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.
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, and is therefore a violation of the First Amendment.
Sorry, but the Supreme court ruled otherwise in the 1990 case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
The court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders".
You are absolutely wrong. Congress cannot restrict immigration on the basis of religion. That is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Congress can restrict immigration on other bases that don't violate the Constitution.
What you are arguing is akin to saying "there is no right to have health insurance, so if the Affordable Care Act only applies to non-Christians, there is no restriction on religion, only on health care law." That is wrong.
The 1st doesn't apply to ANYONE but CITIZENS/RESIDENTS and GOVERNMENT. NONE of our rights extend to foreign lands. The Constitution has nothing AT ALL to do with immigration or tourism.
The 1st doesn't apply to ANYONE but CITIZENS and GOVERNMENT. NONE of our rights extend to foreign lands. The Constitution has nothing AT ALL to do with immigration or tourism.
This is true. See post #71 for the actual court case.
Sorry, but the Supreme court ruled otherwise in the 1990 case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
The court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders".
Sorry, but you've missed the point.
The government cannot pass a law discriminating against a religion. It's not about immigration in this case. The government of the United States is not permitted to discriminate against a religion. In any capacity.
The government cannot pass a law discriminating against a religion. It's not about immigration in this case. The government of the United States is not permitted to discriminate against a religion. In any capacity.
Wrong. They can revoke ANY privilege at ANY time they want to at THEIR discretion.
I strongly disagree with both - and any true conservative should as well.
True conservative? What is it with you pure righties? You don't have a lock on conservatism. The people you support, the Establishment aren't true conservatives, they are Progressives, so that would make you one as well.
1)Restrictions on firearm ownership, on the sale of firearms, and on the purchase of firearms
2)Immigration and tourist visa restrictions based on religion or any other criteria (such as country of origin).
Pssst, where is the word Immigration mentioned in the Constitution?
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.
