5 ms·
We need to keep in mind that the US Constitution does not grant freedom of religion to US aliens outside the US who want to immigrate to the US. Instead the US
by graycat 10y ago
We need to keep in mind that the US
Constitution does not grant freedom of
religion to US aliens outside the US who
want to immigrate to the US. Instead the
US, and under US law the POTUS, e.g., see
section (f) of "8 U.S. Code § 1182 -
Inadmissible aliens" as at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
starting with:
> (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 ....
are permitted to deny entry to any alien
outside the US for essentially any reason
or no reason. In particular, a "Muslim
ban" would be perfectly legal. I repeat,
as is fully clear from the law,
"essentially any reason or no reason".
So, suppose there is a Muslim ban? So
what? Whatever the answer, such a ban
would be both constitutional and legal.
For more detail, is Trump against all
Muslims? Nope. Evidence: IIRC, at the
Republican convention, the last speaker
before Trump accepted the nomination was a
long time Trump friend and Muslim.
It is fair to conclude that Trump is
trying to keep terrorists out of the US.
Are all terrorists Muslims? Nope: Not in
the world and not even just in the US.
But: In recent decades, somehow too many
terrorists have been Muslims, from
"radical Islam". Europe has seen a lot of
that in Nice, Paris, etc. The US saw a
lot of that in 9/11, Orlando, and San
Bernardino.
A good summary of the threat of radical
Islam with recent data was from Newt
Gingrich at the Republican convention as
at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos
There is a nice introduction by Newt's
wife, but watch and listen to his actual
speech, especially his list of events from
radical Islam from "the last 37 days".
Or, to keep out radical Islam, a good
first step is to carefully vet all
Islamists. There's so far not much sense
in looking for radical Islamist terrorists
among Episcopalians, Methodists,
Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Jews.
- SnacksOnAPlane 10y agoI don't really care whether it's legal. It's just a bad idea, morally and realistically. Alienating people is what turns them into terrorists. To paraphrase a line from "Legally Blonde" (I know I'm really helping my case here), "Happy people just don't kill people, they just don't." I don't know if Trump doesn't understand this or if he really does understand it and wants another terrorist attack on the US so he can gain more power.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- SnowFace 10y agoI don't think alienation or happiness is the root cause here. Many radical Islamic terrorists are extremely happy when the kill, believing they will be rewarded for eternity. We also see seemingly well-adjusted educated westerners leaving Europe to become ISIS members. I'm not an expert in Islam, but my overall take is that the Koran, because it's believed to be the actual word of God, allows followers to take it more literally than other religions. Of course, not all do, but many also do and don't act on it, as we see from the Pew studies.
- tptacek 10y agoNobody benefits from these kinds of casual, uninformed analyses of major world religions on HN, least of all anyone hoping for thoughtful discussion. The point at which you wrote "I'm not an expert in Islam" probably should have been where you rethought this whole comment.
- Chris2048 10y agoNo one on HN benefits from your biases either, tptacek. You aren't an expert a lot of things, are you going to stop airing your political views?
- graycat 10y agoI wrote out a good response for you, complete with headings and subheadings, but it is 11,800 bytes long which is too long for HN. Net, there is a lot of confusion on this subject, and I can't clear it all up quickly here.
- mercer 10y agoYou could post it on pastebin or some other service and give us the link to that maybe?
- tptacek 10y agoYour legal analysis here is substandard, even for a discussion among laypersons. The fact that the administration cannot in fact violate the Establishment Clause at the border, not only because the Constitution forbids it but because there's a statute that specifically bars that kind of discrimination, is known to any of the hundreds of thousands of people who listened to the livestreamed CA9 proceedings.
- graycat 10y agoYou didn't quote a law. For violating the establishment clause, I heard about that and regarded it as laughable. E.g., the US has lots of institutions for essentially any religion on the planet. So, no way can actions at the border for immigrants "establish" a state religion in the US.
- tptacek 10y agoFor anyone who listened to either the district court proceedings or the CA9 appeals court hearing on the stay, no citation to a law would be necessary; the whole thing turns on the interaction between the law you cited and the one that limits it and forbids religious discrimination. Rather than have me (poorly) explain the hearings to you, I think you should just take an hour to listen to them directly. Again: I think you're going to find that the analysis you just presented doesn't hold up well. There are issues with the CA9 stay --- standing, and nationwide applicability --- but they're not based on the idea that the President can simply declare Muslims dangerous.
- graycat 10y ago> the one that limits it and forbids religious discrimination. What "one" law? I gave a clear reference to a law that clearly says that the POTUS can block anyone he "deems" whatever -- he can block for essentially any reason or no reason. You claim that there is another law that limits the law I quoted, but you did not name such a law or give a reference. Name your law, and I'll read it. Maybe after reading your law, I'll also listen to the judges argue that the law I listed does not justify what Trump did.