CDZ Banning people from countries

[Tommy Tainant]

But the constitution was drafted by slave owners. Would they be the best people to map out your society ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some here say we can ban based on religion, but have not been able to show that such is constitutional. To do so would be Big Government over reach. Such thinking would be a progressive expansion of Big Government power.

Some here say we can ban based on religion, but have not been able to show that such is constitutional.

Some here say we can't ban based on religion, but have not been able to show that such is unconstitutional.

 

[Andylusion]

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

If that's your interpretation then all immigration laws on the books are unconstitutional.

See, you that you could not ban people based on religion.

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on reasons other than religion?

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

The US Congress has the right under the constitution, to establish laws and rules of naturalization.

Period.

Debate on that is over dude. Congress has the right to determine what rules we implement on immigration.

And by the way, if you look up some history, you'll find that all the way back to the American colonies, they banned people from the colonies who held ideology that was opposed to the colony views. Sent them back on a ship to where ever they came from.

Now again... I'm pro-immigration. I think immigration is great.

But spare me this "we are not allowed to control our borders". Come on.... give me a break.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

If that's your interpretation then all immigration laws on the books are unconstitutional.

See, you that you could not ban people based on religion.

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on reasons other than religion?

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

The US Congress has the right under the constitution, to establish laws and rules of naturalization.

Period.

Debate on that is over dude. Congress has the right to determine what rules we implement on immigration.

And by the way, if you look up some history, you'll find that all the way back to the American colonies, they banned people from the colonies who held ideology that was opposed to the colony views. Sent them back on a ship to where ever they came from.

Now again... I'm pro-immigration. I think immigration is great.

But spare me this "we are not allowed to control our borders". Come on.... give me a break.

I agree with you. JakeStarkey is the one claiming our government doesn't have this power.

 

[Andylusion]

But the constitution was drafted by slave owners. Would they be the best people to map out your society ?

Yeah, and slave owners drafted the rights you are using right now. Maybe those should be invalidated too, and you should shut up.

Seriously.... you destroy your own position using the "they were slave owners" argument.

 

[Andylusion]

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

If that's your interpretation then all immigration laws on the books are unconstitutional.

See, you that you could not ban people based on religion.

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on reasons other than religion?

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

The US Congress has the right under the constitution, to establish laws and rules of naturalization.

Period.

Debate on that is over dude. Congress has the right to determine what rules we implement on immigration.

And by the way, if you look up some history, you'll find that all the way back to the American colonies, they banned people from the colonies who held ideology that was opposed to the colony views. Sent them back on a ship to where ever they came from.

Now again... I'm pro-immigration. I think immigration is great.

But spare me this "we are not allowed to control our borders". Come on.... give me a break.

I agree with you. JakeStarkey is the one claiming our government doesn't have this power.

Ah.... I placed him on ignore a long time ago. That's why I thought you were speaking crazy talk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "we can ban folks because of their religion" want to do so because of how they feel, not because they can show the law permits them to do so. They are Big Government progressives. andylillusion is one of the leading progressives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "we can ban folks because of their religion" want to do so because of how they feel, not because they can show the law permits them to do so. They are Big Government progressives. andylillusion is one of the leading progressives.

You may not like such a ban. You may feel such a ban is unconstitutional, but you cannot show that it is.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The "we can ban folks because of their religion" want to do so because of how they feel, not because they can show the law permits them to do so. They are Big Government progressives. andylillusion is one of the leading progressives.

It has been shown, Jake. As usual, you're wrong and are simply refusing to admit it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You need to revise the constitution. Its not fit for purpose.

The Constitution is most certainly fit and appropriate...unless, you are trapped in your own PC cesspit.

Thats ok then. Do you think that Washington had a crystal ball that he could see the advances in technology ?

The basic tenets the founding fathers employed are trans generational and universally sound. It's just so very unfortunate that the corrupt influences the sought to circumvent have prevailed.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Some here say we can ban based on religion, but have not been able to show that such is constitutional. To do so would be Big Government over reach. Such thinking would be a progressive expansion of Big Government power.

We should be able to ban any person, or group of persons, who pose a threat to the citizens and our Constitutional republic, regardless of the guise they use to cloak their threat.

 

[gallantwarrior]

But the constitution was drafted by slave owners. Would they be the best people to map out your society ?

Drafted by well-educated men with a vested interest in assuring the prosperous survival of the nation they were creating. Yup, definitely the best people to map out my society.

 

[Elvis Obama]

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth. What will England say about our refusing to let English citizens into the US because of their religion? France? Germany?

This is a notion that a bright third grader would dismiss after a few minutes of thought.

Life, Liberty, and Property (pursuit of happiness). Those are the fundamental rights.

"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"

Life.... Liberty... and pursuit of Happiness.

Where in there do you see, "right of people not under our government, not in our country, to come here without restriction and have us take care of them"?

These rights, under our constitution apply exclusively to our citizens. Citizens of another country, are not 'entitled' to come here. Nor is it their "right".

Sorry, but it's not a right dude.

Now I happen to be pro-immigration. I want more people coming to the US.

But regardless of my personal view on immigration, don't tell me that if we tell people they can't come here, that we are 'violating their rights'. We are not. They do not have the "right" to come here. Flat out, you are wrong.

I never said we were violating their rights. I said we would be denying them rights that we expect other countries to reciprocally grant to our citizens. If we deny the right to them, they will deny the right to us, and then we're all screwed.

 

[Elvis Obama]

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth. What will England say about our refusing to let English citizens into the US because of their religion? France? Germany?

This is a notion that a bright third grader would dismiss after a few minutes of thought.

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth.

I've read the Constitution. The right to travel to the US isn't in there.

You really need to sit down with a bright third grader. They could explain to you that other countries have nothing to do with the US constitution. If we ban their citizens they aren't going to be impressed with the fact that our constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it. They will pitch a very well deserved fit, and will respond in kind. Does our constitution prevent them from responding?

The idea of banning Muslim travel to the US is a moronic notion that, if we were stupid enough to try it, would cause a grave international crisis. Brilliant.

You really need to sit down with a bright third grader.

Let me know when you're available.

They could explain to you that other countries have nothing to do with the US constitution.

Or they could explain when I said they did?

If we ban their citizens they aren't going to be impressed with the fact that our constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it. They will pitch a very well deserved fit, and will respond in kind.

Yes, other countries can respond. But that's not the question.

Does our constitution prevent them from responding?

Nope.

The idea of banning Muslim travel to the US is a moronic notion that, if we were stupid enough to try it, would cause a grave international crisis.

Perhaps. Which still isn't the point. Ask that third grader, they might be able to help. LOL!

"Perhaps. Which still isn't the point. Ask that third grader, they might be able to help. LOL!"

Of course that's the point. We can, but we shouldn't, because it's a scorched earth policy which would cause chaos and serve no purpose except to pander to xenophobic halfwits.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Seriously, the constitution? What in the world does the constitution have to do with this issue? This is foreign policy, not domestic policy. Of course, calling it "policy" is giving it far too much credit. It's pandering, red meat garbage, being spewed into the ears of fools who never think about the consequences of anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth. What will England say about our refusing to let English citizens into the US because of their religion? France? Germany?

This is a notion that a bright third grader would dismiss after a few minutes of thought.

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth.

I've read the Constitution. The right to travel to the US isn't in there.

You really need to sit down with a bright third grader. They could explain to you that other countries have nothing to do with the US constitution. If we ban their citizens they aren't going to be impressed with the fact that our constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it. They will pitch a very well deserved fit, and will respond in kind. Does our constitution prevent them from responding?

The idea of banning Muslim travel to the US is a moronic notion that, if we were stupid enough to try it, would cause a grave international crisis. Brilliant.

You really need to sit down with a bright third grader.

Let me know when you're available.

They could explain to you that other countries have nothing to do with the US constitution.

Or they could explain when I said they did?

If we ban their citizens they aren't going to be impressed with the fact that our constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it. They will pitch a very well deserved fit, and will respond in kind.

Yes, other countries can respond. But that's not the question.

Does our constitution prevent them from responding?

Nope.

The idea of banning Muslim travel to the US is a moronic notion that, if we were stupid enough to try it, would cause a grave international crisis.

Perhaps. Which still isn't the point. Ask that third grader, they might be able to help. LOL!

"Perhaps. Which still isn't the point. Ask that third grader, they might be able to help. LOL!"

Of course that's the point. We can, but we shouldn't, because it's a scorched earth policy which would cause chaos and serve no purpose except to pander to xenophobic halfwits.

We can, but we shouldn't

Ok.

 

[Kalki]

In regards to the idea of banning certain groups, this is certainly acceptable to the U.S. system since Congress regulates naturalization, as it states in the U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8. Congress has banned certain groups many times, and this is completely legitimate legally. A nation with no borders would cease to exist. Therefore, any nation can ban immigration completely, or any group they do not want. For example, certain parties have been trying to fill up Japan and other East Asian nations with 3rd world refugees but several of those Asian countries will not accept it.

The U.S. Constitution 'freedom of religion' amendment only applies to U.S. citizens, it does not apply to foreigners trying to emigrate to America. Therefore, religious groups can be banned from immigrating to America by Congress and various ideological groups have been banned in the past, and rightly and legally so.

Any nation is free to have any policies they wish, otherwise what would be the point of having a nation with no self-governance and self-determination? - The idea of not being able to keep out people you don't want, is absurd. If there was a tit for tat on this issue, so what? Move to a Muslim nation if you want to live among Muslims (before they ban you in a tit-for-tat).

The idea that nations cannot ban other groups is a violation of an international mandate titled, 'U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples'. This international agreement states that all peoples have the right to their own ethnic and cultural identity and the right to retain that identity, and the right to self-determination, which implies the right to their own nation states. All humans are indigenous, therefore all humans share these rights. This is equality, and it is the future. Read, 'The Fourth Political Theory' by Aleksandr Dugin.

It is a violation of human rights to say that any nation does not have the right to preserve their ethnic and cultural identity - this is an equal right of all peoples. The 21st century will see the rise of these ethnostates, such as, e.g., Israel being an ethnic Jewish state which practices exclusionary immigration policies in favor of ethnic Jews. DNA tests have been used to determine if someone is a Jew migrating to Israel. This is the future, and the same can apply to states with a religious identity, such as the formation of Pakistan when it split from India as a Muslim state.

In other words, if you disagree with banning certain groups from a nation, then you are violating the equal human rights of those citizens and people, to their own ethnic and cultural identity and right to retain that identity according to the U.N. mandate.

As far as banning people from traveling to a nation, this happens all the time. The U.S. executive branch recently, in the last year or two, banned many Russians from even traveling to the U.S., the American officials then had to try and somehow legally circumvent that ban when one Russian official was traveling to an event at the U.N. Israel banned Norman Finkelstein from even entering the country. Every nation has the right to ban people from even entering their nation if they do not want them.

Bracero program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cable Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emergency Quota Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immigration Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "we can ban folks because of their religion" want to do so because of how they feel, not because they can show the law permits them to do so. They are Big Government progressives. andylillusion is one of the leading progressives.

It has been shown, Jake. As usual, you're wrong and are simply refusing to admit it.

Nope. You are acting on feeling not facts. No where can it be shown to be true. You offered nothing beyond an opinion, no case law, etc., to support the assertion.

 

[FA_Q2]

Some here say we can ban based on religion, but have not been able to show that such is constitutional. To do so would be Big Government over reach. Such thinking would be a progressive expansion of Big Government power.

We should be able to ban any person, or group of persons, who pose a threat to the citizens and our Constitutional republic, regardless of the guise they use to cloak their threat.

This is true. We can and do ban people that we do not see fit to allow into the country.

The better question is weather or not Trump's statements on this particular matter make any sense whatsoever and I think that his statements are obviously asinine. Trying to ban a religion is simply pointless. There is no real religious test. You cannot prove or disprove that one person is of a particular religion or not. It also ignores what really presents a danger to the nation or not. Right now LOCAL terrorism presents a grater danger than imported terrorism and that is a scary thought. While we are scrambling to stop terrorists from coming here we are ignoring the fact that doing so is really a wasted effort when getting here is extremely simple even if you are not allowed and terrorists are more likely to be homegrown than imported.

If Trump was really serious he would never have said ban Muslims - he would have said to ban nationalities - something that is FAR easier to establish and much more in line with preventing terrorists. There is a greater threat from a foreign person that claims to be Christian from Iraq than there is from a Muslim in the UK. If the UK Muslim wanted to blow something up he would do so in his own country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can't skip over it that easily.

You say you can ban using religion as a qualifier but you can't point to the Constitution or case law for support.

Thus you are acting like a Progressive acting on opinion.