@DDH The reason Trump's position about Muslims fails is because it would be illegal and not congruent with the constitution. The government can not discriminate based on religion.
This is incorrect. Banning immigration of a specific country or religion can be permissible if there is a sufficient government interest behind it. Its been done before and will be done again.
DokuDokuH, if I had to guess, doesn't want to share his country. Trump has created an illusion that the refugees are trying to destroy our culture and kill us. This is quite the opposite of reality. The refugees are fleeing from a hateful regime that is trying to destroy their culture and kill them. They're not dangerous, they're in danger.
You can say this all you want, but not a single one of you has yet to address the turmoil in europe. As long as you remain dismissive of reality, your opinions have zero merit in this discussion.
A minority percentage of all Muslims i.e. specific Muslims.
Pew Disagrees. More than half of young french muslims always support suicide bombers. A quarter of all european muslims do as well. A quarter wouldn't report terrorist activity if they knew about it. anywhere from 10-30% support sharia law in europe. You have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about.
Did you pay any attention to the context of that quote or do you not care?
I care about context at LEAST as much as you care about reading what I respond with.
Those are not the same thing. I was saying that temporarily stopping immigration in the way suggested by Trump is the broad brush method. And unless you think Muslims, generally, are the problem, you should agree with me. If you read what I said, I provided clear reasons why continuing with 'the broken system' is a good option.
There are consequences for stopping immigration.
You provided zero reasons why continuing with the system is a good option other than, literally, trump's way would "do more harm than good" with no source or even logic behind it. Give me a well thought out approach to immigration that doesnt involve stopping muslim immigration to the US (which btw, is an incredibly small percentage of our total immigration), and we can then discuss the merits of either approach. But as it stands, you're advocating for the current system, which the FBI has stated allows people to come in with absolutely no ability for our government to determine who they are or why they are coming in, and I'm for stopping this until we can create a better, safer system.
But I don't see much talk of the rate of Muslim refugees suffering consequences because of restrictions on immigration. I see plenty of talk on how it has consequences to the people from the countries talking about it though. I wonder why that would be.
Exactly. People are inclined to be selfish.
I fail to see how being concerned about yourself and your loved ones more than strangers is a bad thing. What kind of cruel psycho can look at their daughter and think that exposing her to a huge risk of rape and violence is okay if a handful of strangers get helped?
Your assuming, quite uncharitably, that political correctness rather than, I don't know, wanting to help refugees, was the motivation for their actions.
Chances are given the number of people we're talking about, there are different people motivated for each.
Considering that the leadership of europe has ignored even the rape crisis and generally just called critics of immigration policy racist, I'm going to go ahead and keep believing that until you can prove otherwise. Politican's jobs are to protect and enforce the will of the people, and european leaders did the exact opposite.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course they cared for and considered the consequences.
Merkel has stated that they did not appreciate the risks and that they have lost control of the situation.
and as a result caused the largest culture and rape crises in europe since the middle ages.
Citation needed.
Sure, I've cited a ton before, but here is one. As far as culture goes, just do a quick google - entire small villages in sweden are being displaced. Merkel's approval dropped from 75 to 20. Poland abolished the national Council Against Racial Discrimination. Leaders in nearly every country are going to be replaced by reactionary conservatives. Are you just being douchey for the sake of it, or are you genuinely not aware of how terrible the situation is in europe?
And Muslim refugees don't want to denied access to refugee in other countries. Again, focusing on the downsides for the people in the country and not the refugees trying to get in there. Why don't you compare the consequences for both sides?
Frankly, if helping others puts the people I care about at seriously greater risk of harm, **** that. If you want to call it selfish, go ahead - I call your perspective insane.
The problem is that specific Muslims and specific Christians and specific Buddhists and specific....
Muslims are by far not the only group that threatens core US values. They are merely a group that gets a lot of attention.
Did you know there are American citizens who have made public statements threatening a civil war?
But it isn't specific muslims - its sizeable percentages of all muslims.
Where in the civilized world do Muslims still practice stoning?
Saudi arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Northern Nigeria, Aceh in Indonesia, Brunei, and parts of Pakistan. (I'm aware not all of those would be part of the civilized world, but thats the short list from wikipedia and I'm lazy) There are also honor killings that occur in europe, though those are much harder to track since they occur in areas where muslims do not allow non-muslims to enter and threaten anyone that does.
What should be done is implement immigration regulation that addresses the actual problems and not broad brushes methods.
This is literally the trump policy - temporarily stop immigration, find a more effective solution, and implement it. What would you do while we determine the best course of action? The only actual options I see are continue with the broken system or stop it.
But I don't see much talk of the rate of Muslim refugees suffering consequences because of restrictions on immigration. I see plenty of talk on how it has consequences to the people from the countries talking about it though. I wonder why that would be.
Most people (understandably) care for the safety and happiness of themselves and their loved ones before others. When someone else's happiness involves raping your daughter, of course you're going to complain. This is the point - european leaders decided to be politically correct and imported muslim refugees with no care to the consequences, and as a result caused the largest culture and rape crises in europe since the middle ages. I don't want that to happen here - hence why I think working out a better solution is the correct way forward, and why I'm so dismissive of anyone that still believes it is bigoted to recognize those facts.
While Trump did advocate in favor of murder and theft, and he clearly has issues with women, he has yet to actually advocate rape.
Issues with women? The man personally shattered the glass ceiling in the construction industry, and women have already come out calling bull***** on stories published about his supposed sexism.
If we're talking issues with women, lets talk about hillary threatening bill's rape victims & enabling his sexual predation. Lets talk about hillary reducing the mother of sean smith to tears after lying to her about her son's death, then trying to make the mother seem like the politically motivated jerk. Lets talk about hillary receiving massive amounts of money from the saudis and other muslim leaders who have REAL issues with women.
There's also the fact that in the US at least the major group waging a war on women and people who aren't straight and/or cis is the Republican Party, so it's not like people don't have a good reason for getting mad about them.
If you're going to equate the treatment of women in the US to treatment of women in muslim countries - FML, do you just pull this crap straight out of your ass? The "war on women" is a statistically disprovable talking point on the left, and fighting against serving cakes to gays in a private business is multiple orders of magnitude less than throwing them off buildings for existing. There is absolutely no equivalence in how we treat any of these groups and how, say, the saudis do.
Most of the pro-human rights laws on the books today throughout the world are the result of secular thought, rather than one religion over another. The people drafting those laws can certainly be religious people, but when for example the US has a culture of separation between religion and law, it becomes much more difficult for religious ideas to influence our lawmaking. And make no mistake, the Q'ran is not the only religious book which advocates doing horrible things to other people. The Bible and the Talmud are both full of atrocities by today's moral standards. The issue in areas which follow Sharia law, for example, isn't that they're using Muslim ideologies over Christian or Jewish faiths, but that the ancient religion is influencing the law at all.
I mean, if the Founding Fathers were fundamentalist Christians instead of largely being Deists, and if they avoided separating church and state, the US would probably look a lot more like one of those Sharia law countries.
I agree. I'm not advocating that the US become a nation ruled by the bible - only that western religion has had the largest impact on our culture and formation of our government of any force or movement out there. I LIKE our mostly secular government and I don't want religion to rule.
The problem is that muslims clearly disagree with our system - look at europe. Look at the rape, the no-go muslim zones, the polls showing huge percentages supporting sharia law, believing that suicide bombing is justified, and being more loyal to islam than to the country they reside in. Look at merkels public apology for the mass importation of muslims into germany - hell, look at her dropping from nearly 80% approval to 25% - less popular than Bush at his lowest. And sure, the bible has also advocated some *****ty things - but where in the civilized world do christians still practice stoning? The demonstrable fact is that mass, unregulated importation of muslims into the western world has caused nothing but hell, and the continued calls to ignore those facts in the name of political correctness are what will fuel trump and push more people into supporting him. It sucks - I'd like a better candidate than trump, believe me - but that's just how its going to be as long as people continue to deny reality.
"It's all YOUR fault! If people would just be more racist and intolerant and bigoted, then we wouldn't have to vote for Trump!"
Just... Wow.
Yeah, wow - THATS how you're going to spin this? Look, you can dress up your bull in whatever flowery accusational language you want, but until you show me a europe that isn't on the brink of cultural collapse due to muslim migration, you'll only continue to prove me right.
But its important to note that it isn't in line with muslim values
... Not just the bigotry, not just the ignorance, but the flippancy with which it is said and the utter smugness the post drips of just makes my skin crawl.
The answer is no, you do not get to take entire swaths of people and call them rapists and violent criminals. This is one of the many principles at stake in this election, and this is why your faction will lose and must lose for the good of this republic.
What makes my skin crawl is that you can be so dismissive of the horrors of an ideology that has proven, every time it has held power in any part of the world, that it will institute laws that violate human rights in ways so terrible that they shouldn't exist outside of horror films. This bull***** refusal to even acknowledge facts when they slap you in the face - this is why trump, a complete ******** whose campaign is only eclipsed in vagueness by Obama's first run, is in the goddamn lead. The rise of his ideology is your fault. Anything genuinely *****ty he does is on your shoulders. Kid yourself all you want, but your "principles" that deny reality are what will end up handing the election to trump. Have fun with it.
If you're going to equate the influence that christianity and english has had on the development of the states to fish and chips, we have nothing more to discuss on this matter. The absolute lack of respect for our history and lack of understanding of culture's impact on society is astounding.
It does seem like a irrelevant points since Trump's proposals and US immigration policy in general are clearly not based on Christian values.
I think that preventing murder, rape, theft are very much in line with christian values.
I think that preventing murder, rape, theft are very much in line with Sumerian values.
But its important to note that it isn't in line with muslim values
If you're going to equate the influence that christianity and english has had on the development of the states to fish and chips, we have nothing more to discuss on this matter. The absolute lack of respect for our history and lack of understanding of culture's impact on society is astounding.
It does seem like a irrelevant points since Trump's proposals and US immigration policy in general are clearly not based on Christian values.
I think that preventing murder, rape, theft are very much in line with christian values.
Since you missed it the first time. The Conservative party over has just attempted to run a massive smear campaign against Sadiq Khan. Which included the claims made about Suliman Gani.
You've entirely failed to prove anything other than some british conservatives also have associations with extremists. You've also failed to address every other point I've made. Can I assume that you concede those as true?
I never said that an illegal immigrant now gets the right to stay here because of EP. But, they do have a right not to be singled out for deportation on the basis of their race, religion, national origin, or any other protected class. Next to the statements that Trump has made about Mexicans all being rapists, murderers, and so on, the suggested policy is to take action against people coming from Mexico on that basis alone. That’s discrimination, not the application of immigration law.
Ah, I get what you're saying now - is this the part where I point out that trump wants to deport all illegals, and not just mexicans? You're conflating his statements about problems that specifically mexican illegals bring into the states with his policy of deporting all illegals. So again: if you have a legal theory that supports the statement "deporting illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants is racist", do tell because I've yet to hear it from you.
As for policy banning immigration from Venezuela, first, immigrants that are yet to arrive here don't have the right to Equal Protections. Second, differentiating based on an immigrant's national origin does not necessarily trigger EP analysis (even though national origin is a protected class), as long as there is a rational basis for the policy. So I'm not saying it's invalid as a matter of law, but next to the statements Trump has made that Mexico is sending rapists, murderers, etc, I would leave it up to you to wonder how a court would weigh evidence in determining discriminatory intent. I would say that the coup in Venezuela would give the Obama administration more than enough grounds for a rational basis (if a challenge were even brought), but Trump's absurd policy statements would have no legs to stand on.
The only group of people that trump has specifically sought to exclude in this way are muslims. Can you concede that, taking into account the mess in europe, that a ban on muslim immigration is at least as rational as the ban on venezuelans?
It's possible that you might disagree with me on that question. But to believe that illegal immigrants have no rights because they are illegally present here is absolutely not correct.
They have less rights, not no rights.
So, your understanding of our government is that the Legislative or Executive articulates a policy objective with each action, then that act "forces" the courts to evaluate the constitutional validity of the law against that objective alone?
No, the court does get to determine what they believe the purpose of a law is. Statutory construction is the sole purview of the judiciary. Source? About the single most famous case that every High School history student will have heard of – Marbury v. Madison.
Are you suggesting that the proponent of a law does not get to state their purpose of what a law exists to accomplish? We must have a miscommunication here - Of course the judge gets to decide the validity of the stated purpose, and can even infer a purpose if they believe it to be different, but are you really suggesting that the initial purpose isn't presented by a law's proponents (for which they often receive tremendous leeway)?
Maybe, and I’m going out on a limb here, the Patriot Act does not justify what the Trump campaign claims that it does?
Even if it does, what you need to understand that is that this law will also be reviewed under the same constitutional analysis as the enforcement act itself. So even if the Patriot Act said on its face that “this allows the President to ban Muslims from entering the US”, that law is only as good as its ability to withstand constitutional challenge on Equal Protections grounds.
So if you don’t feel I’ve addressed the Patriot Act, it’s because no meaningful distinction whatsoever exists in our constitutional rights due to that law. There is probably a law on the books that the administration would claim authorizes it nearly every single time a constitutional challenge is brought, but if that were the end of it, we essentially wouldn’t have any private rights the government couldn’t take away whenever it wanted.
Okay, you're not listening - the patriot act interpretation is trump's justification for witholding remittances from illegals sent to mexico - and while it isn't guaranteed that it'll work, I've outlined both a plausible legal theory and precedent for practical application for this to happen.
That’s the thing about stare decisis. The most recent decisions are the valid ones, notwithstanding the vote count or the dissent. You might as well claim that the government doesn’t have to obey the Civil Rights act, because it’s “only in the past 50 years that it has applied” and there were “serious dissents”.
But in the first place, what case held that those illegally present in the US are to be deprived of Due Process? Honestly, I want to know where you’re getting this. That sounds like something that could only be pulled out of thin air on a “I think it’s fair, so it must be this way” basis.
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, Knauff v. Shaughnessy, Kleindienst v. Mandel, Mathews v. Diaz et al. - You don't see the court even touching immigration policy or treatment of illegals until the late 80's for the most part. It is the recent activist courts that have chosen to weigh in on it - with the Zadvydas case being the point where they really began attacking plenary power, and that was in 2000.
There’s also a serious difference between “when Trump gets in power, nominates his own judges, etc” and saying that policies as proposed by his campaign in the now would be valid. As someone aspiring to the highest office, Trump should be able to commit to polices that are capable of being enacted without him assuming dictatorial powers. If he’s going to peddle “should’a could’a been’s”, then don’t you think he should make it clearer that this is what they are?
I think the important thing is to determine what he can reasonably implement - but if we're worried about assumption of dictatorial powers, maybe we should start with a discussion of obama's executive orders?
There is a difference between playing a “central role” and playing an official role.
Sure, American culture is influenced by Christianity, the English Language, the British Commonwealth, and Fish and Chips. It’s also influenced by reality TV, the Miss America Pageant and Trump University. But guess what? When it comes to deciding who gets their property rights restricted, who gets deported, and who can live in peace, those things don’t matter.
What matters are the constitutional rights guaranteed to every person present in the territory, which Trump has shown entirely too much inclination to trample over as they apply to groups he doesn’t like.
If you're going to equate the influence that christianity and english has had on the development of the states to fish and chips, we have nothing more to discuss on this matter. The absolute lack of respect for our history and lack of understanding of culture's impact on society is astounding.
A Trump administration might try to use the Patriot Act for this but they would get massive fight on their hands. The banks would love to fight against new rules and regulations where they could claim the moral high ground for a change. Using the Patriot Act to stop money transfers to terrorists and drug cartels is one thing but this would be stopping poor people from giving money to their families. It's not even a national security issue but rather an attempt to extort money from another country.
He was asking for the legal theory, so I gave it.
But I do agree - it'd be a hell of a fight for them to get their interpretation through, but there is precedent for western union giving the government fine-grain access to transactions, so it is practically possible if they can pass judicial scrutiny.
You are really rather uninformed. The pro Sharia law types hate Sidiq Khan due to him coming out in support of Equal marriage rights. Here it might help if you read about him not the caricature that Zack Goldsmith unsuccessfully tried to peddle during his diabolically awful campaign to become Mayor of London.
Funny how the wiki doesn't mention him calling moderate muslims uncle toms, or that he was the defense lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, his (non-legal) defense of Azzam Tamimi's statements, or his associations with Suliman Gani and other insane muslim extremists. But hey, if I ever want a completely biased edit of a person's history, I'd be happy to consult with your links again
By "clarify them afterward," do you mean "go back on them completely?"
In the same way hillary clarified her "putting coal mines out of business" comment, yeah. Come on now - Trump speaks off the cuff FAR more often than any other candidate - especially when compared to hillary, who won't adjust her collar without a cue from her handlers. If you're going to take every trump statement at face value and insist that he means exactly that despite near immediate clarifications afterward when he overstates something dramatically, you're not looking at trump in context, and you'll continually be wrong. This kind of mentality is what has led so much of the establishment and pundits to underestimate his campaign.
First, you can't just say "there's plenty of legal theory to back me up", when you're not even able to give a Cliff Notes version of the legal theory you're claming exists. You're just saying - "I believe such and such, and yeah, I'm sure there's legal theory to back me up because I believe that idea. I'm sure that whatever law exists that might go against my opinion isn't settled law, because my disagreement with it means it's not settled." Sorry, but having a contrary opinion does not entitle you to revisit issues that your betters (The Supreme Court) have already decided against you. The issue is in fact settled that constitutional protections apply to everyone physically present in the US, not just citizens.
Wait, let me backtrack here a second - you're arguing that deporting illegals, who are committing a crime by entering the united states, are afforded some kind of constitutional protection that lets them avoid deportation? PLEASE articulate a legal theory that states that Joe Mexico who came here illegally has the right to stay here instead of getting kicked back to where he came from and made to wait in line like everyone that isnt breaking the rules. What I was talking about is that courts have given the government tremendous leeway with dealing with immigration law - hell, Obama JUST banned all venezuelan immigrants from entering the US, and there is no legal outrage about it. I've also articulated the legal theory behind all of these things in the past few comments - why should I restate and source it two comments later?
While on the topic of the judiciary's place in government, I should mention that the proponent of a law does not get to decide what it's primary purpose is in terms of strict scrutiny analysis. You might think that the purpose of biased, pernicous laws are to prevent illegal immigration, and the legislation might even be supplemented with statements specifically to that effect. But, judges still get to decide what the actual compelling government interest behind a law is. Next to Trump's statements that "Mexico is sending us rapists, murderers, etc" it's a cake walk from there to determine what the intended purpose really is. If you're honestly interested to know, the judiciary will look at three things to assess discriminatory intent: 1) whether the impact is so "stark and dramatic" that a law is unexplainable on non-discriminatory grounds, 2) the historical background suggests discrimination, and 3) the administrative and legislative record show intent. I'll leave you to yourself to wonder how courts would view the historical backround of the statements Trump has made
I don't need a rundown of how strict scrutiny works. I'd argue that for the VAST majority of these policies, strict scrutiny wouldn't even apply. But you're very incorrect in your statement here - If the government can make a case that there exists a compelling interest in protecting the border/national security/whatever, the judge then determines the validity of that interest. The judge does not get to pick what he believes the interest is. And to dismiss the leeway that the judiciary gives to the government in these kinds of situations shows a serious lack of how the branches of our government view and interact with one another.
But to begin with, Trump's policy proposals don't just touch on deportation and border control. I suppose that's a clever sidestep, but there's no way that's going to work. Trump promised to make Mexico pay for the wall by restricting cash tranfers to Mexico (not part of immigration law), to deny services to the natural born offspring of illegal immigrants (not part of immigration law), and so on.
So building a wall to keep illegals out somehow doesn't touch on border control - how? Again, see above - the transfers of money made by illegals to mexico can be regulated and stopped under the patriot act. Stop meshing several distinct legal issues together. As it is, the border wall, deportation of illegals and muslim ban and strictly immigration law, and the transfer ban is under the patriot act, as I've now stated at least four times.
I will grant the fact that the plenary power doctrine in immigration law still has some relevance. It's in dispute, but still relevant. Basically, there are two competing views - the view that equal protections does apply to immigration law, and the view that the question is still undecided whether there are some cases that the plenary power doctrine applies instead. No one holds the view that Equal Protections unambiguously does not apply, because that view would be impossible next to the last 40-50 years of immigration cases in the Supreme Court, which has applied equal protections doctrines to immigration law.
Some relevance? Courts have been hands-off with immigration law for nearly all of american history. In fact, up until recently, courts upheld things like complete deprivation of due process to illegals - something only activist courts have ignored, stare decisis be damned. Its only in the past 20 years that the courts have really moved to act on immigration decisions by the executive branch - and those decisions have been narrow 5-4's with serious dissents. When trump appoints a justice that supports his anti-illegal policies, is there really any doubt that the court will move back in a more reasonable direction?
Again, having an opinion on it doesn't require society to revisit things that have already been decided against you.
Go and find any book on Constitutional Law. You will find that, no, a "value system based on European religion" is not a part of our governance, government respecting no establishment of religion means exactly that, and English fluency is not a prerequisite to the equal protection of the law. Also no, the willingness to assimilate is not a prerequisite for private rights either. You might might feel that they ought to be, but as a life lesson here, your sense of what ought to be doesn't make it so.
It happens to be everyone else's view that "what makes America American" is in fact our freedoms under the constitution, our guaranteeing them to everyone regardless of status, and our welcoming of other cultures across the world (including European), regardless of their willingness to integrate. You're just wrong here.
To deny that western religious values play a central role in the development of our government suggests a pitiful lack of understanding of how this country was founded. I'd suggest that you take your own advice - you may think that being american is limited to our freedoms granted by the founding documents, but willful ignorance of 200+ years of history won't change the fact that america has a culture that includes a language and a value system.
This is incorrect. Banning immigration of a specific country or religion can be permissible if there is a sufficient government interest behind it. Its been done before and will be done again.
You can say this all you want, but not a single one of you has yet to address the turmoil in europe. As long as you remain dismissive of reality, your opinions have zero merit in this discussion.
Pew Disagrees. More than half of young french muslims always support suicide bombers. A quarter of all european muslims do as well. A quarter wouldn't report terrorist activity if they knew about it. anywhere from 10-30% support sharia law in europe. You have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about.
I care about context at LEAST as much as you care about reading what I respond with.
You provided zero reasons why continuing with the system is a good option other than, literally, trump's way would "do more harm than good" with no source or even logic behind it. Give me a well thought out approach to immigration that doesnt involve stopping muslim immigration to the US (which btw, is an incredibly small percentage of our total immigration), and we can then discuss the merits of either approach. But as it stands, you're advocating for the current system, which the FBI has stated allows people to come in with absolutely no ability for our government to determine who they are or why they are coming in, and I'm for stopping this until we can create a better, safer system.
I fail to see how being concerned about yourself and your loved ones more than strangers is a bad thing. What kind of cruel psycho can look at their daughter and think that exposing her to a huge risk of rape and violence is okay if a handful of strangers get helped?
Considering that the leadership of europe has ignored even the rape crisis and generally just called critics of immigration policy racist, I'm going to go ahead and keep believing that until you can prove otherwise. Politican's jobs are to protect and enforce the will of the people, and european leaders did the exact opposite.
Merkel has stated that they did not appreciate the risks and that they have lost control of the situation.
Sure, I've cited a ton before, but here is one. As far as culture goes, just do a quick google - entire small villages in sweden are being displaced. Merkel's approval dropped from 75 to 20. Poland abolished the national Council Against Racial Discrimination. Leaders in nearly every country are going to be replaced by reactionary conservatives. Are you just being douchey for the sake of it, or are you genuinely not aware of how terrible the situation is in europe?
Frankly, if helping others puts the people I care about at seriously greater risk of harm, **** that. If you want to call it selfish, go ahead - I call your perspective insane.
Calling sterling grove right now. My bant enchantress deck in edh is crying happy tears.
But it isn't specific muslims - its sizeable percentages of all muslims.
Saudi arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Northern Nigeria, Aceh in Indonesia, Brunei, and parts of Pakistan. (I'm aware not all of those would be part of the civilized world, but thats the short list from wikipedia and I'm lazy) There are also honor killings that occur in europe, though those are much harder to track since they occur in areas where muslims do not allow non-muslims to enter and threaten anyone that does.
This is literally the trump policy - temporarily stop immigration, find a more effective solution, and implement it. What would you do while we determine the best course of action? The only actual options I see are continue with the broken system or stop it.
Most people (understandably) care for the safety and happiness of themselves and their loved ones before others. When someone else's happiness involves raping your daughter, of course you're going to complain. This is the point - european leaders decided to be politically correct and imported muslim refugees with no care to the consequences, and as a result caused the largest culture and rape crises in europe since the middle ages. I don't want that to happen here - hence why I think working out a better solution is the correct way forward, and why I'm so dismissive of anyone that still believes it is bigoted to recognize those facts.
Issues with women? The man personally shattered the glass ceiling in the construction industry, and women have already come out calling bull***** on stories published about his supposed sexism.
If we're talking issues with women, lets talk about hillary threatening bill's rape victims & enabling his sexual predation. Lets talk about hillary reducing the mother of sean smith to tears after lying to her about her son's death, then trying to make the mother seem like the politically motivated jerk. Lets talk about hillary receiving massive amounts of money from the saudis and other muslim leaders who have REAL issues with women.
If you're going to equate the treatment of women in the US to treatment of women in muslim countries - FML, do you just pull this crap straight out of your ass? The "war on women" is a statistically disprovable talking point on the left, and fighting against serving cakes to gays in a private business is multiple orders of magnitude less than throwing them off buildings for existing. There is absolutely no equivalence in how we treat any of these groups and how, say, the saudis do.
I agree. I'm not advocating that the US become a nation ruled by the bible - only that western religion has had the largest impact on our culture and formation of our government of any force or movement out there. I LIKE our mostly secular government and I don't want religion to rule.
The problem is that muslims clearly disagree with our system - look at europe. Look at the rape, the no-go muslim zones, the polls showing huge percentages supporting sharia law, believing that suicide bombing is justified, and being more loyal to islam than to the country they reside in. Look at merkels public apology for the mass importation of muslims into germany - hell, look at her dropping from nearly 80% approval to 25% - less popular than Bush at his lowest. And sure, the bible has also advocated some *****ty things - but where in the civilized world do christians still practice stoning? The demonstrable fact is that mass, unregulated importation of muslims into the western world has caused nothing but hell, and the continued calls to ignore those facts in the name of political correctness are what will fuel trump and push more people into supporting him. It sucks - I'd like a better candidate than trump, believe me - but that's just how its going to be as long as people continue to deny reality.
Yeah, wow - THATS how you're going to spin this? Look, you can dress up your bull in whatever flowery accusational language you want, but until you show me a europe that isn't on the brink of cultural collapse due to muslim migration, you'll only continue to prove me right.
What makes my skin crawl is that you can be so dismissive of the horrors of an ideology that has proven, every time it has held power in any part of the world, that it will institute laws that violate human rights in ways so terrible that they shouldn't exist outside of horror films. This bull***** refusal to even acknowledge facts when they slap you in the face - this is why trump, a complete ******** whose campaign is only eclipsed in vagueness by Obama's first run, is in the goddamn lead. The rise of his ideology is your fault. Anything genuinely *****ty he does is on your shoulders. Kid yourself all you want, but your "principles" that deny reality are what will end up handing the election to trump. Have fun with it.
But its important to note that it isn't in line with muslim values
I think that preventing murder, rape, theft are very much in line with christian values.
You've entirely failed to prove anything other than some british conservatives also have associations with extremists. You've also failed to address every other point I've made. Can I assume that you concede those as true?
Ah, I get what you're saying now - is this the part where I point out that trump wants to deport all illegals, and not just mexicans? You're conflating his statements about problems that specifically mexican illegals bring into the states with his policy of deporting all illegals. So again: if you have a legal theory that supports the statement "deporting illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants is racist", do tell because I've yet to hear it from you.
The only group of people that trump has specifically sought to exclude in this way are muslims. Can you concede that, taking into account the mess in europe, that a ban on muslim immigration is at least as rational as the ban on venezuelans?
They have less rights, not no rights.
Are you suggesting that the proponent of a law does not get to state their purpose of what a law exists to accomplish? We must have a miscommunication here - Of course the judge gets to decide the validity of the stated purpose, and can even infer a purpose if they believe it to be different, but are you really suggesting that the initial purpose isn't presented by a law's proponents (for which they often receive tremendous leeway)?
Okay, you're not listening - the patriot act interpretation is trump's justification for witholding remittances from illegals sent to mexico - and while it isn't guaranteed that it'll work, I've outlined both a plausible legal theory and precedent for practical application for this to happen.
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, Knauff v. Shaughnessy, Kleindienst v. Mandel, Mathews v. Diaz et al. - You don't see the court even touching immigration policy or treatment of illegals until the late 80's for the most part. It is the recent activist courts that have chosen to weigh in on it - with the Zadvydas case being the point where they really began attacking plenary power, and that was in 2000.
I think the important thing is to determine what he can reasonably implement - but if we're worried about assumption of dictatorial powers, maybe we should start with a discussion of obama's executive orders?
If you're going to equate the influence that christianity and english has had on the development of the states to fish and chips, we have nothing more to discuss on this matter. The absolute lack of respect for our history and lack of understanding of culture's impact on society is astounding.
He was asking for the legal theory, so I gave it.
But I do agree - it'd be a hell of a fight for them to get their interpretation through, but there is precedent for western union giving the government fine-grain access to transactions, so it is practically possible if they can pass judicial scrutiny.
Funny how the wiki doesn't mention him calling moderate muslims uncle toms, or that he was the defense lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, his (non-legal) defense of Azzam Tamimi's statements, or his associations with Suliman Gani and other insane muslim extremists. But hey, if I ever want a completely biased edit of a person's history, I'd be happy to consult with your links again
In the same way hillary clarified her "putting coal mines out of business" comment, yeah. Come on now - Trump speaks off the cuff FAR more often than any other candidate - especially when compared to hillary, who won't adjust her collar without a cue from her handlers. If you're going to take every trump statement at face value and insist that he means exactly that despite near immediate clarifications afterward when he overstates something dramatically, you're not looking at trump in context, and you'll continually be wrong. This kind of mentality is what has led so much of the establishment and pundits to underestimate his campaign.
Wait, let me backtrack here a second - you're arguing that deporting illegals, who are committing a crime by entering the united states, are afforded some kind of constitutional protection that lets them avoid deportation? PLEASE articulate a legal theory that states that Joe Mexico who came here illegally has the right to stay here instead of getting kicked back to where he came from and made to wait in line like everyone that isnt breaking the rules. What I was talking about is that courts have given the government tremendous leeway with dealing with immigration law - hell, Obama JUST banned all venezuelan immigrants from entering the US, and there is no legal outrage about it. I've also articulated the legal theory behind all of these things in the past few comments - why should I restate and source it two comments later?
I don't need a rundown of how strict scrutiny works. I'd argue that for the VAST majority of these policies, strict scrutiny wouldn't even apply. But you're very incorrect in your statement here - If the government can make a case that there exists a compelling interest in protecting the border/national security/whatever, the judge then determines the validity of that interest. The judge does not get to pick what he believes the interest is. And to dismiss the leeway that the judiciary gives to the government in these kinds of situations shows a serious lack of how the branches of our government view and interact with one another.
So building a wall to keep illegals out somehow doesn't touch on border control - how? Again, see above - the transfers of money made by illegals to mexico can be regulated and stopped under the patriot act. Stop meshing several distinct legal issues together. As it is, the border wall, deportation of illegals and muslim ban and strictly immigration law, and the transfer ban is under the patriot act, as I've now stated at least four times.
Some relevance? Courts have been hands-off with immigration law for nearly all of american history. In fact, up until recently, courts upheld things like complete deprivation of due process to illegals - something only activist courts have ignored, stare decisis be damned. Its only in the past 20 years that the courts have really moved to act on immigration decisions by the executive branch - and those decisions have been narrow 5-4's with serious dissents. When trump appoints a justice that supports his anti-illegal policies, is there really any doubt that the court will move back in a more reasonable direction?
To deny that western religious values play a central role in the development of our government suggests a pitiful lack of understanding of how this country was founded. I'd suggest that you take your own advice - you may think that being american is limited to our freedoms granted by the founding documents, but willful ignorance of 200+ years of history won't change the fact that america has a culture that includes a language and a value system.