• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pakistan:43 Civilians die in Taliban crossfire

Re: Into Pakistan?

Well I guess Bush and Obama aren't war criminals then are they, so quit spreading that around if you want to be taken seriously. No U.S. court is ever gonna convict Bush.
Really, better get word to your man Conyers. :lol:
 
Re: Into Pakistan?

You proposed banning people from entering this country simply based on religion. You can't possibly tell me you don't understand the ramification that has in regards to weakening the freedom of religion within the consitution.
How can immigration policy contradict the 1st Amendment?
 
Re: Into Pakistan?

You proposed banning people from entering this country simply based on religion. You can't possibly tell me you don't understand the ramification that has in regards to weakening the freedom of religion within the consitution.

The Constitution applies to people who are within the borders of the United States, not to people all around the world.

Look, we treat Canadians differently than we do Turks, in that we allow Canadians to enter the US without a visa but require that Turks apply for a visa. However, once the Canadian and Turkish visitors are within the borders of the US they have, generally, the very same rights as do American citizens.

There is nothing unconstitutional about restricting immigration from specified countries, no matter the dominant or majority religion of those countries.
 
Re: Into Pakistan?

If you start denying people from entering this country and becoming citizens simply by which religion they follow then you are weakening to first amendment's freedom of religion and opening up a starting point for others within this country to make a case for further erosion of it and expansion of such policies to the citizenry of the United States.

If you actually can convince the the American public that its okay to completely disregard the rights garaunteed unto men in the eyes of our founders as long as they're not citizens yet and we don't like their religion its not a far stretch to them start doing it to ones that ARE citizens.

Not to mention its a ****ty policy. All that will do is cause those immigrating into the country to either claim no religion or claim a different religion and then suddenly, once becoming a citizen, become muslim again.
 
Re: Into Pakistan?

The Constitution applies to people who are within the borders of the United States, not to people all around the world.

Look, we treat Canadians differently than we do Turks, in that we allow Canadians to enter the US without a visa but require that Turks apply for a visa. However, once the Canadian and Turkish visitors are within the borders of the US they have, generally, the very same rights as do American citizens.

There is nothing unconstitutional about restricting immigration from specified countries, no matter the dominant or majority religion of those countries.

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.
 
Re: Into Pakistan?

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.)
 
Re: Into Pakistan?

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.
 
Re: Into Pakistan?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom