Trump's Muslim ban is unconditional

...

Drumpfy BTFO once again. Maybe he should read the constitution he's sworn to protect next time he tries to write an executive order

You wrote unconstitutional wrong

>phone posters
Phone posters should not be allowed to make threads

The Constitution doesn't apply to non citizens, especially people who aren't even in the country

>the constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
For citizens. The constitution does not apply to people from other countries. How fucking stupid are these people?

Winning

>unconditional...

The judges will be removed from the bench for moral turpitude...screenshot this.
Prasie KEK!

Its not a muslim ban

It only affect six muslim majority countries

Gfys

this
why the fuck are fags responding to a misspelled bait thread

This. How is this not pointed out at every opportunity?

It's funny how it wouldn't apply to me because I am White. In before any faggot uses le victim mentality, it's just the truth.

...

I think the guy is just a dumb mexican

I don't get what is the fuzz about this, the government just will deny visas from those places and no one can do shit about it. In fact have been denying visas from other places since forever and it have every right.

The other thing ICE will deport anyone that have not legal visa so the lefties are fucked and add to that the voter id and the democratic party is fucked.

if only it was unconditional

Intent is irrelevant so long as the law as written is constitutionally sound. By using his previous statements as a reason they're essentially implying the EO would be fine if written by anyone other than Trump.

If they let it go up to the Supreme Court it would get overturned in theory.

Its sad when the POTUS is doing nothing but try and protect his people.

Prevent the plain as day decent into darkness poor European countries are dealing with, prevent a Manchester bombing on US soil.

Yet libtards STILL cry, racism and religious descrimination about what is obviously a case of Trump being the "bad guy" "making the hard choices" to prevent American deaths.

Liberalism is literally a meantal illness. Libs would wrather have their children's blood running in city gutters, than to tarnish American political correctness.

Its sad. Progressive reformed Islam exists bur the vast majority are not. They praise jihadists, and they want to come to US soil and spill American blood.

This is literally the fall of Rome 2.0, we welcome our barbarian invaders with open. fucking. arms.

The jews have successfully subverted the US judicial system.

IT'S OFFICIALLY OVER!

F

>Its sad when the POTUS is doing nothing but try and protect his people.
From the liberal point of view, all people are one and must be forcibly joined together.

Time to go full fash.

Its cancer, their way of thinking. Oe global nation under Islam is what their thinking is creating.

>Its sad when the POTUS is doing nothing but try and protect his people.
You're delusional or doing propaganda.
The Manchester bomber was wahhabist from a mosque built and financed by Saudi Arabia.
The same Saudi Arabia your POTUS just armed to the teeth. Yet Dumb fuck like yous till cry because they refuse to see what's obvious.

>the US supplies Saudis with nail bombs
Really makes you think...

Banning people for religious reasons is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong.

Don't bother they string words together at this point

>Saudi
>armed
>drumpf
>financed mosque

Why is everyone blaming Trump when republicans are the ones who pushed for this? He's just their scapegoat.

Prove to me with the verbiage of the order this bans a religion.

it was a ban on specific countries not religion, nice larping tho

you see if they aren't from the US they have no US rights

It was a ban on specific countries, not religion you stupid fuck

...

Slam dunk in the Supreme Court.

1. The constitution does not "prohibit actions disfavoring or condemning any religion"
2. The constitutional protection of religion does not extend to non-citizens in foreign lands

Right, but don't play stupid.

The courts interpreted these bans as Trump attempting to make progress on his Muslim ban promise.

If Trump hadn't said all that shit during the campaign, this block would not be possible.

But the president still does not have the right to violate the constitution.

You're missing the point and playing into their framing if the issue. Even if the order specifically targeted Muslims, it would be constitutional. Because first amendment is for citizens in the country, not everyone on earth.

That is irrelevant. He can ban anyone for any reason. There is no rule against banning on religious grounds.

>If Trump hadn't said all that shit during the campaign, this block would not be possible.
you underestimate the activist judges

Except that's would have to be proved in the verbiage of the order to target Muslims only, this block is not possible besides for activist judges. Sorry your feeling are not evidence.

>If Trump hadn't said all that shit during the campaign, this block would not be possible
The SCOTUS has ruled against using this kind of extratextual search for evidence before

The Executive is granted supreme authority over every port of entry. You have no rights when crossing our border.

That's how we do things. The captain of the ship always gets the majority share of the blame. Obongo gets shit on by liberals for bitching out on single payer healthcare because corporatist democrats refused to vote for it, and deservedly so since he was the head of the party. If you can't get your chickens in order and accounted for, you have no business being at the top of the ticket.

Show where in the constitution it says bill of rights extend to non-citizens in foreign countries.

want to make the world a better place? kill a judge or lawyer

I'll take "Raping the 4th Amendment" for a thousand, Alex.

But Obama's 7 Muslim country ban was OK? Yup. we get it. Two tiered justice. Criminals get away with anything. They own the courts-funny how blackmailing pedos works so darn well.

>receive refugees
>send them all to california

will he do it lads?

Unfortunately that is not the case. The president cannot violate the constitution with executive orders like that, even if they pertain to foreigners.

The issue here is not the rights of the foreigners, but the limitations on the executive and the constitution itself.

If you don't understand, just go and buy a highschool civics textbook. It'll help clear things up.

THE FIRST CONGRESS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION TOO DURRRPPPPP. MUH SOCIAL JUSTICE KIKES NEED TO GET GASSED
>Congress passed the first "uniform Rule of Naturalization" under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed "any alien, being a free white person" and "of good character" who had resided in the United States for two years to become a "citizen of the United States" by taking an oath in court "to support the constitution of the United States."

Executive can block entry of anyone for any reason. Show where there is a violation.

Except it will be overturned as their is no verbiage in THE ORDER which can be linked to a targeting MUSLIMS ONLY.

this is why its going to be overturned and this ruling was apart of the plan to get there.

>The law is not unconstitutional, but he said mean things on his campaign trail, so we blocked it

Why do you amerilards let them do this? We have an excuse, we don't have guns, what's yours?

>"Muslim ban"
>doesn't ban Muslims.

wow, my amygdala is becoming super hyped.

there*

>a fundamental protection for all of us

Allowing shitskins who want to kill you into your country counts as protection?

Rome also fell due to overexploiting their natural resources, something conservatards have no problem doing.

What Obama did was slow visa applications until a more thorough vetting process could be put in place. This was done after a plot was uncovered by an immigrant who had not been vetted properly, and upon further examination it became evident that he was tied to bomb-making in Iraq. It is also helpful to Obama that he never, ever promised to ban Muslims entering.

Trump had a couple problems. First, he cannot point to a specific reason why he is doing this. Obama slowed visa applications because it became evident that our vetting wasn't good enough after a specific plot was identified which was enabled by shortcomings in vetting.

Second, Trump had promised again and again to stop Muslim immigration, so judges (In multiple appeals courts at this point) have all ruled that in the light of these comments and the arbitrary nature of the ban, it is just an attempt by Trump to make partially good on his promise to ban Muslims.

I'm not saying Muslim immigration is good. I'm saying the constitution forbids the president from doing what he attempted 2x to do, and that if he wants to stop Muslim immigration or Muslim refugees, he is going to have to come up with a blanket ban on immigrants and refugees that can't be so easily construed as targeting Muslims.

Supreme court here we come!

> it is unconstitutional not to import someone

How can you break that sort of conditioning?

The violation is that the courts see this as an attempt to make good on his promise. See this post >It will be overturned

That remains to be seen. The issue is that despite not explicitly banning Muslims, the arbitrary selection of those countries has few other explanations aside from an attempt to make good on the promise. Also see this post

>New
The United States can ban and expel any members of any group deemed to be a threat to the Sovereignty of the States and the well-being of the People.
>inb4 source
Read a damn book.

Muslims ban is coming.

It's not unconstitutional not to import someone, that is not why these bans were blocked by courts.

Ah shit well I gue-... oh..wait. hold on, there is this one little thing... I think they called it the NiN, err wait, no.. I think it was... AH YES here it is the NIA..National Immigration Act.

Days after the Manchester bomb which killed fucking children. Each day I grow more and more extreme, and unironically comfortable with fascism. It might be the only way at this point.

The sections of countries can be completely arbitrary if he liked and that's in the executive power. Unless you can link any verbiage of the order to "MUSLIMS ONLY" you cant apply past comments to the ruling and defend it there is not even a basis for this to be reviewed with that lack of quotable verbiage in THE ORDER.

>The issue is that despite not explicitly banning Muslims
this is where you lost and just proved their own case wrong as that's what they are implying it does.

it will be overturned simple as that.

>The violation is that the courts see this as an attempt to make good on his promise
Making good on a promise is not unconstitutional. Cite specifically the violation.

>First, he cannot point to a specific reason why he is doing this.
how about ISIS saying they were going to infiltrate the refugee population? should judges also not consider their words if they are considering the worlds of the president during his campaign? just hypocritical kikes trying to turn the jewdiciary into the supreme branch of govt. same shit they do whenever they are losing politically. they should all be hung

THIS will be cited in the SCOTUS decision to oveturn

save this post.

Stop arguing in their framing. It is irrelevant whether they are Muslim or not. Trump could specifically say "Muslims are banned from entry" and it would be perfectly constitutional. You are falling for the liberal trick of arguing some irrelevant point to avoid discussing the main point, which is that he can block entry of anyone for whatever reason.

Of course.

But Jews want to pretend that noncitizens have the same rights as citizens.

>I'm saying the constitution forbids the president from doing what he attempted 2x to do,
False. Cite where it forbids this.

I underacted this I am just showing how even their cited statutes do not apply and should expect not only to be overturned but a long winded scolding from scotus

Wait til it gets before the SCOTUS !

exactly. these people are complete shit. their religion is humanism and they should be mass murdered ASAP

We're all citizens of earth

> US Constitution

Doesn't protect non-US Citizens living in other countries. It's this kind of idiotic thinking that comes from ideology.

Sage

I understand*

Was it constitutional to let only Jews in from the USSR? It was! Then it's constitutional to not let Muslims in. Case closed.

That's not how logic works user....

>unconditional
Nice fuck up, retard. It's constitutionally valid, and has been done before. Sorry your retarded ass slept through school too much.

Actually yes it is given the argument behind the establishment clause. If the executive has the power to discriminate based on religion in the affirmative with foreigners it has the ability to discriminate in the negative. They're trying to make they argument that the executive can't discriminate at all and there is already precedent against that.

The ban will be upheld in the SC then likely expanded.

It's been more than 90 days. Has he "figured out what the hell is going on"?

Semantics.

Foreign nationals have no Constitutional Rights to move here. We can pick and choose how we see fit. Leftist Judges are writing law again and just using mental gymnastics to justify it.

>The violation is that the courts see this as an attempt to make good on his promise.

Lower courts, you mean.

They can be arbitrary, but they cannot be religiously motivated, which is what the courts have determined the intent was based on his repeated promises to limit a particular religion with regard to immigration.

The violation is that his intent was to reduce immigration based on religion.

Look, the problem is a fundamental constitutional issue. Even if Trump argued that he had a specific motivation to limit Muslim immigration, he would still not be allowed to single out a particular religion according to the constitution, which is what courts determined the intent was.

I would be repeating myself at this point, see my responses above in this post.

This is not about their rights, it is about the fact that we are forbidden by the constitution to single out a religion, and the courts have determined upon two appeals so far that this was indeed the intent.

If Trump wants to ban migrants, he has to do so in a way such that it cannot be argued that the intent is to single out a religion. Unless we have a constitutional amendment that makes it okay to discriminate against Muslims, he cannot do it.

NP because its not only allowing in Jews, its allowing them in faster/easier. If Trump somehow found a way to limit/slow down people from Syria, Libya, etc. without outright banning them than maybe it would fly

No, I mean every court which has looked at this so far. Unless the constitution changes its meaning depending on the court in which it is discussed, I anticipate similar results over time.

There is still the Supreme Court.

Can't this logic be turned around on itself? Why are Muslims getting special refugee preference? Is it because Democrats want to prefer Islam over other religions?

I'm a citizen of your house now let me in, its freezing outside

>We're all citizens of earth

Fucking leaf.

If Muslims across the sea are protected by the US constitutional right to freedom of religion, then both you and me have the freedom to bear arms due to the 2nd amendment.

Right, and based on the constitution they're probably going to rule the same way. Being conservative leaning or progressive leaning doesn't change the basic fundamentals.

They will see this order that he's appealing, they will consider the constitution and the precedent it would establish were they to overturn the stay on the ban.

If the president can single out Muslims he can single out Protestants, Jews or Catholics or anyone else he wants to.

Jokes on you I actually had a guy come to my door in the dead of winter and let him sleep the night.

Also nobody check'd my trips

Damn right we do brother, every person has a right to protect themselves

Did you give him some hot cocoa

This. Familiarize yourselves with US Code. He can ban anyone, for any reason, for as long as he wants

>If the president can single out Muslims

Again, where in the law does it single out Muslims?

If you're going to resort to anything other than the law itself either, don't bother responding.

>If the president can single out Muslims he can single out Protestants, Jews or Catholics or anyone else he wants to.

It isn't singling out Muslims. Muslims can still come from countries that aren't on the list being used, which was compiled by the Obama regime. Most majority Muslim countries in the world aren't even on the list.

This is just leftist judges using any means necessary to block the rightfully elected President's legitimate policies. It's disgusting. This is the swamp that must be drained.