Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Pakistan:43 Civilians die in Taliban crossfire

  1. #31
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Into Pakistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You didn't say muslim countries, you said "Muslims".

    Refusing immigrants because of their religion, a founding principle of this country and one of the foundations of why people came here in the first place, is far different than refusing them based on their home state.
    We can refuse to admit people for any reason whatsoever and still be consistent with Constitutional principles. Red haired people, Muslim people, communists, etc. There is no Constitutional principle which mandates that immigration policy and border control follow the same procedures that are applicable to citizens and residents of the US.

    Further, Constitutional Principles are not ironclad to the point that we MUST sign onto a national suicide pact.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Into Pakistan?

    As I said, it is not a clear violation of the constitution as much as it would be an act that would severely weaken one tennet of it and lead to numerous other issues contesting freedom of religion to likely spring from it. Not to mention, as i said, it'd be easy to simply not say you're muslim and then go back to being a muslim once you're in the country.

    But I was waiting for that final thing to come up. Funny, I knew another person that had thoughts along the same line of you and loved to use that line as well.

    Yes, not giving a damn about constitutional principles becuase its not a "suicide pact" is DEFINITELY libertarian.

  3. #33
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Into Pakistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As I said, it is not a clear violation of the constitution as much as it would be an act that would severely weaken one tennet of it and lead to numerous other issues contesting freedom of religion to likely spring from it.
    The US had closed borders for a good part of the 20th Century and no constitutional issues arose from that administrative decision. The Constitution spells out how we govern ourselves, not how we must honor the rights of foreigners.

    Not to mention, as i said, it'd be easy to simply not say you're muslim and then go back to being a muslim once you're in the country.
    And lying on an immigration document is grounds to strip people of their citizenship. That's how we're able to deport naturalized American citizens who used to be Nazis.

    But I was waiting for that final thing to come up. Funny, I knew another person that had thoughts along the same line of you and loved to use that line as well.

    Yes, not giving a damn about constitutional principles becuase its not a "suicide pact" is DEFINITELY libertarian.
    Consider this - racial warfare within California prisons is pretty bad. Some prison administrator came up with a plan to racially segregate prisons in order to cut down on the murder rate. The courts said no. So, the high murder rate created by racial warfare continues because it is ALWAYS wrong to use race in policy decisions (unless it's used by liberals, then all is good.)

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Into Pakistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    The US had closed borders for a good part of the 20th Century and no constitutional issues arose from that administrative decision. The Constitution spells out how we govern ourselves, not how we must honor the rights of foreigners.
    Which was not done specifically targetting a religion.

    You can keep trying to argue a point I'm not making, that we can't put limits on our immigration policy, but its kind of pointless. I agree with you there. We CAN put limits on our immigration policy.

    My issue is using a specific religion as that criteria because not only does it fly in the face of the philosophy and history of this country but it also erodes the 1st amendment and will lead to further action undertaken by people on both sides to further weaken it. I'd relate it to regulations on guns, where its not technically a "violation" of the 2nd amendment but they weaken it and they lead to further weakening legislation.

    As far as lieing, one would have to prove they actually lied. It'd be difficult to "prove" that they didn't honestly convert to a new religion and then, after coming into the country, decided it wasn't for them.

  5. #35
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Into Pakistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You can keep trying to argue a point I'm not making, that we can't put limits on our immigration policy, but its kind of pointless. I agree with you there. We CAN put limits on our immigration policy.
    No problem.

    My issue is using a specific religion as that criteria because not only does it fly in the face of the philosophy and history of this country
    If you want to base your argument on philosophy and history then you need to properly ground it. The founders viewed religions as expressions of orthodoxy (individual expressions of faith and belief) and not as expressions of orthopraxy (proper conduct as expression of faith.) We see Muslims invoking religious rights to overrule community standards. For instance, many communities have noise ordinances, but because Islam requires proper conduct, Muslims force communities to change laws to allow them to have amplified call to prayers starting at dawn and ending at sunset. What a Catholic or a Protestant believes is mostly a matter of personal faith, but when a Muslim practices his faith he intrudes onto the rights of others. We see this with special prayer rooms having to be set aside for Muslims in the workplace but there are no personal chapels for Christians in workplaces. We see special footwashing restrooms for Muslims being mandated but we don't see little bowls of holy water or communion wafers spread thorughout various institutions.

    The founders had a specific vision of religious freedom in mind, and Islam clearly doesn't fit into that definition. What's happened here is known as a definitional fallacy, in that because Islam is erroneously described as a religion, a false equivalence is made to how other religions are defined.

    but it also erodes the 1st amendment and will lead to further action undertaken by people on both sides to further weaken it.
    It does not, and it would not, do any such thing.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •