8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

You have quoted Obamas proclamation, not the 1952 law.

Try again, the actual law is 2nd link provided in the OP, Btw you are not first to make the error.

Holy Crap...That is what you think???
OK..Here is what you are sitting atop..


Inadmissable Aliens

(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

And then YOU define class (in violation of the 1st Amendment) as being potentially RELIGION???

While ignoring the fact your own link explains what the eligible classes are...

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission

(1) Health-related grounds

(2) Criminal and related grounds

(3) Security and related grounds
(A) In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is inadmissible.

(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general Any alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party
(E) Participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing

Etc. etc.

The "Classes" are defined...No Religious test is to be found...

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Not that it hasn't been tried for 115 years or so according to another poster, but I'd take 3-5 while issue wends it's way through courts.

DP

a reply to: Indigo5

You would have a point IF and only IF we were talking about resident citizen Muslims. They cannot be deported based on their religion or barred from re-entry to the country based on their religion.

However, alien Muslims are not citizens and do not have constitutional protections. They are under the provisions of whatever country they still owe allegiance to, not the US and any of its laws EXCEPT whatever immigration provisions we might have.

This is why we should have a very rigorous and selective immigration process, we want only the best and the most committed to becoming American citizens. We do NOT want people like Jihad Jane and have every right to craft a system likely to keep more like her out.

originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo5, are you ever going to go back and read provided links to 8 USC 1182 as I gave in OP and quit claiming untruths.

The difference is that I read the whole document...While you excerpted a part that said nothing about religion and pretended it applied.

The constitution is intact...Those of you that would feel safer in a country with less freedom should go find one.

Yes...Trump is not qualified to serve as President...The constitution and our freedom of religion is not something to be sacrificed when the bitter, trembling dark corner of society is eager to give in to terrorists in hope that trading freedom will bring them safety.

Honestly...it's a little sickening to watch how eager some folks are to give in to ISIS...And to think they stand beneath the same flag as I as they do it.

as Ben franklin said..

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

a reply to: Indigo5

Simple question:

What freedoms do American citizens lose if we bar some people from immigrating for a time? Remember, they aren't American citizens.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

However, alien Muslims are not citizens and do not have constitutional protections.

It does not matter...The First Amendment does not speak to Aliens or Citizens...It speaks to LAWMAKERS...who sure as crap are subject to the constitution...and it forbids them...the LAWMAKERS...from making any law that discriminates based on religion...

Honestly...it's not complicated...read the first amendment...It isn't giving citizens rights...it is restricting government (Lawmakers)...so Lawmakers may not make ANY LAWS abridging or interfering with the free expression of religion...nor may they establish a state religion...which the SCOTUS or any court in the land would see as being done via a backdoor once they start forbidding certain religions entry.

a reply to: Indigo5

If that is so, then why hasn't the SCOTUS seen it that way in the past when these same provisions were used to keep out people of certain political ideologies and those same people challenged the law under freedom of speech which is found in the very same Amendment?

Never once has the court indicated in any of their decisions upholding these provisions, not even when Carter disbarred Iranians, that religion would be different.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

Simple question:

What freedoms do American citizens lose if we bar some people from immigrating for a time? Remember, they aren't American citizens.

"some people immigrating for a time"? ...None...Baring MUSLIMS..as Donald Trump shouted? We lose everything...strange people don't understand that. Maybe they don't teach history in school anymore..

DP

a reply to: Indigo5

They do.

Did we allow Germans, Japanese and Italians to immigrate during WWII?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

If that is so, then why hasn't the SCOTUS seen it that way in the past when these same provisions were used to keep out people of certain political ideologies and those same people challenged the law under freedom of speech which is found in the very same Amendment?

God help me...Political Party's? Yes...we can forbid Communists and Nazi's..>Specifically we can also ban nationalities from immigrating in times of war or conflict.

That is not the same as religion...Not even close...

a reply to: Indigo5

You are correct 8 USC 1182 has no religious test, I was thinking Obamas Proclamation.

However 8 USC 1182 has no limitation on reasons a President may use in determining term detrimemental.

a reply to: Indigo5

When the people you are at war with are at war with you because of their politico-religious beliefs, then it has to be a topic that gets discussed. Radicals like the SB killers weren't doing what they did for any national flag except the black flag of ISIS which is the flag of the Islamic Caliphate and the Caliphate purports to represent the Ummah.

Depending on which poll you see, Shari'a law and the idea of the Caliphate enjoys anywhere from 30 to 50% support among the worldwide body of Muslims.

What we need is a way to weed out the radicals and their sympathizers. Considering that Mohammad himself used and endorsed the idea of any tactic to advance the faith (means justified the ends), it is highly unlikely that simply asking them will do it. So, how do we figure who's who? If we can't come up with a system, then the Ummah needs to clean their own house, and if they can't or won't do it, what alternative do you propose because I would prefer to stop importing people like Jihadi Jane who proceed to hook up with sympathizers who then become more like her and pop off and kill as many of us as they can.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ketsuko

What's not necessary?

Polygamy isn't a religion.

What is it then?

A culture? A cult? A sociopolitical ideal?
Cultures, cults and sociopolitical ideals are based on a belief system which is adhered to by a group of people.
A belief system forms the basis of a religion.

So polygamy isn't a religion?

a reply to: Indigo5

I disagree as you glide by (f) which has no limitation whatsoever on the meaning of "detrimental"

In the case of Obama it's climate change lol

a reply to: Indigo5

Section (3)



Don't forget many nations that have majority Muslim populations are also under Islamic Governments.

google: " islamic governments " get the facts straight

Mind if I add this?



Congress to Consider Easing Passage into U.S. for Immigrants

December 9, 2015 7:53 pm Congress is set to vote on Thursday on what some have called an “unprecedented” right that would allow immigrants easier access to relocate to the United States, according to new legislation offered by a Democratic senator. The legislation, which is being offered by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) as an amendment to a larger bill governing nuclear safety, would prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion.

If passed, the new rule would burden the U.S. immigration system and prevent authorities from normal background checks meant to ensure individuals are not tied to terrorists or other type of criminal enterprises, the source said. “It would could lead to rules saying you can’t discriminate against foreign single mothers, or unemployed elderly seniors, or members of religious cults. And if religion cannot be considered, then of course you cannot favor say Australian immigration over Middle East immigration since religion is, of course, a factor in that decision,” the congressional source explained. “It would mean you could not favor a Christian Syrian priest over a fundamentalist Muslim cleric, and that if you denied the cleric you’d be paving the road to them having standing to sue for entry from a foreign country.” The legislation would further mean that a “radical Imam could demand the right for a tourist visa to deliver a speech, or that a member of a pagan cult could demand that they be given a foreign worker visa to take an American job,” according to the source. The legislation essentially extends the U.S. Constitution to inhabitants from other countries, which has never been done before, the source said.

freebeacon.com...

What kind of dirty underhanded no good POS would even consider this at this time?

The Devil

a reply to: Phoenix

To be fair, ban all foreigners from entering the USA.
To enter they need to be prequalified by their governement and USA government
Must have a non-refundable return ticket
Provide the USA a $10,000 entry bond returnable upon exiting the USA.
Tracking of each visitor, weekly reporting of their location.

a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo5, it's been estalishished that we've both read the entire law.

Show us where there is any limitation on a President's Proclamation of Detriment according to section (f)

I don't see any and due that if President decides if you believe in tooth fairies he can deny you entry if not a citizen.

I do however hope to see your defense of constitutional rights on all past, existing and future second amendment discussions.