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

[Machismo]

Once again, the SCOTUS has already ruled on it, and would likely not take up a case with their own precedent so heavily stamped on it as this one would have.

Tons of lawsuits are filed everyday, not many of them have merit. Of course this would be challenged, because there's lots of sympatico immigrant hounds out there who'd balk at this, but they'd lose and very likely not even have the case taken up by the SC.

But their previous ruling would collide right into the First Amendment. Otherwise, it would allow the president to arbitrarily restrict people based on religion. The SCOTUS would strike that down in a heartbeat. Of course, if it ever comes to that, where Trump wants to ban Muslims, I'll gladly wager anything you like.

[Stormdash]

The federal government can bar anyone from entering the US who is not already a citizen or permanent legal resident for any reason it wishes. It's a plenary power. Contrary to some weird random nonsense you might have heard, it doesn't violate the "no religious tests" clause, which refers only to qualification for public office. It doesn't violate either the 1st or 14th Amendment since nobody who does not already have legal status in the US has any right to be admitted. So "muslim" ban, "ginger" ban, "southpaw" ban, all completely legitimate as a matter of constitutional law -- doing them or not doing them are purely subject to politics, winning and losing.

And it's that power that the Congress delegates in part to the Executive in the cited act.

- - - Updated - - -

But their previous ruling would collide right into the First Amendment. Otherwise, it would allow the president to arbitrarily restrict people based on religion. The SCOTUS would strike that down in a heartbeat. Of course, if it ever comes to that, where Trump wants to ban Muslims, I'll gladly wager anything you like.

There is no precedent to support the premise that the federal government's power over admission/exclusion is limited by any amendment. There is, again, no constitutional right for non-citizens or non-residents to enter the United States.

[Theinquisition]

I mean, correct me where I've gone wrong but the idea that got crowds whooping was some kind of blanket ban on dangerous muslims entering the country; when in reality, the immigration policy would be pretty similar in as much that you would let in the ones you wanted to let in; and stop the ones who you didn't want to come in; but that isn't quite as ... catchy.

Or have there been high profile cases where non US citizens got into the country and caused terror attacks (without growing up 15 years in between, and by "into the country" I mean via customs not by hijacking...)

Right?

Well, there was the female that was involved in the San bernadeno shootings.

I want to avoid the mess Europe is dealing with right now, we have the luxury of a ocean between our world and theirs thank god. I think we should be exptremely selective on who we let in and how.

I get a bit perplexed at the folks on here and on the left who seem to be obsessed with allowing as many people as possible in our country from parts of the world where war is the norm and the society is okay with persecution of Gays, atheists, and anyone that doesn't subscribe to the same religion. We have enough problems at home with that kind of shit, why bring in more?

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that this can actually happen is all the more reason to vote against Trump.

Like this here.

Sigh

Why do we HAVE to let anyone from anywhere in?

- - - Updated - - -

The federal government can bar anyone from entering the US who is not already a citizen or permanent legal resident for any reason it wishes. It's a plenary power. Contrary to some weird random nonsense you might have heard, it doesn't violate the "no religious tests" clause, which refers only to qualification for public office. It doesn't violate either the 1st or 14th Amendment since nobody who does not already have legal status in the US has any right to be admitted. So "muslim" ban, "ginger" ban, "southpaw" ban, all completely legitimate as a matter of constitutional law -- doing them or not doing them are purely subject to politics, winning and losing.

And it's that power that the Congress delegates in part to the Executive in the cited act.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no precedent to support the premise that the federal government's power over admission/exclusion is limited by any amendment. There is, again, no constitutional right for non-citizens or non-residents to enter the United States.

Someone fucking gets it, thanks Stormdash

[Machismo]

The federal government can bar anyone from entering the US who is not already a citizen or permanent legal resident for any reason it wishes. It's a plenary power. Contrary to some weird random nonsense you might have heard, it doesn't violate the "no religious tests" clause, which refers only to qualification for public office. It doesn't violate either the 1st or 14th Amendment since nobody who does not already have legal status in the US has any right to be admitted. So "muslim" ban, "ginger" ban, "southpaw" ban, all completely legitimate as a matter of constitutional law -- doing them or not doing them are purely subject to politics, winning and losing.

And it's that power that the Congress delegates in part to the Executive in the cited act.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no precedent to support the premise that the federal government's power over admission/exclusion is limited by any amendment. There is, again, no constitutional right for non-citizens or non-residents to enter the United States.

They do not have a constitutional right to enter the country, I never said they did. What does exist, is the First Amendment, a restriction on how the government passes laws. If their law restricts freedoms based on religion, then you have your answer. If an executive action violates a constitutionally-protected freedom (which religion is) then it will likely get shot down by the SCOTUS. If it ever gets to that point, which it won't, then we shall see.

[Ausr]

Well, there was the female that was involved in the San bernadeno shootings.

I want to avoid the mess Europe is dealing with right now, we have the luxury of a ocean between our world and theirs thank god. I think we should be exptremely selective on who we let in and how.

I get a bit perplexed at the folks on here and on the left who seem to be obsessed with allowing as many people as possible in our country from parts of the world where war is the norm and the society is okay with persecution of Gays, atheists, and anyone that doesn't subscribe to the same religion. We have enough problems at home with that kind of shit, why bring in more?

- - - Updated - - -



Like this here.

Sigh

Why do we HAVE to let anyone from anywhere in?

Guess we'll scrub a couple of lines off of Lady Liberty's sign there.

[Theinquisition]

They do not have a constitutional right to enter the country, I never said they did. What does exist, is the First Amendment, a restriction on how the government passes laws. If their law restricts freedoms based on religion, then you have your answer. If an executive action violates a constitutionally-protected freedom (which religion is) then it will likely get shot down by the SCOTUS. If it ever gets to that point, which it won't, then we shall see.

The constitution only applies to those already within the Country, or its citizens.

So, someone from Pakistan who is denied entry, doesn't have a recourse through the constitution, they aren't covered by it.

- - - Updated - - -

Guess we'll scrub a couple of lines off of Lady Liberty's sign there.

Okay? sounds fine to me.

I mean, aren't leftists always the ones saying "derp the constitution is a evolving, growing document"? nothing is ironclad right The Statue of liberty wasn't erected during a time where we have religious terrorists flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousands.

[Ausr]

The constitution only applies to those already within the Country, or its citizens.

So, someone from Pakistan who is denied entry, doesn't have a recourse through the constitution, they aren't covered by it.

- - - Updated - - -




Okay? sounds fine to me.

I mean, aren't leftists always the ones saying "derp the constitution is a evolving, growing document"? nothing is ironclad right The Statue of liberty wasn't erected during a time where we have religious terrorists flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousands.

I guess it's time we give up our values in the face of fear. I guess the terrorists do win, huh?

[Damajin]

But their previous ruling would collide right into the First Amendment. Otherwise, it would allow the president to arbitrarily restrict people based on religion. The SCOTUS would strike that down in a heartbeat. Of course, if it ever comes to that, where Trump wants to ban Muslims, I'll gladly wager anything you like.

@Stormdash answered your post perfectly, so read what he wrote at #64.

Sorry, not sorry.

[Machismo]

The constitution only applies to those already within the Country, or its citizens.

So, someone from Pakistan who is denied entry, doesn't have a recourse through the constitution, they aren't covered by it.

- - - Updated - - -




Okay? sounds fine to me.

I mean, aren't leftists always the ones saying "derp the constitution is a evolving, growing document"? nothing is ironclad right The Statue of liberty wasn't erected during a time where we have religious terrorists flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousands.

The Constitution also applies to our laws. When it comes to fruition, we shall see how the SCOTUS rules.

[Garnier Fructis]

Like this here.

Sigh

Why do we HAVE to let anyone from anywhere in?

We don't. But I'd rather we not select based on religion, especially because we're afraid of terrorists or something. I know Muslims, live near Muslims, and have worked with Arabs.

The idea that if Trump had his way these people wouldn't be here is what is unacceptable to me.

[Machismo]

Guess we'll scrub a couple of lines off of Lady Liberty's sign there.

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

[Stormdash]

They do not have a constitutional right to enter the country, I never said they did. What does exist, is the First Amendment, a restriction on how the government passes laws. If their law restricts freedoms based on religion, then you have your answer. If an executive action violates a constitutionally-protected freedom (which religion is) then it will likely get shot down by the SCOTUS. If it ever gets to that point, which it won't, then we shall see.

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.

[Adam Jensen]

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 it's not enforced and no ones aware of it.

[Damajin]

I guess it's time we give up our values in the face of fear. I guess the terrorists do win, huh?

Unfettered immigration has never been an American value, especially in the context of a pretty clear threat.

Regardless of how both parties and the real power paying for and controlling them want to play the US off against the muslim world in a Strategy of Tension exercise, they're still a threat regardless. Take away all that cash and assistance to them as a proxy force and they still want to kill us.

[Wells]

That's why I said banning immigration from specific nations, not religion.

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"

Better safe than sorry.

No one who makes this argument ever makes it honestly.

[Stormdash]

Guess we'll scrub a couple of lines off of Lady Liberty's sign there.

A line of poetry is not equivalent of our actual constitution and laws. It wasn't even our poem, if you want to get picky.

[Wells]

The constitution only applies to those already within the Country, or its citizens.

So, someone from Pakistan who is denied entry, doesn't have a recourse through the constitution, they aren't covered by it.

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.

[Theinquisition]

I guess it's time we give up our values in the face of fear. I guess the terrorists do win, huh?

what value is that?

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

[Stormdash]

The Constitution also applies to our laws. When it comes to fruition, we shall see how the SCOTUS rules.

The constitution is the source of the government's absolute power over exclusion/admission decisions. It's the constitution that I was just explaining upthread. If people don't like that kind of immigration policy, their remedies are political, i.e. elections. The policy's themselves are within the constitutional powers.

[Theinquisition]

The Constitution also applies to our laws. When it comes to fruition, we shall see how the SCOTUS rules.

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