News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Is a ban on Muslims legal???

Started by fencerider, February 03, 2017, 05:31:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

fencerider

Here is a question for all the lawyers out there....

If Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on American muslims, that ban would fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, if Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on foreign muslims, would that ban fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder? To what extent do Constitutional protections given to Americans apply to foreigners?

apparently some confusion because I didnt include this in the original post.

Donald Trump's action was done by executive order, making the current action impossible to be considered a Bill of Attainder.
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

pr126

It was legal back in 2011 when Obama did the same ban from the same 7 countries that Trump did just now.
The ban is effective for 90 days, same as Obama did it then.
There was no outrage. Crickets.

Why is all the hysteria now? I think we all know the answer to that.

Atheon

Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 06:00:18 AM
It was legal back in 2011 when Obama did the same ban from the same 7 countries that Trump did just now.
Only one country: Iraq, a country we were actually fighting a war in, and the ban was based on actual FBI evidence. You know, evidence? That stuff that corroborates the truth?

Here's some facts showing why there's no equivalence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.6d0f31debd5d
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

pr126

Fact checking from the mainstream media? Are you kidding me?

Atheon

Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 07:05:36 AM
Fact checking from the mainstream media? Are you kidding me?
The highest standards of journalism are in the mainstream, which is why they're in the mainstream. Sourced and professional.

Garbage like InfoWars and Breitbart are not news.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

pr126

Yeah. Right. For those whom want to be fooled.
There are millons of Americans whom disagreeing with you.


SGOS

Quote from: fencerider on February 03, 2017, 05:31:18 AM
Here is a question for all the lawyers out there....

If Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on American muslims, that ban would fit the definition of a Bill of Attainer; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, if Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on foreign muslims, would that ban fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder? To what extent do Constitutional protections given to Americans apply to foreigners?

I don't think we have any lawyers in the forum.  But it's an interesting question, and as it stands, I could only make guesses.

Atheon

Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 07:40:34 AM
There are millons of Americans whom disagreeing with you.
Indeed. Half the population is of below average intelligence, and those "millons" number among them.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

pr126

#8
And you and your comerades are the most intelligent.
Yes, we see the evidence daily.

With Ashley Judd, Madonna, Linda Sarsour role models.

Something to be proud of?

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on February 03, 2017, 08:48:44 AM
I don't think we have any lawyers in the forum.  But it's an interesting question, and as it stands, I could only make guesses.

Nobody (outside of Schengen in the EU) has a right to move to any other country, for visit or work.  And Schengen is dying (it was a very bad idea).  Ask the Japanese if it is OK to overstay your visa or move there permanently or work there ;-)  That is the norm.  Other countries play their own version of identity politics ... but none dare call them racists.  The innocent Japanese stubbed their toes at Pearl Harbor.  The UN may have some rules, and The Hague/Geneva Conventions may apply (particularly with refugees) .. but we know most countries ignore those.

The usual French way of avoiding something they don't like, isn't to repeal it, but to set up a single bureaucrat in an inaccessible office ... and give the visitors the Vogon treatment ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 10:52:14 AM
And you and your comerades are the most intelligent.
Yes, we see the evidence daily.

With Ashley Judd, Madonna, Linda Sarsour role models.

Something to be proud of?

This is why we didn't draft college students to Vietnam ... because like Jane Fonda, why would have defected to the Left immediately ;-(
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PickelledEggs

Technically, it's an immigration ban from select countries.

Unless, I am mistaken I don't think they're banning islam in the U.S.

Munch

Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 03, 2017, 07:47:57 PM
Technically, it's an immigration ban from select countries.

Unless, I am mistaken I don't think they're banning islam in the U.S.

that would be counter intuitive, since they now want to break separation of church and state. If they do that to islam to, then america officially becomes a new theocracy under christianity.. again!
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Hydra009

#13
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 03, 2017, 07:47:57 PMTechnically, it's an immigration ban from select countries.

Unless, I am mistaken I don't think they're banning islam in the U.S.
Correct.  They're not banning Islam.  It would be unconstitutional to ban Muslims simply for being Muslim.  However, it might not necessarily be unconstitutional to ban all immigration from a bunch of majority-Muslim countries, drastically reducing Muslim immigration and resulting in a de facto Muslim ban.

Monstrous and unconstitutional VS monstrous and constitutional - it's all in the wording.

PickelledEggs

#14
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
Correct.  They're not banning Islam.  It would be unconstitutional to ban Muslims simply for being Muslim.  However, it might not necessarily be unconstitutional to ban all immigration from a bunch of majority-Muslim countries, drastically reducing Muslim immigration and resulting in a de facto Muslim ban.

Monstrous and unconstitutional VS monstrous and constitutional - it's all in the wording.
Exactly. It's not unconstitutional. And even though there is a ban, it doesn't really even do anything. If this ban is really about terrorism, which it is not... it's about trade agreements... it just makes an extra step for "would-be terrorists".... assuming there will be "would-be terrorists". All anyone has to do is just go to a non-banned country first and fly in from there. So that shoots their logic in the foot. Maybe a little more difficult, but not much. All it really halts and slows is trade, which actually increases aggravation towards us in those countries and actually increases the likeliness of terrorist attacks. But it's not about islam at that point. It's about retaliation for us impoverishing their country.