• 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!

Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states

Have you read it?

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
jet57 said:
No, it's not protecting US. Like illegal aliens, if a terrorist wants in, he or she will get in. Trump's Muslim ban is a reactionary right- wing populist stunt that's falling apart as we speak. If anything - it's serving as a recruitment tool.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony of this post is off the charts.
 
On 60 Minutes (17 July 2016);

Reminded that his running mate, Mike Pence, once called a Muslim ban unconstitutional, Trump responded: "So you call it territories. OK? We’re gonna do territories." Asked whether that approach was a "rollback" of his position, Trump said no, adding: "You could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word ‘Muslim.’"
Click to expand...

Trump supporter and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was asked how Trump decided on the seven countries listed in the EO order of January 27, 2017). Giuliani said:

"So when he first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ... We focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis."
Click to expand...

Trumps original intent was definitely a "Muslim ban". Trump altered the EO wording after his VP and Rudy Giuliani advised him that openly referring to a "Muslim ban" would be unconstitutional.
 
Chomsky said:
Actually, you may have a fair point here.

Perhaps you can help me with this: Do constitutional protections apply to legal & lawful residents?
Click to expand...

The general rule is that the more closely an alien attaches himself to the U.S., the more constitutional protections apply to him. A resident alien who has, say, lived here for ten years and plans to become a citizen will enjoy almost all the protections of a native-born American, although even then he will not enjoy quite all of them. A person in that position, for example, may legally be discriminated against if he applies for a job as a policeman or a high school teacher.

Alien nationals who have not yet entered the U.S. and are not in U.S. custody have no rights whatever under our Constitution.
 
matchlight said:
The general rule is that the more closely an alien attaches himself to the U.S., the more constitutional protections apply to him. A resident alien who has, say, lived here for ten years and plans to become a citizen will enjoy almost all the protections of a native-born American, although even then he will not enjoy quite all of them. A person in that position, for example, may legally be discriminated against if he applies for a job as a policeman or a high school teacher.

Alien nationals who have not yet entered the U.S. and are not in U.S. custody have no rights whatever under our Constitution.
Click to expand...
Fair enough matchlight, I'm going to defer to you in this.

I posted elsewhere that I believe the ban will likely stand in some form, but may need to be tweaked to assure efficacy or full constitutionality.

But we never do know exactly how the Court will rule in any specific instance, and in the context of the times. N.B. Plessy vis a vis Brown. Also, the recent ACA ruling calling the non-compliance fine 'a tax'.

But yes, I do believe the ban will stand in some form.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Our Constitution applies to anyone that is within the US's jurisdiction. Which means that anyone on US soil has those protections. Whether they're citizens or not.

That said, nothing in the EO that I can see violates any parts of the Constitution. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me which part was considered unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It would be more accurate to say that some of the protections of our Constitution apply to anyone within U.S. jurisdiction. Even an alien who has entered illegally is entitled to Fifth Amendment due process, for example, which means he gets at least to a hearing before a U.S. magistrate before getting the boot. At the same time, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court has in some cases upheld the government's denial of basic constitutional rights, for example in Ex Parte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteurs Case. One of the saboteurs in that case was a U.S. citizen, and yet he was electrocuted after having been denied both the right to indictment by a grand jury and the right to a jury trial.

The Court has upheld some pretty arbitrary exclusion of aliens where national security was concerned. See, for example, U.S. ex. rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy and Shaughnessy v. ex. rel. Mezzei.
 
Chomsky said:
Fair enough matchlight, I'm going to defer to you in this.

I posted elsewhere that I believe the ban will likely stand in some form, but may need to be tweaked to assure efficacy or full constitutionality.

But we never do know exactly how the Court will rule in any specific instance, and in the context of the times. N.B. Plessy vis a vis Brown. Also, the recent ACA ruling calling the non-compliance fine 'a tax'.

But yes, I do believe the ban will stand in some form.
Click to expand...

When it comes to national security, any U.S. President worth his salt insists on getting what he wants. The President's power to protect the nation from foreign threats has always been recognized as being very broad. Certainly no federal judge is going to thwart it for long. I understand the basis for the judge's ruling in the New York case--one of the aliens involved, an Iraqi who had worked with the U.S. military, had already landed here, and his life certainly would have been in danger if he had not been allowed to stay. But prohibiting aliens from coming here in the first place is a different matter.
 
matchlight said:
When it comes to national security, any U.S. President worth his salt insists on getting what he wants. The President's power to protect the nation from foreign threats has always been recognized as being very broad. Certainly no federal judge is going to thwart it for long. I understand the basis for the judge's ruling in the New York case--one of the aliens involved, an Iraqi who had worked with the U.S. military, had already landed here, and his life certainly would have been in danger if he had not been allowed to stay. But prohibiting aliens from coming here in the first place is a different matter.
Click to expand...
Cannot argue that. But IRC the original suspension included those with, Green Cards and approved Visa's?? were denied entry. Those people were also part of the various Judicial orders that found parts of original EO to be illegal. Is that correct?
 
Mainelaw said:
Can you give a few examples of minority religions that are experiencing persecution that are applying for entry into the United States? Christianity is the only one that comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Easy. The Sunni Muslims seem to hate the Shiite Muslims and wherever the Sunnis have a majority, they attack the Shiites. ISIS, ISIL, al Qeda etc. are Sunnis. I don't see any group trying to help the persecuted Shiites, except Iran, Russia, and Muqtada al Sadr. Iraq and Syria are two Nations being attacked/persecuted by Sunnis and they are on the no entry list. Saudi Arabia is full of Sunnis/Wahabists/Salafists, don't ya' know?
/
 
JANFU said:
Cannot argue that. But IRC the original suspension included those with, Green Cards and approved Visa's?? were denied entry. Those people were also part of the various Judicial orders that found parts of original EO to be illegal. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Don't know, without reading all the legal documents. The memo supporting the motion in the New York case was almost thirty pages by itself, so I didn't study it all. If this executive order applied to holders of green cards, that part of it was a mistake. But the fact an alien overseas was granted a visa during the last administration should not obligate President Trump to honor that grant, and admit the alien to the U.S. If there is now some federal law under which it does, Congress should act immediately to repeal that law. Or, if it fails to act, and the emergency is pressing enough, Mr. Trump should ignore that law as an illegitimate infringement by Congress of his broad and exclusive power to protect the nation from foreign threats.

What the Court said in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export in 1936 holds true today:

"We are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations--a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress . . . ."(emphasis added)

In Curtiss-Wright, President Roosevelt was acting in agreement with Congress. But the Court's language strongly suggests that a U.S. President would retain a broad, indpendent foreign affairs power even if he were acting contrary to a federal statute.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
Don't know, without reading all the legal documents. The memo supporting the motion in the New York case was almost thirty pages by itself, so I didn't study it all. If this executive order applied to holders of green cards, that part of it was a mistake. But the fact an alien overseas was granted a visa during the last administration should not obligate President Trump to honor that grant, and admit the alien to the U.S. If there is now some federal law under which it does, Congress should act immediately to repeal that law. Or, if it fails to act, and the emergency is pressing enough, Mr. Trump should ignore that law as an illegitimate infringement by Congress of his broad and exclusive power to protect the nation from foreign threats.

What the Court said in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export in 1936 holds true today:

"We are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations--a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress . . . ."(emphasis added)

In Curtiss-Wright, President Roosevelt was acting in agreement with Congress. But the Court's language strongly suggests that a U.S. President would retain a broad, indpendent foreign affairs power even if he were acting contrary to a federal statute.
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
Chomsky said:
Fair enough matchlight, I'm going to defer to you in this.

I posted elsewhere that I believe the ban will likely stand in some form, but may need to be tweaked to assure efficacy or full constitutionality.

But we never do know exactly how the Court will rule in any specific instance, and in the context of the times. N.B. Plessy vis a vis Brown. Also, the recent ACA ruling calling the non-compliance fine 'a tax'.

But yes, I do believe the ban will stand in some form.
Click to expand...

The may or not stand. The DOJ may issue a stay.

What if our intelligence agencies have proof there is a clear and present danger to the U.S. from those entering our country from the 7 countries listed? Is it out of line to halt entrance into this country if such information is present? I think not.

The EO was bumbled in its execution. There were mistakes made. That is unfortunate. But there is nothing to stop Trump cancelling such EO and issuing another.
 
vesper said:
The may or not stand. The DOJ may issue a stay.

What if our intelligence agencies have proof there is a clear and present danger to the U.S. from those entering our country from the 7 countries listed? Is it out of line to halt entrance into this country if such information is present? I think not.

The EO was bumbled in its execution. There were mistakes made. That is unfortunate. But there is nothing to stop Trump cancelling such EO and issuing another.
Click to expand...
No!

Please, don't give him any more ideas! :doh
 
vesper said:
The may or not stand. The DOJ may issue a stay.

What if our intelligence agencies have proof there is a clear and present danger to the U.S. from those entering our country from the 7 countries listed? Is it out of line to halt entrance into this country if such information is present? I think not.

The EO was bumbled in its execution. There were mistakes made. That is unfortunate. But there is nothing to stop Trump cancelling such EO and issuing another.
Click to expand...
Actually though, we may have misunderstood each other.

By "ban standing", I was referring to Trump's travel ban prevailing (in some form).
 
Chomsky said:
Actually though, we may have misunderstood each other.

By "ban standing", I was referring to Trump's travel ban prevailing (in some form).
Click to expand...

Chomsky, you are my favorite lefty on this forum. You are such a pleasure to engage in discussions on anything.
 
vesper said:
Chomsky, you are my favorite lefty on this forum. You are such a pleasure to engage in discussions on anything.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Vesper!

I very much enjoy my discussions with you, too.

Have a great night!
 
Mainelaw said:
The countries that 'do not provide adequate information' are probably coincidentally all Muslim countries.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
Click to expand...

The countries that 'do not provide adequate information' are probably coincidentally countries that are a high risk for terrorist activity.

Global Terrorism Index Report 2016–2017

Score (10 is highest)
Iran 4.222
Iraq 9.96
Libya 7.29
Somalia 7.6
Sudan 7.484
Syria 8.61
Yemen 8.076

Do you know of any other countries that don't provide adequate information that aren't on this list?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Trump told us during his campaign countless times that he was going to ban immigration from Muslim countries. Now trump and his followers deny that is what he did with this executive order. Come on people lets be real, Trump did what he said he was going to do.
The only reason that anyone is denying that it is specifically a Muslim ban is because that would be unconstitutional. If it wasnt for that problem trump and his followers would be crying about Muslims and sharia law.
Click to expand...

Do you have any links to that or are do you just expect us to believe that your off the cuff quote isn't out of context?
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, but the text states: "minority religion".

You do bring-up an interesting point though, and I suspect this too will end-up decided or challenged by the courts.

Mucking around with religious favoritism or delineation is a messy thing in terms of constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Being a member of a minority religion in fear of persecution is one of the main reasons that asylum is given.

People who seek asylum are usually victims of threats, physical harm or denigration of their human dignity as these are violating their human rights.[1]

The political asylum is one of the human rights affirmed by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a rules of international human rights law. All countries who have agreed to the United Nations Conventions Relating to the Status of Refugees must let people, who do qualify, come into their country.

People who qualify for asylum are those who can show that they might be badly treated in their own country because of their:

Religion,
Political opinions or
Membership of a particular social group or social activities
Personal lifestyle and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_asylum
 
Chomsky said:
Thank you, Vesper!

I very much enjoy my discussions with you, too.

Have a great night!
Click to expand...
You have a great night as well! And by the way the DOJ has moved to appeal the judge in Washington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom