POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[IkeTheGeneric]

I think we should enforce our current immigration laws instead of argue about how we're going to go about immigration. People have already done their job writing up and passing legislation to address the issue that everyone seems to just conveniently ignore

[Ad Bot]

[Tezuni 2.0]

i hope you realize that's actually incredibly tribal, tezuni

Muslims are followers of the religion of Islam, they're not a race.
Now I could say you're tribal for assuming all Muslims are [a race], which you probably pictured as exclusively arabs.

[Brickmaster]

yeah idk why people think that muslims are a race. if somebody said they hated Muslims, sure it's not nice but it's not tribal.

[Zloff]

Muslims are followers of the religion of Islam, they're not a race.

you triggered him so he probably skipped thinking and went right to spinning the ol

[Nonnel]

denying people into the US because of their religion violates the first amendment
do background checks instead

[Cappytaino]

denying people into the US because of their religion violates the first amendment
do background checks instead

this but I think an important stipulation has to be "no papers, no entry."

If you cant provide sufficient information for a background check to be done, you shouldn't be allowed in.

[Psych36]

denying people into the US because of their religion violates the first amendment
do background checks instead

No, it doesn't violate the first amendment. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States so we can't discriminate those that are already naturalized citizens. If they are foreign citizens we  have the right to block entry since they aren't naturalized citizens and aren't entitled to the rights of a citizen.

[Ipquarx]

No, it doesn't violate the first amendment. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States so we can't discriminate those that are already naturalized citizens. If they are foreign citizens we  have the right to block entry since they aren't naturalized citizens and aren't entitled to the rights of a citizen.

here is the full text of the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
to create a law that would prevent muslims from entering would be creating a law respecting an establishment of religion
it's that simple

[Bisjac]

we can just ban entry from anyone from a in-conflict country then.
:D

there are a billion loopholes to keep them out.

[otto-san]

No, it doesn't violate the first amendment. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States so we can't discriminate those that are already naturalized citizens. If they are foreign citizens we  have the right to block entry since they aren't naturalized citizens and aren't entitled to the rights of a citizen.

all non-citizens have constitutional rights within US territory.

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

and any clever workarounds wouldn't work if challenged in the supreme court if ultimately the goal was to excessively burden the ability of certain religious groups to enter the nation, or if they just happened to do it "by accident"

[Foxscotch]

No, it doesn't violate the first amendment. The constitution only applies to citizens of the United States so we can't discriminate those that are already naturalized citizens. If they are foreign citizens we  have the right to block entry since they aren't naturalized citizens and aren't entitled to the rights of a citizen.

if you think that's how it should work then you're really missing the point. the spirit of the law means much more* than the word of it

*to anyone who isn't trying to take advantage of it

[Psych36]

here is the full text of the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
to create a law that would prevent muslims from entering would be creating a law respecting an establishment of religion
it's that simple

Did you not read the part where I stated that the constitution doesn't apply to non citizens? It's really that simple. The United States can decide who it wants to enter and who it doesn't especially in a time of war or crCIA. Nobody is entitled to come to the U.S. The question was not whether it's morally correct to ban all muslims it's whether it's legal and the answer to that is yes

As a sovereign nation, the United States government has always had undoubted authority to decide who may enter the country, and the conditions for entry by those who seek it. It has long been understood that most of this power lies with Congress, under its authority to decide who may become a citizen and its power over foreign commerce. The president and the Executive Branch share some of this authority, through the power to manage foreign relations, globally and with individual nations.


Several lawyers have said that Annoying Orange's plan can be carried out. It could be challenged in court but it's within the confines of the rules.

[Ipquarx]

Did you not read the part where I stated that the constitution doesn't apply to non citizens? It's really that simple.

The part of the amendment I'm talking about is not about citizens, it's about laws. To create a law concerning an establishment of religion is unconstitutional, it does not matter any other content of the law, simply that it concerns an establishment of religion, and you're even wrong about the whole "non-citizens don't get constitutional rights" thing.

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

we can just ban entry from anyone from a in-conflict country then.
:D

there are a billion loopholes to keep them out.

But that's just stupid, you'd literally be saying "Dying because you're caught in the middle of a civil war you want nothing to do with? Nope. Denied." to tens of thousands of people irregardless of where they come from. All you have to do is do a thorough screening. Canada literally did this, we let in 50,000 people and they've integrated, gotten jobs and been model citizens.

[Psych36]

The part of the amendment I'm talking about is not about citizens, it's about laws. To create a law concerning an establishment of religion is unconstitutional, it does not matter any other content of the law, simply that it concerns an establishment of religion, and you're even wrong about the whole "non-citizens don't get constitutional rights" thing.But that's just stupid, you'd literally be saying "Dying because you're caught in the middle of a civil war you want nothing to do with? Nope. Denied." to tens of thousands of people irregardless of where they come from. All you have to do is do a thorough screening. Canada literally did this, we let in 50,000 people and they've integrated, gotten jobs and been model citizens.

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

[Ipquarx]

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

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.