

Courts rightly don't take into account the merits religious dogmas when ruling. If someone says their religion requires entry to the US the court just rolls with the assumption that their faith does in fact do that.

Ah so here we go, the whole justification for this line of thought is someone can just say "my religion compels me to enter the US" and the Court is going to just automatically 'assume their faith does in fact do that' huh? Pretty illogical, and far more likely to get smoked out and wrecked than any of the garbage these naysayers have tossed around in this thread as to why this isn't valid.

[Wells]

First of all, the ACLU would have nothing to stand on since, NO ONE outside of citizens have the explicit right to enter the nation. This has already been addressed. The
Secondly, yeah we can point at terror attacks at home and abroad by foreign nationals for justification.

You think "we have to ban travel from these countries that happen to be muslim dominate because terrorism, but it has nothing to do with them being muslim dominate? And we won't be banning any other nations" is going to hold up?

I don't get it wells, do you legit WANT more people in our nation who agree with persecution, and murder of gays, atheists and non-believers?

Was wondering how long you'd be able to keep yourself from falling back on this behavior.

[Theinquisition]

And that would be perfectly acceptable to do. The idea would be to come up with a different reason other than purely on religious grounds.

Okay....

Restrict migration from any nation that harbors, endorses, or otherwise supports known terror organizations, at the discretion of the govt. Long list, and we get to be selective.

[Wells]

Ah so here we go, the whole justification for this line of thought is someone can just say "my religion compels me to enter the US" and the Court is going to just automatically 'assume their faith does in fact do that' huh? Pretty illogical, and far more likely to get smoked out and wrecked than any of the garbage these naysayers have tossed around in this thread as to why this isn't valid.

Not illogical at all. Its pretty obviously a bad idea to have courts deciding which religious beliefs are real and which arent.