POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Nonnel]

To your other point, this isn't a debate about morality, it's a debate about legality.

I'm asking you specifically.

[Ad Bot]

[extremely extreme]

If they are somewhere else and they want to come here, the act of coming here falls under US jurisdiction

And where is your proof for this? A few posts you said you "would imagine immigration attempts fall under US jurisdiction". Seems like you're just saying things that say good to you with no actual facts to back yourself up.

I'm asking you specifically.

Even though my opinion doesn't matter, I'll humor you anyways. In my opinion, if something is done following the word of the law, it is perfectly justified. However, moral wise, I feel as though we should ease up our enforcement of laws in certain areas like drug enforcement in poor, predominantly black areas because it usually ends up tearing dads away from family's and then replacing him with the state through welfare and other programs which can lead to the same thing happening over and over again. Instead we should focus on building up those areas using some of the money we send to foreign governments. I'm getting a little off track here but I hope I answered your question.

[SeventhSandwich]

That may be, however they aren't protected by our laws so it doesn't apply.

I don't think that's how it works. There is no stipulation in the establishment clause that says, "yo you can discriminate by religion but only if your law primarily affects people who aren't US citizens."

[extremely extreme]

I don't think that's how it works. There is no stipulation in the establishment clause that says, "yo you can discriminate by religion but only if your law primarily affects people who aren't US citizens."

You don't think or you know? Prove to me that the US constitution applies to would-be immigrants.

[Alternat¡ve]

tag urslef as centerist too if you agree 👌😂

"if you don't blindly align yourself to a party or way of thinking that has just as many problems as the other then you are a handicap"

Whoever made this "meme" needs to kill themselve.

[Ipquarx]

You don't think or you know? Prove to me that the US constitution applies to would-be immigrants.

It applies to laws. Doesn't matter if the law applies to non-citizens or not.

[extremely extreme]

It applies to laws. Doesn't matter if the law applies to non-citizens or not.

Still waiting on proof. Not sure why it's so hard to present.

[SeventhSandwich]

You don't think or you know? Prove to me that the US constitution applies to would-be immigrants.

well like, courts have shot down this executive order three times already. that's a legal precedent

Still waiting on proof. Not sure why it's so hard to present.

I mean, you're no more of a constitutional lawyer than anyone else in this thread.

[extremely extreme]

well like, courts have shot down this executive order three times already. that's a legal precedent
I mean, you're no more of a constitutional lawyer than anyone else in this thread.

Then what's their reasoning for halting it? On what grounds is it unconstitutional according to the courts?

Also, whenever I talk laws, I supply citations to actual laws. I've also taken college law classes so I like to think I have a basic idea about what I'm talking about.

[SeventhSandwich]

Then what's their reasoning for halting it? On what grounds is it unconstitutional according to the courts?

Because it violates the first amendment lol. You keep saying 'oh they're non-citizens so it doesn't matter', but the actual constitution only talks about laws respecting establishments of religion.

[extremely extreme]

Because it violates the first amendment lol. You keep saying 'oh they're non-citizens so it doesn't matter', but the actual constitution only talks about laws respecting establishments of religion.

Think about it like this, why do we still use Guantanamo Bay? We use it because we can keep dangerous criminals off US soil where they don't have any of the rights afforded to US citizens (habeas corpus, speedy trial, etc.). Non-citizens on non-US soil get none of our constitution's protection. Also, to say that the immigration ban is discriminatory on the basis of religion is like saying affirmative action is tribal. Christians and Jews living in predominantly Muslim countries are often subject to much more prosecution than anyone else (except probably LGBT people), if you can't save everyone, it makes sense to save those who are in the most danger, does it not?

[Rally]

It's not a wall, it's an aesthetic perimeter

[SeventhSandwich]

Think about it like this, why do we still use Guantanamo Bay? We use it because we can keep dangerous criminals off US soil where they don't have any of the rights afforded to US citizens (habeas corpus, speedy trial, etc.)

Those are all extremely convincing reasons to get rid of Gitmo. Not to mention the fact that a scarily large number of people held there are strictly not even terrorists. They're just random Arabs picked up on battlefields and hauled off to Cuba.

This is the kind of nasty stuff that happens when people make excuses for when the constitution 'doesn't apply'.

Also, to say that the immigration ban is discriminatory on the basis of religion is like saying affirmative action is tribal.

Literally speaking, affirmative action is tribal. I agree in principle that it's a good thing to raise up disadvantaged groups, but affording opportunities to people strictly on the basis of race - is tribal. I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as salty college students claim that it is, but it's probably not the right way to address the achievement gap.

[IkeTheGeneric]

And where is your proof for this? A few posts you said you "would imagine immigration attempts fall under US jurisdiction". Seems like you're just saying things that say good to you with no actual facts to back yourself up.

I said I imagine so because I don't really care about immigration enough to really look into it and it makes sense that we would have some legal authority over people attempting to immigrate here. You want proof? Go look for yourself.

Your entire argument is dumb anyways. I'm sure as forget not going to interpret our laws to try and make an idiot change his mind. Nothing's gonna be accomplished there.

[Corderlain]

Has anyone brought up the fact that guccifer2.0 was a dem staffer instructed to leak info to discredit wikileaks?