Hey Jewbacca, would you mind expanding on this:
The way I interpret the first:
Is that Congress can not make a law (in this case an immigration law) that would prohibit the free exercise thereof. Wouldn’t creating an immigration law that stops a specific religion from entering be prohibitive in nature?
No.
Difference between free exercise of religion and free movement of those who hold those thought.
I like this quote.
Notable & Quotable: Morrissey on Manchester, WSJ, May 25.
Morrissey, the English singer-songwriter, writing on his Facebook page, May 23:
"Celebrating my birthday in Manchester as news of the Manchester Arena bomb broke. The anger is monumental.
For what reason will this ever stop?
Theresa May says such attacks “will not break us”, but her own life is lived in a bullet-proof bubble, and she evidently does not need to identify any young people today in Manchester morgues. Also, “will not break us” means that the tragedy will not break her, or her policies on immigration. The young people of Manchester are already broken - thanks all the same, Theresa. Sadiq Khan says “London is united with Manchester”, but he does not condemn Islamic State - who have claimed responsibility for the bomb. The Queen receives absurd praise for her ‘strong words’ against the attack, yet she does not cancel today’s garden party at Buckingham Palace - for which no criticism is allowed in the Britain of free press. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says the attack is the work of an “extremist”. An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?
In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private. Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections."
I’m sure a quick google search would result in some legal expert saying the exact opposite. I was more hoping you would explain (briefly) why Congress can make a law that prohibits people of a specific religion from, in this case, entering the U.S. when the first amendment specifically says Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Congress makes a new immigration law → law states Muslims can not enter the U.S. → Congress has made a law that doesn’t allow foreign Muslims to enter the U.S. based solely on the fact that they are Muslim. How is that not a violation of the 1st?
If you aren’t allowed in because you exercise a specific religion then, at least in my mind, the law is violating the 1st as I’ve stated in other posts.
I’m not a lawyer so I’m happy to hear what an actual lawyer has to say on the matter.
Well the actual “Muslim Ban” wasn’t a Muslim ban but just a geographic ban from certain countries.
If Trump were to say no to everyone who practised that religion from all over the world that could be seen as breaching the 1st Amendment, but in its current state, it is not at all.
I guess we’ll see if/when it reaches the SCOTUS. You could be right, I haven’t looked at the text of the ban because I basically figured this would happen anyway.
The choice of countries doesn’t seem to make much sense to me:
I am perfectly amenable to that fact. But I can hardly ignore the fact that the “independent” is stumping for the most far left leader in the UK since the 70’s.
I am not trying to be unfair here, but I cannot take seriously as a non-partisan source a paper that has called for a specific leader in a two party race.
Would actually love to see a detailed post from you regarding @anon50325502 question.
You have the bona fides, so if you have the time, I’d appreciate it.
Also, as a secondary question, what do you think Europe should do, as a citizen of a country who gets this shit on a nigh on endless basis.
I can. You can isolate a set of bad ideas and if people were to organize behind said bad idea and not be citizens protected by the constitution, then a discriminatory immigration law could be soundly created under the law.
The law does not protect non-citizens. It cannot and should not.
Which Europe? Eastern parts of Europe have a much, much lower threshold.
I’ll clarify as Western Europe then. Your caveat is noted. Problem for Western Europe is what do you do after the cow has escaped the barn? Can hardly close the barn door and expect an efficacious outcome.
I have a solution.
If people cannot be sent to where they came from they are detained.
These protocol would’ve stopped 20 teenage girls from dying.
It is unconstitutional - the real question is does anyone have standing to sue to have a court declare it so. Someone has to have a cognizable injury as a result of the unconstitutional act before they can sue in court - and the obvious person with an injury is a non-citizen wanting to immigrate to the states. Well, they really don’t have standing to sue…but standing is a fluid concept, and certain citizens may have a claim to an injury (and the current lawsuits are being brought by citizens claiming injury, not non-citizens).
The First Amendment reads as a general prohibition on certain government actions, and it’s really a misnomer that it is called with the other amendments the Bill of Rights. After all, it reads just like the prohibition on ex post facto laws and grants of nobility - it’s part of a list in the Constitution of things the federal government can’t do.
But, again, whether a court can declare it so depends on whether someone can claim a real legal injury. And that’s a weird concept, but it’s true - something can be unconstitutional but a court is powerless to provide a remedy for it. Both of those things can be true at the same time.
Have you read 1984?
The first, second and final one are reasonable to me. The others are, admittedly, much more that I am willing to countenance.
If we are mentioning dystopias, this one deserves a mention.
The author is currently living in Ireland under protection.
Obviously, there’s a difference between how I view things as an American so this is just my take:
Detaining/deporting someone because of what they say doesn’t fly here. If their speech leads to something like an attack that’s a different story, but the simple act of preaching being worth deportation seems nuts to me.
What if you’re doing research for a book? What if it’s an accident? What if it’s a part of a virus? [quote=“hugh_gilly, post:135, topic:229963”]
Read an ISIS book = Detained or Deported
[/quote]
I read this last year should I be detained?
Similar to #1. At what point, in America, does this shift to the Confederate flag and then the Gadsden flag and so on and so forth?
Thought police much? [quote=“hugh_gilly, post:135, topic:229963”]
Show support at all to Extremists = Detained or Deported
[/quote]
This would need to be so explicitly defined I don’t even know where to begin. The British government once thought the American Patriot was an extremist after all. I’m not comparing the two just pointing out where this leads. [quote=“hugh_gilly, post:135, topic:229963”]
Travel to terrorist country = Don’t let back in
[/quote]
What if you work for a contractor that goes to Iraq to fight ISIS? What if you were born in a “terrorist” country and you go back to fight against terrorism or to help family still there or any number of reasons?
I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.
There is a difference between preaching, and the type of Wahhabi agitation we are receiving. In principle I agree with you, but I don’t consider their type of preaching to be per se religious expression.
A defense of bona fide use would be appropriate. Much like most western governments
do with the anarchist’s cookbook.
That depends, was it a good book?
We give a prescribed list of countries, and you have to apply to the home office for permission.
The other parts of the list, I disavowed, so I’ll leave off defending them because your points are well made.
I may soften in the coming days as well, just not in the best mind to do so now.
