Why does the left think the Constitution applies to non-Americans?

[JQPublic1]

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.

There is no doubt this excerpt from the US Code does underline the president's plenary power,
A level headed president like Reagan, Bush1 or Obama would likely not have been challenged
on the merits of exercising this power. However, with Trump, a cloud of dark secrecy hangs over his head.

1.We know less about him than we did the other modrn era presidents becasue he refuses to release his tax returns,

2. HIs affable relationship with Putin creates further distrust among republicans and democrats alike.

3. Trump's past follies and wild goose chases has caused many observers to wonder if Trump's XO is an emotive reflex rather than a well reasoned strategy discussed with experts. There is good reason to question his judgement as it apples to US Code 1182,based on his wrong bullheaded antics during the "birther movement." And, lest we forget...the "birther" leader preceded that folly with a call for the death penalty in the case of the Central Park 5 who as it turned out were exonerated by DNA evidence and a confession by the real culprit.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

There is no doubt this excerpt from the US Code does underline the president's plenary power,
A level headed president like Reagan, Bush1 or Obama would likely not have been challenged
on the merits of exercising this power. However, with Trump, a cloud of dark secrecy hangs over his head.

1.We know less about him than we did the other modrn era presidents becasue he refuses to release his tax returns,

2. HIs affable relationship with Putin creates further distrust among republicans and democrats alike.

3. Trump's past follies and wild goose chases has caused many observers to wonder if Trump's XO is an emotive reflex rather than a well reasoned strategy discussed with experts. There is good reason to question his judgement as it apples to US Code 1182,based on his wrong bullheaded antics during the "birther movement." And, lest we forget...the "birther" leader preceded that folly with a call for the death penalty in the case of the Central Park 5 who as it turned out were exonerated by DNA evidence and a confession by the real culprit.

Reagan, Bush1 or Obama...Globalists who love cheap 3rd world labor.

 

[jc456]

Hold on a second...

I'm sure that I've been told by many Conservatives that the government doesn't give us rights - they're given by God. You know - the whole "endowed by our creator", etc.

When did God only give these rights to Americans?

When our founders wrote the US Constitution

 

[jc456]

what did the founders state?

uhh, this is in reference to dupes who have the belief that god, not america and its founders, bestowed their rights upon them

uhh, too deep for ya?

if they were bestowed upon you by ..

hrmmm..


GAWWDDDddd


youd think youd uhh, listen to that mother fucker mebbe

No, that isn't what you stated. People on the right know our founding fathers used a creator to create our nation. Again read your dollar bill stupid fk !

"used a creator??"

In god we trust! Notice that word GOD on your currency

Is the money worth less without that word on it?

It would be counterfeit so it would be worthless

 

[G.T.]

uhh, this is in reference to dupes who have the belief that god, not america and its founders, bestowed their rights upon them

uhh, too deep for ya?

if they were bestowed upon you by ..

hrmmm..


GAWWDDDddd


youd think youd uhh, listen to that mother fucker mebbe

No, that isn't what you stated. People on the right know our founding fathers used a creator to create our nation. Again read your dollar bill stupid fk !

"used a creator??"

In god we trust! Notice that word GOD on your currency

Is the money worth less without that word on it?

It would be counterfeit so it would be worthless

the point went over your dumb assed head, sycophant.

 

[jc456]

No, that isn't what you stated. People on the right know our founding fathers used a creator to create our nation. Again read your dollar bill stupid fk !

"used a creator??"

In god we trust! Notice that word GOD on your currency

Is the money worth less without that word on it?

It would be counterfeit so it would be worthless

the point went over your dumb assed head, sycophant.

I answered the question asked. What was in error in that answer?

I dare you to.go into a store with that phrase missing. Citizen or not!

 

[danielpalos]

we have a Bill of Rights.

It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil, dumbass. How many times to you have to be told that before it penetrates your thick skull?

Only the national socialist right wing claims that. Nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

Obviously facts are unable to penetrate your skull.

national socialist right wing fantasy, is all you have.

Facts, in other words.

sure; in alt-right, reality.

 

[mgh80]

The Constitutions applies to Americans and LEGAL immigrants/tourists. This should be obvious.

How can our supreme law of the land, not apply to Any Person in the US?

Should convicts have rights while they're in prison?

 

[dblack]

Hold on a second...

I'm sure that I've been told by many Conservatives that the government doesn't give us rights - they're given by God. You know - the whole "endowed by our creator", etc.

When did God only give these rights to Americans?

"It's different when we do it!!!"

 

[hazlnut]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Please post links to the left making the argument.

Also, please be advise that immigration laws and procedures apply to non-citizens.

As do laws regarding due process and non-discrimination.

Try to not to be making things up-- i.e. straw man.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitutions applies to Americans and LEGAL immigrants/tourists. This should be obvious.

How can our supreme law of the land, not apply to Any Person in the US?

Should convicts have rights while they're in prison?

Only specific rights are taken away from convicts.

 

[Boss]

I am not a liberal I am a Fiscal Conservative Independent. Now if you want to get your head out of your ass and actually READ the link I just gave you, instead of re--posting your's over and over again--you might actually LEARN something NEW--and why this executive order was challenged and overruled by a Federal district court judge.

No, you're a fucking idiot arguing a liberal protest point that has no validity.

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.

You all might want to read about the Establishment clause.

Trump’s order does indeed attempt to use the pretext of “territories,” but it cannot conceal the anti-Muslim animus that lies just beneath its surface. If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese. And while courts are sometimes hesitant to examine a law’s legislative history to uncover its true intent, they should not ignore Trump’s own descriptions of his goals. Unlike a congressional act—which requires the votes of myriad people, some of whom may have different views of the bill before them—this executive order was signed by one man: Trump. He is responsible for it, and his words should guide the courts’ interpretation of its meaning and intent.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

And because Trump did not include countries that are well known for attacking Americans, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, it will make this executive order even look more suspect to District court judges and the U.S. Supreme court. Firing the U.S attorney general over this will also be frowned upon. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their Religion.

You're trying to apply the establishment clause to people who don't live in the US and aren't citizens of the US. If they were citizens or foreign nationals legally in our country, the establishment clause would apply.

His EO is following US statutory law. He has the authority granted to use his discretion and it doesn't authorize any other agent to overrule him. It also says he can make this determination on any basis he pleases. While it's NOT a ban on Muslims (90% of them are unaffected) it could be according to the statute.

There is no Constitutional right to enter this country. That's simply absurd.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not a liberal I am a Fiscal Conservative Independent. Now if you want to get your head out of your ass and actually READ the link I just gave you, instead of re--posting your's over and over again--you might actually LEARN something NEW--and why this executive order was challenged and overruled by a Federal district court judge.

No, you're a fucking idiot arguing a liberal protest point that has no validity.

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.

You all might want to read about the Establishment clause.

Trump’s order does indeed attempt to use the pretext of “territories,” but it cannot conceal the anti-Muslim animus that lies just beneath its surface. If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese. And while courts are sometimes hesitant to examine a law’s legislative history to uncover its true intent, they should not ignore Trump’s own descriptions of his goals. Unlike a congressional act—which requires the votes of myriad people, some of whom may have different views of the bill before them—this executive order was signed by one man: Trump. He is responsible for it, and his words should guide the courts’ interpretation of its meaning and intent.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

And because Trump did not include countries that are well known for attacking Americans, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, it will make this executive order even look more suspect to District court judges and the U.S. Supreme court. Firing the U.S attorney general over this will also be frowned upon. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their Religion.

You're trying to apply the establishment clause to people who don't live in the US and aren't citizens of the US. If they were citizens or foreign nationals legally in our country, the establishment clause would apply.

His EO is following US statutory law. He has the authority granted to use his discretion and it doesn't authorize any other agent to overrule him. It also says he can make this determination on any basis he pleases. While it's NOT a ban on Muslims (90% of them are unaffected) it could be according to the statute.

There is no Constitutional right to enter this country. That's simply absurd.

our federal Constitution specifically applies to the federal government.

 

[oreo]

I am not a liberal I am a Fiscal Conservative Independent. Now if you want to get your head out of your ass and actually READ the link I just gave you, instead of re--posting your's over and over again--you might actually LEARN something NEW--and why this executive order was challenged and overruled by a Federal district court judge.

No, you're a fucking idiot arguing a liberal protest point that has no validity.

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.

You all might want to read about the Establishment clause.

Trump’s order does indeed attempt to use the pretext of “territories,” but it cannot conceal the anti-Muslim animus that lies just beneath its surface. If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese. And while courts are sometimes hesitant to examine a law’s legislative history to uncover its true intent, they should not ignore Trump’s own descriptions of his goals. Unlike a congressional act—which requires the votes of myriad people, some of whom may have different views of the bill before them—this executive order was signed by one man: Trump. He is responsible for it, and his words should guide the courts’ interpretation of its meaning and intent.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

And because Trump did not include countries that are well known for attacking Americans, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, it will make this executive order even look more suspect to District court judges and the U.S. Supreme court. Firing the U.S attorney general over this will also be frowned upon. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their Religion.

You're trying to apply the establishment clause to people who don't live in the US and aren't citizens of the US. If they were citizens or foreign nationals legally in our country, the establishment clause would apply.

His EO is following US statutory law. He has the authority granted to use his discretion and it doesn't authorize any other agent to overrule him. It also says he can make this determination on any basis he pleases. While it's NOT a ban on Muslims (90% of them are unaffected) it could be according to the statute.

There is no Constitutional right to enter this country. That's simply absurd.

Your problem is NOT the ban to protect the American citizens. Any President has the right to write an executive order to defend this nation and it's citizens. Here is the Problem as stated. You cannot not ban people from entering this country based on their religion. That is against the Establishment clause.


The next problem is--is what Rudi Giuliani announced to the world on FOX News.
"Trump’s order does indeed attempt to use the pretext of “territories,” but it cannot conceal the anti-Muslim animus that lies just beneath its surface. If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani explained." That's the yuuuuugggge error.

The next problem is: Since he didn't ban Saudi Arabia and Jordan whom are well known for attacking Americans it makes his executive order look even more suspicious based on the way it was written.

The next problem is: Any Justice is going to ask why Trump didn't confer with the acting U.S. Attorney's office (Sally Watts) FIRST, and instead avoided her, versus contacting a member of his pom pom squad (Rudi Giuliani) to write this order.

The next problem is: Trump then fired Sally Watts for telling her justices to stand down, do not defend this order because it's unconstitutional. Any court is going to frown upon that.

IOW--Trump and Giuliani fucked up the order.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

 

[Boss]

So let's look at a scenario here... Let's say there is a man who is waiting at the airport in one of the seven countries for his visa to be cleared. You are presenting the argument that our constitutional rights apply to him, that we must protect him from discrimination based on his religion. Now.... while he is sitting there waiting for us to litigate this nonsense, he turns to his wife and smacks her in the face. Beats her senseless because she showed her ankle. Surely you can see this is a clear violation of her Constitutional rights. So how can our Constitution APPLY to him when he wants to travel here, but it DOESN'T APPLY when he smacks his wife? Your argument is, our Constitution allows him rights but it doesn't prohibit him from violating the rights of others because it cannot apply to his actions. This makes NO rational sense.

The Constitution CANNOT apply to people who aren't in our country under our jurisdiction where we can enforce the Constitution. I just don't understand how you can be so stupid as to make this argument. It's totally retarded.

 

[The Original Tree]

Because Of Globalism.

Globalism is a collective philosophy that opposes National Sovereignty, A Nation's Right to govern itself and it's people.

To put this in perspective, Globalism is The British Empire under King George and all the world are mere colonies without representation, but plenty of damn taxation.

 

[Boss]

Your problem is NOT the ban to protect the American citizens. Any President has the right to write an executive order to defend this nation and it's citizens. Here is the Problem as stated. You cannot not ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

Sure you can if you are the president using plenary power granted in 8 US Code
§ 1182 you can use any criteria you please. He can ban people who have red hair... he can ban people who have mustaches and beards... he can ban blonds... he can ban people named John! There is NO RESTRICTION on who he can ban. Read the fucking statute!

Now, is the statute "unconstitutional"? I think it has been challenged in the past when other presidents used it to ban other individuals. It has never been found to be unconstitutional.

But for the record, he did not ban anyone on the basis of their religion... (even though he could have according to this statute.) He banned people based on their country of origin, which he is well within his legal rights to do as president. You can whine and complain about it, but that's going to be prevailing finding by the courts when all is said and done.
.

 

[j-mac]

Regardless of your view of Glenn Beck, and his internet tv network called the Blaze, rest assured he is really no friend of Trump, and this article is interesting, and enlightening...

Is Trump’s travel ban constitutional? Immigration law experts from both sides weigh in.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It's because the Constitution doesn't say it applies only to citizens. It applies to everyone in the USA.

That is, the lefties actually follow the Constitution, and the righties don't.

And, looking at this thread, the righties here are all very proud of not following the Constitution.

Where does it say that?
And if so why cant non citizens vote? Voting is in the constitution, correct?

 

[danielpalos]

So let's look at a scenario here... Let's say there is a man who is waiting at the airport in one of the seven countries for his visa to be cleared. You are presenting the argument that our constitutional rights apply to him, that we must protect him from discrimination based on his religion. Now.... while he is sitting there waiting for us to litigate this nonsense, he turns to his wife and smacks her in the face. Beats her senseless because she showed her ankle. Surely you can see this is a clear violation of her Constitutional rights. So how can our Constitution APPLY to him when he wants to travel here, but it DOESN'T APPLY when he smacks his wife? Your argument is, our Constitution allows him rights but it doesn't prohibit him from violating the rights of others because it cannot apply to his actions. This makes NO rational sense.

The Constitution CANNOT apply to people who aren't in our country under our jurisdiction where we can enforce the Constitution. I just don't understand how you can be so stupid as to make this argument. It's totally retarded.

It is Our supreme law of the land that applies. Otherwise, you have no legal basis, for any Thing.