Its only OK when a Democrat does it!

[Jarhead]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Religious freedom for Americans. Doesn't say anything about religious freedom for visitors, immigrants, or illegals.

Uh....excuse me...

The first Amendment is not just about protecting the rights of Americans....although, that is how many people see it.

The first amendment is actually MORE about restricting the power of government. It prevents GOVERNMENT from dictating policy based on religion...it prevents GOVERNMENT from exerting its own beliefs on others as it pertains to religion.

Trumps idea is unconstitutional because he, as president, is forbidden, per the first amendment, from implementing policy based on religion.

It is that simple.

 

[Slyhunter]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Religious freedom for Americans. Doesn't say anything about religious freedom for visitors, immigrants, or illegals.

Uh....excuse me...

The first Amendment is not just about protecting the rights of Americans....although, that is how many people see it.

The first amendment is actually MORE about restricting the power of government. It prevents GOVERNMENT from dictating policy based on religion...it prevents GOVERNMENT from exerting its own beliefs on others as it pertains to religion.

Trumps idea is unconstitutional because he, as president, is forbidden, per the first amendment, from implementing policy based on religion.

It is that simple.

foreigners don't get American rights. Iranians don't get American rights, Syrians don't get American rights. American rights are for Americans. It is that simple.

 

[ogibillm]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Religious freedom for Americans. Doesn't say anything about religious freedom for visitors, immigrants, or illegals.

Uh....excuse me...

The first Amendment is not just about protecting the rights of Americans....although, that is how many people see it.

The first amendment is actually MORE about restricting the power of government. It prevents GOVERNMENT from dictating policy based on religion...it prevents GOVERNMENT from exerting its own beliefs on others as it pertains to religion.

Trumps idea is unconstitutional because he, as president, is forbidden, per the first amendment, from implementing policy based on religion.

It is that simple.

foreigners don't get American rights. Iranians don't get American rights, Syrians don't get American rights. American rights are for Americans. It is that simple.

Again, foreigners do have constitutional protections.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Religious freedom for citizens

We do not have to allow foreigners entry so as to practice their religion here besides they are free to practice their religion in their own country

 

[peach174]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Our Constitution does not apply to non citizens.

It has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do with out National Security.

 

[peach174]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Religious freedom for Americans. Doesn't say anything about religious freedom for visitors, immigrants, or illegals.

Uh....excuse me...

The first Amendment is not just about protecting the rights of Americans....although, that is how many people see it.

The first amendment is actually MORE about restricting the power of government. It prevents GOVERNMENT from dictating policy based on religion...it prevents GOVERNMENT from exerting its own beliefs on others as it pertains to religion.

Trumps idea is unconstitutional because he, as president, is forbidden, per the first amendment, from implementing policy based on religion.

It is that simple.

foreigners don't get American rights. Iranians don't get American rights, Syrians don't get American rights. American rights are for Americans. It is that simple.

Again, foreigners do have constitutional protections.

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

 

[ogibillm]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Our Constitution does not apply to non citizens.

Wrong

 

[ogibillm]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Religious freedom for Americans. Doesn't say anything about religious freedom for visitors, immigrants, or illegals.

Uh....excuse me...

The first Amendment is not just about protecting the rights of Americans....although, that is how many people see it.

The first amendment is actually MORE about restricting the power of government. It prevents GOVERNMENT from dictating policy based on religion...it prevents GOVERNMENT from exerting its own beliefs on others as it pertains to religion.

Trumps idea is unconstitutional because he, as president, is forbidden, per the first amendment, from implementing policy based on religion.

It is that simple.

foreigners don't get American rights. Iranians don't get American rights, Syrians don't get American rights. American rights are for Americans. It is that simple.

Again, foreigners do have constitutional protections.

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

 

[peach174]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Our Constitution does not apply to non citizens.

Wrong

Our courts say otherwise.
In areas of permissible differentiation - admission
expulsion, voting, and running for federal elective office.
Did you see that?
ADMISSION, EXPULSION.

 

[peach174]

Religious freedom for Americans. Doesn't say anything about religious freedom for visitors, immigrants, or illegals.

Uh....excuse me...

The first Amendment is not just about protecting the rights of Americans....although, that is how many people see it.

The first amendment is actually MORE about restricting the power of government. It prevents GOVERNMENT from dictating policy based on religion...it prevents GOVERNMENT from exerting its own beliefs on others as it pertains to religion.

Trumps idea is unconstitutional because he, as president, is forbidden, per the first amendment, from implementing policy based on religion.

It is that simple.

foreigners don't get American rights. Iranians don't get American rights, Syrians don't get American rights. American rights are for Americans. It is that simple.

Again, foreigners do have constitutional protections.

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

 

[ogibillm]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

Our Constitution does not apply to non citizens.

Wrong

Our courts say otherwise.
In areas of permissible differentiation - admission
expulsion, voting, and running for federal elective office.
Did you see that?
ADMISSION, EXPULSION.

but again, religious freedom is a consequence of a government restriction - one that would stand in the way of a law our eo singling out religion as a reason for visa denial.

i'm not sure how it would shake out in the courts. i doubt any of us will ever know since it'll never happen.

 

[ogibillm]

Uh....excuse me...

The first Amendment is not just about protecting the rights of Americans....although, that is how many people see it.

The first amendment is actually MORE about restricting the power of government. It prevents GOVERNMENT from dictating policy based on religion...it prevents GOVERNMENT from exerting its own beliefs on others as it pertains to religion.

Trumps idea is unconstitutional because he, as president, is forbidden, per the first amendment, from implementing policy based on religion.

It is that simple.

foreigners don't get American rights. Iranians don't get American rights, Syrians don't get American rights. American rights are for Americans. It is that simple.

Again, foreigners do have constitutional protections.

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

 

[peach174]

foreigners don't get American rights. Iranians don't get American rights, Syrians don't get American rights. American rights are for Americans. It is that simple.

Again, foreigners do have constitutional protections.

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

It is exactly the same thing based on ideology.

 

[ogibillm]

Again, foreigners do have constitutional protections.

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

It is exactly the same thing based on ideology.

you're free to think so, but you're wrong.

nazism is a political belief, islam is a religion.

 

[peach174]

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

It is exactly the same thing based on ideology.

you're free to think so, but you're wrong.

nazism is a political belief, islam is a religion.

Add Sharia law and it also become a political belief.

 

[Redfish]

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Oh and that law there was passed by a DEMOCRAT majority Senate and House AND SIGNED by a DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT!

Like said its OK for a democrat to do it,but its waycist when a Republican says to do it!

the hypocrisy of dems and libs is well documented.

 

[Redfish]

Only if they are here on American soil and that is limited.

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

It is exactly the same thing based on ideology.

you're free to think so, but you're wrong.

nazism is a political belief, islam is a religion.

Islam is both. Ever hear of Sharia law?

 

[ogibillm]

I don't know how it would fall Constitutionally speaking. I agree that before coming under the jurisdiction of the United States a person does not have the same rights that we as citizens and residents do.
The other side is the first amendment does not so much guarantee a right to the people as it does limit the actions of the government. I don't know how such a law could be codified without running into a first amendment issue.
then you have the rights of the people that are already here - aren't their rights infringed upon if the government puts into law the idea that people like them are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in?

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

It is exactly the same thing based on ideology.

you're free to think so, but you're wrong.

nazism is a political belief, islam is a religion.

Add Sharia law and it also become a political belief.

No, it really doesn't

 

[peach174]

Well I for one am happy that we did not allow Nazi's in because it would have infringed upon their Constitutional rights.

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

It is exactly the same thing based on ideology.

you're free to think so, but you're wrong.

nazism is a political belief, islam is a religion.

Add Sharia law and it also become a political belief.

No, it really doesn't

Yes it does.
Muslim Jihadists implement a Government Theocracy.

 

[ogibillm]

not the same thing. don't be intentionally disingenuous.

It is exactly the same thing based on ideology.

you're free to think so, but you're wrong.

nazism is a political belief, islam is a religion.

Add Sharia law and it also become a political belief.

No, it really doesn't

Yes it does.
Muslim Jihadists implement a Government Theocracy.

super. Islam is still a religion