8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Not necessary.

Congress passed a law that made it illegal for people who practiced polygamy to come into the US which basically ruled out Mormons back in the day. Who exactly were they attacking when they practiced polygamy? And yet under the plenary powers law, that held up in court, and Mormons had to disavow polygamy in order to become Americans.

a reply to: Phoenix

I tend to avoid Trump.

But, I don't just ignore stuff. Which is why I am here to learn about this.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Phoenix

(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.

I'm going to assume you didn't read this carefully... The people being suspended are aliens who attacked our citizens because of their religion... In other words, any alien who systematically commits violence against Christians, for example...

Yes. I've been trying to read the whole thing.

There are a lot of conditions.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: ketsuko

Last 24 hours I've been aghast at the pure ignorance and disinformation put out on this subject by Whitehouse, Pentagon, State Department, Politicians, Pundits, Media and citizens who are acting purposely uninformed or are uninformed about the actual law and code governing Presidential powers and immigration.

I'm just gonna say: "There's law --- then there's Interpretation of Law.

Fair enough! Why don't you illustrate the lefts interpretation of the law instead of biased rhetoric?

What? What does that even mean?

And you have no idea what my politics are.

You're just a "label" thrower.

Still waiting for facts that support your statement?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Trump doesn't like the concept.
But he doesn't rule the idea out.

a reply to: ketsuko

What's not necessary?

Polygamy isn't a religion.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Phoenix

(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.

I'm going to assume you didn't read this carefully... The people being suspended are aliens who attacked our citizens because of their religion... In other words, any alien who systematically commits violence against Christians, for example...

Yes I read it carefully, It provides a Presedent power to Halt immigration for ANY reason he deems fit.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Not necessary.

Congress passed a law that made it illegal for people who practiced polygamy to come into the US which basically ruled out Mormons back in the day. Who exactly were they attacking when they practiced polygamy? And yet under the plenary powers law, that held up in court, and Mormons had to disavow polygamy in order to become Americans.

There was definitely some Christian domination in that decision.

Religious freedom should have protected their right to Polygamy.

But, don't want to go any further off topic. So Done.

originally posted by: rupertg
What's the latest on internment camps?

Let's make America great again!

No has proposed camps since........Roosevelt (D)

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Phoenix

I tend to avoid Trump.

But, I don't just ignore stuff. Which is why I am here to learn about this.

Which is just fine and your prerogative. Attacking the guy (Trump) for bringing up a policy which is just fine if its politically expedient and acting like its not policy by those who seemingly are for bringing questionable folks into the country is worth discussing.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ketsuko

What's not necessary?

Polygamy isn't a religion.

It might as well have been. The only people who would have been practicing it would have been Mormons.

However, the article I provided also says it has not yet been specifically tested for religion; however, in none of the tests of the statute (some of them 1st Amendment tests which is where freedom of religion rests), have the courts given any indication that religion would be the ONLY exclusion to the general rule. Or that they would suddenly decide that religion would not be an acceptable reason to decide to keep a group of immigrants out.

The immigration issue has haunted this nation since the 1790's. President John Adams and a strong federalist congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The government, not just the president, will control immigration when it sees fit. So, if Trump was to become president, then he would have tons of history to back any anti-immigration action he saw fit to implement.

Trying to stop terrorist from going anywhere by controlling immigration is a silly idea that shows little understanding of the situation. A terrorist who wishes to harm a population will find a way to get to that population, regardless if the actions taken are legal or illegal. Controlling illegal immigration cant be done cause the U.S. boarder is to large to contain with out a serious military presence.

a reply to: Annee

At that point in time, the courts deemed that allowing in polygamous people was detrimental to the American population, so they gave the President and Congress the right to block people who followed that practice (namely Mormons at that time). Mormons were not forced to give up polygamy ... unless they wanted to become citizens of the United States. In the end, that is what they decided to do.

So far what I see here is certainly no one can dispute a Presidents absolute constitutional powers to decide on what we'd call arbitrary reasons "detrimental" to the United States in regards to immigration or non-immigration of aliens. PERIOD.

Trump was right to bring this to the attention of the public.

originally posted by: Phoenix
It provides a Presedent power to Halt immigration for ANY reason he deems fit.

No, it doesn't say that at all.

It says that any INDIVIDUAL (an alien) who has planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence, war crimes, crimes against humanity against any civilian population can be refused entry.

There is NO provision for keeping out whole groups.

a reply to: Annee

That polygamy thing was revised in the Immigration Act of 1990.

originally posted by: Phoenix
So far what I see here is certainly no one can dispute a Presidents absolute constitutional powers to decide on what we'd call arbitrary reasons "detrimental" to the United States in regards to immigration or non-immigration of aliens. PERIOD.

I dispute it! All you have to do is read the order. It's talking about keeping out INDIVIDUALS, not groups of people, and not based on religion. You want this so badly to be true, that you're not making sure you're right. And you're not.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Phoenix
It provides a Presedent power to Halt immigration for ANY reason he deems fit.

No, it doesn't say that at all.

It says that any INDIVIDUAL (an alien) who has planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence, war crimes, crimes against humanity against any civilian population can be refused entry.

There is NO provision for keeping out whole groups.

You're reading the Obama link and I can see your argument based on that alone, however when you refer to the actual code cited in the second link you will realize the power is virtually unlimited. You know the actual law that enables the Presidents decision - in this case a non-decision by a sitting President.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Phoenix
So far what I see here is certainly no one can dispute a Presidents absolute constitutional powers to decide on what we'd call arbitrary reasons "detrimental" to the United States in regards to immigration or non-immigration of aliens. PERIOD.

I dispute it! All you have to do is read the order. It's talking about keeping out INDIVIDUALS, not groups of people, and not based on religion. You want this so badly to be true, that you're not making sure you're right. And you're not.

NO.No No, go back and read the actual law. Not my wish or opinion. In fact read the prelude to Obamas proclamation where he cites his Constitutional authority!

Its you who is wishful thinking these powers don't exist.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No, going further into the column I cited:

I would add that, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court applied the “plenary power doctrine” to the exclusion of people based on their political beliefs, despite the Free Speech Clause. The cases that Posner is referring to, together with Kleindienst, suggest that the exclusion of people based on their religious beliefs is likewise constitutional.

If you can exclude people based on political beliefs, then you can likewise look at exclusions based on religious beliefs. Remember, Islam as it is viewed in radical ideologies is not just religious but also political.