Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Logwyn]

What.........

What trump wants to do is unconstitutional, period. .

Does this not set a precedence that the Constitution covers aliens and non citizens at-least as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned?

That opens a Pandora's box that I don't think we want to open if so.

[Wells]

Does this not set a precedence that the Constitution covers aliens and non citizens at-least as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned?

That opens a Pandora's box that I don't think we want to open if so.

Of course it does, at least in part. It always has. Most of the Bill of Rights restricts the government, it doesn't grant citizens things directly. There's no provision for "citizens only" in the first amendment for instance.

[Shadowferal]

Does this not set a precedence that the Constitution covers aliens and non citizens at-least as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned?

That opens a Pandora's box that I don't think we want to open if so.

If Trump and Co hadn't already openly said it was to effectively ban anyone of a certain religion, that might be an argument.

[Orange Joe]

Does this not set a precedence that the Constitution covers aliens and non citizens at-least as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned?

That opens a Pandora's box that I don't think we want to open if so.

Pretty sure that has already been set. When it refers to citizen they are talking about citizens. If they mention person/people they are talking about anyone.

[Tijuana]

Pretty sure that has already been set. When it refers to citizen they are talking about citizens. If they mention person/people they are talking about anyone.

You are missing his point. The US Constitution only applies to citizens, or people in our country. People outside our borders do not have access to our legal system. If they did, they could endlessly sue us over not being allowed in, for example.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it does, at least in part. It always has. Most of the Bill of Rights restricts the government, it doesn't grant citizens things directly. There's no provision for "citizens only" in the first amendment for instance.

I'm sorry but no. Just...no. Current precedent DOES NOT grant constitutional rights to all persons. You must be either a citizen, or be in our country, or have previously been in our country to be granted access to our courts. This is one of the key elements that makes this judicial decision laughable on it's face.

[Orange Joe]

You are missing his point. The US Constitution only applies to citizens, or people in our country. People outside our borders do not have access to our legal system. If they did, they could endlessly sue us over not being allowed in, for example.

Again this is 100% false. It only applies to citizens in the parts that says citizen. Any part that mentions "persons/people" Refers to anyone.

[Tijuana]

If Trump and Co hadn't already openly said it was to effectively ban anyone of a certain religion, that might be an argument.

Except using prior statements, to clarify what is not unclear, IS in fact unprecedented. This literally is not an actual thing, currently. That is why team Cheeto has to fight this silly fight, to ensure that precedent is NOT set in this silly manner.

[Wells]

I'm sorry but no. Just...no. Current precedent DOES NOT grant constitutional rights to all persons. You must be either a citizen, or be in our country, or have previously been in our country to be granted access to our courts. This is one of the key elements that makes this judicial decision laughable on it's face.

1st amendment for example:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At no time does it take consideration for the citizenship of the population in question.

[Tijuana]

Again this is 100% false. It only applies to citizens in the parts that says citizen. Any part that mentions "persons/people" Refers to anyone.

Which are detailed....in the same fucking sentence after what you bolded. Are you for real?

- - - Updated - - -

1st amendment for example:



At no time does it take consideration for the citizenship of the population in question.

.....dude...really?


So, in your world, each amendment must also contain all of the other parts of the constitution that state various other things? I don't even...are you....wait, what?

I mean, we could all sit around like chimpanzees and pretend we have never seen this document before. Or, we could trust in the hundreds of prior decisions that have been made about what this or that means. In said decisions, at no time in US history, has the precedent been established that people with no standing have access to constitutional rights.

Listen to what you are arguing. Are you saying that, for example, the 2nd amendment applies to non-US persons?

Did you even think this through...at all?

[Shadowferal]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Apparently subject to interpretation by some that don't understand that this applies to everyone.

[Wells]

.....dude...really?


So, in your world, each amendment must also contain all of the other parts of the constitution that state various other things? I don't even...are you....wait, what?

Derpy incredulity is a poor substitute for reasoned argument. Much of the Bill of Rights is written in such a way that it constitutes a restriction on government and makes no mention of the citizenship status of individuals effected.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say people have a right to free speech, it tells the government that it can't infringe on the right that exists already.

I mean you don't seriously think only citizens have a right to a trial do you?

[Orange Joe]

Derpy incredulity is a poor substitute for reasoned argument. Much of the Bill of Rights is written in such a way that it constitutes a restriction on government and makes no mention of the citizenship status of individuals effected.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say people have a right to free speech, it tells the government that it can't infringe on the right that exists already.

I mean you don't seriously think only citizens have a right to a trial do you?

Just don't ask him for proof. He will then go off about how you are talking in circles and then "dismiss" you.

[Wells]

Just don't ask him for proof. He will then go off about how you are talking in circles and then "dismiss" you.

I'm familiar with his usual MO, but whatevs.

[Tijuana]

Derpy incredulity is a poor substitute for reasoned argument. Much of the Bill of Rights is written in such a way that it constitutes a restriction on government and makes no mention of the citizenship status of individuals effected.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say people have a right to free speech, it tells the government that it can't infringe on the right that exists already.

I mean you don't seriously think only citizens have a right to a trial do you?

The entire constitution is a limiting document. That is the whole point of it. That is literally the point of the constitution.

Yes, I absolutely think that only people with standing (citizens or humans who have set foot inside our borders), have access to our courts. That is a VITAL separation. Without that separation, our courts could effectively be DDOSed by others tying up the system with frivolous cases. This is not the only concern however. There are a multitude of Pandora's box issues that would arise from a policy such as this. No nation on THIS planet, awards the same rights to non-citizens, as it does to citizens. That would be madness.

[Wells]

The entire constitution is a limiting document. That is the whole point of it. That is literally the point of the constitution.

Yes, I absolutely think that only people with standing (citizens or humans who have set foot inside our borders), have access to our courts. That is a VITAL separation. Without that separation, our courts could effectively be DDOSed by others tying up the system with frivolous cases. This is not the only concern however. There are a multitude of Pandora's box issues that would arise from a policy such as this. No nation on THIS planet, awards the same rights to non-citizens, as it does to citizens. That would be madness.

You literally never addressed anything I said in there.

[Shadowferal]

huh...the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants.
Just sayin'

[Tijuana]

You literally never addressed anything I said in there.

I literally addressed your two points: 1. That the constitution is a limiting document. - I agree. 2. That the constitution grants rights to persons who are not citizens, and who have never set foot inside our borders. - I disagree.

If you had another point, by all means state or restate it, and we will address it. Have no fear, we won't run out of characters here at MMO-C.

- - - Updated - - -

huh...the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants.
Just sayin'

There are more than just citizens and illegal aliens, however. There are also persons who are neither, and they have no access to our courts.

[Wells]

I literally addressed your two points: 1. That the constitution is a limiting document. - I agree. 2. That the constitution grants rights to persons who are not citizens, and who have never set foot inside our borders. - I disagree.

If you had another point, by all means state or restate it, and we will address it. Have no fear, we won't run out of characters here at MMO-C.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. And the protections for rights that it spells out apply to noncitizens, with extremely few exceptions. This isn't a matter of opinion.

[Tijuana]

In case you haven't figured it out, that's exactly what Wells wants - madness. She's not interested in any semblance of what you'd call an existing modern society/country.

Wait, Wells is female? I don't even...but....wait a minute...IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

[Wells]

and they have no access to our courts.

This is incorrect