Turns Out Trump's Call on Muslims is Unnecessary

[TNHarley]

I would take jake to the Bullring for this but he will just bitch out.. Coward
It would actually be a very good discussion.. Anybody think it is unconstitutional? I would love a formal debate!

 

[555]

Islamists, Communists and other Totalitarians are Prohibited by Law from Immigrating to the US

It seems the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prevents entry to anyone seeking to overthrow the US government by “force of violence or other unconstitutional means.” In other words, anyone who professes belief in the Koran and the Hadiths.

Now all we need is a Chief Executive who will uphold his or her oath of office.

Read more at Islamists, Communists and other Totalitarians are Prohibited by Law from Immigrating to the US - Freedom Outpost

Donald Trump's Plan Would Survive Constitutional Challenge @ American Power: Donald Trump's Plan Would Survive Constitutional Challenge

Plan to Bar Foreign Muslims by Donald Trump Might Survive a Lawsuit @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/u...ign-muslims-might-survive-a-lawsuit.html?_r=0

Trump Proposal on Muslims More Liberal than that of FDR and the Other Liberals of his time @ Trump Proposal on Muslims More Liberal than that of FDR and the Other Liberals of his time

58% of US Muslims Want Free Speech to be Illegal, So Can you Be Muslim AND American? @ 58% of US Muslims Want Free Speech to be Illegal, So Can you Be Muslim AND American?

Thankful for Asylum in Italy @ TOTAL DESTRUCTION: ISLAMIC Refugees Destroying Everything They Touch in Italy (VIDEOS) — Freedom Daily

And this is the DEMOCRATIC president who actually banned entry from a Muslim nation.

And with all the howling from Progs and Muslims around the world, there can be no doubt but that The Donald has hit a sore nerve. One more reason to vote for him!

 

[bendog]

It was absolutely necessary because Trump must remain the story de jour or his campaign will fall apart because he has no achievable proposals

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xE...orus_asset/file/4338453/NYDN Donald Trump.jpg

The New York Daily News did not hold back with its latest Donald Trump cover

 

[Care4all]

I can't believe anyone thinks immigration is not following the law and allowing Jihadists, and totalitarians and communists in to the country on Visas.....

I think they are doing their job, as best as they can....and stopping most...if not all that could be stopped via the visa process.

Who did not do their job that hurt us the most, was those in gvt that let the 19 hijackers in...

Things have gotten much tighter since then....

they are still not perfect, we can see...but good.

 

[Jarhead]

What is unfactual or untrue is that we can ban Muslims from entering the US.

We can. NOTHING in the Constitution says we cant. NOTHING

The first amendment establishes that government can not act on policy that restricts any persons action based on his/her religion. Whereas the prospective immigrant is not a US citizen and thus not protected by the first amendment, government officials and immigration personnel are restricted by the first amendment.

You need to understand what the constitution is....it not only protects American citizens from government...it also restricts government.

This is an issue of what the government can NOT do....not an issue of who is affected.

 

[Jarhead]

I can't believe anyone thinks immigration is not following the law and allowing Jihadists, and totalitarians and communists in to the country on Visas.....

I think they are doing their job, as best as they can....and stopping most...if not all that could be stopped via the visa process.

Who did not do their job that hurt us the most, was those in gvt that let the 19 hijackers in...

Things have gotten much tighter since then....

they are still not perfect, we can see...but good.

actually, if you watched the hearing today......the killer from California...she was NOT interviewed as is protocol for those asking for fiancé VISAS...her address was fictitious which means no one bothered to check out who she was...and she AND her fiancé were in contact with KNOWN terrorists who were under surveillance....but they were deemed to be "not threatening" contact so it was ignored.

Sounds to me they are not even doing half the job they are supposed to do.

But, of course, a hack like you has to put the blame on Bush's tenure.

Pathetic.

 

[Care4all]

I can't believe anyone thinks immigration is not following the law and allowing Jihadists, and totalitarians and communists in to the country on Visas.....

I think they are doing their job, as best as they can....and stopping most...if not all that could be stopped via the visa process.

Who did not do their job that hurt us the most, was those in gvt that let the 19 hijackers in...

Things have gotten much tighter since then....

they are still not perfect, we can see...but good.

actually, if you watched the hearing today......the killer from California...she was NOT interviewed as is protocol for those asking for fiancé VISAS...her address was fictitious which means no one bothered to check out who she was...and she AND her fiancé were in contact with KNOWN terrorists who were under surveillance....but they were deemed to be "not threatening" contact so it was ignored.

Sounds to me they are not even doing half the job they are supposed to do.

But, of course, a hack like you has to put the blame on Bush's tenure.

Pathetic.

no, I don't mean to put it all on bush's tenure, just that the 19 hijackers WERE KNOWN and DID HAVE terrorist connections that were known, so much so, that within 24-48 hours of the 9/11 attacks our FBI and NSA had all 19 hijackers names, connections and whereabouts right before the attack shown on video, or told to us...and pasted on the front page of every newspaper...

no doubt people do make mistakes....

but the policy itself seems fairly strong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

Exclusion cannot be done by religion.

(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

Exclusion cannot be done by religion.

Any class Jake. And by proclamation. Despite what the bs has been out of Washington for years aliens or non immigrants AKA not a citizen of the US has no freaking rights.

"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 ".

US law and regulations do not supersede the Constitution. A federal judge will put any such action of hold, quicker than immediately.

What can be done is this: pass a Declaration of War and demand that Obama ban non-American citizen Muslims from entering America.

Even then, he won't.

ps: watch some one bring up Reynolds. Sigh.

 

[TNHarley]

What is unfactual or untrue is that we can ban Muslims from entering the US.

We can. NOTHING in the Constitution says we cant. NOTHING

The first amendment establishes that government can not act on policy that restricts any persons action based on his/her religion. Whereas the prospective immigrant is not a US citizen and thus not protected by the first amendment, government officials and immigration personnel are restricted by the first amendment.

You need to understand what the constitution is....it not only protects American citizens from government...it also restricts government.

This is an issue of what the government can NOT do....not an issue of who is affected.

Reynolds Vs United States
Compelling interests test
ALSO, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs ALL human affairs from political to economic to military to even hygiene.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so how can Trump tell the difference between Christians and Islamists, Communists and other Totalitarians ...

the tattoo between their eyes ?

You see a woman wearing those ignorant rags their men hide them behind and you can guess she's Muslim. And if she is - so is he?

If I was a Customs Agent, I would keep a copy of the Koran handy and, when someone from a Muslim country shows up, would hold it up and tell them to spit on it. Their reaction should tell me whether or not they're Muslim.

Or, to put it another way, consider the lengths that one must go to to determine the extent of radicalization, according to Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” is to ask if the subject of questioning supports the following:

A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion

B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions

C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys

D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax

E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur

F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days

G) Kill gays



But....your 'test' appears to be quite the time save......

 

[B. Kidd]

You got an illegal Mexican and an illegal Syrian in front of you. You ask them both if they are Muslim and both say "no"! After that, you are faced with figuring out whose Syrian and who is Mexicano...........good luck.............

 

[Jarhead]

I can't believe anyone thinks immigration is not following the law and allowing Jihadists, and totalitarians and communists in to the country on Visas.....

I think they are doing their job, as best as they can....and stopping most...if not all that could be stopped via the visa process.

Who did not do their job that hurt us the most, was those in gvt that let the 19 hijackers in...

Things have gotten much tighter since then....

they are still not perfect, we can see...but good.

actually, if you watched the hearing today......the killer from California...she was NOT interviewed as is protocol for those asking for fiancé VISAS...her address was fictitious which means no one bothered to check out who she was...and she AND her fiancé were in contact with KNOWN terrorists who were under surveillance....but they were deemed to be "not threatening" contact so it was ignored.

Sounds to me they are not even doing half the job they are supposed to do.

But, of course, a hack like you has to put the blame on Bush's tenure.

Pathetic.

no, I don't mean to put it all on bush's tenure, just that the 19 hijackers WERE KNOWN and DID HAVE terrorist connections that were known, so much so, that within 24-48 hours of the 9/11 attacks our FBI and NSA had all 19 hijackers names, connections and whereabouts right before the attack shown on video, or told to us...and pasted on the front page of every newspaper...

no doubt people do make mistakes....

but the policy itself seems fairly strong.

People make mistakes....sure....but what good is the policy of "a fiancé VISA applicant MUST BE interviewed" if one is not done for a woman who gave a false address in a country from where some of those 19 hijackers originally came from.

The policy may be strong...but it is only as strong as those that implement it.

Its like Obamas ISIS policy...sure..."decimate it with airstrikes" sounds strong.....but if you are only flying 10 sorties a day compared to the 1000 flown in 1992......well.....its not very strong.

Is it?

 

[bendog]

What is unfactual or untrue is that we can ban Muslims from entering the US.

We can. NOTHING in the Constitution says we cant. NOTHING

The first amendment establishes that government can not act on policy that restricts any persons action based on his/her religion. Whereas the prospective immigrant is not a US citizen and thus not protected by the first amendment, government officials and immigration personnel are restricted by the first amendment.

You need to understand what the constitution is....it not only protects American citizens from government...it also restricts government.

This is an issue of what the government can NOT do....not an issue of who is affected.

Reynolds Vs United States
Compelling interests test
ALSO, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs ALL human affairs from political to economic to military to even hygiene.

Don't go anywhere with Jarhead unless Spock is on the bridge and Scotty is there to beam up your landing party. and Reynolds has nothing to do with the issue.

 

[Care4all]

I can't believe anyone thinks immigration is not following the law and allowing Jihadists, and totalitarians and communists in to the country on Visas.....

I think they are doing their job, as best as they can....and stopping most...if not all that could be stopped via the visa process.

Who did not do their job that hurt us the most, was those in gvt that let the 19 hijackers in...

Things have gotten much tighter since then....

they are still not perfect, we can see...but good.

actually, if you watched the hearing today......the killer from California...she was NOT interviewed as is protocol for those asking for fiancé VISAS...her address was fictitious which means no one bothered to check out who she was...and she AND her fiancé were in contact with KNOWN terrorists who were under surveillance....but they were deemed to be "not threatening" contact so it was ignored.

Sounds to me they are not even doing half the job they are supposed to do.

But, of course, a hack like you has to put the blame on Bush's tenure.

Pathetic.

no, I don't mean to put it all on bush's tenure, just that the 19 hijackers WERE KNOWN and DID HAVE terrorist connections that were known, so much so, that within 24-48 hours of the 9/11 attacks our FBI and NSA had all 19 hijackers names, connections and whereabouts right before the attack shown on video, or told to us...and pasted on the front page of every newspaper...

no doubt people do make mistakes....

but the policy itself seems fairly strong.

People make mistakes....sure....but what good is the policy of "a fiancé VISA applicant MUST BE interviewed" if one is not done for a woman who gave a false address in a country from where some of those 19 hijackers originally came from.

The policy may be strong...but it is only as strong as those that implement it.

Its like Obamas ISIS policy...sure..."decimate it with airstrikes" sounds strong.....but if you are only flying 10 sorties a day compared to the 1000 flown in 1992......well.....its not very strong.

Is it?

have congress and the senate declare war, then you'll get a full fledged war effort....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can't believe anyone thinks immigration is not following the law and allowing Jihadists, and totalitarians and communists in to the country on Visas.....

I think they are doing their job, as best as they can....and stopping most...if not all that could be stopped via the visa process.

Who did not do their job that hurt us the most, was those in gvt that let the 19 hijackers in...

Things have gotten much tighter since then....

they are still not perfect, we can see...but good.

actually, if you watched the hearing today......the killer from California...she was NOT interviewed as is protocol for those asking for fiancé VISAS...her address was fictitious which means no one bothered to check out who she was...and she AND her fiancé were in contact with KNOWN terrorists who were under surveillance....but they were deemed to be "not threatening" contact so it was ignored.

Sounds to me they are not even doing half the job they are supposed to do.

But, of course, a hack like you has to put the blame on Bush's tenure.

Pathetic.

no, I don't mean to put it all on bush's tenure, just that the 19 hijackers WERE KNOWN and DID HAVE terrorist connections that were known, so much so, that within 24-48 hours of the 9/11 attacks our FBI and NSA had all 19 hijackers names, connections and whereabouts right before the attack shown on video, or told to us...and pasted on the front page of every newspaper...

no doubt people do make mistakes....

but the policy itself seems fairly strong.

People make mistakes....sure....but what good is the policy of "a fiancé VISA applicant MUST BE interviewed" if one is not done for a woman who gave a false address in a country from where some of those 19 hijackers originally came from.

The policy may be strong...but it is only as strong as those that implement it.

Its like Obamas ISIS policy...sure..."decimate it with airstrikes" sounds strong.....but if you are only flying 10 sorties a day compared to the 1000 flown in 1992......well.....its not very strong.

Is it?

"Fazliddin Kurbanov was admitted as a Christian refugee in 2009 from the booming world power of Uzbekistan. He claimed that he and his family were being persecuted in the majority Muslim country.

Soon after arriving, Kurbanov realized: He was a Muslim, after all!

He began communicating with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, telling them: "We are the closest ones to the infidels .... What would you say if with the help of God we implement a martyrdom act?"

At trial, Kurbanov's defense was that he was just trying to get information on the terrorists in order "to capture them."

The jury was unconvinced, perhaps swayed by the stores of ammonium nitrate, acetone, aluminum powder and Tannerite found in Kurbanov's apartment. Our immigration officials would have found Kurbanov's story as believable as his Christianity. "
Ann Coulter - November 25, 2015 - IMPORTING TERRORISM AND OTHER AMERICAN VALUES

 

[TNHarley]

What is unfactual or untrue is that we can ban Muslims from entering the US.

We can. NOTHING in the Constitution says we cant. NOTHING

The first amendment establishes that government can not act on policy that restricts any persons action based on his/her religion. Whereas the prospective immigrant is not a US citizen and thus not protected by the first amendment, government officials and immigration personnel are restricted by the first amendment.

You need to understand what the constitution is....it not only protects American citizens from government...it also restricts government.

This is an issue of what the government can NOT do....not an issue of who is affected.

Reynolds Vs United States
Compelling interests test
ALSO, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs ALL human affairs from political to economic to military to even hygiene.

Don't go anywhere with Jarhead unless Spock is on the bridge and Scotty is there to beam up your landing party. and Reynolds has nothing to do with the issue.

A case going against religious freedom isn't relevant?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is unfactual or untrue is that we can ban Muslims from entering the US.

We can. NOTHING in the Constitution says we cant. NOTHING

The first amendment establishes that government can not act on policy that restricts any persons action based on his/her religion. Whereas the prospective immigrant is not a US citizen and thus not protected by the first amendment, government officials and immigration personnel are restricted by the first amendment.

You need to understand what the constitution is....it not only protects American citizens from government...it also restricts government.

This is an issue of what the government can NOT do....not an issue of who is affected.

Reynolds Vs United States
Compelling interests test
ALSO, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs ALL human affairs from political to economic to military to even hygiene.

Federal courts will not see it that way.

 

[skye]

I'm liking Trump more and more each day.

That is the way it is.

 

[TNHarley]

What is unfactual or untrue is that we can ban Muslims from entering the US.

We can. NOTHING in the Constitution says we cant. NOTHING

The first amendment establishes that government can not act on policy that restricts any persons action based on his/her religion. Whereas the prospective immigrant is not a US citizen and thus not protected by the first amendment, government officials and immigration personnel are restricted by the first amendment.

You need to understand what the constitution is....it not only protects American citizens from government...it also restricts government.

This is an issue of what the government can NOT do....not an issue of who is affected.

Reynolds Vs United States
Compelling interests test
ALSO, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs ALL human affairs from political to economic to military to even hygiene.

Federal courts will not see it that way.

Welp... that solves it!
Thanks for playing! Goodnight everyone

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reynolds had do with polygamy, not Muslims and immigration. Not relevant.