8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

a reply to: DBCowboy

I can actually picture this (sick) isn't it!

a reply to: marg6043

You are sometimes very funny, but so serious at same time

I agree!

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can actually picture this (sick) isn't it!

It's all theatre to give the impression that they (politicians) actually care about Muslims and all of us. They actually have a vast part of the population fooled into thinking that they care about our rights.

hahahahahahahahaha

S&F simply for the research and thorough DEBUNKING of the myths out there. This thread should be a STICKY in this forum.

Nice job

originally posted by: marg6043

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
a reply to: marg6043

It's interesting and entertaining for sure but, I think it's all just fluff.

I thinks so too, that is why I am waiting and see, I had the feeling that he will drop out of the race, that all he is been doing is bringing awareness to the voters on issues that not poster politician will touch.

If he does get elected, I seriously doubt he will be able to deliver on the things he is saying.

On this one, I guess if he can not deliver he will just become like the same poster politicians we have for the last 40 years, nothing but pretty looking, great at speeches written by others, God fearing like people wants them and liars.

Doesn't most of ATS still believe that the presidents are but mere puppets anyway?

Well taking into consideration that all politicians are in the pockets of big interest money that is not an outrageous statement, if you know what I mean.

Then again we do have that shadow government working behind the scene, I am right? It will be nice to have somebody challenging them all, what a mess will create for the "powers that be".

He's saying what a lot of Americans need to hear because they are fed up. The last two administrations have been horrible for this country.

Last two only?

Sorry for dissecting your post I usually do not do that but I like all the points you make.

Dissect away. LOL

It makes it easier sometimes to know what people are actually responding to in a post....at least for me sometimes. Especially after a long day.

The only thing I can say in response is certainly not just the last two administrations.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Best compliment on an OP I've ever had.

That was the point, debunk the drivel, untruth and propaganda.

Still going on but diminished in quantity.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can actually picture this (sick) isn't it!

It's all theatre to give the impression that they (politicians) actually care about Muslims and all of us. They actually have a vast part of the population fooled into thinking that they care about our rights.

hahahahahahahahaha

They care about the fact that 70% of Muslims in this country vote Democrat.
That's why Obama wants to let as many as possible in from anywhere.

Very well said! Every time I hear anyone affiliated with democrats say anything anyone says is unconstitutional I want to jump through the screen screaming!

Halting the legal immigration of all Muslims to the U.S. is a blanket statement that would harm innocent Muslims. It is discrimination based on religion, not based on someone's danger to the country. Why not be more specific and weed out dangerous people?

The precedents set for this are there, but they are not the greatest moments in our nation's history. I disagree with this policy based on the fact that it is a generalization and could be more specific.

originally posted by: darkbake
Halting the legal immigration of all Muslims to the U.S. is a blanket statement that would harm innocent Muslims. It is discrimination based on religion, not based on someone's danger to the country. Why not be more specific and weed out dangerous people?

The precedents set for this are there, but they are not the greatest moments in our nation's history. I disagree with this policy based on the fact that it is a generalization and could be more specific.

How do you do that?

How do you look at a Muslim and determine which ones are directly dangerous as opposed to which ones are merely sympathetic to the directly dangerous as opposed to the ones who would come here and assimilate into our country and culture?

If it turns out that the only group who can make this determination are the larger body of the Muslim faithful and not any screening process, what then?

originally posted by: darkbake
Halting the legal immigration of all Muslims to the U.S. is a blanket statement that would harm innocent Muslims. It is discrimination based on religion, not based on someone's danger to the country. Why not be more specific and weed out dangerous people?

The precedents set for this are there, but they are not the greatest moments in our nation's history. I disagree with this policy based on the fact that it is a generalization and could be more specific.

Trumps recommendation was for a temporary halt to do just that, so how would you suggest it be done?

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
S&F simply for the research and thorough DEBUNKING of the myths out there. This thread should be a STICKY in this forum.

Nice job

I have to second this. Well done.

originally posted by: rupertg
What's the latest on internment camps?

Let's make America great again!

Gun owners will be in them before muslims.

President Jimmy Carter put a halt on all Iranian's coming into the country during the Hostage Crisis to put pressure on the it's government/people. Even made all Iranian students report to Immigration and deported those in violation of their Visas

Just sayn'

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: rupertg
What's the latest on internment camps?

Sure.
We haven't had any internment camps since a great Democrat President initiated them.
FDR Executive Order 9066

Trump is against them.

That's not entirely accurate.

Indians still live in them.

But people call them 'reservations'.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No, going further into the column I cited:

I would add that, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court applied the “plenary power doctrine” to the exclusion of people based on their political beliefs, despite the Free Speech Clause. The cases that Posner is referring to, together with Kleindienst, suggest that the exclusion of people based on their religious beliefs is likewise constitutional.

If you can exclude people based on political beliefs, then you can likewise look at exclusions based on religious beliefs. Remember, Islam as it is viewed in radical ideologies is not just religious but also political.

But Islam isn't just a religion.

It's 'faith' and politics all rolled in to one.

Trump critics would fully support a ban on 'evangelicals'.

a reply to: Phoenix

(A) The President banned immigrants who engaged in violence toward motivated by ethnic, political, religious reasons etc.

You are arguing that since the Gov. prosecutes Hate Crimes...that it discriminates by race.

(B) Carter banned a Nationality...not a religious belief...I will let you figure out the difference.

(C) The constitution (specifically the 1st amendment)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Our government may not discriminate based on religion...

Nationality? Sure...Political Affiliation? yes ..Religion? No

a reply to: Indigo5

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

It is the very first words of the COTUS - WE the PEOPLE of the United States. Not We the People of the WORLD.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Is nothing wrong with what he said, is just that the way he said it, He wasn't "delicate" neither condescending, butt kissing or apologetic, something that spoil used to political correctness are used to in this nation even if the poster apologetic but kissing politicians comes around crap on everybody.

He told it like it is, I like the openness and direct tone, no going around the "garden of roses" so people doesn't get offended, Politics in this country are catering to much not to the citizens because they careless about immigrants or refuges but the money interest behind it.

People are so blinded by the reality of the stench that Washington is giving this days catering to everybody else but the tax payers and voters, and yes Muslim Americans are within those groups that the government doesn't care either.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

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

It is the very first words of the COTUS - WE the PEOPLE of the United States. Not We the People of the WORLD.

This should be repeated on every page of this thread.

Yet again, the nation is all jammed up over something that should be obvious.