That’s funny. We’re talking about non-citizens outside the US. We don’t guarantee them “freedom of religion”.
*“It’s a temporary ban. It hasn’t been called for yet,” *Mr Trump said on Wednesday. *“This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.” *
It’s just a suggestion, bro!
But a traveler getting off an airplane is already in the U.S. and have at least some constitutional protections. Maybe they haven’t officially entered the U.S. but they are on the ground in U.S. territory.
Even illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution.
Probably, but I don’t think terrorists are numerically that significant.
This!
It’s the type of thing you say to rile up a grassroots. Now that he’s locked down the nomination, watch as his rhetoric becomes more sane.
Have you even taken a high school civics class?
Businessmen from Indonesia - bad.
ISIS members from Belgium - no prob.
International travelers in the no-man’s land at the arriving terminal at US airports between the plane and passing the immigration agent, have fewer rights than some of the least democratic countries in the world. The have limited access to legal counsel, subject to unwarranted searches, and have limited free speech.
Which negates the need for the ban. Unless we’re just doing it to be assholes.
Mr. Trump would have no power over non-citizens outside the US, even if he was elected. He isn’t running for president of Malaysia or any of the other countries mentioned in this thread.
We’re basically discussing immigration policy, which (I’m completely guessing) has broad latitude…we can pretty much let in / exclude anyone we want, and have in the past (barring immigration from China for decades). Couldn’t we bar any visitors from Venezuela, or blondes, or short people, if we got the whim to do so? It’s the *practicality *of identifying & excluding a religion that’s under discussion.
Until some Americans start whining when their Christian relatives can’t visit from Malaysia or Pakistan or wherever.
Ah HAH! a perfect reverse barometer! Anyone who disavows Islam really is a Muslim, and cannot be let in. Of course, we can’t very well let in the ones who openly admit being Muslims either.
What are Trump’s plans to stop conservative terrorism? Does he realize that christian americans bomb abortion clinics? What about the KKK?
The First Amendment is not phrased in terms of the rights of people, or of citizens, to freedom of religion. It’s phrased in terms of the powers of the government, and the US Constitution is certainly binding on the US government. For Congress to pass a law excluding Muslims would be for it to do something it is expressly prohibited from doing.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was upheld by the Supreme Court, and remained in effect for 60 years until its repeal. IANAL but that seems like a kinda precedent.
What if they did some bizarre thing like requiring all US residents to eat a pork chop once a year or face expulsion? Without mentioning religion in the law? Make up some silly health rationale for the reason for the pork-eating test, like the GOP does when they pass laws restricting abortion, a constitutionally protected right.
Of course all the vegans and Jews will go too, but what are a few sacrifices in the name of um, what, insanity?
Please draw in a funny nose on this cartoon Muhammad.
A very great many Jews are just fine with eating a pork chop once in a while. Many others, while considering it a terrible offense, would simply force it down and then go through the rituals of purification after.
I’d bet that, even among Vegans, you’d find a bunch who would force down the pork rather than lose their homes and citizenship.
(Yeah, I know, it wasn’t meant totally literally.)
One would assume the ban would involve not granting visas so that the evil moos-lims never set foot on Christian US soil.
But yes, once on US soil, it’s a different game. I think it would be unconstitutional to kick someone out of the US because of their religion, even if they had just arrived a few minutes prior.