Turns Out Trump's Call on Muslims is Unnecessary

[TNHarley]

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

RELIGION

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

RELIGION

Had to do with those who practiced polygamy. And it would not stand today. Go ahead and do it, and see what happens.

 

[bendog]

Reynolds 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.

ps, and yeah, I think Reynolds would come out differently today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reynolds 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.

ps, and yeah, I think Reynolds would come out differently today.

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.

 

[bendog]

Reynolds 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.

ps, and yeah, I think Reynolds would come out differently today.

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.

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.

 

[Jackson]

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

from your link:

1. But large Muslim populations, continually refreshed by ongoing mass immigration, are a problem. Polling suggests between a quarter and a third are not attached to the principles of the Constitution, supporting things such as sharia law over U.S. law and the use of violence against those who insult Islam.

2. Nor is this merely hypothetical; Muslims account for only about 1 percent of the U.S. population but account for about half of terrorist attacks since 9/11. That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.

3. But while Islam is indeed a religion, it is also more than that — and it is the political aspects that concern us. As Andy McCarthy noted last week, Islam’s non-religious element — sharia — “involves the organization of the state, comprehensive regulation of economic and social life, rules of military engagement, and imposition of a draconian criminal code.”

4. That program of Islamic supremacism is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, and we should strive to minimize the number of people living in our country who hold such beliefs. As Walter Russell Mead wrote the other day, “a cosmopolitan and tolerant society can’t thrive if it admits millions of migrants who hate and despise cosmopolitan values.”

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

 

[Jackson]

Reynolds 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.

ps, and yeah, I think Reynolds would come out differently today.

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.

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.

"congress isn't gonna pass anything crazy. ..." They passed the Iran treaty, didn't they?