Pence: ban on Mulims unconstitutional and un-American

[Rightguide]

Any law which singles out one specific religion would seem to be, on its face, contrary to the Constitution. However, national origin might be another matter, and has precedents, including in immigration.

Not in the case of aliens who have no rights afforded to them under the Constitution. Article VI only proscribes a religious test in the case of federal officers and employees, doesn't even apply to the states. If a given country has a super majority of one religion and presidential action is required aginst that country, it's idiotic to think he could be stopped on religious discrimination grounds.

 

[Rightguide]

And the executive order contained a phrase giving adherents of all other religions precedence over Muslims.

It's not a Muslim ban, the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesia, was not named in the travel ban.

 

[JackLuis]

It's not a Muslim ban, the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesia, was not named in the travel ban.

It also is not a Terrorist Ban as none of the countries covered have sent terrorists to America in the past, but countries not on the ban (cough, Saudi Arabia, cough) has!

So the Ban that is not a Ban is like Trump, all smoke and mirrors but ineffectual in it's stated purpose.

 

[sr71plt]

It's not a Muslim ban, the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesia, was not named in the travel ban.

No, it's a pinpointed discrimination against specific Muslim groupings--which is worse, in terms of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution than a blanket ban would be.

It's the Trump gang--Trump (who went through the campaign calling it a Muslim ban), Spicer, and Conway--that has called it a ban, thus landing themselves in hot water constitutionally.

I, in fact, think a ban is what is in order--a ban on all of those, regardless of anything, who can't meet certain standards of background verification. (But I'd be awfully careful about avoiding discrimination in what couldn't be in their background).

Your post is irrelevant and just flak thrown up into the air for lack of an argument on a cogent, relevant position.

My problem with the EO--and, more specifically, its chaotic roll out--isn't with efforts to keep terrorists from the outside (acknowledging that most examples of terrorism have been from the inside--mainly because we haven't been sitting idle on external terrorism threat; we've been countering that pretty successfully for decades) from getting into the United States. I think that's legitimate--as is the need to counter the real efforts of terrorist organizations to do it. It's with the ignorant and hamfisted and irrelevant approach the Trump gang took/is still trying to take. What the roll out did was to detain people who had legal right at the time (visas and green cards) to enter the United States. They were documented. The actual roll out of a more stringent vigilance should have started at other points.

 

[Rightguide]

No, it's a pinpointed discrimination against specific Muslim groupings--which is worse, in terms of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution than a blanket ban would be.

It's the Trump gang--Trump (who went through the campaign calling it a Muslim ban), Spicer, and Conway--that has called it a ban, thus landing themselves in hot water constitutionally.

I, in fact, think a ban is what is in order--a ban on all of those, regardless of anything, who can't meet certain standards of background verification. (But I'd be awfully careful about avoiding discrimination in what couldn't be in their background).

Your post is irrelevant and just flak thrown up into the air for lack of an argument on a cogent, relevant position.

My problem with the EO--and, more specifically, its chaotic roll out--isn't with efforts to keep terrorists from the outside (acknowledging that most examples of terrorism have been from the inside--mainly because we haven't been sitting idle on external terrorism threat; we've been countering that pretty successfully for decades) from getting into the United States. I think that's legitimate--as is the need to counter the real efforts of terrorist organizations to do it. It's with the ignorant and hamfisted and irrelevant approach the Trump gang took/is still trying to take. What the roll out did was to detain people who had legal right at the time (visas and green cards) to enter the United States. They were documented. The actual roll out of a more stringent vigilance should have started at other points.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The law is clear and allows him to discriminate, 8 USC1182 (14) F:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, I knew you didn't have the chops to grasp the issue.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It is fake news. Not a story, fake left wing news. ZZZZZZZ.The jig is up.

It actually happened, so how is it fake news?

Fake news consists of "news" that is blatantly false or otherwise distorted in hopes of getting more clicks or pushing an agenda. It is important to distinguish between fake news and bad, misleading, and/or biased reporting; fake news is absolutely fabricated while bad reporting at least has a valid source. As of recently, the term "fake news" has also devolved into a snarl word that denotes news reporting people don't like. For instance, Donald Trump is fond of using this term to describe news outlets that use this term to describe things he says.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Trump probably learned about Executive Orders by watching Fox News.

Fox News probably would have told him they're something only a dictator like Obama would use.

And he took a lesson from that.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Not in the case of aliens who have no rights afforded to them under the Constitution.

Aliens have all the same constitutional rights as citizens -- once they get into this country.

 

[Rightguide]

Aliens have all the same constitutional rights as citizens -- once they get into this country.

Only if they're legal and then it's conditional.

 

[sr71plt]

Only if they're legal and then it's conditional.

I don't think so on the "only if they're legal." You rob or murder an illegal alien in the United States, you get prosecuted to the same extent as if you robbed or murdered a citizen. I do think there are some conditions attached in some other situations (as I think there should be).

 

[phrodeau]

Aliens are legal. The ones who aren't are called illegal aliens.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't think so on the "only if they're legal." You rob or murder an illegal alien in the United States, you get prosecuted to the same extent as if you robbed or murdered a citizen. I do think there are some conditions attached in some other situations (as I think there should be).

The law is clear, there are conditions to which green card holders must adhere or their green cards can be withdrawn and deportation initiated. Illegal aliens have no right to remain in the United States, their rights are circumscribed by existing immigration statutes.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Only if they're legal and then it's conditional.

No, even undocumented immigrants have the right to free speech, due process, etc.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

It also is not a Terrorist Ban as none of the countries covered have sent terrorists to America in the past, but countries not on the ban (cough, Saudi Arabia, cough) has!

So the Ban that is not a Ban is like Trump, all smoke and mirrors but ineffectual in it's stated purpose.

Wrong. At least 5 got in.

Do your homework wackerdoodle.

 

[sr71plt]

The law is clear, there are conditions to which green card holders must adhere or their green cards can be withdrawn and deportation initiated. Illegal aliens have no right to remain in the United States, their rights are circumscribed by existing immigration statutes.

There are conditions that citizens must adhere to as well, or they get exiled (or executed).

Nowhere have I posted that illegal aliens have the right to remain in the United States (In fact, I believe they currently are given too many benefits). If a crime is perpetrated against them while they are in the United States, though, the crime isn't just forgotten/forgiven. So, they are given certain rights and protections--in fact, in most places they are given full public services.

 

[sr71plt]

Wrong. At least 5 got in.

Do your homework wackerdoodle.

Citation? Show your homework. You don't have a reputation for being either truthful or reliable.

 

[Rightguide]

There are conditions that citizens must adhere to as well, or they get exiled (or executed).

Nowhere have I posted that illegal aliens have the right to remain in the United States (In fact, I believe they currently are given too many benefits). If a crime is perpetrated against them while they are in the United States, though, the crime isn't just forgotten/forgiven. So, they are given certain rights and protections--in fact, in most places they are given full public services.

My original point was they don't have the same rights as citizens.

 

[KingOrfeo]

My original point was they don't have the same rights as citizens.

Apart from voting and holding public office, there is only one legal right citizens have and non-citizens have not: The right to live and work in the U.S. Even convicted felons have that right if they're citizens; exile is a punishment unknown to American law.

 

[BattlingSoul]

It seems Vice President Mike Pence is not enamored with the unconstitutional executive order by Trump to ban Muslims from entering this country. He tweeted:

Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.
— Governor Mike Pence (@GovPenceIN) December 8, 2015

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-life-for-mike-pences-tweet-calling-muslim-ban-offensive-and-unconstitutional-2017-01-29

How now brown cow?

Again, out of context...

That is because it is NOT a ban on muslims. Its a temporary hold on aliens coming into the country where extremest are known to thrive...

Nice try though...

 

[BattlingSoul]

Aliens have all the same constitutional rights as citizens -- once they get into this country.

Once they get in LEGALLY...

 

[sr71plt]

Again, out of context...

That is because it is NOT a ban on muslims. Its a temporary hold on aliens coming into the country where extremest are known to thrive...

Nice try though...

Trump (especially during the campaign), Spicer, and Conway have all called it a ban on Muslims. They (and you?) are just trying to have it both ways--talking out of both sides of their mouths. They clearly want their base to understand it as a ban on Muslims. Who do you think you're fooling?