Tell me what's wrong with simply telling someone to read the constitution

Tell me what's wrong with simply telling someone to read the constitution.

Rightists have been doing it for ages.

Can't take your own medicine?

Other urls found in this thread:

thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/dnc-angry-muslim-father-trump-basher-khizr-khan-reportedly-ties-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-organization/
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

What does the constitution have to do with imigration?

/thread

rot in hell shill, the day of the rope is upon us

Why do you bump this when its on page 6 and nearly dropping off, you must be shill too

Tell me where in the constitution it says that it's okay to discriminate people based on their religion.

guess what morehamhead the constitution does not give rights to non us citizens.

Tell me where in the constitution it applies to foreigners not even living in the US.

hey moron the constitution is for citizens of the United States of America. It gives no types of rights to foreigners whatsover.

You misspelt the word Koran user. Insallah.

thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/dnc-angry-muslim-father-trump-basher-khizr-khan-reportedly-ties-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-organization/

What difference does it make if we read it?
It's a living document subject to change at our whims, right?

I think that's the source of the indignation, that you guys who have no respect for the constitution want to drag it out when it suits you.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] or [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] or [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] or [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

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

actually it's permissible by the Constitution

Wtf

Libtards losing their shit over a temporary ban on Muslims when Jimmy Carter totally did the same thing when he was president (and legally).

FUCK YOU AND YOUR FACTS YOU SHILL

Oy vey

REMOVE KEBAB

>the libtards of today are not the same as the libtards of carter's day
gee who would have thought
are you legitimately retarded?

Concept of citizenship wasn't even defined in the Constitution until after the civil war.

When the founding fathers wrote it, if you lived in America and identified as American, you were American. None of these "your papers please" fascist bullshit Sup Forums is always spouting.

He's implying Trump said something unconstitutional.
Which he didn't.

>points out inconsistency and hypocrisy
>points out something that most people fo not know
>gets called retarded

12/7/14 never forget

>Tell me what's wrong with simply telling someone to read the constitution.

When you belive that Constitutional law is subordinate to Sharia law?

Quite a bit.

M A D M A N
A
D
M
A
N

>When the founding fathers wrote it, if you lived in America and identified as American, you were American.

Nope. The Founders considered land owning white male Christians as American and the rest subhuman trash. Hence why they were only allowed to vote. Lets correct the record together my fellow sandnig frenchie

>points out inconsistency and hypocrisy
except its not inconsistency or hypocrisy at all
that's like saying "nobody complained about the founding father's having slaves, so why should they complain if i have slaves now???"
because the attitudes of today are far different from ones that long ago you stupid cunt

Debatable. A ban on Muslims might indeed be found to be unconstitutional when challenged in court. Similar religious discrimination has never happened before in regards to American immigration policy, so there's not really any precedent to base this on.

Very likely the SCOTUS would strike it down though.

guess you can find more on linkedin... seem like unlikeable people, mostly (((woman)))...

>citizenship is fascist
kill yourself Melenchon

the Muslim ban has nothing to do with the constitution

Khan wrote in 1983 that Quranic law supersedes all laws

...

>None of these "your papers please" fascist bullshit

I want to beat you with a sack of oranges, and drink the juice in front of your broken body.

I can't see any situation where the SCOTUS could possibly find it unconstitutional.

Doing so would create a precedent that the US has absolutely no authority to decide what kind of people can immigrate into the country. That is completely absurd no matter how you look at it.

>Similar religious discrimination has never happened before in regards to American immigration policy, so there's not really any precedent to base this on.


JIMMY CARTER DID IT YOU FUCKING MONGOLIAN

Judicial precedence says you have to give rights to every person that enters or will enter the US.

"I mean COME ON! It's 2016, we shouldn't be vetting and monitoring people who come into our country from violent areas of the world! I mean, COME ON! It's 2016!"

You can't compare the matter of slavery to our national security, you fuck-wit. It's apples and oranges. Slavery has been denounced across the civilized world for quite some time now. National Security has been and always will be a staple of any civilized society.

Damn, even Ribbit swallowed the red pill.

I still don't know who's actually voting for hillary clinton - I hear about her supporters existing but I've never seen a single one in real life, they're more rare than unicorns, or Black trump supporters.

>lefty
>everyone else is stupid
>always with the unwarranted insults

Insecurity and a strong suspicion of his own inferiority confirmed for what makes a lefty who he is.

>ban on muslims
not a full ban, closer to a moratorium

think: Ellis fuggin Island

the constitution doesn't apply to non-americans

USC 1182 section f I believe.

>Judicial precedence
>Constitution
pick one

>USC 1182

Got it right here:

>democrats want to ban guns
>"read the consitution"
>the consitution is outdated, we must do something

>trump wants to ban illegals
>"have you read the consitution"
>WOAH Trump btfoed, how will he recover

>literally gives the president full reign to bar anyo foreign national he deems a threat from entering the country

The Supreme Court actually said that immigration is a completely Congressional duty and the SCOTUS and Constitution have nothing to do with it.

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

Prove me wrong shills.

Hey, anti-Constitution faggot. There's literally nothing unconstitutional about controlling immigration. Obama himself has done it using the same laws Trump would use.

OP ON SUICIDE WATCH.

OYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY GEVVAAAALLTTTTTT

Thats for voting and holding office doesnt say shit about noncitizens being allowed to immigrat here.

Thank you for Correcting the Record™

we the people of the united states of america . you fucing moron

constitution applies to americans

see

does everything you hear just go through a memeification filter in your brain? is that what this place has done to you? i pity you, honestly. that's pretty pathetic.

of course you missed the point, because you're a literal retard, so i guess i'll have to explain it to you.
i'm not saying banning muslim immigration would be bad. i'm saying that two different groups of people from different times have different political opinions and it's not inconsistent or hypocritical for both of them to exist. anyone with a functioning brain would understand this, but i'm on Sup Forums so clearly that's far too much to ask for.

>(((ecohen)))@correctrecord.org
oyyyyy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

Says nothing about allowing muslims to invade.

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

It does but deny and expelling immigrants is under the sole authority of Congress due to Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

It's permissible because of Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

Too bad your argument is irrelevant because of Harisiades v. Shaughnessy.

It has nothing to do with it because Harisiades v. Shaughnessy says Congress can do what they want concerning immigration.

>the constitution doesn't apply to non-americans

So you think that a legal alien visitor has no legal protections under the constitution?

...

with no survivors

like scientology, islam isn't a religion

go ask the wetback sitting in detention centers how well the constitution's working for them.

It also doesn't overrule Harisiades v. Shaughnessy.

So shills are completely BTFO.

visitor isn't the same as a literal sandnigger living in syria you fucking retard, we can keep out whoever the fuck we want, they don't have rights if they are not here.

>from different times
>goes from contrasting today's attitudes with attitudes 30 years ago to attitudes 150 years ago
No problems with the logic there, son.

Except what argument does the left give for wanting to keep immigration open? They make it a moral problem that can't be won by your standard Republican because then they whip up the 'evil hateful racist bigot xenophobe' argument that their side is so prone to.

They don't care about what we know of who is coming in, they don't care about how much damage uncontrolled immigration can do to our cities, they only care that every individual they focus their eyes on can get whatever they want in this country or they make them a huge sob story. There are billions of people on this planet, foreign aid can still happen but it needs to happen on their soil.

What other nations give you citizenship just for being at the ass end of a pregnancy and treating breaking the law as the endzone?

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Perhaps. There is no precedent, but the fact that it's religious discrimination makes it very difficult constitutionally.
Iranians != all Muslims.
Communists != all Muslims.

They do have right because we deny them in the United States, not Syria.

However under Harisiades v. Shaughnessy the Supreme Court said Congress have total authority over immigration.

all muslims outside the US = NON-US CITIZENS
WHICH MEANS THEY ARE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT, THEY DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

>No problems with the logic there, son.
no, there is no problem. if you can't fathom how staggeringly much the political attitudes and opinions of this country have changed in even a mere 30 years then that's your own fault.
your whole post is so shockingly removed from anything i said i genuinely wonder why you bothered replying. i would ask you to re-read it but i'm not sure even with that you would be able to comprehend your stupidity.

reminder that cesar chavez was ridiculously anti-immigration

>syrians have to arrive in America before we can tell them we are not accepting syrians
that makes literally no sense

They give emotional reasons but the real reason is that they depend on voter fraud to win anything. Even better if they can just round up a bus load of third worlders and drop them off at the polls.

The Supreme Court said that they have no authority to tell Congress how to conduct immigration.The case wasn't just about communists.

That's not how SCOTUS works.

I love all the european mudshits trying to tell us americans what we can and cant do.

US Customs are in America m8.

He's a terrorist inflator who wrote sharia law reviews calling for Muslims to kill all gays and infidels.

>There is no precedent

See:
Jimmy Carter did the exact same thing with Shiite Muslims.

No, it doesnt, the constitution applies to citizens, also he clarified his statements months ago

there is also a file with all their full names linkedins, facebooks, twitters and other social media floating around, though linking it is insta b&

Especially when SCOTUS said they can do what the fuck they want in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

Tell me where it says that the first amendment is a suicide pact.

Holy fuck you are retarded

>but the fact that it's religious discrimination makes it very difficult constitutionally.
>constitution
>non-americans
>constitution
>non-american

do you retards even understand why Guantanamo Bay even exists?

Syrians don't have to be in the US for the US gov to say
>we are not accepting anyone from Syria, don't bother showing up

I'm sorry that precedent is Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

>immigration for all kinds of shitskins no matter the religion was prohibitied for hundreds of years
>now it's somehow unconstitutional to let in sandniggers who tend to blow themselves up in public places

Not all opinions on immigration have. It's just the left that has gone full-blown useful idiot.
This may make it seem to you as though everyone's attitudes have really changed dramatically but that is just another of your leftist delusions.

>aussie knows nothing of how law works

Wouldn't expect anything less from a country founded by white criminals.

But they're turned away at Customs. You tell them you aren't accepting them at US Customs.

Other countries aren't going to do our customs work for us.

The rights granted in the Constitution are granted to the CITIZENRY not to foreigners

>retarded

Don't do that. Be better than them.

But if you don't let them into the country they don't enter into your jurisdiction and therefore don't fall under being Constitutionally protected.

And since they don't have a right to be here, your assertion falls apart.

>political attitudes
>opinions

Opinions and attitudes don't matter when talking about what the constitution allows and doesn't allow.

That's the point of having a constitution.

>rights granted
>granted
>constitution

>Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

Thanks for defeating yourself. :) EASY.

>implying that is a problem.
The courts have ruled border entry points are Constitution free zones.

>lgreen
L-Laci Green?

meant for

It's an expressed power of the President to ban any or all immigrants.

None of you people have a right to come here.

>Concept of citizenship wasn't even defined in the Constitution until after the civil war.
False
>According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4

>The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

Congress makes the rules, laws, and procedures that involve obtaining citizenship. The Executive branch enforces those. And were provided Emergency authority by those rules.

8 U.S. Code § 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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.