Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

[trish]

False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. ...

I do not believe it’s all that clear cut. Court precedents (set through the centuries) regarding the establishment clause of the Constitution discourage the government from weighing on on which religions are acceptable and which are not. Even if you believe a ban on Muslim immigrants wouldn’t directly affect U.S. citizens (I believe it would) - it would undeniably place a heavy thumb on that scale. The conservatives on the Supreme Court would have to do some wiggling to allow such a break from over two centuries of practice. I’m not saying they won’t do it. Whether America remains the land of religious freedoms it once was may well be tested under this presidency.

[broncofan]

The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else.

Trump may be able to tailor a discriminatory order that passes muster but his current one does not. In the meantime, this is simply not true. What you say implies an illegal immigrant within the U.S. could be summarily imprisoned, which would violate fifth amendment due process. The first, fourth, and fifth amendments would also apply I'm pretty sure to someone who is an illegal alien. I can find authority for that if you'd like. But if they did not, that would imply that an illegal alien could be imprisoned for their speech, or that an undocumented person in California for instance could have illegally obtained evidence admitted against them in a criminal trial. Can't imagine.

[broncofan]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...utional-rights

Again, doesn't mean that non-citizens outside the country would necessarily succeed in challenging their exclusion, but it's not true that the constitution only applies to citizens.

[Stavros]

False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. The U.S.A. can deny entry to any foreign national that we wish, for any reason, including if they are Muslims. We can openly say "fuck you Muslims, we don't want you or your poison bullshit 'religion' in America, so go take a long walk off a short dock," and it would be Constitutional.

The USA already has in place an intense vetting procedure for immigrants, why does President Trump think the USA needs a new procedure? Why is it that at his first Executive Order, Donald Trump did not place Pakistan on the list in spite of the fact that most of the bombings that have taken place over the last 38 years in India, Kashmir, Afghanistan and Pakistan itself -75 killed and hundreds injured in Lahore just 4 days ago- have been organised in Pakistan where the Taliban was created, where Osama bin Laden was given sanctuary and where his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri also lives?

As for immigrants on the original list, is it not ironic that Steven Bannon was involved in the production of Seinfeld, given that Jerry Seinfeld's mother is the daughter of immigrants from Aleppo? And Steve Jobs, whose Muslim father -still alive- migrated to the USA in the 1950s from Beirut via Homs in Syria, where he was born -could you imagine the USA without Apple? And the first country to recognise the USA as an independent state in 1777? -The Sultanate of Morocco. So it seems that this 'bullshit religion' has given the USA a few positive things -and before you point out Seinfeld's mother is Jewish, we note your vile attack on American Jews from 3 days ago so I guess you have a list of undesirables you want excluded from your country...?
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...Trumped!/page9 (#90)

[Budweiser]

Reality Check: "A President Trump would have the power to ban certain people from entering the country. Under U.S. code the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country for any reason that he thinks best."

[filghy2]

You're citing as your authority a right-wing conspiracy theorist who doesn't even have any legal qualifications? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann

[Budweiser]

You're citing as your authority a right-wing conspiracy theorist who doesn't even have any legal qualifications? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann

You're using argumentative fallacies to bolster your case?

[broncofan]

You're citing as your authority a right-wing conspiracy theorist who doesn't even have any legal qualifications? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann

Thank you for that. I chuckled when I got to the part about his qualifications as an RT America journalist. When discussing unsettled constitutional law I realize that some humility is in order which is why I've tried to find legal scholars who have written extensively on the subject. I am an attorney and am happy to say what I think a current case means but am not qualified to anticipate how the court will rule in an area of the law where there is not a lot of precedent. There may be a difference between how the court decides to treat people detained at the airport within U.S. territory and those who never board a plane and do not enter the U.S. Or between the treatment of green-card holders and those who have not even begun the naturalization process.

In the meantime, we have a bit of a battle of the experts. I've cited four people who have spent their entire lives analyzing the constitution, teaching it to aspiring lawyers, and producing scholarship v. a guy who works for the American wing of a Russian propaganda channel. I will also point out Budweiser that even if the president is authorized to do something under a statute, the statute might be unconstitutional as applied. You've seamlessly shifted between constitutional and statutory law as though there is no difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

[broncofan]

You're using argumentative fallacies to bolster your case?

The fact is we're all adopting other people's opinions to argue about this. Unless you are going to write something about the constitution that is not conclusory or based on someone else's analysis, the argument is going to be carried out by appeal to authority, which is the inverse of the ad hominem fallacy you're complaining about.

I would also like to point out that in law, argument by authority is not really a logical fallacy, since lower courts must follow precedent of higher courts regardless of whether it is consistent with their views on the subject. So the issue of who said what previously is not independent of the truth of what we're discussing.

[trish]

...
even if the president is authorized to do something under a statute, the statute might be unconstitutional as applied. You've seamlessly shifted between constitutional and statutory law as though there is no difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

Exactly.