Trump’s Muslim Ban Not Only Constitutional But Has Been the Law Since 1952

[longknife]

A lengthy but very concise article that clearly shows the President of the United States has the moral duty to keep Muslims and Islamists out of the country in accordance with Section 212, Chapter 2 of the USCIS Handbook.

G) 2b 2c FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM- Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.

It goes on to cite, based upon US Statues, that anyone who believes in or practices violations of religious freedoms should be kept out of the USA. That clearly forbids the entry of any and everyone who professes the basic tenets of Islam.

The full story with lots and lots of references is @ http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/...nstitutional-but-has-been-the-law-since-1952/

 

[Care4all]

huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP attempts to link those supporting those who are doing bad things to us can be banned.

Of course they can.

But nothing gives the President the right to ban people because of religious belief.

 

[longknife]

huh?

What? You don't understand the article?

 

[candycorn]

The OP is total bullshit.

 

[longknife]

The OP is total bullshit.

Instead of once again making an inane and vapid comment, why don't you PROVE your statement?

If you can.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A lengthy but very concise article that clearly shows the President of the United States has the moral duty to keep Muslims and Islamists out of the country in accordance with Section 212, Chapter 2 of the USCIS Handbook.

G) 2b 2c FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM- Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.

It goes on to cite, based upon US Statues, that anyone who believes in or practices violations of religious freedoms should be kept out of the USA. That clearly forbids the entry of any and everyone who professes the basic tenets of Islam.

The full story with lots and lots of references is @ http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/...nstitutional-but-has-been-the-law-since-1952/

So you've basically deemed that all those who practice Islam believe something you want them to believe, and therefore are able to ban them based on this?

I've come across arguments like this before in relation to Islam, from the British far right BNP.

They had as a policy during the 2010 election that all Muslim extremists should be removed from the UK, and then said that all Muslims were inherently extremist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is total bullshit.

Instead of once again making an inane and vapid comment, why don't you PROVE your statement?

If you can.

Because you have not proved your assertion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fact is Muslims are proving day after day in Europe they DO NOT ASSIMILATE and instead demand sharia and no go areas for themselves. THAT is illegal unconstitutional and immoral in the USA. Or can any of you point us to the section in the Constitution that grants a religion the right to EXCLUDE all nonbelievers from their areas and special laws to support their religious intolerance?

 

[JakeStarkey]

1st Amendment. The USA cannot get involved in religion, it has to be neutral.

However, the ban can apply to any person n particular nation until vetted.

 

[miketx]

Don't confuse the choad gulpers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1st Amendment. The USA cannot get involved in religion, it has to be neutral.

However, the ban can apply to any person n particular nation until vetted.

Wrong the Constitution is NOT a death pact. f a religion is violent anti law and acts in concert AGAINST the Government or people in a violent way the 1st Amendment does NOT protect them. When a religion advocates no go zones where members not of thet religion are barred attacked or harmed by that religion that IS NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. When a religion organizes and attacks police enforcing the law that IS NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. When a religion advocate violently to change the law and the Constitution that IS NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[candycorn]

The OP is total bullshit.

Instead of once again making an inane and vapid comment, why don't you PROVE your statement?

If you can.

You first

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are only your silly words, RetiredGySgt.

The problem is easily resolved without going to your extremes.