8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

Foreign Nationals are NOT given the same constitutional protections citizens of this country are.

Correct..But the First Amendment of the Constitution does not speak to Foreign Nationals or US Citizens..it Speaks to OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS and tells them what they can not do.

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

It tells our government officials what they are forbidden to do...The constitution, as the right wing used to understand before they went crazy, is a document restraining government.


That is CRYSTAL CLEAR...SHALL MAKE NO LAWS....PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF....

The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating based on religion...it cares not the potential recipients of that discrimination.

It is speaking to Lawmakers...and any lawmakers (a Future President Trump included) that discriminate based on religion violate the constitution.

a reply to: Indigo5

They are not prohibited from practicing their religion.

a reply to: Indigo5

It tells our government officials what they are forbidden to do...The constitution, as the right wing used to understand before they went crazy, is a document restraining government.

Yeah ok except when it comes to firearms, and spying.

The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating

Unless it happens to be a banker,ceo,corporation,gun owner, or a corporation that's called Monsanto that makes GMO well then DISCRIMINATION is right as rain.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

They are not prohibited from practicing their religion.

Check it out Ket!

Gun free zone= Totally socially acceptable!

Muslim free zone= The GFZ pushers heads explode saying 'Dat's not right!'

a reply to: Phoenix


And your interpretation of US CODE 1182 is entirely BS...

It does NOT allow the US to discriminate based on religion...actually you know who it does forbid entry...Folks similar to Donald Trump..

Alas the Irony...

Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

What a sad spectacle of cowards demanding we trade our freedom for an illusion of safety...

Please...all of you that are prepared to dispose of the very ideals that have defined our nation since the founding fathers...ready to trade our greatness as ransom to ISIS and other ideological retarded tyrants and sociopaths...please let yourself be proudly known.

Cuz we have a fight ahead of us...good to know how much of the nation is ready to surrender the very core of who we are.

a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo5, it's written in the 1952 law that's still in effect that yes, religious grounds may be considered as it is specifically mentioned.

EVEN King Obama cited the law as grounds for his action. Does not matter you agree or disagree his action, matters he cited that law then proceeded to lie about Trumps call for action!

Hypocrite!

a reply to: Indigo5

What laws are being "established" ????

another yahoo comment attempting to justify the Obama Administration.



It's all over but the crying.

Obama and all supporters are in a fetal position rolling around on the floor.

Time for some deep studying of Islamic Governments and their ideals.

People living in those governments are following the Islamic programs.

Wake up Dummies !!!

a reply to: Indigo5
You're still not getting it. The US constitution does not apply to people who do not yet live in the US. Very simple.

Your dream of utopian one world government is still just a dream.

a reply to: Indigo5

We'll IMHO that also describes devout Muslims, good reason to halt immigration and have discussion.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo5, it's written in the 1952 law that's still in effect that yes, religious grounds may be considered as it is specifically mentioned.

The law prohibited admitting aliens who oppressed others based on religion...not discriminating on the aliens religion...

Are you trolling or just having issues reading?

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.

It says if you act like Trump...you can't come to the USA..

It says just the opposite of what you think it does.

Wow...

(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.

From the op.

ISIS.AQ aka ever other two bit terrorist/organization has waged systematic violence against countless civilian populations across northern Africa.Europe. and the entire middle east. Russia, and South East Asia.

In the words of Trump, 'Your DENIED!'

Even the current guy says they should be.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Indigo5
You're still not getting it. The US constitution does not apply to people who do not yet live in the US. Very simple.

Correct...and LAWMAKERS LIVE HERE...AND THE US CONSTITUTION ...SPECIFICALLY THE 1ST AMENDMENT ...FORBIDS LAWMAKERS (US CITIZENS) FROM MAKING LAWS THAT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON RELIGION...

Some crazy going around here...folks pretending they cant read and such..

originally posted by: neo96

(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.

From the op.

ISIS.AQ aka ever other two bit terrorist/organization has waged systematic violence against countless civilian populations across northern Africa.Europe. and the entire middle east. Russia, and South East Asia.

In the words of Trump, 'Your DENIED!'

Even the current guy says they should be.

Or course they are denied...So are the Lords Resistance Army members in Uganda...but that doesn't mean we can deny Christians entry based on their religion.

a reply to: Indigo5

You have quoted Obamas proclamation, not the 1952 law.

Try again, the actual law is 2nd link provided in the OP, Btw you are not first to make the error.

a reply to: neo96

Again this is quoting Obamas proclamation not 1952 law linked to in OP.

Wrong!!!

That's cute; so now the US CFR supersedes the US Constitution. Well, I suppose it does until said US code is challenged and overturned in the SCOTUS.

a reply to: Indigo5

Wrong again, look at 1952 law cited for Obamas proclamation.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It says against any civilian population. It does not state expressly for American citizens....did I miss that? But theres a mention of gender and sexual orientation. Maybe it was intended to protect gays and transgenders..... odd thing. What group of people has this admin systematically turned away.... oh wow it was Syrian Christians.

originally posted by: Annee

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

Yes, we've watched the Progressive in Chief bend and distort the Law for the last 7 years. And he's not done yet...

a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo5, are you ever going to go back and read provided links to 8 USC 1182 as I gave in OP and quit claiming untruths.