Curious George
Veteran Member
No its not violating the Constitution, no its not what the fight is about, no its not what the stay was? Your post was not specific.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Judge halts implementation of Trump's immigration order
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Curious George
Veteran Member
The people being detained or sent back are not within the United States?
What should the Constitution be protecting them from? The US is not obligated to accept immigrants.
Curious George
Veteran Member
The Constitution should be limiting the government and making sure we do not have government unnecessarily favoring or discriminating based on religion.
Edited to add *unnecessarily *
What the Constitution "should" or should not do is immaterial and irrelevant; it is what it is.
Let's forget laymen's interpretations of the Constitution and look at law in black and white:
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
Several people seem to be making a similar claim here and it is absolutely false, and that is why Trump's EO was stayed.
Non-citizens within the jurisdiction of the US are “persons” in the Constitution, and therefore are recognized as having most all Constitutional rights:
The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.[12] All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."[13] For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."[14] The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."[15] When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality.[16]
There are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself argued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections:
“[I ]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.”[17]
The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."[13] For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."[14] The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."[15] When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality.[16]
There are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself argued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections:
“[I ]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.”[17]
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
Curious George
Veteran Member
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Obviously it is not referring to religion as they do not have the authority to do so.
What was the "class of aliens" whose entry into the US was denied by Trump's EO?
To whom are you referring as "immigrants"? Immigration law divides aliens into 3 categories: legal permanent residents (LPRs), non-immigrants, and unauthorized aliens.
Read the code. If you think something is amiss go to Congress and the Supreme Court. No one has offered anything but their armchair lawyers oinions and emotions. Read the code.
A slogan of xenophobic bigotry, IMO.
It's in the first amendment which is pretty straight forward about not descriminating based on religion. Yes presidents have power over security and if he violates the constitution to do it, the Supreme Court will try to rule it unconstitutional, which is their job.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Obviously Trump can do this. It's just monumentally stupid.
That's not what the First Amendment is for. It's for protecting persons within the jurisdiction of the US. It's not about prohibiting or permitting anyone from entering the US based on religion. Those detainees on American soil are a different matter. They're not being discriminated based on religion, but the countries they come from. The media and public are conflating their religions and countries of origins. You do know there are Christians and other non-Muslims who live in those Muslim countries, right? The are being barred from entering the US also.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing someone's personal legal opinion. However, the Supreme Court states, in terms of foreigners:
"The power to deport aliens is inherent in every sovereign state ... The policy toward aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the Government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference ... " HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, Supreme Court
Last edited:
Agreed, and that may very well be true. I never said it is right or wrong. I've only said that it's legal.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Nah, but the opposition seems to be preaching xenophilic bigotry, IMO.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Where were all the alt-left protests when the 0bama administration banned Iraq "refugees" for 6 months back in 2011?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
British dual nationality citizens can now enter the USA. Provided they do not come directly from one of the 7 countries. Not that I can see how their route makes any possible difference to their "Intent" or otherwise.
Trump is making decisions on the hoof with out any more thought than usual.
But it means Sir Mo Farah and others can now see their families again.
Trump is making decisions on the hoof with out any more thought than usual.
But it means Sir Mo Farah and others can now see their families again.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
are you sure? do they not have any agreements and treaties and laws concerning immigration.