Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you still dont get it do you? though you are starting to. immigration entry law applies to those OUTSIDE the US, not in the US. and thus congress CAN make laws to prevent people of any stripe from entering the US.
as i noted before, you cannot go to another country and expect your US constitutional protections, and people in other countries cannot expect US constitutional protections either until they have entered the US and cleared customs.
And they shouldn't even get those unless they are U.S. citizens.
Baloney. I'm a Democrat and so are many of my friends. I've hear one say they want the Syrian refugees to come here. You need to turn off Fox News and get out more, and start having a real conversation with people who are not mirror images of yourself.
Your Dear Leader Obama wants to bring them here -- and so do Biden, Reid, Pelosi, et al.
The more important question is why can't we let in who we want to let in this country? Immigration and tourism isn't even in the Constitution.
Because the constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion." Thus, passing a law that bars people from entering the country by virtue of their religion violates the constitution.
Because the constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion." Thus, passing a law that bars people from entering the country by virtue of their religion violates the constitution.
Wrong.
I see we have another sophist here.
Our constitution only applies to citizens and people who are present in this country.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Can you point out where the Constitution states that doesn't apply to immigration policy?
Oh, please, Mr. Burdell! Aren't you smarter than that?
The First Amendment refers to the rights of citizens. The entire Constitution applies to the United States and its citizens.
Congress establishes immigration policy, and immigration is based on the benefit to American society, which may include consideration of the applicants religion (as it always has).
I find it very interesting how this whole "ISIS" thing has opened the doors for people to be blatantly bigoted and not feel the least bit of shame about it.
That door was opened LONG ago by liberal bigots and their denigration of religious Americans exercising their First Amendment Rights, so don't be so surprised that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
That said, exactly what is wrong with limiting/prohibiting the immigration of those who are members of a group that believes in killing non-Muslims (until "religion is for Allah" - Quran 2:191-193) and gays?
Since the 1st Amendment applies only to US citizens and those foreigners who are already residing in US territory, I can't see how restricting admission of foreigners NOT already residing in the US using whatever arbitrary criteria we choose could ever be a 1st Amendment violation.
Because the constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion." Thus, passing a law that bars people from entering the country by virtue of their religion violates the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Wrong.
I see we have another sophist here.
Our constitution only applies to citizens and people who are present in this country.
Thank you for you in-depth analysis. I contend that your conclusion is the fallacious one.
The Constitution only applies to citizens in the sections that say that the specific right only applies to citizens. In many sections, it specifically states "people" and "persons" which includes all persons. As an example, a foreigner held for a crime is entitled to all the protections of a citizen. They must be read their rights and they are entitled to a jury trial and represented by an attorney.
However, that is irrelevant to the First Amendment, which specifically states, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion." The First Amendment does NOT say, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion [except Congress can abridge the freedoms of non-citizens.]" "Make no law," is quite absolute.
The First Amendment applies to the government passing laws that establish a religion or that impede the freedom to practice a religion. A law discriminating against a religion, in any capacity, impedes the free practice of that religion
Wrong. There is no requirement that anyone denied immigration to the U.S. has to stop the free practice of their religion in their current country of residence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
