Where specifically in the constitution does it indicate that we HAVE to allow immigrants into the United States?

Where specifically in the constitution does it indicate that we HAVE to allow immigrants into the United States?

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

you mean illegal immigrants?

Are you implying that the constitution can stump the trump??

You know the saying, nobody reads the constitution? Did you read the constitution? Have you gone over the amendments? Have you fact-checked the various acts put in place after the constitution was writ?

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment deals with naturalization, and the constitution itself does not deal with immigrants, but rather deals with the nature of naturalization. If someone comes to America with the intent of immigrating there, and becoming an American citizen, the government can't exactly deny them that given right, given to them via the 14th Amendment, if it isn't backed by compelling foreign policy goals.

Due process was the legal argument against the ban, officially, though. Allegedly.

Y'all need to check your statutes. Yes, some may argue that the amendments and the acts are not directly part of the constitution itself, as amendments are modifications to the original constitution, and the acts are not necessarily amendments. This does not mean that they have nothing to do with the quality of being constitutional, though. It also does not mean that they are not laws that the American government must abide by.

it doesn't.

the legal case and argument surrounding the ban is regarding the intent and whether or not it was just a way of instituting a muslim ban without explicitly saying so.

some of the evidence being pieced together comes from his tweets, campaign promises, a recent interview with giuliani and a particular segment of the executive order itself. if the right plaintiff(s) come along, a strong case can be made that the executive order targets a religious subgroup, and *that's* what raises the question of constitutionality.

not a lawyer but i've been trying to read up on this as much as i can; i gather that context and intent is an important component of determining the legality of any law or executive order. would love to get an actual lawfriend opinion on how this could play out

The united states was BUILT AND FOUNDED by immigrants. Hell the USA was almost german speaking. Everything about the US is based on immigrants.

not illegal ones or ones that want to kill us all.

The Constitution of the United States of America and the rights granted by that document only apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS. We are banning entire countries, not just Muslims. It's not a religious test, we're simply picking 7 nations that people cannot be properly vetted and we've stopped people from coming from those nations.

Where specifically in the constitution does it indicate that we HAVE to have seven days of the week?

Where specifically in the constitution does it indicate that we HAVE to drive on the right side of the road?

Where specifically in the constitution does it indicate that we HAVE to have a flag with white and red stripes, a blue rectangle and white stars?

The United States was BUILT AND FOUNDED by LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL. Not refugees and asylum seekers. Not illegals who crossed the border under the radar.

This is incorrect. It is not lawful to violate the constitutional rights of legal aliens or visa holders.

For your failure, I sentence you to not speak about this topic for one month.

tell that to the massacred Native Americans and their ancestors who still live like shit on reservations

IMO Washington state has a more compelling argument as they have actually provided evidence of how the ban has hurt the state and its residents.

>legal immigrants
>17th century religionfags who walked off a boat, built a settlement, and kicked Indians from their own lands

pick one

Maybe this is nitpicking, but those religionfags were there way before the 17th century, just under a different name and a different flag, with a different language, and different ways of governance.

they had no laws stopping us from coming, so we came and took over. Not even my problem, I wasn't there to do anything and you weren't either. get over it, history is history.

Japan barely lets anyone in. And noone cares.

yeah but those acts aren't being called unconstitutional retard

They aren't white

this is like a Game of Thrones fan who after six seasons still believes in "rightful heirs."

laws are words on paper man. There are laws that say you can't own more than 1 dildo, laws that prevent whaling in landlocked states.

I put no stock in laws of men. natural law is best law

they didn't have the constitution, and you proved his point.

then go live in the woods, I'll even help!
have fun!

>doesnt understand what natural law is

Indians had government and law. how do we know we didnt break a law?

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy that we're saying the very thing our ancestors did was fine, but it isnt noww

I keep seeing this thing about 8USC sub section 1667, or there abouts, that says the President can restrict immigration or even visitors from foreign lands by proclamation alone. If true, the President can close the borders to all but citizens just because he wants to

And that happened, from shortly after WWII to the mid 60s there was almost no immigration permitted.

And yet there are other parts of the constitution or various amendments that amend this in varying degrees.

it says it on the ellis island part

8 USC is Section 8 of the United States Code and would have been passed into law AFTER the Constitution. It also would not take Constitutional actions to amend it or even cancel it all together, being its just law

Where in the Constitution does it say paying people to pee on each other is morally wrong. Where does it say I should not pee on children and gaslight them into telling their mothers it was their stepdad who did it.

Dis nig act like he read

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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.

What a severely moronic debating tactic.

no where and Obama did the same thing libtards were fine with it

Right, but the Executive Order requires that power be granted to said Executive by a legislative power- by the Constitution, or by an act of congress. You're right, it wouldn't take constitutional actions to amend or cancel the law itself, and maybe I phrased my reply badly. But when I said that there would be "other parts of the Constitution, or various amendments that would amend (this) in varying degrees", I mean that it would take constitutional actions to amend or cancel the actions that the law itself necessitates, if said actions that the law describes are in fact taken. It is subject to the Constitution and its amendments, not the other way around. As such, if the courts deem it so, the Constitution et al can be invoked in such a way, that they amend the act that would follow from the Executive Order, which in this case, would simply be perceived as a changing or outright cessation of the actions that the government would be required to follow given said Executive Order. By the Constitution and its amendments.

The part where it bans discrimination based on race, religion, and country of origin for one. But I wouldnt expect a Trump supporter to actually know the Constitution and its amendments.

but the order was legal when Obama did it so....
its legal when trump does it

Actually it wasn't the same thing, if you read what each of them actually did.

sure if you believe the alternative facts