@anon50325502 I can’t tell if your t-shirt is a joke about Bernie Sanders or that’s your way of showing your support. Is Bernie Sanders your preferred candidate?
I would say that Congress can not make an immigration law banning the entry of foreigners based solely on the fact that they would be bringing arms.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
My argument is the same here as it was in TBs second amendment thread. That’s what the Constitution says. If you want to change it then change it. Don’t twist and pervert it to fit your narrative.
My broad issue here Push is that some people think it is morally justified to convict (in a general non-legal sense) an entire demographic because of the actions of a small percentage of said demographic. I believe you’re innocent until proven guilty (in a non-legal sense). How many of the 200,000,000 Indian Muslims have attacked us? How many of the 25,000,000-50,000,000 Chinese Muslims have attacked us? That’s about 13% of the worldwide Muslim population that would be barred from entry into the greatest country in the world because some goat fucker in Iraq hates us.
I’m not sorry that I don’t agree with that.
Shall make NO law. No law. No law.
I’m not sure how many other ways I can type the words No and Law together.
Respectfully, no we are not. We are discussing if Congress can pass immigration policy/law that uses a religion as the sole means of barring certain individuals from entry.
Whether I like the policy or not is irrelevant.
That doesn’t change anything. Right this second there are unconstitutional gun laws all over the United States that will hopefully be overturned at some point. So, yes, in a sense they “can” make a law, but that doesn’t make it Constitutional. The Constitutionality of the potential law is what is being discussed.
I mean, okay, you’re right. Congress and the President can abuse their power. Sure.
Agreed.
Agreed
Except it isn’t because of the language of the Bill of Rights, specifically the first. “Shall make no law…religion…free exercise thereof…”
I don’t see a clause in the first that says something along the lines of, “Except in cases where the policy effects only foreigners.”
Just my feelings on the matter.
Depends on what exactly “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” meant. What do the founders have to say about this?
“Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs.”
-Alexander Hamilton
“The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”
-George Washinton
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
-George Washington
“This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.”
-Thomas Paine
“[L]et the poor the needy and oppressed of the Earth, and those who want Land, resort to the fertile plains of our western country, the second land of Promise, and there dwell in peace, fulfilling the first and great commandment.”
-George Washington
“The Alien bill proposed in the Senate is a monster that must forever disgrace its parents.”
-James Madison
You think what the founders of this country thought about immigration doesn’t help us interpret the meaning of Constitution?
That’s interesting.
The bottom line is Immigration law specifically effects foreigners, not citizens, and Congress has had a limitation set on their ability to make any law that uses a religion as the sole determining fact.
…“secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
Tell me, in what part of the definition of liberty, does discriminate against an entire group of people based on their religious preference fit?
I disagree and so do more than a few constitutional lawyers.
Nope. I disagree on legal grounds and so do more than a few constitutional lawyers.
It very well could be and more than a few constitutional lawyers believe that it would be.
Careful throwing such concrete phrase like “It wouldn’t be” around. Isn’t that what you scolded Smh for?
I don’t think that’s even questionable…
You haven’t refuted it. I guess it all just depends on what your definition of “no” is.
I already admitted they have the legal authority to set immigration law. They do not; however, have the authority to establish a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion as criteria for the law. It simply does not have the authority to do so.
Words either have meaning or they do not. Shall make no law…