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

[Jinpachi]

Because securing the border is an abstract, not actually what is being proposed. Your argument is the same one dictators use to instill Marshall law. As in, protecting the populace is not "more government"... Right?

- - - Updated - - -



Does he also not get to critique the laws currently applied? You don't get to hide behind smaller government and then push the authoritarian 'just shut up and do as you are told'.

Securing borders and national sovereignty is the primary function of government. Not what it's become today. you obviously have little use for our constitution.

[Felya]

Securing borders and national sovereignty is the primary function of government. Not what it's become today. you obviously have little use for our constitution.

I do have little use for the constitution. Nothing I do depends on me using it. I have a clear understanding of the constitution and the rights granted within it, but no, I am not a constitutional lawyer. I do not have a practical use for it.

Regardless of fun anecdotes, do you not see why undefined 'security' is a form of dictatorship? You cannot give the government undefined power to provide security. In fact, the constitution it self is there to confine government to explicitly not use broad strokes like in the name of security, to infringe on the people. If you want to argue a wall with Mexico will help security, then go ahead and make your case. Otherwise, defending the wall just because it's argued as security, is defending limitless government power, because every infringement on our rights can be argued as security.

[Damajin]

I don't believe in unlimited freedom. It's a mathematical impossibility, because the very same outliers that lead to society wanting to create government in the first place, would restrict people's freedoms in the absence of government.

What I was doing, was mocking all the conservatives who whine about big government, yet preach for the very same thing. Liberals and conservatives both want more government, but at least liberals aren't hypocrites by trying to deny it. For all the talk about freedom, personal responsibility and limited government, it's clear they don't actually mean it.

Those conservatives aren't really all that conservative, at the core of things and not worth thinking about and were never really a part of this discussion, so grats on mocking people that weren't even present and acting like it was a major factor in this discussion.

Oh, conservatives mean it when they talk about freedom, personal responsibility and limited government. That you somehow think blocking non citizens from entering the country for any reason is somehow a repudiation of those sentiments is fucking hysterical. It takes the recognition of the value of freedom, appreciation of each individuals' personal responsibility to themselves and their community/nation and a vision of just how limited, and where government should be to correctly exercise that statute.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote him saying anything about pure anarchy...

His downplay of national borders and his do whatever you want unless it's harming someone shit is anarchy, exemplified. It doesn't come across like that on paper but in practice that's what it instantly devolves to.

People seem to mix private property and public property. I'd rather support more freedom. Never did I say they should get anything for free. My option is actually the least expensive. People should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. Crossing an imaginary line in the dirt is not causing any harm.

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.

[Machismo]

Those conservatives aren't really all that conservative, at the core of things and not worth thinking about and were never really a part of this discussion, so grats on mocking people that weren't even present and acting like it was a major factor in this discussion.

Oh, conservatives mean it when they talk about freedom, personal responsibility and limited government. That you somehow think blocking non citizens from entering the country for any reason is somehow a repudiation of those sentiments is fucking hysterical. It takes the recognition of the value of freedom, appreciation of each individuals' personal responsibility to themselves and their community/nation and a vision of just how limited, and where government should be to correctly exercise that statute.

- - - Updated - - -



His downplay of national borders and his do whatever you want unless it's harming someone shit is anarchy, exemplified. It doesn't come across like that on paper but in practice that's what it instantly devolves to.

If you don't care about freedom for everyone, then you don't really care about freedom at all. It's not simply a matter of feeling only those whom you deem worthy deserve to have freedom. That's called oppression.

Being able to do whatever you want is anarchy. That is not what I support. I merely believe people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. That last part means it is not anarchy. It means the only role of government, should be to restrict actions that actually cause harm. A person crossing an imaginary line causes no harm.

[Wells]

You define 'more government' as more government spending, its 'size'
When the vast majority of people against 'big' government, are talking about its activities -

Defending the border is #1 in terms of government priorities - You cannot have a smaller government than one that does this duty.
And then it doesn't matter if that consume 25% of GDP.

So you could theoretically have a government that consumes the majority of GDP in taxes but does next to nothing with it and that's small government?

[Jinpachi]

Quote him saying anything about pure anarchy...

If you're not smart enough to glean his leanings from his postings, we aren't going to hold your hand

[Deleted]

So you could theoretically have a government that consumes the majority of GDP in taxes but does next to nothing with it and that's small government?

in an absurd sense, yes.
At a certain point things break down of course, but small government should generally be parsed more as less activities, not less footprint (though they are clearly somewhat related).

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to argue a wall with Mexico will help security, then go ahead and make your case. Otherwise, defending the wall just because it's argued as security, is defending limitless government power, because every infringement on our rights can be argued as security.

But the government does have nearly unlimited power to defend the border.
there is no infringement whatsoever in a border wall.
the constitution does not start applying until after you enter the country, prior too, it is a less useful than toilet paper.

[Mihalik]

But the government does have nearly unlimited power to defend the border.
there is no infringement whatsoever in a border wall.
the constitution does not start applying until after you enter the country, prior too, it is a less useful than toilet paper.

I really can't be arsed to enter these nonsensical Trump debates, but just to point out a few things.

1, The irrelevancy and impracticality of the border wall combined with its cost, would make it one of the largest, dumbest and most ineffective White Elephant projects in human history. It would be a permanent point of reference to -When the US has finally lost it.

Most illegal migrants don't enter the US by sneaking across the Rio Grande. They enter legally, on a tourist/student/work Visa and simply never leave. Curtailing the movement of people beyond already existing controls would likely cause severe damage to specific industries reliant on the movement of people, like the tourist and services industries.

So this literal and figurative "wall" wouldn't just blow a hole in the government's budget (while being utterly ineffective) it would also be a real job destroyer.

I would like to point out, that illegal immigration is actually at the lowest it has been in decades.

2, Debating whether a President should try and push the very limits of Constitutional law and International law, to tackle a supposed problem, that isn't really that big of a problem is extremely dangerous.

Many of the ideas thrown around by Wallers and Trumpkins aren't just preposterous, but are straight out of a Fascist's Cookbook on How to Ruin the World.

Just to list a few things.

1, A massive deportation force that would go door to door to look for illegal migrants. (Brownshirts much?)
2, Withdrawing the citizenship of US citizens born to migrants of the "wrong (brown) sort".
3, A pointless wall.
4, Threatening a foreign sovereign nation to pay for that pointless wall.
5, A rather murky ban on the ability to travel of people of a certain etno-religious background, aka Muslims. Would this extend to US citizens? US servicemen? Etc. It has never been clarified.
6, Concentration and detention camps for millions of migrants.
7, A proposal to use the above mentioned migrants as a labor force for the US government. (National Slavery Program?)

These are just some of the absurd, outlandish ideas thrown around here.

If any of the above things sound reasonable to you, you either have the reasoning skills of an intellectually challenged 12 year old, or you are literally mentally ill.

[Deleted]

1, A massive deportation force that would go door to door to look for illegal migrants. (Brownshirts much?)

Heard of ICE?

2, Withdrawing the citizenship of US citizens born to migrants of the "wrong (brown) sort".

I belive it was ending birth citizenship - which is teh way the most of the west have it.

3, A pointless wall.

My sole point of contention is that it is not unconstitutional by any means, as for the merit of the idea, laughable.

5, A rather murky ban on the ability to travel of people of a certain etno-religious background, aka Muslims. Would this extend to US citizens? US servicemen? Etc. It has never been clarified.

it is in regards to people visiting, not citizens - Because you cant deny citizens entry (its not entirely clear constitutionally, but probably)
and the executive has the right to refuse a visa to anyone it pleases for whatever reasons it pleases.

6, Concentration and detention camps for millions of migrants.
7, A proposal to use the above mentioned migrants as a labor force for the US government. (National Slavery Program?)

detaining illegal immigrants is not unconstitutional, and employing them is neither.

These are just some of the absurd, outlandish ideas thrown around here.

If any of the above things sound reasonable to you, you either have the reasoning skills of an intellectually challenged 12 year old, or you are literally mentally ill.

you described current reality as something produced by a 12 year old - I'm glad i don't live in the US if that's the sort of government you have.

[Zecora]

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

Well, if this is actually true, isn't it time we stop refering to the US as a democracy or a "first world country"?

Because as far as I am concerned, if your head of state can ban any group from entering for whatever bullshit reason he or she wants, you're neither a democracy or a country worth bothering with, you're a third world dictatorship in disguise.

[Deleted]

Well, if this is actually true, isn't it time we stop refering to the US as a democracy or a "first world country"?

Because as far as I am concerned, if your head of state can ban any group from entering for whatever bullshit reason he or she wants, you're neither a democracy or a country worth bothering with, you're a third world dictatorship in disguise.

There does not exist a country on this earth that does not have the right to stop anyone from entering their country, for whatever reasons they like.

[announced]

There does not exist a country on this earth that does not have the right to stop anyone from entering their country, for whatever reasons they like.

FDR of the United States barred Japanese, Germans, and Italians from entering the US while also placing them in camps. not saying what he did was right but it did happen. with the terrorist attacks happening almost daily in Europe i dont see whats so far fetched about being rightfully concerned about security in the US.

[Zecora]

There does not exist a country on this earth that does not have the right to stop anyone from entering their country, for whatever reasons they like.

Incorrect. Most countries are signatory parties to many international agreements that limits their right to bar people from entering based on just any arbitrary pretext. In addition, most nations have laws that prevent them from barring people to enter based on religion or race.

All of that however, is moot in this case. Here we are talking about the leader of a nation, who can on his own authority bar ANYONE from entering, for any reason whatsoever.

That shit belongs in a third world dictatorship.

[billymayz]

Incorrect. Most countries are signatory parties to many international agreements that limits their right to bar people from entering based on just any arbitrary pretext. In addition, most nations have laws that prevent them from barring people to enter based on religion or race.

All of that however, is moot in this case. Here we are talking about the leader of a nation, who can on his own authority bar ANYONE from entering, for any reason whatsoever.

That shit belongs in a third world dictatorship.

its not ANYONE, its non citizens. Huge difference

[Zecora]

its not ANYONE, its non citizens. Huge difference

Not really. This is not about citizens vs. non-citizens, it is about dictatorial power placed in the hand of a single individual. The kind of power which you commonly only find in third-world dictatorships.

[billymayz]

Not really. This is not about citizens vs. non-citizens, it is about dictatorial power placed in the hand of a single individual. The kind of power which you commonly only find in third-world dictatorships.

The president doesn't have that power over citizens. But he does over immigration. So no, literally and technically, it is not ANYONE because ANYONE would include U.S. citizens.
where NON citizens means people who do not hold CITIZENSHIP to the U.S.

[Sunseeker]

This thread makes me chuckle because the people supporting this are the same people decrying big government and the President doing things without Congressional or social approval.

[Zecora]

The president doesn't have that power over citizens. But he does over immigration. So no, literally and technically, it is not ANYONE because ANYONE would include U.S. citizens.
where NON citizens means people who do not hold CITIZENSHIP to the U.S.

Apparently you are being quite slow to read and understand what i wrote. It doesn't matter in this case whether the people in question is citizens or not, dictatorial power to deny any group you want entrance to your country is something you generally only find in third world dictatorship. Everywhere else, such power usually lies in parliament (or another political body of the same kind).