making the excuse that it was done before is not a proper argument. The US govt rounded up Indians and forced them to march across the nation before. The US govt burned women and children alive before. The US govt rounded up the Japanese and sent to camps before. The US allowed slavery before. The US has banned assault weapons before.

you aren't making any semblance of a sound argument in favor of why it's okay to throw due process out the window. You only show just how much you would support fascism.

You mean kind of like when obama wants to take our guns away?  Oh yeah I get it....
 

Since when is controlling immigration into our country "Unconstitutional"?

Carter did the same in regards to Iran, and that wasn't considered unconstitutional. I don't hear him saying that all Muslim citizens in this country should be rounded up and put in internment camps, only that we shouldn't be letting any more in until we can properly vet them.

Foreigners don't have any "right" to be in our country. We have every right to control their access. We are a sovereign nation.

As far as "sweeping generalizations", look at a world map. Thailand, Indonesia, Africa, Europe and of course the ME, all embroiled in violence due to Islam.

You WANT to bring that shit here?

You guys jumped the shark.

Opposing Trump and supporting religion are not mutually inclusive.
I can call faith unnecessary while at the same time pointing out that fascism isn't the answer to anything. Guilt by association should not be a leading principle of any nation that claims to be civilized.

Controlling immigration is not the question, how it is controlled is what is at issue.

You are comparing apples and oranges with Iran. Iran is a country and Iranian is a nationality. We can be at war with a country as it is a single entity.

Muslims are not a single entity, we are not at war with all muslims. We cannot even screen for muslims reliably since they can easily lie about their religion.

Blacks in america account for a higher rate of crime than other races, could we use that to justify refusing immigration from anyone who is black?

Our constitution does not allow America to discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Now either we hold true to the constitution that makes us great or we ignore it and lose a little more of our standing as the leader of the free world.


My main point though is that I fear a crowd who is so ready to sacrifice constitutional protections to solve the issue.

Controlling immigration is not the question, how it is controlled is what is at issue.

You are comparing apples and oranges with Iran. Iran is a country and Iranian is a nationality. We can be at war with a country as it is a single entity.

Muslims are not a single entity, we are not at war with all muslims. We cannot even screen for muslims reliably since they can easily lie about their religion.

Blacks in america account for a higher rate of crime than other races, could we use that to justify refusing immigration from anyone who is black?

Our constitution does not allow America to discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Now either we hold true to the constitution that makes us great or we ignore it and lose a little more of our standing as the leader of the free world.


My main point though is that I fear a crowd who is so ready to sacrifice constitutional protections to solve the issue.

stop trying to live according to what a 200 year old piece of paper says is or isn't okay and start applying liberty on a rational and logical basis with respect of the individual kept in mind.

will there be a point at which you actually engage me or will you content yourself to hiding behind passive aggressive images?

To the posters saying Trump's suggestion is unconstitutional: I suggest you reread the constitution, because his proposal does NOT violate it.

There are Supreme Court rulings, Fiallo v. Bell and Kleindiest v. Mandel, which proves the point. Also, let's not forget the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the President the ability to suspend entry of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of our society.

Is his proposal a bit much? Perhaps. But it doesn't violate our ruling document. So, instead of spewing leftist talking points about "unconstitutionality, maybe you need to research the topic more thoroughly.

Lastly, there is no right for ANYONE to immigrate here. It is a privilege that we, as a people, grant to foreigners. You have to allow strangers into your homes, right? Same applies here.

I'm still only seeing excuses for fascism.
constitutionality has nothing to do with being morally right.
If we are in a conflict with Syria maybe all the idiots in Washington DC should actually follow the constitution they so love to claim gives them power and vote for a war.
if they want to exclude a nationality they should put it up to vote like they did the asian exclusion act.

be fascists democratically, the idea that just because it's legal makes it okay is such a shit position. It's the kind of thinking that got us the TSA and high school dropouts in charge of groping kids at the airport for our safety.


stop trying to live according to what a 200 year old piece of paper says is or isn't okay and start applying liberty on a rational and logical basis with respect of the individual kept in mind.

you have no right to deny entry to the country

You can use whatever label you like, but it comes down to one thing and one thing only:  are we going to let the PC police dictate immigration policy?

We would not be doing anything to these refugees other than deny entry to the sovereign land we call the USA.  Why are we actively offering refugees from Syria asylum?  Why not the countries of Africa?  Where are all the people from Afghanistan and Iraq?  What states are housing the thousands of refugees from Palestine?  Where are the planes loaded with Nigerians?  Egyptians?  Libyans?

Ask yourself why we are selective in our generosity toward the world's population living in conflict regions?

There have been 220,000-340,000 fatalities in Syria since 2011.  Why are we JUST NOW having these debates about refugees?  If we are acting out of purely altruistic motives, we would have started bringing refugees to the US 5 years ago, and maybe some of those hundreds of thousand needy souls would still be alive?

It's obvious we DO discriminate when it comes to saving people in conflicts.  Instead of being Fascists and denying entry to only the Syrians, it appears we are actually playing favorites -- trying to push for the Syrian refugees to come here and ignoring the rest in the world.

You can't pretend we are being the saviors of the Syrians this late in the game when so many have already died -- meanwhile, we covertly armed the rebels (ISIS).  Then. after 5 years and no end to the conflict, we suddenly grow a conscience and decide inviting them to the US is a good idea.

The administration is not being consistent.  If you thing we are being Fascists by denying the Syrians entry during an active conflict we are involved in, then we are also being Fascists by not inviting the people of Nigerians, Afghanistan,  Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, Somalia, Darfur, Pakistan, Mexico, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Russia, Ukraine and every other nation experiencing economic and military conflict.

Labels are a funny thing.  Just because I decide I just don't want to help someone does not make me Fascist, racist, or an Unconstitutional outlaw.  It makes me an American, free to exercise my right to offer charity where I feel I should, and to not be compelled to provide charity against my will to anyone I do not wish.  I do not have to offer a reason as to why I provide charity to this group and not that one.  We do not have the resources to offer charity to the world, so someone is going to get left out.  Saying we are discriminating illegally is a bad way to change someone's mind, since you do not know what is in someone's mind and heart -- even when they state what they are thinking.  Not everyone tells the truth about their feelings.

You are taking the Liberal tact to shame people into doing what YOU think they should do.  If I give $500 to the Shriner's Hospital, you ask me why I hate the homeless, or why I am racist for not giving to the NAACP.  Forcing someone else to provide charity to those you decide need it does not make you charitable.  It makes you a thief.

Wrong. Legal precedent says otherwise. Foreigners have NO RIGHT to come here. The two Supreme Court rulings I cited prove my point. You, on the other hand, are you using nothing more than an Argument by Assertion fallacy.

Also, I noticed you completely ignored the main point of my first post, which is that Trump's proposal does NOT violate the constitution.

Wrong. Legal precedent says otherwise. Foreigners have NO RIGHT to come here. The two Supreme Court rulings I cited prove my point. You, on the other hand, are you using nothing more than an Argument by Assertion fallacy.

Also, I noticed you completely ignored the main point of my first post, which is that Trump's proposal does NOT violate the constitution.

freedom of movement is a natural right and vital to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
you have no right to deny entry to the country, you have the right to deny entry to your own private property.

the government bringing people over while using tax payer money is an entirely different subject and there are very easy and valid criticisms to be made.

stop thinking left vs right, both are just opposing sides of the same coin.

I'm still only seeing excuses for fascism.
constitutionality has nothing to do with being morally right.
If we are in a conflict with Syria maybe all the idiots in Washington DC should actually follow the constitution they so love to claim gives them power and vote for a war.
if they want to exclude a nationality they should put it up to vote like they did the asian exclusion act.

be fascists democratically, the idea that just because it's legal makes it okay is such a shit position. It's the kind of thinking that got us the TSA and high school dropouts in charge of groping kids at the airport for our safety.


stop trying to live according to what a 200 year old piece of paper says is or isn't okay and start applying liberty on a rational and logical basis with respect of the individual kept in mind.