POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[OrangeMan]

banning someone based on their religion is a violation of the freedom to practice religions so that's not legal
screening refugees is our only viable option.

domestic law doesn't apply to every human bring on earth lolbertarian

[Ad Bot]

[beachbum111111]

Nonnels an Ancap confirmed.

[Magus]

Little late, but
Isn't Toyota a Japanese company?

[Alternat¡ve]

Little late, but
Isn't Toyota a Japanese company?

They will be building cars for America in this new factory.

[cooolguy32]

this is literally the dumbest tweet I have seen come out of this man's account

He's fine with toyota having factories in Canada, England, America, japan etc but he's concerned about them building another one in Mexico.

ok mr Annoying Orange.

[Nonnel]

domestic law doesn't apply to every human bring on earth lolbertarian

it does when they're asking to enter the country

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

i'm obviously not going to read through this entire thing. guide me through it.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/the-past-six-presidents-have-all-used-executive-power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/

"they did it" doesn't mean it's constitutional or just

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/const-allows-muslim-immigrant-ban/

this article states that the law can be interpreted multiple ways and it really just depends on Annoying Orange's appointment to the supreme court, but it still doesn't make it right to discriminate future immigrants based on their religion.

Nonnels an Ancap confirmed.

that post didn't imply anarchy or capitalism

[Stocking]

also wouldn't forcing companies to not build factories in mexico kinda forget up mexico's economy

he's not the mexican president. why should he put the needs of mexicans in front of the needs of americans.

and, y'know increase the amount of people attempting to escape the country

thats what the wall is for

[beachbum111111]

that post didn't imply anarchy or capitalism

Oh stuff I didn't violate the NAP with that post did I? Please don't recreationally McNuke me.

[Alternat¡ve]

Oh stuff I didn't violate the NAP with that post did I? Please don't recreationally McNuke me.

Stop stuffposting or you'll find my contractually obligated slaves at your doorstep by daylight.

[beachbum111111]

Stop Mcstuffposting or you'll find my contractually obligated McSlaves at your doorstep by daylight.

Fixed

[IkeTheGeneric]

either of you fine gentlemen care to respond to how that tweet is absolutely meaningless?

Nah, you'd probably get really upset and call me a cuck or something

[Tezuni 2.0]

it does when they're asking to enter the country
i'm obviously not going to read through this entire thing. guide me through it."they did it" doesn't mean it's constitutional or justthis article states that the law can be interpreted multiple ways and it really just depends on Annoying Orange's appointment to the supreme court, but it still doesn't make it right to discriminate future immigrants based on their religion.
that post didn't imply anarchy or capitalism

The office of president can do it and has done it with other groups.  Annoying Orange is going to have the majority of the supreme court backing him up.
Sooo, if Annoying Orange wants to ban Muslims, it will happen and it'll be legal, even if it takes some legal battles.

[Magus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Lemon_test

The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:

-Had a secular purpose
-Neither advanced nor inhibited religion
-Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

I'm pretty sure this ban would qualify as "inhibiting religion."

[extremely extreme]

it does when they're asking to enter the country
i'm obviously not going to read through this entire thing. guide me through it.

I'm pretty sure this ban would qualify as "inhibiting religion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

"The Act allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country."

basically, if Annoying Orange suspects muslims or immigrants from muslim countries as "subversive", he can deport them or bar them from immigrating. perfectly legal.

[Nonnel]

hm truman tried to veto that act for being discriminatory. wonder why.