Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.

 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?

Speaking of unconstitutional...Treason is defined in the Constitution of the United States (Article III Section 3). I don't know if proposing to ban Muslim immigration counts as espionage or sedition (easier charges to try for) but you'd have a hard time making Treason charges stick in a court. Treason charges are pretty rare and seem to have a high rate of acquittal. Seeing as Jefferson Davis was acquitted I'm pretty sure Donald would be fine.


Regarding the First Amendment, the Supreme Court seems to generally defer to Congress in matters of Immigration, and the Executive Branch has a lot of room to maneuver through the Secretary of State. It is the Court's prerogative to interpret the Constitution, but they are generally very conservative (i.e., status quo rather than Conservative ideologically) in these matters.

"Congress shall make not law..." - They shall make no law unless the Supreme Court upholds said law, or at least doesn't strike it down. See also "shall not be infringed".

And it is all a moot point. I doubt any proposed law would state "666 USC § 2017: Were gunna ban all the muslims cuz they smell funny yeeeehaaawww!!!!!". They'd probably just reduce the quotas for "certain countries" to the point that once all the doctors, millionaires, and friends of friends got in, there'd be maybe three and a half slots left open. Non-immigrant visas would be very easy to deny - just slap it with a 214(b) Denial and say "the applicant didn't provide sufficient proof that they were not trying to illegally immigrate". This is "facially legitimate and bona fide" and the Supreme Court has historically upheld this.


That all said, I have reasons why I think that a universal Muslim ban would be detrimental, but I cannot organize my argument as well. Basically, convoluted and capricious immigration law creates incentive for illegal immigration. It is my opinion that immigration can be a net gain for the country, but it must be controlled in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, most arguments against immigration restrictions are emotional and just rely on "it's against the Constitution" when it demonstrably is not. Arguments against the practicality of a Muslim ban are much better because while it is enforceable, to do so requires making legal immigration an even bigger headache, something I am strongly opposed to.

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

This.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

This.

and it still does not answer the question.

Bernie Sanders just got another endorsement!

JUST IN: Venezuelan president wants "revolutionary friend" Bernie Sanders to win https://t.co/E53K8wjCKE pic.twitter.com/gp0KxOweNA

— The Hill (@thehill) June 2, 2016

A good thing that socialism is such a resounding success in Venezuela... no?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Minx wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Given the atrocities that Islamic migrants have visited upon Europe, hopefully this continues to be the case.

I am currently living in Europe and must've missed all these atrocities. Care to elaborate?

It's been all over the news...how have you missed it?

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d

26 women sexually assaulted at music festival...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/darmstadt-germany-migrants-assaults.html?_r=0

Mass rape attack on New Year's Eve...

http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/germans-slam-rapefugees-in-wake-of-mass-sexual-attack/



Have you really been missing this, or are you intentionally ignoring the evidence in the name of multiculturalism?

Oh, "those" kinds of atrocities. Yeah, it's a real shame that some people believe all this trumped up nonsense. The extend of what happened is very far from what some "news" tried to make of it. The perpetrators are usually Germans or illegal north Africans and very seldom refugees from the middle east. And their faith usually isn't a significant reason for any of those thefts and assaults. So, don't let racism cloud your judgement.

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

This.

and it still does not answer the question.

Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.

Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

This.

and it still does not answer the question.

Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.

you should play the lottery since if you know some of the less then 1100 (1736, still a far cry from the 10K Obama pledged to bring over.) Syrian Refugees allowed into the country, you must have some good luck going for you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.

Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.

oh like Frazzled should since i'm sure Syrian refugees to a town would make the paper more then an illegal immigrant family being deported? also this didn't even make a blurb in the 911 section of the local paper.

The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?

yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States, as it goes the law exists and it has been used before and it is not challenged.

also here is the whole first Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

no where does it say it cannot keep people out for any reason.

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

This.

and it still does not answer the question.

Sure it does. They are legally here under the Fed's refugee settlement program. They were placed with us by them.

you should play the lottery since if you know some of the less then 1100 (1736, still a far cry from the 10K Obama pledged to bring over.) Syrian Refugees allowed into the country, you must have some good luck going for you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sting? They have legal documentation. I don't know what sting you are referring to.

then what kind of Visa did they enter the country under?

Asterios... there's an existing Refugee program. Think of it as a different version of political asylum.

You and I argued that the President has statutory authority to preventing immigrants into the US?

Conversely, the President (and certain administration officials) has authority granting aliens immigration privileges.

and you said they were here legally which would indicate you know what kind of Visa they entered the country under?

reason i'm asking is a Church near me which was housing allegedly legal refugees from "Columbia" I think? just got raided by ICE 2 weeks ago and it turns out they were not here legally.

Your statement is again merely another piece of hearsay anecdotal evidence unsupported by any documentation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right it's best to give a link to a reputable news article or something like that.

oh like Frazzled should since i'm sure Syrian refugees to a town would make the paper more then an illegal immigrant family being deported? also this didn't even make a blurb in the 911 section of the local paper.

Maybe you just made it up.

Did you have a 30 minute training video in "civics for fast food assistant managers" class?

Because at this point you either have to be this wrong on purpose, about everything, or be the poster child for a failed educational system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

And none of them could afford a PIO, dang budget cuts.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

I don't believe you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

I don't believe you.

didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.

 d-usa wrote:
Did you have a 30 minute training video in "civics for fast food assistant managers" class?

Because at this point you either have to be this wrong on purpose, about everything, or be the poster child for a failed educational system.

There's a word for people that spam ridiculous bs all day online while complaining about all the problems others create.

Flargabarg? That's not right, but its close.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

I don't believe you.

didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.

Whenever you make a statement you ask people to believe it. It's a standard part of human communication. Please don't try and evade the point by blowing me off. It's extremely rude.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?

yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States

That's not what it says though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

I don't believe you.

didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.

Whenever you make a statement you ask people to believe it. It's a standard part of human communication. Please don't try and evade the point by blowing me off. It's extremely rude.

you just called me a liar, so yeah I can blow you off. and just ignore you.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?

yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States

That's not what it says though.

it also does not say that foreign nationals have to be allowed into the US either.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

I don't believe you.

didn't ask you too and to be honest I just don't care what you think, just like I don't believe Frazzled, each to our own and our own opinions and beliefs.

Whenever you make a statement you ask people to believe it. It's a standard part of human communication. Please don't try and evade the point by blowing me off. It's extremely rude.

you just called me a liar, so yeah I can blow you off. and just ignore you.
...

I didn't call you a liar. I said I don't believe you.

The reason I don't believe you is that you make claims to support your statements and positions without any evidence to back them up. Then you refuse to engage with criticism on the point.

If you want to characterise that kind of behaviour as lying, that's your choice of words.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Did you have a 30 minute training video in "civics for fast food assistant managers" class?

Because at this point you either have to be this wrong on purpose, about everything, or be the poster child for a failed educational system.

There's a word for people that spam ridiculous bs all day online while complaining about all the problems others create.

Flargabarg? That's not right, but its close.

"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."

dethork wrote:


And it is all a moot point. I doubt any proposed law would state "666 USC § 2017: Were gunna ban all the muslims cuz they smell funny yeeeehaaawww!!!!!". They'd probably just reduce the quotas for "certain countries" to the point that once all the doctors, millionaires, and friends of friends got in, there'd be maybe three and a half slots left open. Non-immigrant visas would be very easy to deny - just slap it with a 214(b) Denial and say "the applicant didn't provide sufficient proof that they were not trying to illegally immigrate". This is "facially legitimate and bona fide" and the Supreme Court has historically upheld this.

That's my whole point with regards to the First Amendment. Congress can make up all sorts of reasons to pass a law to stop Muslim immigrants. The one reason they cannot explicitly use is "because they're Muslim".

They can tighten the vetting process.

 Frazzled wrote:

The wife was from Palestine, and not Palestine, Texas.

She was Pakistani, not Palestinian.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Constitution only applies to Americans, you say. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". The Constitution is thus telling us what Congress may or may not do. Congress, being made up of American citizens, is thus bound by the constitution. It doesn't matter if the people being affected by this hypothetical law are foreigners or not, because the Constitution is telling American citizens that such a law is prohibited. How is this argument still being pushed?

yes Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the rights of citizens of the United States

That's not what it says though.

it also does not say that foreign nationals have to be allowed into the US either.

Nope, but it does say you're not allowed to pass a law that discriminates based on religion.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

dethork wrote:


And it is all a moot point. I doubt any proposed law would state "666 USC § 2017: Were gunna ban all the muslims cuz they smell funny yeeeehaaawww!!!!!". They'd probably just reduce the quotas for "certain countries" to the point that once all the doctors, millionaires, and friends of friends got in, there'd be maybe three and a half slots left open. Non-immigrant visas would be very easy to deny - just slap it with a 214(b) Denial and say "the applicant didn't provide sufficient proof that they were not trying to illegally immigrate". This is "facially legitimate and bona fide" and the Supreme Court has historically upheld this.

That's my whole point with regards to the First Amendment. Congress can make up all sorts of reasons to pass a law to stop Muslim immigrants. The one reason they cannot explicitly use is "because they're Muslim".

http://ivn.us/2015/12/11/reality-check-right-or-wrong-the-president-could-ban-muslims-from-entering-u-s/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/banning-muslims-from-entering-the-u-s-is-a-very-bad-idea-but-it-may-be-constitutionally-permissible/