Is the "Muslim ban" constitutional?

Is the "Muslim ban" constitutional?

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
youtu.be/aGOwEOTYfuE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

...

It's not even a muslim ban, Saudi Arabia, an numerous other muslim country's aren't on the list.

It's racist. There's gotta be something about it in the American rules book.

>flag

It's not a "Muslim ban"

Temporary restraining orders generally last up to 14 days. They can be extended, but the idea is to hold a full hearing on an injunction instead. Of course, a higher court can overturn the restraining order in the meantime, but that didn't happen yet.

The fact that we can't even ban Muslim scum outright is proof that Democracy sucks.

>(((opinion)))

we're not a true democracy tho

Muslim is not a race

We can deny anyone entry into this country for any reason whatsoever. Once they're here is when it gets difficult. That's why we need to keep them out.

>Saudi Arabia, an numerous other muslim country's aren't on the list.
We still allowing travel from France and Sweden also....So no it is not a muslim ban.

at least they admitted this was an opinion piece

(it isnt)

>generally
not an argument. what the president says, goes.

if this were 1817 the people preventing the enforcement of the executive order would be hung. we have a lot of traitors in our midst.

LMAO at all you cucks. The Australian Constitution specifically has a "Race Power" clause to empower the federal government to legislate anything they want on any race. It exists so we can exclude non-Whites and legislate against them.

It's a temporary travel ban from nations from a list that the Obama administration drew up when there are other nations with a greater percentage (KSA, 100%) and quantity (Indonesia, 202.9 million) of Muslims.

If Trump banned travel from Poland, would that be a christian ban?

The question is rather is unconstitutional a reason? They changed laws for migrants in USA all the time.

no

plenty of liberal and neutral legal experts have said so

supreme court will agree with Trump

It's not a muslim ban, it's a ban on countries that breed terrorists. It's not unconstitutional because the constitution of the US only applys to US citicens, you faggot

>Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called "the race power", is the subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution granting the Australian Commonwealth, the power to make special laws for people of any race.

>Edmund Barton (Australian George Washington) had argued in 1898 that s 51(xxvi) was necessary to enable the Commonwealth to "regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth".[1] The section was intended to enable the Commonwealth to pass laws restricting such migrant labourers such as the Chinese and Kanakas. J Quick and R Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901), observed: "It enables the Parliament to deal with the people of any alien race after they have entered the Commonwealth; to localise them within defined areas, to restrict their migration, to confine them to certain occupations, or to give them special protection and secure their return after a certain period to the country whence they came."

I'm legitimately upset we're not hanging these people

That fact alone makes me think Trump isn't legit, and he's a plant. Everyone knows it's treason. Everyone knows the protestors in the streets aren't even citizens.

But there are no hangings....... suspect.

I don't think Trump is legit. It's all a circus. Liberals vs big bad Trump while nothing in particular is accomplished. The biggest deceit yet. Faker than 9/11. Sup Forums got fucking fooled, bros. And it's going to hurt hard since shills have been unironically telling us this for months.

>we thought we were winning

>Is the "Muslim ban" constitutional?
Grey area.
On the one hand, the president has executive powers relating to deciding who can and cannot enter the country.
On the other, the judicial branch has the ability to reign in those decisions when they conflict with other laws, such as establishment of religion.

Currently, it was deemed unlawful by several judges, and the bureaucracy will slowly kick it up to the SC, so the point is moot until that's dealt with.

whats taking so long, its literally within the law to start executing leftists
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

>flag

See I honestly believe we got jewed, man. The outrage is totally manufactured to keep 'right wing retards' believing they're winning.

>Muslim ban

Except it isn't. Muslims from every single country on Earth can enter the US except seven countries, and even then it's tied to citizenship so christians from those countries can't enter either.

Fucking morons up playing this just how they call Trump Hitler, getting my hopes up for nothing.

>CNN as a reputable accurate source

Nobody has the right to come to America

The reason and constitution doesn't matters, they changed 50 times immigration laws since USA started to exist.

Has trump appealed yet? when do we find out if it's coming back?

If California bans state funded transport to Kansas over LGBT rights concerns, does that mean its a Christian ban?

DELET THIS

It's not a Muslim ban.

This is MSM disinformation.

Why do you still watch CNN, MSNBC, fox, cbs, abc?

> heeelllloooooo CTR!

Its not a ban on a religion you fucking leaf

No wait you are are a leaf.

Of course.

> land of C U C K

Look at this fucking shut

>it's not a muslim ban!
fucking cucks.

i dont care if it's fact. fuck you for even saying that shit. it's as bad as "i'm not a racist! the democrats are the real racists!"

fucking reddit shit. you should be ashamed of yourselves. Fuck this place and fuck all you shillbots.

exactly, its also within the law to btfo cnn and their ilk along with soros and these fucking rioters
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

Has trump appealed yet? when do we find out if it's coming back??

Holy shit, talk about fake news. They're literally falsifying two claims in less than 50 characters.

No wonder they removed comments from their site a couple of years ago. They're reaching Sun/National Enquirer-tier headlines.

40 muslim majority nations

7 nations banned

>its a muslim ban!!!1!

it's not a muslim ban but it should be

Has Trump called it a Muslim ban? It only matters how it is written and it only describes political and geographic factors. If this ends up in the Supreme Court, expect libshits to get BTFO on an epic scale.

I wish it was a Muslim ban.

Yes, it's constitutional. Quite frankly, I think the Constitution should be amended to explicitly preclude Islam from the freedom of religion.

This. We're in a contemporary version of the Crusades, except instead of Catholicism, it's Islam.

Sure... Not all Catholics were Crusaders.. But all Crusaders were Catholics. SJWs love to criticize Christian religions, so why can't they even examine possible parallels?

Has trump appealed yet?? when do we find out if it's coming back?

nobody has given a single FUCK about the constitution for 100 years.

you think we wanted to see women and niggers working when we went outiside? THATS the dream we all have for our country?

fuck off, retard.


Yes! APPEAL! That will work! Let's meekly appeal in the face of treason

Fuck this weak ass country of cucks.

>wake up in the morning
>brew coffee
>step outside for the paper
>greeted by wetbacks with jetpacks
>noise droning out the birds

Yeah, this is what we fought wars and died for. Why even save this fucking shit, honestly?

>go back inside disgusted
>open the paper
>headlines are about how great niggers are
>fuck white people

This is your world, though. This is America.

Trump is "appealing" so this stops?

Maybe 8 years of quietly appealing, and things will be different. Trump will step down (because it's the law, of course. You can't serve more than 2 terms!), and America will just be changed for the better! People will be conscious of politics and mindful to what they vote for!

There’s an awful lot of misinformation floating around about the idea of Due Process under the U.S. Constitution, and the power of the federal judiciary in relation to immigration law. This federal judge(s) are simply virtue signaling and none of these stays will hold, here’s why;

It's entirely true that the Fifth Amendment affords not just citizens, but also any alien within the legal jurisdiction of the United States the right to Due Process, and all that ordinarily goes with it: the right to a speedy trial, reliance on rules of evidence, protection against unenforceably vague laws etc.

The problem for aliens as regards their immigration status, however, is that Due Process is not owed in relation to determining whether they are to be allowed to enter or reside in the United States, because these determinations are not criminal trials. The result of an adverse finding in respect of immigration is deportation, not imprisonment, and is therefore not considered a "denial of liberty" by the Courts.

It was very firmly decided in a 1952 Supreme Court case called Harisiades v Shaughnessy, which involved the question of whether an immigrant who was formerly a Communist could be excluded on that basis, that the power of Congress to set conditions on immigration status for aliens is essentially unfettered, and not within the scope of the judiciary's role to alter. In that very case, and expressing profound ideological disapproval of Congress' exercise of that power, Frankfurter J wrote in his concurrence with the majority that upheld the deportation order against the Appellant:

"In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit. One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

1/2

With 8 U.S. Code § 1182(10)(f), Congress empowers the President to make such orders excluding *any* group of aliens he deems a threat to the security of the United States:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

The executive order in question was crafted so as to *very clearly* fall within the purview of the power delegated to the President by Congress in that provision, and makes explicit reference to it.

Any judicial finding adverse to the legitimacy or effect of that executive order *necessarily* involves finding 8 U.S.C. § 1182(10)(f) unconstitutional, and therefore necessarily involves overturning Harisiades v Shaughnessy, which no Court but the Supreme Court of the United States is empowered to do.

There is no conclusion a competent and intellectually honest lawyer can reach other than this emergency stay being a colossal step beyond the boundaries of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington's power to enjoin the Executive from enforcing valid law, and that it is very, very likely in the end to be overturned and could easily backfire politically.

2/2

Lol CNN is just actively peddling fake news now
They no longer care
Daily reminder that 44 (FORTY-FUCKING-FOUR) Muslim-majority countries can still grt valid visas to the US

150 million Muslims live in Indonesia, more than all of the 7 countries combined and they are still welcome too.

What Muslim ban?

No wait. Women will still be in the workforce because Trump doesn't have the FUCKING STONES to do anything. Just like every other cuck who made it into office.

We're totally and completely fucked. And if you think a system of commerce can work where BOTH members of the family are expected to work, then you have no fucking clue.

The leverage of man is DONE. DESTROYED. America is DEAD. There is only a circus of destruction that plays out to keep you motivated to "achieve"

and what is achievement? Saving money at a bank.

It would be if it were a muslim ban

Wasn't it pretty much impossible to get citizenship or even permanent residency for non whites prior to 1965 with the exception of natives and descendants of negro slaves?

This is a big deal. If the appeals court doesn't side with trump it could be months before this goes to the supreme court and during this time anyone who wants to could enter this country and not be turned away

Why don't you?

It's not a Muslim ban, so the "Muslim ban" is FAKE NEWS

You are fighting in the only way that matters.

Godspeed.

You think fucking Muslims are terrorists... Fucking great. IN EUROPE MAYBE.

Here's our terrorists:

Chinks on the coasts
Spics in our lawns and backyards
niggers on the streets
Indian fucking dothead NIGGER SHITS coding complete BULLSHIT in our universities
Women

Don't even fucking BOTHER waking up. Because it's already too late.

Muslim-majority countries included in Trump's ban:
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
Yemen
Somalia

Muslim-majority countries not included in Trump's ban:
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Egypt
Jordan
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Niger
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Turkey
Algeria
Sudan
Morocco
Uzbekistan
Maldives
Tunisia
Western Sahara
Tajikistan
Mayotte
Azerbaijan
Comoros
Algeria
Djibouti
Senegal
Kosovo
Gambia
Mali
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Oman
Guinea
Qatar
Sierra Leone
Bahrain
Kazakhstan
Brunei
Malaysia
Lebanon
Burkina Faso
Albania
Chad
Bosnia-Herzegovina

My recurring digits confirm that you're full of shit, you fucking leaf. Suck my balls

Muslim ban? Then why didn't we ban countries that have bigger Muslim populations such as Saudi Arabia, India, or Indonesia?

HAHAHAHAHA EYEAH GUYS YOUR SO SMART

"ITS NOT A MUSLIM BAN!"

HAHA

I GUESS YOU
>WON AGAIN

it is not unconstitutional, the POTUS has the capacity of veto the entrance of any alien that is deemed a threat or detrimental to the interest of the US as a nation state

...

>i-it's not a muslim ban

HOW WEAK ARE YOU?

>>xQD1wSFA
>Is the "Muslim ban" constitutional?
No but it's Haram

>"It's muslim ban!"
>it bans Somalis, Sudanese, Libyans, Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, Yemenis
>no mention of Muslims
>is based on nationality
>as such it bans Yemeni Jews and Iranian Zoroastrians and Syrian Christians and Iraqi Yazidis
>"It's a muslim ban!"

Really makes you think.

That looks to me like 'any class of aliens' could easily be Muslims. They should have just banned all muslims

just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it's constitutional, it's just words on a page.
What trump is doing is unconstitutional.

$10 to the man who finds an argument in this post.

Not sure if retardation or top-tier bantz

It doesn't matter now that it's been cancelled. You can stop being mad now.

FUCKING cuck

>Muslim ban
At least your put it in quotations.

Yes, it is completely Constitutional, according to the Supreme Court.

We didn't take Muslim immigrants before 1965.

We didn't take communist immigrants during the Cold War.

>Lgbt rights

What fucking rights do they have or diserve?

Fuck off liberal scum

Are Indonesians not Muslim anymore?

It stems from this conversation. Around 3:15
youtu.be/aGOwEOTYfuE

Does it matter?

The language in the ban was something like "terrorism prone countries" and never mentioned islam or muslim. If the resident cant ban people for wanting to kill Americans then truly we live in strange times

>Absolutely Haram.

>limiting immigration from countries with known active terrorist organisations
>banning immigration from these countries before Muslims

The EO was horrifically worded, granted, but it's not an outright ban on Muslims is it?

I think not banning muslims is unconstitutional. Look at us in Canada. They come here in droves, get almost $50k for doing nothing, and then they are pissy they don't get more free money and are expected to find a job. Oh, you didn't bother learning English in the year you spent doing absolutely nothing? You didn't look for a job in that year either? Yes, that is very unfair. We should have been more sympathetic and learned Arabic and vacated Canadians from choice jobs so all the refugees could be gainfully employed...

Fuck refugees and fuck Trudeau! Legal weed is not worth this shit!

Yes.
It's a bill of our rights, not a bill of everyone else's rights. Some of those rights are guaranteed to you in any interaction you have with the US, but citizenship is firmly in the domain of the beneficence of the people.

I swear I overheard someone say something like this unironically at lunch just a bit ago

That section is from our laws not the constitution.

All these fucking retards are making me wish it was a muslim ban

Lol

How's it a Muslim ban, if the Saudi's can get in?

The Constitution applies only to people on US soil - it doesn't apply to anyone outside the US, even for natural-born US citizens living abroad, because they are subject to the laws of whatever country they are living in. With that in mind, an immigration block on a certain group of people cannot be unconstitutional, because those people are outside the country and thus are not afforded protection by the Constitution. But for arguments' sake, remind me where, in the Constitution or its amendments, it says anything at all about immigration or the rights of immigrants to enter the country. Anywhere at all. I'll wait.

jesus the retarded "not an argument" shit.

It's a fucking argument you goddamn moron.

It's a fucking argument against the constitutionality of the ban based on precedent.

The word "generally" is actually a very important part of the argument because it explains that there is precedent for both short and long bans.

It's pretty much the only argument available at this point because it is clear that the ban is well within the bounds of the law as it is written, and when ambiguities start to creep up, law goes by precedent.

>People from other countries talking about the Constitution

Doesn't say Muslims so no

DELET THIS

Since when do liberals give a shit about the constitution ?