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

[Wells]

Well duh.

Jimmah Carter did the same thing during his administration by banning Iranians from entering the country.

I'm all for restricting immigration from nations where islam is the predominate religion. Maintain economic and diplomatic ties, just no entry. Good fences make for good neighbors. I personally feel that our cultures are just too far removed to allow for mass migration.

Who else gets banned for being too different?

[Deleted]

So I guess no muslims in US? Lucky you!

[Theinquisition]

So banning people from countries we are at war with isn't PC?? lul okay. Recently Trump made sure to point out he didn't mean all muslims but those that are from countries we are at war with or where ISIS holds significant influence. I don't understand how this isn't a fair point of view. At least we aren't putting them in internment camps (like the Japanese in WWII). No matter how much you spray sparkles on muslims they don't fit in our country's system and they seek to turn our country back another 500 years to sharia law and forcing females to wear burkas and unable to get jobs or leave the house, only their "special snowflake" meat I forget what its called, banning alchohol and stoning of gay people. That is the culture you want to bring to the US.

Hey now don't remind the leftists that their God king FDR imprisoned U.S. citizens with no due process or recourse, just for having slanty eyes.

[Machismo]

It would almost certainly fail under SCOTUS scrutiny. As soon as he amends American laws via executive order that transgress religious freedoms, then he has crossed that line. Just because they are not here, yet, does not mean that any such action is constitutional. It's not a matter of trying to push it across our borders, it's a matter of pushing it AT our borders.

[Theinquisition]

Who else gets banned for being too different?

No one?

We have no obligation to allow migration from any nation where the prevailing religion or culture advocates or outright engages in behavior like throwing gays off buildings, crucifying non-believers, mass rape, enslavement..etc etc.

No. Obligation

[Machismo]

Well duh.

Jimmah Carter did the same thing during his administration by banning Iranians from entering the country.

I'm all for restricting immigration from nations where islam is the predominate religion. Maintain economic and diplomatic ties, just no entry. Good fences make for good neighbors. I personally feel that our cultures are just too far removed to allow for mass migration.

But Jimmy Carter banned immigration from a hostile nation. Trump pushed to ban people based on religion. That's a big difference.

[Wells]

No one?

We have no obligation to allow migration from any nation where the prevailing religion or culture advocates or outright engages in behavior like throwing gays off buildings, crucifying non-believers, mass rape, enslavement..etc etc.

No. Obligation

So just Muslims. In all the wide world they're the only group, all billion or so of them from all kinds of schools and nations, that just can't fit in?

[Theinquisition]

It would almost certainly fail under SCOTUS scrutiny. As soon as he amends American laws via executive order that transgress religious freedoms, then he has crossed that line. Just because they are not here, yet, does not mean that any such action is constitutional. It's not a matter of trying to push it across our borders, it's a matter of pushing it AT our borders.

Actually it is constitutional.

The constitution only applies to citizens, or people in the jurisdiction of the U.S. or its territories. Muhammid ahmed from Pakistan isn't afforded constitutional protections, nor do they have a right to enter our nation.

[AeneasBK]

So just Muslims. In all the wide world they're the only group, all billion or so of them from all kinds of schools and nations, that just can't fit in?

Thats kinda twisting his words a little.

[Damajin]

It would almost certainly fail under SCOTUS scrutiny. As soon as he amends American laws via executive order that transgress religious freedoms, then he has crossed that line. Just because they are not here, yet, does not mean that any such action is constitutional. It's not a matter of trying to push it across our borders, it's a matter of pushing it AT our borders.

It says right in the quote that it’s fine via SCOTUS review, and that the President whoever it is doesn’t need Congressional or any other input in order to enact this.

[Mormolyce]

Do you guys know how you become a Muslim?

Repeat this phrase:

ل* إله إل* *لله محمد رسول *لله
lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh
(There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada

Boom, you're a Muslim.

So I'd like to see how you're going to separate Muslims from non-Muslims.

By the way, has the Internet in Australia gotten better?

Not unless you're one of the lucky people living in an NBN enabled area.

And even better if you got in with FTTP instead of FTTN. Thanks, Libs...

Why are we apparently okay with this, but banning people from nations who support terrorism (until we can properly screen them) is supposedly super evil?

Because those laws may be on book but are never enforced, rendering them effectively non-laws.

[Wells]

Actually it is constitutional.

The constitution only applies to citizens, or people in the jurisdiction of the U.S. or its territories. Muhammid ahmed from Pakistan isn't afforded constitutional protections, nor do they have a right to enter our nation.

1st amendment doesn't apply to people, it applies to the government.

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.[1]

There is no clause in there allowing the Congress to enact such laws so long as they only target noncitizens.

[Machismo]

Actually it is constitutional.

The constitution only applies to citizens, or people in the jurisdiction of the U.S. or its territories. Muhammid ahmed from Pakistan isn't afforded constitutional protections, nor do they have a right to enter our nation.

But our laws in regards to our borders do fall under our jurisdiction. It would surely be challenged in court, and I highly doubt the SCOTUS will go for it.

[Damajin]

So just Muslims. In all the wide world they're the only group, all billion or so of them from all kinds of schools and nations, that just can't fit in?

Nah, I'm sure the President could find an extra sheet of paper somewhere to scribble out another Order of this magnitude covering another type, if need be. It's a pretty flexible, all encompassing legal power. There's quite a few sheets of paper available at the White House to cover any who might come up, I'd imagine.

[Machismo]

It says right in the quote that it’s fine via SCOTUS review, and that the President whoever it is doesn’t need Congressional or any other input in order to enact this.

Once again, this would certainly be challenged in court, and it would go to the SCOTUS. If you think the SCOTUS would go along with it, then good luck with that.

[NineSpine]

Actually it is constitutional.

The constitution only applies to citizens, or people in the jurisdiction of the U.S. or its territories. Muhammid ahmed from Pakistan isn't afforded constitutional protections, nor do they have a right to enter our nation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Please tell me where in that clause you are getting that this clause is about the rights of citizens, and not about limitations on government? Hint: There is nothing in there about rights of citizens.

[Wells]

To reiterate, the 1st amendment (at least in so far as its relevant) does not say you can practice your religion without interference, it says the government can't pass laws with respect to religion. Who the 1st Amendment restricts/empowers is more than a matter of semantics.

[Garnier Fructis]

Hey now don't remind the leftists that their God king FDR imprisoned U.S. citizens with no due process or recourse, just for having slanty eyes.

Considering lefties fault FDR for this policy, I don't understand why this is still being lobbed around like a political missile. Yes, FDR did this. We think it's terrible. Doesn't mean we can just let Trump do this. Not everyone gets a turn.

[Wells]

Considering lefties fault FDR for this policy, I don't understand why this is still being lobbed around like a political missile. Yes, FDR did this. We think it's terrible. Doesn't mean we can just let Trump do this. Not everyone gets a turn, here.

Its just the throwback version of "Obama liberal messiah".

Some dumb shit isn't worth engaging.

[NineSpine]

Considering lefties fault FDR for this policy, I don't understand why this is still being lobbed around like a political missile. Yes, FDR did this. We think it's terrible. Doesn't mean we can just let Trump do this. Not everyone gets a turn.

You're wasting your time. Since the right naturally adores leadership and falling in like with authority, they think the left works the same way, just with different authorities.

- - - Updated - - -

Its just the throwback version of "Obama liberal messiah".

Some dumb shit isn't worth engaging.

The party that spends all their time jerking off to Reagan.... projection.