- Sep 27, 2012
- 92,112
- 53,727
- 2,605
RELIGIONReynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
RELIGIONReynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.
Had to do with those who practiced polygamy. And it would not stand today. Go ahead and do it, and see what happens.RELIGIONReynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.
Right. However, immigration is a matter for congress, and non-citizens not on US soil have very limited rights, and most importantly any standing to challenge any law. But, it's immaterial because Trump is not only unelectabable at this point, he's verging on the loathing Cruz enjoys among lawmakers.Reynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.
I think so, too. Congress can pass the law and a president can sign the law, and the libs will put it in federal court three minutes later.Right. However, immigration is a matter for congress, and non-citizens not on US soil have very limited rights, and most importantly any standing to challenge any law. But, it's immaterial because Trump is not only unelectabable at this point, he's verging on the loathing Cruz enjoys among lawmakers.Reynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.
ps, and yeah, I think Reynolds would come out differently today.
Well, if the libs can find a plaintiff with standing - like if we tried to deport a muslim who'd done nothing wrong, or if a muslim had been granted the right to immigrate, and then was denied .... I think there might be a case worth something. But, it's never going to come about. We came to our senses with Italians and Germans in the 40s, and Carter quickly reversed course when he saw how wrong he was. And, congress isn't gonna pass anything crazy. 20% of this country appears to be in some loony denial of the reality that we cannot kill every muslim, and the vast maj would prefer to have both us and ISIS leave them in peace.I think so, too. Congress can pass the law and a president can sign the law, and the libs will put it in federal court three minutes later.Right. However, immigration is a matter for congress, and non-citizens not on US soil have very limited rights, and most importantly any standing to challenge any law. But, it's immaterial because Trump is not only unelectabable at this point, he's verging on the loathing Cruz enjoys among lawmakers.Reynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.
ps, and yeah, I think Reynolds would come out differently today.
from your link:What is unfactual or untrue is that we can ban Muslims from entering the US.
Are you kidding me?
"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
"congress isn't gonna pass anything crazy. ..." They passed the Iran treaty, didn't they?Well, if the libs can find a plaintiff with standing - like if we tried to deport a muslim who'd done nothing wrong, or if a muslim had been granted the right to immigrate, and then was denied .... I think there might be a case worth something. But, it's never going to come about. We came to our senses with Italians and Germans in the 40s, and Carter quickly reversed course when he saw how wrong he was. And, congress isn't gonna pass anything crazy. 20% of this country appears to be in some loony denial of the reality that we cannot kill every muslim, and the vast maj would prefer to have both us and ISIS leave them in peace.I think so, too. Congress can pass the law and a president can sign the law, and the libs will put it in federal court three minutes later.Right. However, immigration is a matter for congress, and non-citizens not on US soil have very limited rights, and most importantly any standing to challenge any law. But, it's immaterial because Trump is not only unelectabable at this point, he's verging on the loathing Cruz enjoys among lawmakers.Reynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.
ps, and yeah, I think Reynolds would come out differently today.