POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[otto-san]

I'm not arguing on how people feel about it i'm simply stating that it's legal and many lawyers think so.

well, everything that the supreme court has made illegal has also had many lawyers say that it was legal at the time, because that's how the judicial system works. people argue different interpretations of the law, and an impartial party decides which argument is most compelling.

also ipquarx was giving you legal reasoning, not talking about how people feel. that part was in response to bisjac

[Ad Bot]

[Psych36]

Lawyers disagree on things all the time, because they're human beings. They're all subject to the same biases we are. What matters is what's said in the constitution and previous supreme court rulings, which clearly indicate that no, it is not legal, it is unconstitutional.

Okay, but several times throughout American History the Supreme Court has has permitted foreign nationals to be excluded to the confines of the constitution. It has upheld laws for foreign nationals to not be permitted to owning land and it can bar foreign nationals from becoming teachers and police officers. The point is it can be done and there's plenty of legality behind it. If the next day President Obama wanted to ban all Nigerians from coming to the USA then it's certainly possible for him to do so.

[Ipquarx]

Okay, but several times throughout American History the Supreme Court has has permitted foreign nationals to be excluded to the confines of the constitution. It has upheld laws for foreign nationals to not be permitted to owning land and it can bar foreign nationals from becoming teachers and police officers. The point is it can be done and there's plenty of legality behind it. If the next day President Obama wanted to ban all Nigerians from coming to the USA then it's certainly possible for him to do so.

Let's say I believed all those things happened. I'm too lazy to ask you for a source. None of that involves religion, it involves nationality, but not religion, and that's why it's allowed. Nationality is not protected by the US constitution.

[Psych36]

Let's say I believed all those things happened. I'm too lazy to ask you for a source. None of that involves religion, it involves nationality, but not religion, and that's why it's allowed. Nationality is not protected by the US constitution.

I can provide you a source and there are several other examples. The Courts can still uphold a ban on the immigration of Muslims till a further time where refugees can be screened better.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

[Ipquarx]

The Courts can still uphold a ban on the immigration of Muslims till a further time where refugees can be screened better.

Even if that was the case (Your source only covers whether or not constitutional rights apply to foreign persons, which is again irrelevant; we're talking about laws that are themselves unconstitutional here, not citizens) they can be screened better right now.

[Psych36]

Even if that was the case (Your source only covers whether or not constitutional rights apply to foreign persons, which is again irrelevant; we're talking about laws that are themselves unconstitutional here, not citizens) they can be screened better right now.

No, they really can't. Most have left home without any identification or ditched their identification unless you're proposing mass surveillance to avoid a terror attack it's not worth the risk.

[hodot]

borrows a million dollars, makes ten billion, 10 bill / 1 mil = 10k

???

my point was that if you said that out loud, you'd say "ten thousand dollars dollars."

[McZealot]

I can provide you a source and there are several other examples. The Courts can still uphold a ban on the immigration of Muslims till a further time where refugees can be screened better.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

are you aware that the court also believed african americans were worth 3/5ths that of a white man? archaic tribal precedents no longer apply because we are no longer archaic and tribal.

well, most of us.

[Insert Name Here²]

are you aware that the court also believed african americans were worth 3/5ths that of a white man? archaic tribal precedents no longer apply because we are no longer archaic and tribal.

well, most of us.

Over 150 years ago, yes. Now? No.

[Psych36]

are you aware that the court also believed african americans were worth 3/5ths that of a white man? archaic tribal precedents no longer apply because we are no longer archaic and tribal.

well, most of us.

How many times do u have to be told that Islam isn't a race, smh...

The point is that precedent can still be set on the subject.

[Ipquarx]

No, they really can't. Most have left home without any identification or ditched their identification unless you're proposing mass surveillance to avoid a terror attack it's not worth the risk.

No, I mean we already have more than enough means to put in place screening processes. If they don't pass a fair, religion-independent screening, don't let them in. If they pass, let them in. Simple as that.

[Psych36]

No, I mean we already have more than enough means to put in place screening processes. If they don't pass a fair, religion-independent screening, don't let them in. If they pass, let them in. Simple as that.

What we have now are Iris scans which are then checked through a database which is hardly a solution if we're going to increase the refugee levels by 550% like Hillary proposes we do. Most terrorists that come from warzones aren't on any known databases. Look how well refugee screening has worked out so far in the EU and if you really wanted an intensive refugee test like you're proposing it would only allow for a few thousand refugees for it to be optimal.


And here we're just talking about the screening not the burden it will put on the U.S Taxpayer to house and resettle all these refugees and integrate them into society which will cost hundreds of millions if not billions. The fact is it's twelve times cheaper (UN ESTIMATE) for a Middle Eastern country to accept refugees. Why should we take the burden when countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and other muslim countries deny to take any of the burden despite fueling the very conflict.

[Ipquarx]

-snip-

Dude, I said nothing about our current screening process or how it is or is not bad. I said we have the resources to put in place a good screening system like one Canada did.

And the "cost to taxpayers" is not known currently but it can easily be less than 1.2 billion over the course of 6 years which is absolutely nothing, assuming they do a little creative thinking on getting the cost down

And like I said, again, they cannot make any law targeted at muslims. They can target it at an entire country, or a nationality, but not a religion.

[Akio-]

And like I said, again, they cannot make any law targeted at muslims. They can target it at an entire country, or a nationality, but not a religion.

can they legally target it at refugees / individuals related to refugees

[Ipquarx]

can they legally target it at refugees / individuals related to refugees

Yes
They can make anyone seeking asylum/refugee status go through a stricter, but religion-independent screening process