Donald Trump ruled an outlaw for violating the First Amendment of the Constitution

It is very hard to get into the US now. Refugee quota has been reduced a lot compared to last year.

a reply to: burdman30ott6


And, none of those Jihadi killers of 3000 Americans, during the 911 attacks, were from any of the 7 countries that Trump's EO banned.

a reply to: windword

Personally I don't think the US constitution applies to anybody other than US citizens and any foreign entity who thinks that the US Constitution affords them any rights is fooling themselves.

a reply to: Gargamel

Don't worry because Trump can re-issue another EO without the religious test and it wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: GreyScale

He can base his EO on ANYTHING HE WANTS.

Not if it violates the constitution and FYI a yuge part of the constitution limits the government that includes EOs. The constitution doesn't do much about granting rights.


Also ermm... why are you even bringing up Washington state

Try to keep up this thread is about the court case in Virginia.

It is all in the OPs source link.

If his EO simply barred entry of people from those countries it probably would have worked, but he made an exception in the EO if they passed a religious test which is unconstitutional.

You are again quite quickly missing the whole damn point.

The Executive branch has been given power over immigration and more importantly, matters of national security when it comes to immigration. If Trump decided tomorrow that we should not allow blondes into the country, he has every right to do that.

Are you an American citizen? I believe so, because most foreign posters know far more about American civics. I think it is because they take the time to read up on it.

Matters of national security are not in the jurisdiction of Federal judges. It has already been decided on at the Supreme Court level. Now...

Repeat after me, 50 times because you don't seem to get it.

NON-CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Ergo, the Bill of Rights does not apply to non-citizens.

Period.
Ever.

Therefore, there is no religious test for non citizens.

Because they are NOT CITIZENS.

So it inherently cannot be deemed unconstitutional because the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-CITIZENS.

Did I say DOES NOT APPLY enough to get your attention.

Because, you know, we cannot apply the US Constitution to people that it does not apply to. Like, for instance, non-citizens.

Also I was bringing up the Washington case because it is part of the discussion. You know, the EO. Keep up.

a reply to: windword

Ask Obama why he picked those 7 countries.

Personally, I think Iran should not be on the list. There are no jihadists in Iran and Iran being a Shia country is vital to the war on jihadists.

a reply to: GreyScale

The Executive branch has been given power over immigration and more importantly, matters of national security when it comes to immigration. If Trump decided tomorrow that we should not allow blondes into the country, he has every right to do that.

I don't know if he could based on hair color, but I do know that the judge in Virginia has ruled that his EO is unconstitutional and the judicial branch has the right to declare acts by the president unconstitutional.

It also looks like team Trump doesn't plan to challenge the judges ruling. The executive branch does have power over imigration, but isn't absolute power it isn't power that over rules the constitution.

NON-CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh look the the 14th Amendment says anyone within jurisdiction has the equal protection of the laws. Not that it has anything to do with the EO or either case, but you spoke in absolutes and you were wrong.

originally posted by: ultron
Personally, I think Iran should not be on the list. There are no jihadists in Iran and Iran being a Shia country is vital to the war on jihadists.

Iran is waging war on the petrodollar. Thats the only reason.

The same reason Saudi Arabia isn't on the list....they support the petro dollar. "State sponsors of terror" = "nations not supporting the petrodollar".

Its why Libya, Iraq, and Syria were "enemies".

Refugee and immigrant quota is set by the executive branch via the state department. That is none of the judiciary branch's business.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya are allies of Russia. So of course they are on the list.

a reply to: ultron

Im wondering if Trumps desire to monetize space/the moon might reinvigorate the global economy.

We keep talkig about how automation and AI are making human labor obsolete. A new revolution is needed to put mankind to work. Space mining and operations might be that next big frontier that puts humans to work, drives innovation, balloons economy, and builds the infrastructure for tomorrow.

Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia are friends of Russia. They on the list. Syria and Sudan are 2 out of the 11 countries that voted Crimea referendum was legitimate.

en.wikipedia.org...

All of you saying this isn't about religion:

A) are in complete denial
B) have very short memories

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population."

November 9th 2016

a reply to: Shamrock6
was their father a citizen before they were bon because if so they would automatically be citizens no matter were they born