It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The people subject to the US constitution are US citizens. That's for whom the US constitution applies. No, 1.6 billion foreign Muslims cannot enter the US just because the first amendment says don't discriminate against religion.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: masterofthemultiverse




No, 1.6 billion foreign Muslims cannot enter the US just because the first amendment says don't discriminate against religion.

True.
Nor can 1.6 billion foreign Christians. Or Buddhists. Has anyone said they can?


(post by masseur4 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JeremySun4




The US constitution applies to US citizens, not to foreigners.

Actually, the US Constitution applies to the US Government. It tells the government what it can, and can't do.



I guess you would say they can't have a different treatment for those who hold the distorted version of islam that is in ISIS?

If a religious group arises that believes in the destruction of the United States, the U.S. can't discriminate against them?

Let's be serious here.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears




If a religious group arises that believes in the destruction of the United States, the U.S. can't discriminate against them?
Not because of their religious beliefs. But for committing treason? Sure. That's a crime.


edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Wrong move Trump, They have banned SHiA muslims, the problem is extremist wahabi sunnis



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xenogears




If a religious group arises that believes in the destruction of the United States, the U.S. can't discriminate against them?
Not because of their religious beliefs. But for committing treason? Sure. That's a crime.



Here's the thing though, a religion could arise that as part of its religious belief demanded treason. Religions can believe in anything. If such was the case, belief in the religion itself would be basis for discrimination.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: marg6043




The EO have not references of new laws or make any new laws, the laws are already established, by congress, all the EO does is enforcing existing laws.

The EO is seen to breach the Constitution , is that not the ultimate US law ?
It's discriminatory on the basis of religion.

The EO will likely be amended to remove that element and just name the countries as sponsors of terror or some suchlike.


How does it discriminate on religion? I do not recall the EO saying NO ISLAM WORSHIPPERS. It just say People from said countries.

From the EO:

to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.


We don't have to guess what "minority religion" in those countries is being talked about. Do we?


Yazidis.

It would also include homosexuals, Jews, Agnostic/Atheist... and yes Christians too.

Do you expect islamic refugees to claim islamic oppression? It's the religion of peace, after all.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: themasseur
No, the American constitution does not say any foreigner has the right to take a plane or a ship and come to the US. That is a privilege at the discretion of the State department pending a visa.

The first amendment says American citizens are free to practice their chosen faith. It says nothing about foreign citizens.


Actually it says Congress shall pass no law that establishes or infringes on the free exercise of religion.

Freedom of Religion is understood to be a human right, regardless of citizenship. But these are also understood to be intrinsic/internal freedoms, meaning one person cannot force their faith on another.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Yeah. The judge asked about that.

The argument made in the motion is that showing preference for any religion is a violation of the establishment clause.

Even if the Executive Order did not explicitly distinguish between denominations, the Court would still need to apply the three-part “Lemon test” to determine whether the government has violated the Establishment Clause.

www.scribd.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: marg6043




Its interesting how Obama committed discrimination against refugees from other religious backgrounds in Favor of that was base on religion.

False.

Almost the same number of Christian (37,521) as Muslim refugees were admitted in fiscal 2016, which ended Sept. 30. A slightly lower share of 2016’s refugees were Christian (44%) than Muslim, the first time that has happened since fiscal 2006, when a large number of Somali refugees entered the U.S.

www.pewresearch.org...



Of the 6,726 total Syrian refugee arrivals since the beginning of FY 2016, 6,625 (98.4 percent) were Sunnis and 23 (0.3 percent) were Christians – including 15 described simply as “Christian,” five Catholics, two Orthodox and one Greek Orthodox adherent.

The remaining 78 (1.1 percent) comprised 49 refugees described in the data simply as “Moslem,” 17 Shi’a Muslims, 10 Yazidis, one of “no religion” and one “other religion.”


www.cnsnews.com...

My question would be what level of persecution these Islamic refugees are claiming? No one can deny that ISIS and related islamofascists are committing atrocities, but religious minorities are supposed to be moved to the front of the line.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

My question would be what level of persecution these Islamic refugees are claiming? No one can deny that ISIS and related islamofascists are committing atrocities, but religious minorities are supposed to be moved to the front of the line.
They are? Are you talking about prior policy or the EO? As far as I know Islamic (and other) refugees from Syria are not claiming religious persecution. I think they are leaving a war zone.
edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Now America is vulnerable to bad harambe sneaking in!



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Yeah. The judge asked about that.

The argument made in the motion is that showing preference for any religion is a violation of the establishment clause.

Even if the Executive Order did not explicitly distinguish between denominations, the Court would still need to apply the three-part “Lemon test” to determine whether the government has violated the Establishment Clause.

www.scribd.com...


So he is either ignorant, purposefully obtuse, or Trump Deranged.


Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title 8, U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]


www.nationalreview.com...

www.law.cornell.edu...


edit on 4-2-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

My question would be what level of persecution these Islamic refugees are claiming? No one can deny that ISIS and related islamofascists are committing atrocities, but religious minorities are supposed to be moved to the front of the line.
They are? Are you talking about prior policy or the EO? As far as I know Islamic (and other) refugees from Syria are not claiming religious persecution. I think they are leaving a war zone.


On which we agree. But if they can not claim persecuted status then they are not top priority.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You may want to examine the opening of 1158.


(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.


You are quoting a law regarding people who are in the United States.



edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You may want to examine the opening of 1158.


(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.


You are quoting a law regarding people who are in the United States.



You are not looking at the exceptions. Laws have lots of them.



(2) Exceptions
(A) Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.


Gosh, religion as part of a federal decision-making process.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You are not looking at the exceptions.
You are not understanding the clause.



That exception does not say that the law applies to people who are not in the US. It says that an alien cannot apply for asylum in the US if there is another country (a "safe third country") in which they can apply for asylum. Unless the AG determines that it is in the public interest for that person to receive asylum in the US. Nor does it prioritize religious persecution over any other sort.


edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I don't have a problem with this judge rolling this way. But I believe that if anybody should be harmed or killed because terrorists came in from one of those seven countries during the time period that he lifted the ban then he should be held accountable, legally and professionally. He should lose his seat on the bench, lose his license to practice law, and should face criminal charges. Decisions have consequences and he should have to face them.


Since nobody from those countries have ever attacked us, I don't see it being a problem now.




top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join