3 ms·

As I understand, even at the farthest point he was talking about non-citizens of this country. I don't personally believe we need a reason to stop a non-citizen

As I understand, even at the farthest point he was talking about non-citizens of this country. I don't personally believe we need a reason to stop a non-citizen from coming here. I also don't see any reference in the Bill of Rights concerning that - it's certainly a presidential power that has been exercised before. It is worth noting he has since backed (evolved if you will) that position down to "extreme vetting" to "certain parts of the world" (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.)

dpark 10y ago
There has never to my knowledge been a president who banned immigration based on religion. If it's happened it was unconstitutional then as well. Certainly it's within the government's scope to ban immigration but not based on a religious test.
- itbeho 10y ago
  Obama in 2011? He certainly didn't say it was based on religion, but these were almost all muslim countries of origin: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presi...
  - dpark 10y ago
    Did you link to the wrong proclamation? There are no countries even specified there. It's basically a proclamation that we won't allow in people who committed war crimes. And there's nothing legally wrong about blocking immigration from a certain country or countries. We could block immigration from Italy and Poland and it wouldn't be unconstitutional despite the fact that they are predominantly Catholic. The religious test itself is what's unconstitutional.
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? All we'd have to do is ask: What do you think should be done with homosexuals? What do you think should be done with Israel? and we'd get more than enough information to keep 90% of a certain religion out of here, without directly doing that.
      - dpark 10y ago
        > And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? No. If you want to block people who say they are against homosexuality, that might be legal. If you want to block people who say their religion is against homosexuality, that's not legal. The subtle differences matter. Similarly, if you're hiring for a warehouse job, you can discriminate against people who cannot safely lift 50lb packages repeatedly. You cannot discriminate explicitly against people in wheelchairs, even though that group in general will have a lot of trouble lifting 50 lb packages overhead.
lobf 10y ago
>the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
- drakonandor 10y ago
  Great, so people not currently in the country are not living among us.
  - lobf 10y ago
    As soon as they are within the boundaries of our laws, they are covered.

dpark 10y ago

There has never to my knowledge been a president who banned immigration based on religion. If it's happened it was unconstitutional then as well. Certainly it's within the government's scope to ban immigration but not based on a religious test.

itbeho 10y ago
Obama in 2011? He certainly didn't say it was based on religion, but these were almost all muslim countries of origin: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presi...
- dpark 10y ago
  Did you link to the wrong proclamation? There are no countries even specified there. It's basically a proclamation that we won't allow in people who committed war crimes. And there's nothing legally wrong about blocking immigration from a certain country or countries. We could block immigration from Italy and Poland and it wouldn't be unconstitutional despite the fact that they are predominantly Catholic. The religious test itself is what's unconstitutional.
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? All we'd have to do is ask: What do you think should be done with homosexuals? What do you think should be done with Israel? and we'd get more than enough information to keep 90% of a certain religion out of here, without directly doing that.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > And if the religion condones crimes against humanity? No. If you want to block people who say they are against homosexuality, that might be legal. If you want to block people who say their religion is against homosexuality, that's not legal. The subtle differences matter. Similarly, if you're hiring for a warehouse job, you can discriminate against people who cannot safely lift 50lb packages repeatedly. You cannot discriminate explicitly against people in wheelchairs, even though that group in general will have a lot of trouble lifting 50 lb packages overhead.

lobf 10y ago

>the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

drakonandor 10y ago
Great, so people not currently in the country are not living among us.
- lobf 10y ago
  As soon as they are within the boundaries of our laws, they are covered.