8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

OK - so this edict covers Trumps intentions regarding Muslims coming into the US.

Who anyone like to hazard a guess as to what his intentions will be regarding those US citizens who are also professing Muslims already residing in the US?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

So this venomous snake bit me once, but in order to prove that I'm not a snake hater or afraid of snake bites, I need to keep letting it bite me ...

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
OK - so this edict covers Trumps intentions regarding Muslims coming into the US.

Who anyone like to hazard a guess as to what his intentions will be regarding those US citizens who are also professing Muslims already residing in the US?

That presumes Trump wins nomination and national vote and completely changes subject of this thread which is can a President disallow immigration based upon his belief that it is detrimental to the U.S. no matter the reason.

Good attempt at side tracking.

a reply to: Phoenix

Not side tracking anything, more speculating - but that was a good attempt at avoiding the elephant in the room though.

originally posted by: Phoenix
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.

Yeah, sorry. I was looking only at the Obama link. I guess we'd have to see if anyone sued for first amendment protections.

originally posted by: ketsuko
If you can exclude people based on political beliefs, then you can likewise look at exclusions based on religious beliefs.

Oh, I'm certain people will look at it, but I would HOPE Congress wouldn't let this happen.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Annee

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

Like Marriage Equality, there is movement to make it legal.

So it does come up every now and then.

wrong thread

Trumps call for the current administration to temporarily halt Muslim immigration is constitutional, legal and has much precedent.

That the current administration will not do so is a subject Americans should be vigorously discussing.

Especially in regards, the current law in place give's a President every leeway they need to protect and prevent terrorists actions against them.

Obama needs to be gone.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Phoenix

Not side tracking anything, more speculating - but that was a good attempt at avoiding the elephant in the room though.

Not really.

There was a point in time when we didn't allow any immigration because it was felt that the immigrants we had needed to assimilate. Did anyone then proceed to detention camps?

I think not.

Stopping immigration of a certain class of people for a time does not have to lead to rounding up their contemporaries who are already here and may already be citizens. In fact, such a step may be as much for their security as it is for any non-Muslim Americans. As has so often been pointed out - ISIS kills as many Muslims as it does others.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Phoenix

Not side tracking anything, more speculating - but that was a good attempt at avoiding the elephant in the room though.

Aknowledge the presidents discretion on immigration, then we'll talk of elephants.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You may feel differently if someone orchestrates another attack and brings a bigger weapon next time.

The simple fact is that these radicals have declared war on Western Civilization, and for whatever reason, the Ummah seems unable or unwilling to clean its own house. Unless we can do so, we may well need to lay down the law until either we or they can figure out how to effectively screen out the radicals and their sympathizers.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Phoenix
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.

Yeah, sorry. I was looking only at the Obama link. I guess we'd have to see if anyone sued for first amendment protections.

originally posted by: ketsuko
If you can exclude people based on political beliefs, then you can likewise look at exclusions based on religious beliefs.

Oh, I'm certain people will look at it, but I would HOPE Congress wouldn't let this happen.

Honesty is a big plus, Thank You, and it helps debate so much when done so............Thank You!

Love discussion on merits, my post is about misinformation and yes propaganda revolving around this issue.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You may feel differently if someone orchestrates another attack and brings a bigger weapon next time.

No. No amount of terrorism is going to make me turn my back on my firm beliefs in the Constitution and my opinion about human rights. No amount of attacks is going to make me live in fear.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh I believe in the COTUS, but I also believe that the COTUS does not apply to those who do not live here.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Yes. I was Mormon for 5 years.

To join the USA they had to give up Polygamy and Women's Right to Vote.

But, IMO, it should have been allowed under Religious Freedom. And I still feel that way.

a reply to: Annee

You can believe what you like, but you are aware that you are judging the past through your own modern values and mores, yes?

And believing it was wrong doesn't change that the courts upheld it.

They have also upheld more recent tests.

a reply to: Phoenix

Exactly why I find it so bizarre that just yesterday the White House was basically saying he shouldn't be eligible to run based on what he said about Muslim immigration.

(Which I also find funny how the media made it seem like he said they shouldn't ever be allowed in as opposed to what he actually said. He was clear that it should be temporary until they could better screen people)

It's insane.

I know all punches are pulled during election season but, this just made the white house look extremely ignorant.

I"m not a fan of Trump but what he said doesn't legally make him disqualified. In fact, based on the info in this thread, he would have a legal standing to do so.

I wonder if we will hear about any of this on MSM?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH, did the law give a President pretty much total discretion by saying "detrimental" a matter of opinion with wide implications over who gets in or not?

Basically comes down to matter of an individuals opinion. In this case the President.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

This White House has had a history of reactionary stances on a wide variety of things going as far back as "acting stupidly" which led to the Beer Summit if I remember correctly.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

No media will not defend him, no way no how, memes are meant to cover those who don't read, don't pay attention and consequently allow this type of denigration to happen unanswered.