Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason

[SuperDemocrat]

Why can't we exclude Obama?

 

[Seawytch]

You gotta love the leftwing whackaloons... they rant on and on about Christians wanting a theocracy.. which we don't.. then they embrace Muslims whose religion is by definition a theocracy; a political system and religion rolled into one.

They're insane.

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

And thank goodness for our secular laws.

Which by and large are based on Biblical ideals.

Really? Which ones? Do non Christian countries not have the same laws?

 

[Seawytch]

You gotta love the leftwing whackaloons... they rant on and on about Christians wanting a theocracy.. which we don't.. then they embrace Muslims whose religion is by definition a theocracy; a political system and religion rolled into one.

They're insane.

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

Here in America?

The more radical a person becomes in following Christ, the less likely they are to kill their neighbors.

Really? That Planned Parenthood terrorist seemed pretty willing to kill his neighbors.

Here in America it's the evangelicals preaching to kill people.

Republican Candidates Attend Rally Where Pastor Advocates "Death Penalty" for Gay People

 

[Seawytch]

You gotta love the leftwing whackaloons... they rant on and on about Christians wanting a theocracy.. which we don't.. then they embrace Muslims whose religion is by definition a theocracy; a political system and religion rolled into one.

They're insane.

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

Really, then explain this.

When asked, more than 50 percent of American Muslims said that if given a the choice they would choose to be governed under Sharia Law:

Read more at Over 50 Percent of US Muslims Want Sharia Law in America

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

 

[OKTexas]

You gotta love the leftwing whackaloons... they rant on and on about Christians wanting a theocracy.. which we don't.. then they embrace Muslims whose religion is by definition a theocracy; a political system and religion rolled into one.

They're insane.

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

Really, then explain this.

When asked, more than 50 percent of American Muslims said that if given a the choice they would choose to be governed under Sharia Law:

Read more at Over 50 Percent of US Muslims Want Sharia Law in America

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Right, they don't like who did the poll so they claim it's unreliable, then they lie about the size of the sample, reducing it form 650 to 600, I think the skeptics have some splaining to do lucy. Sounds like they have an agenda also.

 

[hadit]

You gotta love the leftwing whackaloons... they rant on and on about Christians wanting a theocracy.. which we don't.. then they embrace Muslims whose religion is by definition a theocracy; a political system and religion rolled into one.

They're insane.

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

Here in America?

The more radical a person becomes in following Christ, the less likely they are to kill their neighbors.

Tell that to Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers.

Wrong in several ways.

1. They were becoming radical followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, not Jesus.
2. In the case of Jim Jones, they did not kill random strangers, they were themselves killed. In Koresh's case, a few took up arms while the rest were incinerated.

So no, they are not examples of radical followers of Christ becoming more violent. Look at it this way. Would a black man who passionately studied MLK's sermons and applied his ideals to his life be more or less likely to incite a race riot or attack a white person on the street? We know the answer to that. In the same way, someone who becomes a radical follower of Christ, who studies what He had to say about how we are to live, and who applies those teachings to his life will be LESS likely to become a mass murderer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

Here in America?

The more radical a person becomes in following Christ, the less likely they are to kill their neighbors.

Tell that to Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers.

Wrong in several ways.

1. They were becoming radical followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, not Jesus.
2. In the case of Jim Jones, they did not kill random strangers, they were themselves killed. In Koresh's case, a few took up arms while the rest were incinerated.

So no, they are not examples of radical followers of Christ becoming more violent. Look at it this way. Would a black man who passionately studied MLK's sermons and applied his ideals to his life be more or less likely to incite a race riot or attack a white person on the street? We know the answer to that. In the same way, someone who becomes a radical follower of Christ, who studies what He had to say about how we are to live, and who applies those teachings to his life will be LESS likely to become a mass murderer.

Yes, they were radical followers of Jesus. MLK was not a radical. Think about what you are writing, please.

 

[hadit]

You gotta love the leftwing whackaloons... they rant on and on about Christians wanting a theocracy.. which we don't.. then they embrace Muslims whose religion is by definition a theocracy; a political system and religion rolled into one.

They're insane.

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

And thank goodness for our secular laws.

Which by and large are based on Biblical ideals.

Really? Which ones? Do non Christian countries not have the same laws?

I'm talking about America. Is that not clear from the context?

Now, as to which laws,these:

laws against murder
laws against stealing
laws against lying (in court, etc)
Environmental laws

 

[hadit]

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

Here in America?

The more radical a person becomes in following Christ, the less likely they are to kill their neighbors.

Tell that to Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers.

Wrong in several ways.

1. They were becoming radical followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, not Jesus.
2. In the case of Jim Jones, they did not kill random strangers, they were themselves killed. In Koresh's case, a few took up arms while the rest were incinerated.

So no, they are not examples of radical followers of Christ becoming more violent. Look at it this way. Would a black man who passionately studied MLK's sermons and applied his ideals to his life be more or less likely to incite a race riot or attack a white person on the street? We know the answer to that. In the same way, someone who becomes a radical follower of Christ, who studies what He had to say about how we are to live, and who applies those teachings to his life will be LESS likely to become a mass murderer.

Yes, they were radical followers of Jesus. MLK was not a radical. Think about what you are writing, please.

They wanted to be followers of Jesus, but were led away from Him into basically worshiping the leaders of the cult. And, I didn't say MLK was a radical, I specifically referenced a person who really wanted to live by MLK's principals. Please pay attention to what I actually say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our laws, hadit, derive from the secular Constitution, which is based on Christian and deist and secular values.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here in America?

The more radical a person becomes in following Christ, the less likely they are to kill their neighbors.

Tell that to Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers.

Wrong in several ways.

1. They were becoming radical followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, not Jesus.
2. In the case of Jim Jones, they did not kill random strangers, they were themselves killed. In Koresh's case, a few took up arms while the rest were incinerated.

So no, they are not examples of radical followers of Christ becoming more violent. Look at it this way. Would a black man who passionately studied MLK's sermons and applied his ideals to his life be more or less likely to incite a race riot or attack a white person on the street? We know the answer to that. In the same way, someone who becomes a radical follower of Christ, who studies what He had to say about how we are to live, and who applies those teachings to his life will be LESS likely to become a mass murderer.

Yes, they were radical followers of Jesus. MLK was not a radical. Think about what you are writing, please.

They wanted to be followers of Jesus, but were led away from Him into basically worshiping the leaders of the cult. And, I didn't say MLK was a radical, I specifically referenced a person who really wanted to live by MLK's principals. Please pay attention to what I actually say.

Hadit, in their minds, as in yours, they were followers of Jesus. You are not an authority to define what is and is not the following of Jesus. Focus.

 

[hadit]

The more radical a person becomes in following Christ, the less likely they are to kill their neighbors.

Tell that to Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers.

Wrong in several ways.

1. They were becoming radical followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, not Jesus.
2. In the case of Jim Jones, they did not kill random strangers, they were themselves killed. In Koresh's case, a few took up arms while the rest were incinerated.

So no, they are not examples of radical followers of Christ becoming more violent. Look at it this way. Would a black man who passionately studied MLK's sermons and applied his ideals to his life be more or less likely to incite a race riot or attack a white person on the street? We know the answer to that. In the same way, someone who becomes a radical follower of Christ, who studies what He had to say about how we are to live, and who applies those teachings to his life will be LESS likely to become a mass murderer.

Yes, they were radical followers of Jesus. MLK was not a radical. Think about what you are writing, please.

They wanted to be followers of Jesus, but were led away from Him into basically worshiping the leaders of the cult. And, I didn't say MLK was a radical, I specifically referenced a person who really wanted to live by MLK's principals. Please pay attention to what I actually say.

Hadit, in their minds, as in yours, they were followers of Jesus. You are not an authority to define what is and is not the following of Jesus. Focus.

Actually, I am because Jesus laid down several criteria by which His followers would be identified. As for "in their minds", do you discount the reality that they could quite simply be wrong? Would you agree that person who claimed to be inspired by MLK when arrested for bombing a police station be telling the truth because "in his mind" he was? Or would you say that his actions did NOT match up with what MLK had to say about the way to protest and bring about social justice and thus he was incorrect?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell that to Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers.

Wrong in several ways.

1. They were becoming radical followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, not Jesus.
2. In the case of Jim Jones, they did not kill random strangers, they were themselves killed. In Koresh's case, a few took up arms while the rest were incinerated.

So no, they are not examples of radical followers of Christ becoming more violent. Look at it this way. Would a black man who passionately studied MLK's sermons and applied his ideals to his life be more or less likely to incite a race riot or attack a white person on the street? We know the answer to that. In the same way, someone who becomes a radical follower of Christ, who studies what He had to say about how we are to live, and who applies those teachings to his life will be LESS likely to become a mass murderer.

Yes, they were radical followers of Jesus. MLK was not a radical. Think about what you are writing, please.

They wanted to be followers of Jesus, but were led away from Him into basically worshiping the leaders of the cult. And, I didn't say MLK was a radical, I specifically referenced a person who really wanted to live by MLK's principals. Please pay attention to what I actually say.

Hadit, in their minds, as in yours, they were followers of Jesus. You are not an authority to define what is and is not the following of Jesus. Focus.

Actually, I am because Jesus laid down several criteria by which His followers would be identified. As for "in their minds", do you discount the reality that they could quite simply be wrong? Would you agree that person who claimed to be inspired by MLK when arrested for bombing a police station be telling the truth because "in his mind" he was? Or would you say that his actions did NOT match up with what MLK had to say about the way to protest and bring about social justice and thus he was incorrect?

In your mind, yes, you are. They thought the same thing. All of us believe we are servants of Jesus. But we have not authorities over others. Please do not be a purveyor of erroneous comments. You worry about your walk with Jesus, I will do the same for me, and we will pray for those who need Jesus' light.

 

[hadit]

Wrong in several ways.

1. They were becoming radical followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, not Jesus.
2. In the case of Jim Jones, they did not kill random strangers, they were themselves killed. In Koresh's case, a few took up arms while the rest were incinerated.

So no, they are not examples of radical followers of Christ becoming more violent. Look at it this way. Would a black man who passionately studied MLK's sermons and applied his ideals to his life be more or less likely to incite a race riot or attack a white person on the street? We know the answer to that. In the same way, someone who becomes a radical follower of Christ, who studies what He had to say about how we are to live, and who applies those teachings to his life will be LESS likely to become a mass murderer.

Yes, they were radical followers of Jesus. MLK was not a radical. Think about what you are writing, please.

They wanted to be followers of Jesus, but were led away from Him into basically worshiping the leaders of the cult. And, I didn't say MLK was a radical, I specifically referenced a person who really wanted to live by MLK's principals. Please pay attention to what I actually say.

Hadit, in their minds, as in yours, they were followers of Jesus. You are not an authority to define what is and is not the following of Jesus. Focus.

Actually, I am because Jesus laid down several criteria by which His followers would be identified. As for "in their minds", do you discount the reality that they could quite simply be wrong? Would you agree that person who claimed to be inspired by MLK when arrested for bombing a police station be telling the truth because "in his mind" he was? Or would you say that his actions did NOT match up with what MLK had to say about the way to protest and bring about social justice and thus he was incorrect?

In your mind, yes, you are. They thought the same thing. All of us believe we are servants of Jesus. But we have not authorities over others. Please do not be a purveyor of erroneous comments. You worry about your walk with Jesus, I will do the same for me, and we will pray for those who need Jesus' light.

Agreed on the last point.

We cannot be afraid, however, to examine our lives and the lives of our brothers and sisters in the light of Jesus' commands. Two of the criteria He set down are that we have love (agape) for one another, and that we obey His commands. Clearly, mass murder is NOT one of His commands, nor is it an example of having agape love for others. Remember as well that we are to test the voices we hear, make sure they agree with Scripture, not just blindly accept everything. And, we know that there will always be weeds sown in with the grain and that they will be separated at the time of harvest.

I cannot in good conscience agree that a person is following the commands of my Lord when they commit mass murder.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do you compare American Christians to Muslims from Muslim countries? American Muslims want the same things American Christians and Jews want...to live and worship as they like.

A majority of Republicans have stated they want Christianity declared our "National Religion". What is that if not the start of theocracy?

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

And thank goodness for our secular laws.

Which by and large are based on Biblical ideals.

Really? Which ones? Do non Christian countries not have the same laws?

I'm talking about America. Is that not clear from the context?

Now, as to which laws,these:

laws against murder
laws against stealing
laws against lying (in court, etc)
Environmental laws

Which non Christian country doesn't have those laws? What's that? None you say? Gotcha...

 

[Camp]

National Review gets the truth out over all the talking heads and the bullshit establishment GOP. Others "get it". Like Rupert Murdoch who says that the refugee program needs to pause and reviews have to be taken to get it right.

Grow up assholes. We're living in dangerous times.

"First of all, it’s important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason.

Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times,

“Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”

What’s more, while the president doesn’t have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of “parole”), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best.

From 8 USC §1182: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added)."

Read more at: It's Time for a Grown-Up Alternative to Trump's Crude Muslim-Immigration Proposal, by Mark Krikorian, National Review

Krikorian is not credentialed as a constitutional expert or scholar. He has spent two decades promoting his ideas and opinions about immigration. A wide range of credentialed constitutional experts and scholars disagree with Krikorian. His theories may be applicable in some or even many situations, but according to the scholars, not when they conflict with constitutional guarantees.

 

[Contumacious]

National Review gets the truth out over all the talking heads and the bullshit establishment GOP. Others "get it". Like Rupert Murdoch who says that the refugee program needs to pause and reviews have to be taken to get it right.

Grow up assholes. We're living in dangerous times.

"First of all, it’s important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason.

Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times,

“Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”

What’s more, while the president doesn’t have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of “parole”), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best.

From 8 USC §1182: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added)."

Read more at: It's Time for a Grown-Up Alternative to Trump's Crude Muslim-Immigration Proposal, by Mark Krikorian, National Review

BULLSHIT

IN ORDER TO VALIDLY ENACT 8 USC 1182 A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE STATES HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION

4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[LordBrownTrout]

ISIS has you right where it wants you. Cowering in the corner, shitting yourselves.

"Eek! A muslim! Eek!"

What's with this apparent obsession of yours dealing with the bodies elimination functions? Just because you shit yourself and drink piss, doesn't mean others share your deviations.

G5000 must have a fascination with piss because he's always talking about guzzling it.

 

[hadit]

The difference being, that for some Muslims, living and worshiping as they like involves killing in gruesome ways those around them who do not join them in worship. Christians, not so much.

And thank goodness for our secular laws.

Which by and large are based on Biblical ideals.

Really? Which ones? Do non Christian countries not have the same laws?

I'm talking about America. Is that not clear from the context?

Now, as to which laws,these:

laws against murder
laws against stealing
laws against lying (in court, etc)
Environmental laws

Which non Christian country doesn't have those laws? What's that? None you say? Gotcha...

As I made clear, I was talking about America. I think you got yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

And thank goodness for our secular laws.

Which by and large are based on Biblical ideals.

Really? Which ones? Do non Christian countries not have the same laws?

I'm talking about America. Is that not clear from the context?

Now, as to which laws,these:

laws against murder
laws against stealing
laws against lying (in court, etc)
Environmental laws

Which non Christian country doesn't have those laws? What's that? None you say? Gotcha...

As I made clear, I was talking about America. I think you got yourself.

And you, obviously, are missing the point. If non Christian countries ALSO have the same laws, your argument that these laws are based on the bible, fails miserably.