CDZ Banning people from countries

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarian opinion is merely an opinion.

 

[the_human_being]

As a Seminole, I'd like to see all you illegal immigrants leave. None of you have been properly vetted.

 

[Elvis Obama]

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth. What will England say about our refusing to let English citizens into the US because of their religion? France? Germany?

This is a notion that a bright third grader would dismiss after a few minutes of thought.

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth.

I've read the Constitution. The right to travel to the US isn't in there.

You really need to sit down with a bright third grader. They could explain to you that other countries have nothing to do with the US constitution. If we ban their citizens they aren't going to be impressed with the fact that our constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it. They will pitch a very well deserved fit, and will respond in kind. Does our constitution prevent them from responding?

The idea of banning Muslim travel to the US is a moronic notion that, if we were stupid enough to try it, would cause a grave international crisis. Brilliant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The libertarian opinion is merely an opinion.

Which libertarian opinion? Where?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Trump has famously demanded all Muslims be banned from America because thousands of Muslims are terrorists.
Would it be acceptable for every country to ban all travel for all citizens of countries where a significant number are serious criminals?
Korea, the UK and the US all export thousands of child sex tourists to Asia, should all people from those countries be banned from overseas travel?
Illegal Russian arms dealers are notorious in many places, especially Africa, should all Russians be banned from everywhere?

Or perhaps blaming all for the actions of some is unacceptable.

Opinion?

Trump has "famously" suggested that a temporary moratorium be placed on the importation of muslims from the ME be established until such time as the government agencies responsible for protecting the populace of the US can positively identify those who might pose a risk to us.
There are very clear intelligence indications that many persons of certain ages/genders/ideologies pose a clear and present danger to the US and the citizens there. I don't see a problem with establishing a temporary hold on their entry here until there can be some clear and accurate means to identify those who pose no threat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A country could ban certain groups of another country's citizens, I guess.

But we can't ban people because of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn't mention anything about having to let Muslims come here. Did you have something to back up your claim? Or is it just a feeling?

The law is clear. Why do you think you can interfere with people because of religion?

Which law? Yes, we can interfere with foreigners traveling here.
We can ban Iranians, Chinese, Muslims of all varieties.
And there is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot.

Try again?

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth. What will England say about our refusing to let English citizens into the US because of their religion? France? Germany?

This is a notion that a bright third grader would dismiss after a few minutes of thought.

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth.

I've read the Constitution. The right to travel to the US isn't in there.

You really need to sit down with a bright third grader. They could explain to you that other countries have nothing to do with the US constitution. If we ban their citizens they aren't going to be impressed with the fact that our constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it. They will pitch a very well deserved fit, and will respond in kind. Does our constitution prevent them from responding?

The idea of banning Muslim travel to the US is a moronic notion that, if we were stupid enough to try it, would cause a grave international crisis. Brilliant.

You really need to sit down with a bright third grader.

Let me know when you're available.

They could explain to you that other countries have nothing to do with the US constitution.

Or they could explain when I said they did?

If we ban their citizens they aren't going to be impressed with the fact that our constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it. They will pitch a very well deserved fit, and will respond in kind.

Yes, other countries can respond. But that's not the question.

Does our constitution prevent them from responding?

Nope.

The idea of banning Muslim travel to the US is a moronic notion that, if we were stupid enough to try it, would cause a grave international crisis.

Perhaps. Which still isn't the point. Ask that third grader, they might be able to help. LOL!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

If that's your interpretation then all immigration laws on the books are unconstitutional.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Stop all immigration if necessary until we can vet if properly necessary. toddsterpatriot's question is one of those that are obvious they need not be answered.

Your failure to answer is funny.

Your failure to understand is tragic.

 

[Andylusion]

Trump has famously demanded all Muslims be banned from America because thousands of Muslims are terrorists.
Would it be acceptable for every country to ban all travel for all citizens of countries where a significant number are serious criminals?
Korea, the UK and the US all export thousands of child sex tourists to Asia, should all people from those countries be banned from overseas travel?
Illegal Russian arms dealers are notorious in many places, especially Africa, should all Russians be banned from everywhere?

Or perhaps blaming all for the actions of some is unacceptable.

Opinion?

Dude.... seriously? If the Korea is finding that the US is sending "child sex tourists" to them.......

YES BAN US CITIZEN FROM RUINING YOUR PEOPLE.

Heck yes dude. Seriously man? What kind of a dumb question is that? Absolutely! Man... *I* want you to ban US citizen from coming and using child sex tourism. Crap dude... that's most obvious answer to a question ever.

If US citizens are screwing children in Asia, and you DO NOT ban us... then I'm pissed at you. Stop people from coming to your country and harming your people. What a dumb question.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A country could ban certain groups of another country's citizens, I guess.

But we can't ban people because of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn't mention anything about having to let Muslims come here. Did you have something to back up your claim? Or is it just a feeling?

The law is clear. Why do you think you can interfere with peecause of religion?

We should damned well be able to interfere with them because of their tendency to chant "death to America", rape women as they please, and behead, crucify, stone, burn, drown and desecrate the sites of those whose religions do not comply with their demands.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You need to revise the constitution. Its not fit for purpose.

The Constitution is most certainly fit and appropriate...unless, you are trapped in your own PC cesspit.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You need to revise the constitution. Its not fit for purpose.

The Constitution is most certainly fit and appropriate...unless, you are trapped in your own PC cesspit.

Thats ok then. Do you think that Washington had a crystal ball that he could see the advances in technology ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A country could ban certain groups of another country's citizens, I guess.

But we can't ban people because of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn't mention anything about having to let Muslims come here. Did you have something to back up your claim? Or is it just a feeling?

The law is clear. Why do you think you can interfere with people because of religion?

Which law? Yes, we can interfere with foreigners traveling here.
We can ban Iranians, Chinese, Muslims of all varieties.
And there is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot.

Try again?

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

I understand, you claimed we couldn't do it and you still haven't shown proof.

Here you go.

Open Collections Program: Immigration to the US, Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)

 

[Andylusion]

If we ban a quarter of the world's population from entering the US, based on their religion, we will be denying rights to the citizens of literally every country on the earth. What will England say about our refusing to let English citizens into the US because of their religion? France? Germany?

This is a notion that a bright third grader would dismiss after a few minutes of thought.

Life, Liberty, and Property (pursuit of happiness). Those are the fundamental rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Life.... Liberty... and pursuit of Happiness.

Where in there do you see, "right of people not under our government, not in our country, to come here without restriction and have us take care of them"?

These rights, under our constitution apply exclusively to our citizens. Citizens of another country, are not 'entitled' to come here. Nor is it their "right".

Sorry, but it's not a right dude.

Now I happen to be pro-immigration. I want more people coming to the US.

But regardless of my personal view on immigration, don't tell me that if we tell people they can't come here, that we are 'violating their rights'. We are not. They do not have the "right" to come here. Flat out, you are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

If that's your interpretation then all immigration laws on the books are unconstitutional.

See, you that you could not ban people based on religion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stop all immigration if necessary until we can vet if properly necessary. toddsterpatriot's question is one of those that are obvious they need not be answered.

Your failure to answer is funny.

Your failure to understand is tragic.

I understand his failure to answer.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on religion? Hint: you can't.

If that's your interpretation then all immigration laws on the books are unconstitutional.

See, you that you could not ban people based on religion.

Show me exactly where in the Constitution it says we can ban people based on reasons other than religion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some here say we can ban based on religion, but have not been able to show that such is constitutional. To do so would be Big Government over reach. Such thinking would be a progressive expansion of Big Government power.

 

[Andylusion]

You need to revise the constitution. Its not fit for purpose.

The Constitution is most certainly fit and appropriate...unless, you are trapped in your own PC cesspit.

Thats ok then. Do you think that Washington had a crystal ball that he could see the advances in technology ?

Not needed.

The constitution has provisions for amendments. If there is a case to be made, to change the constitution that governs the land, there is an amendment process designed and created for that specific purpose.

The problem isn't the constitution. The problem is, people keep electing idiots that don't follow the constitution.