The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Pete at Home on December 14, 2015, 09:11:39 AM

Title: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 14, 2015, 09:11:39 AM
Does anyone have any argument to support the assertion that the Constitution prohibits Congress from creating a test of religion to foreigners seeking to enter the country?

Does the constitution have any blanket clause prohibiting Congress from doing something that is morally wrong?

Is it a good thing for elected federal leaders to lie to the people about what  the Constitution says?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 14, 2015, 10:13:27 AM
I don't think that position is directly supported. But It's not an unreasonable to say that the first amendment implies that protection.

On the other hand this:
Quote
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Seems to be what people cite, which is not really applicable, because I don't think you can bend the concept of "public trust" enough to include immigration status.

Far better to make the argument based on interpretation of the 1st Amendment, even if it's purely a matter of interpretation at that point.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 14, 2015, 11:09:38 AM
If the first Amendment affects immigration then it should also prevent the no fly rule from operating based on someone's publications or affiliations. See the problem?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Wayward Son on December 14, 2015, 11:12:55 AM
Perhaps you could provide a link so we could see exactly what brought about this accusation of Federal leaders lying about the Constitution (i.e. the specific lie you are talking about).

Until then, I would have to agree with Pyrtolin; creating a religious test smacks of establishing a "state religion."  Why would one religion (let's say, Christianity or Buddhism) be "more equal" than another (say Islam or Judaism)?  Why would anyone consider any individual more or less worthy of coming into this country based on their general religious belief?  Especially when most religions have such broad beliefs that some members consider others not even to be part of the religion!  ::)

And while the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from doing something that is morally wrong, I think there is a general prohibition among the electorate from doing so.

(Besides, Pete, who actually determines that any given interpretation of the Constitution is a "lie?" ;))
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: D.W. on December 14, 2015, 11:25:20 AM
Lets say the issue was forced (and I kinda think it should be).  What changes?  They (those attempting to restrict or stop Muslim immigration or asylum seeking) shift to targeting "people from areas with strong terrorist presence as they represent a security risk."  There, no direct mention of religion, problem solved!  But wait, we want to let in the Christians...  Hmm.  Well, we could make allowances for persecuted classes of people from those areas.  Then all we need is for those Christians to be a minority or for any groups of Muslims to be actively killing some of them.  In at least large enough number that the news can build up a strong narrative about it to sway the people here that it needs addressed.

I guess what I'm getting at is, what changes besides the language used?  Now some language flies in the face of "what we stand for as a country" so blatantly that it must be changed.  Policy wise though, does this make a difference?  Is it a lie?  Do we, as a country, just need to have some policies 'framed' properly before we sign off on it and can sleep at night?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Seriati on December 14, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
Does anyone have any argument to support the assertion that the Constitution prohibits Congress from creating a test of religion to foreigners seeking to enter the country?
What kind of argument?  Congress certainly put all kinds of unpalatable and racist restrictions on immigration historically, kind of implies they had the authority.  The actual limits would be based on the free exercise clause, which is tough to use here.  To me the problem is that that immigration is not a right or entitlement.  Congress could bar all immigrants from some or all regions on an arbitrary basis if it chose, but I'd think they'd get overturned by the courts if they did it on a discriminatory basis without some sort of reasonable explanation.  Religious tests would probably not pass mustard, but barring immigrants from the middle east, even with exceptions for say non-muslims facing persecution, would have a good shot.  Probably 5-4 split one way or the other.
Quote
Does the constitution have any blanket clause prohibiting Congress from doing something that is morally wrong?
You mean like imposing an obligation on citizens to buy a privately offered product?  Apparently not.

Don't think you can get an absolute agreement on moral right and moral wrong, makes it hard to measure the Constitution against it.
Quote
Is it a good thing for elected federal leaders to lie to the people about what  the Constitution says?
No.  However, that's the wrong question, the right question is whether they will be held accountable for it.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 14, 2015, 01:16:35 PM
" Congress certainly put all kinds of unpalatable and racist restrictions on immigration historically, kind of implies they had the authority"

agreed.  To my knowledge no immigration restriction has held to be unconstitutional.
If the USA could declare war on the Mormon church (as occurred in the. 19th century) it can certainly, say, restrict immigration of persons who believe that DAESH is Allah's grand Caliphate, or that Khomeini is a holy man, etc.

Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 14, 2015, 01:45:06 PM
I don't see what the 1A has to do with immigration.  That is an executive function and can be constrained however the INS rules dictate.  If it can't be restrained, then quotas would also be in violation.  Nobody is claiming that what Trump is proposing technically breaks any laws, but that it violates the spirit of American principles.

I've heard FOX talking heads argue that what Trump did is no different from what Carter did during the Iran hostage crisis.  They were very different things.  Carter sought (successfully) to deport Iranians who came to the US on student visas and overstayed the time allowed or dropped out of school.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Seriati on December 14, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
Carter sought (successfully) to deport Iranians who came to the US on student visas and overstayed the time allowed or dropped out of school.
Not going to say it was the same thing, but Carter also prohibited any Iranians from being issued visas and coming into the country (with exceptions).  Are you trying to imply otherwise?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 14, 2015, 03:27:04 PM
Carter sought (successfully) to deport Iranians who came to the US on student visas and overstayed the time allowed or dropped out of school.
Not going to say it was the same thing, but Carter also prohibited any Iranians from being issued visas and coming into the country (with exceptions).  Are you trying to imply otherwise?
Carter's visa policy was this:
Quote
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.
The visa ban was not complete and was confined specifically to Iranian citizens, with which country we were effectively in a very hostile government supported hostage crisis fueled by their internal revolution that used strong anti-American rhetoric.  Carter's action was a harsh non-military tactic taken for justifiable reasons aiming for a well-defined objective.  Trump's Muslim ban is a far cry from that kind of reasoned action, and is entirely a xenophobic over-reaction that will lead to crazies doing harm against Muslims already in the US and will advance the ISIS agenda abroad.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 14, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
I agree that a ban on all Muslims immigrating would be an overreaction.  However, I do think that a more specific religious test for entry would be appropriate, denying entry to those who think ISIS/DAESH is the true Grand Caliphate, and to those that revere Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Seriati on December 14, 2015, 04:41:16 PM
So in other words AI Wessex, exactly what I said it was. 
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: D.W. on December 14, 2015, 04:50:22 PM
Why Pete?  Do you honestly believe that there will be those who's beliefs will not allow them to lie on that score if they did believe it?  So you embarrass or offend some and get to force some to lie?

Is there an interpretation of the Koran which forbids them to lie about such things?  I'm pretty sure there is an interpretation that gives a nod to lying to the enemy if the need arises.

Keep religion the F away from immigration.  Let's at least pretend to separate church and state now and then.  If we can't help ourselves on that front, then at least we should come up with policy that may have some practical application or benefit.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 14, 2015, 05:31:51 PM
I don't see what the 1A has to do with immigration.

Not on immigration directly, but on the free exercise of religion. A religious test on immigration would be a de facto limit on free exercise.

(Limits based on county of origin, race, political affiliation, etc... are different matters, not relevant to 1st amendment questions.)
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Seriati on December 14, 2015, 05:52:04 PM
I don't see what the 1A has to do with immigration.

Not on immigration directly, but on the free exercise of religion. A religious test on immigration would be a de facto limit on free exercise.
It would not, which is why I covered that in my initial response.  There is no bar on free exercise, unless you believe that a non-citizen has a right or entitlement to immigrate.  Now if they were removed for conversion after they arrived, you might be able to swing that argument.

The only reason I think this wouldn't clear the court as a religious bar is that we find that kind of limitation repugnant on its face and I believe the courts would go to great lengths to construct a remedy.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 14, 2015, 07:17:12 PM
So in other words AI Wessex, exactly what I said it was.
It happens!
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 14, 2015, 09:54:04 PM
Why Pete?  Do you honestly believe that there will be those who's beliefs will not allow them to lie on that score if they did believe it?  So you embarrass or offend some and get to force some to lie?

Is there an interpretation of the Koran which forbids them to lie about such things?  I'm pretty sure there is an interpretation that gives a nod to lying to the enemy if the need arises.

Shall we get rid of all laws just because people can lie?

If they lie, at least they won't openly proselytize Isis and Khomeini.  And Americans won't be forced to be culturally sensitive to Khomeini's goat *censored*ers. Forced to take Khomeini out of the books as an historical terrorism supporter just because some immigrants think he's a holy man. 

Besides, you can be caught in a lie.  A rule that reduces 15% of Isis/Daesh trash would be worth it.

Freedom of religion should not mean America is not free to reject dangerous Isis corpse *censored*ers and Khomeini goat *censored*ers.  If an American wants to pick that *censored* up the first ame dent protects, but we don't have to let the losers in.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 14, 2015, 10:30:02 PM
I'm really not comfortable with ideological tests for immigrants. I'm not fond of racial or nationality tests but they're reasonably objective and would be quite difficult to do away with. Ideology is harder to pin down and allows for greater obfuscation and unequal application of the law. It sets a bad precedent: today, Daesh and Khomeini gets you stopped; tomorrow, you need to swear on the Bible. It strikes me as likely to result in unpleasantness.

Quote
If they lie, at least they won't openly proselytize Isis and Khomeini.
Once they're in, it'd be hard to stop them. If they've made it through immigration, it'd be fiendishly difficult to prove they'd lied.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 15, 2015, 07:42:42 AM
The truly good reason not to be comfortable with people's ideological statements is that they are tied to nothing.  Jeb Bush said only Christian refugees should be allowed into the US.  When asked how to know if someone is Christian he basically said, just ask them, we'll know.  How many people will goof up and admit that they are ISIS sympathizers and only realize their mistake later upon reflection after their application is denied? 

The only way to prevent anybody objectionable from entering the country is to deny entry to everybody.  But, since the husband in the San Bernardino shootings was a natural born citizen from Chicago, a hotbed of Democratic Party activism, lawlessness and insurrection in the US, we'll have to flush out undesirable citizens across the entire country, too.  If some on the right have their way, that could amount to about half of the adult population being escorted to the nearest doorway built into the new wall.  In a twist on a favorite Republican meme, first they came for your voting records, then for your donation history, then for ...
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 15, 2015, 10:46:06 AM
It would not, which is why I covered that in my initial response.  There is no bar on free exercise, unless you believe that a non-citizen has a right or entitlement to immigrate.  Now if they were removed for conversion after they arrived, you might be able to swing that argument.
A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.

The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Wayward Son on December 15, 2015, 10:47:24 AM
Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Let's turn this around for a moment.  Congress passes a law that states that Christians cannot immigrate into the U.S. because "this is a traditionally Muslim nation." :)  Anyone who is here already can worship whomever they please; but we don't want any more Christians because it might affect the Muslim character of our country.

Does anyone want to argue that such a scenario is not an "establishment of a (state) religion?"

If banning Christians because they are not Muslim enough would be an establishment of religion, why would the opposite not be?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 10:49:59 AM
Rather shocking for Jeb to say take in only Christians (if that is what he said) when the Yazidis have been persecuted even more.

Do I really need to rebut the assumptions that
 (1) a prohibition on immigration of ISIS sympathizers would rely solely on a check list form
(2) it's bad form to hurt the feelings of people that want to kill us.
(3) any measure that merely reduces a threat is useless because it doesn't eliminate the threat completely.
(4) People who hold homicide as an article of faith are merely "objectionable" like folks that chew with their mouth open and talk at the movie theater.

I hope that such assumptions need no rebuttal, and don't know of a polite non sarcastic way of responding other than holding them up to the light of day.

I certainly hope that O man's admissions process for Syrian refugees involves more than a checklist form.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 10:55:42 AM
@wayward

The traditional Muslim nation is false but merely precatory language, so the court would have to let that slide as a political question.  The law would be constitutional.

the fact that allies constitutional does not mean that it's a good law. most of the legal commentators are saying Trump's proposal is constitutional but stupid and creative of the spirit of America.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 11:02:32 AM
It would not, which is why I covered that in my initial response.  There is no bar on free exercise, unless you believe that a non-citizen has a right or entitlement to immigrate.  Now if they were removed for conversion after they arrived, you might be able to swing that argument.
A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.

The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.

You can argue that because you have no real training. If Obama argued it, it would be a lie, because he went to law school.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 15, 2015, 11:25:32 AM
Rather shocking for Jeb to say take in only Christians (if that is what he said) when the Yazidis have been persecuted even more.
Here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/jeb-bush-syrian-refugees-prove-christian-35263230).
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 11:34:21 AM
Congress has specifically opened up spots for Jews to immigrate from the USSR and other lands. That's a religious test.  So religious tests for immigration have been done for decades.  Trump's proposal might be argues irrationally vague and thus failing the rational basis test.  But there's no serious constitutional argument against ISIS adherents and Khomeini worshippers.  (Khomeini-twits would argue they don't worship k man but they claim that k can be "blasphemed" which sounds like worship to me.)

Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 11:42:30 AM
Rather shocking for Jeb to say take in only Christians (if that is what he said) when the Yazidis have been persecuted even more.
Here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/jeb-bush-syrian-refugees-prove-christian-35263230).

your link says: "The Republican presidential candidate says he thinks some Syrian refugees, such as orphans and Christians, should be allowed into the United States after they are vetted."

" some Syrian refugees, such as orphans and Christians"
=\= "only Christians."

He says orphans (including Muslim) and Christians and unspecified other groups should be let in after vetting.

Not what you said he said.


I'm simply saying that we should make an effort to exclude al Qaeda sympathizers, Isis sympathizers, and goat*censored*ing Khomeini-heads.  I found your arguments against my exclusions ... lacking. See above.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Wayward Son on December 15, 2015, 11:43:34 AM
The traditional Muslim nation is false but merely precatory language, so the court would have to let that slide as a political question.  The law would be constitutional.

How about the language that it would change the Muslim nature of our country?  Doesn't that put Islam above all other religions in our country, establishing it as the de facto religion of our nation?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 12:09:49 PM
Wayward, either Google the term "precatory language," or search the old forum for the term.

Hint: if the 2ND amendment said,

"Because smurfs are green in the land of Oz, the People's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, "

--the 2ND Amendment's meaning would be unchanged.  Because whatever bull*censored* you put in as the law's justification is "precatory " and not subject to interpretation or review.  If Congress collectively farted while approving the law, that fart would receive more legitimate judicial scrutiny than a precatory phrase.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
But if you are suggesting that a congressional declaration that the USA is fundamentally Christian or Muslim, in itself violates the religious establishment clause, you are definite right from a modern interpretation.  I think that Christianity and Islam are too broad to fit what the actual Constitution writers meant by an establishment of religion, but I prefer the broader reading, and think we understand 1a broadly enough to restrict Congress from making prescriptions for religious purposes.  Whether SCOTUS has power of review re immigration is another question, BTW.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 15, 2015, 12:36:59 PM
Quote
your link says: "The Republican presidential candidate says he thinks some Syrian refugees, such as orphans and Christians, should be allowed into the United States after they are vetted."
That's a follow-on comment.  He says before that they they can "prove it".  Not with the vetting process that we have.  His comment is at best muddled, but more likely an empty remark.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 15, 2015, 12:39:53 PM
Congress has specifically opened up spots for Jews to immigrate from the USSR and other lands. That's a religious test. 
Was it a religious test or a political persecution test with the fact that their religion is what they were being persecuted for being incidental?

The fact that we've done things on inappropriate lines in the past doesn't make them inappropriate, it's more a testament to the human power of rationalization to bend the meaning of the rules to whatever people want them to be at a given time. I don't think that we should let the fact that people in the past violated what seems to spirit of the rules be an excuse to justify future violations, especially since radicalization and affiliation with political or NGO entities such as ISIS, al Qaeda, the Ayatollah, etc... can be tested for directly without any religious restrictions. It would make sense to ask about certain affiliations based on religion, but that's much, much different than using the religion itself as a qualifying test.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 12:50:01 PM
"Was it a religious test or a political persecution test with the fact that their religion is what they were being persecuted for being **DISPOSITIVE?"

fixed that for you.

If you can test for religion to protect a persecuted people, you can test for religion to exclude religions who murderously persecute others as an article of faith.

Pyr, ,do you really want to go on record opposing my exclusion of Daesh death cultists?  Or are you going to strawman me as trying to exclude all Muslims a la Trump?
/
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 12:59:09 PM
Khomeini isn't an NGO, PYR. He's a dead head of state whose teachings include a religious Gaea requiring deceit and terrorism against America, and authorizing child molestation and the ducking of goats to be fed to other villages.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: D.W. on December 15, 2015, 12:59:31 PM
Quote
(3) any measure that merely reduces a threat is useless because it doesn't eliminate the threat completely.
Does it though?  Pete, do you believe such a "test" would have ANY impact, no matter how slight?

Does this relate to your continued use of goat fornicators as a description?  In your opinion are the members of this group so stupid that such a test would "trip them up"?

I'm not trying to suggest you must show respect to those with offensive and dangerous beliefs.  I'm saying you are talking like a rabid crazy person spouting off nonsensical suggestions that would have zero impact. 

Stopping threats or those who idolize those hostile to our way of life from immigrating is something I agree with fully.  Your oath of reputation requirement is just dumb.  The only thing it accomplishes is laying further groundwork for state persecution of any religion that falls out of favor.   Something I must say I'm shocked to see put forward by you given the frequency you remind us of how awful that can turn out.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 15, 2015, 01:09:27 PM
There's a difference in including someone because of their religion and excluding them because of it.

And while excluding Daesh is good I'm leery about the justification and methodology. It's one thing to say "these specific people are dangerous so we won't let them in" it's another to say "we don't like this religion so we won't let it in."
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 01:20:31 PM
DW, please reread. I never suggested an "oath of reputation" ! or anything of the sorrt.

I do think an oath would stop «some« violent islamists.  Osama Bin Laden himself expressed horror that the treachery at Fort Hood brought dishonor on Islam since the shooter had made an oath of loyalty.

Ultimately we should remember that terrorism operates on the field of public relations.   Being able to show video interviews of comments that Islamist's consider blasphemous from the mouthes of actual terrorists would help to discredit DAESH and hamper future recruiting.

Also, I think a lie detector with cleverly phrased questions would trip up a significant minority of Daesh members and an even higher percentage of DAESH sympathists.

Pyr, obviously America's greatest threat at this time comes not from DAESH affiliates but from DAESH sympathizers. Boston, San Bernardino, etc are not political affiliates but fellow believers.  As best we can we need to exclude Islamist's to whom the ISIS/DAESH message resonates.

If SCOTUS rules that my proposal is unconstitutional, then that will be a new doctrine, and Christians would benefit from a strengthened first Amendment. So by all means let's put it to the test :)
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 01:27:49 PM
There's a difference in including someone because of their religion and excluding them because of it.

And while excluding Daesh is good I'm leery about the justification and methodology. It's one thing to say "these specific people are dangerous so we won't let them in" it's another to say "we don't like this religion so we won't let it in."

People who believe that DAESH is the grand Caliphate are dangerous people.  I don't like the Yazidis religion but they are safe and persecuted people so I say let them in, hell give them first priority even over Christians and Jews. 

" There's a difference in including someone because of their religion and excluding them because of it"

This is what the law calls a distinction without a difference.  If it were a notification law, the first would violate establishment of religion while the second would violate religious freedom.  But as immigration rules, neither clause affects Congress' plenary immigration power.



Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 15, 2015, 01:50:47 PM
Quote
Congress has specifically opened up spots for Jews to immigrate from the USSR and other lands. That's a religious test. 
The US also turned away at least one boatload of hundreds of Jews fleeing the Nazis in 1939.  The ship went back to Europe and many of those on board were subsequently killed in the holocaust.  Our country has no formal guidelines for accepting refugees.  We have abused the principles of humanitarian charity toward people seeking safety from tyranny at least as often as we have upheld them.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 15, 2015, 01:51:28 PM
If you can test for religion to protect a persecuted people, you can test for religion to exclude religions who murderously persecute others as an article of faith.
In fact, you can test for people who murderously persecute others for _any_ reason without regard to faith. And then you don't need to bring faith into it.

Quote
Pyr, ,do you really want to go on record opposing my exclusion of Daesh death cultists?  Or are you going to strawman me as trying to exclude all Muslims a la Trump?
/
Daesh is an entity unto itself without regard to religion. The fact that it has a nominal religious affiliation is irrelevant. Daesh is not a religion unto itself, and the reason that it comes under scrutiny has nothing to do with its religion, but with its practices.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 15, 2015, 01:54:05 PM
Khomeini isn't an NGO, PYR. He's a dead head of state whose teachings include a religious Gaea requiring deceit and terrorism against America, and authorizing child molestation and the ducking of goats to be fed to other villages.
Indeed. He's a political entity. Hence the word "or" above between "political entity _or_ NGO" inserted to head off exactly this kind of beside-the-point pedantry.

Though I was expecting to have to deal with it over al Qaeda, which is why I qualified NGO in the first place.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: D.W. on December 15, 2015, 01:55:39 PM
Quote
I do think an oath would stop «some« violent islamists.  Osama Bin Laden himself expressed horror that the treachery at Fort Hood brought dishonor on Islam since the shooter had made an oath of loyalty.
Fair enough.  Maybe I'm wrong and it would work.  We are so far removed from an honor based society of that type I guess it just doesn't click with me. 

I have trouble justifying someone who wouldn't break their word with someone willing to go to such extreme measures to combat their enemies.  Honorable is not a title I would ever even consider using for someone who resorts to terrorist tactics.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 15, 2015, 01:58:03 PM
Pyr, obviously America's greatest threat at this time comes not from DAESH affiliates but from DAESH sympathizers. Boston, San Bernardino, etc are not political affiliates but fellow believers.  As best we can we need to exclude Islamist's to whom the ISIS/DAESH message resonates.
Indeed, and we can make a clear set of standards regarding what's problematic there without systematically discriminating against Muslims or even mention one word about religion, especially as ISIS was so kinds as to declare itself a political state, against whose active subscriopption to which we can discriminate to our hearts content.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 15, 2015, 02:00:53 PM
The constitution says what the government can do, I'm talking about what it should do. As a general rule, I don't think it should make immigration decisions based on religious beliefs or ideology. I'm not even sure it is capable of making those decisions effectively.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 02:06:51 PM
The Muslims I have personally known were incredibly honorable.  Once they felt they owed a debt of honor, they would go to great lengths to honor it.

This is why Islamist's like Khomeini and Dhaesh have disgraced and harmed the Muslim people by leading many to behave dishonorably in the name of Islam.  Using honor based exclusions and filming and recording immigrant applicants, would be a powerful weapon in the war against Islamism.
The question of whether it is OK to break an oath of allegiance or even to blaspheme in order to wage Jihad, is an issue that divides even hardcore Islamists.

Furthermore, by presenting an honor system, we actually emulate some of the more desirable aspects of Muslim culture, which strengthens the position of moderate Muslims.


Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 02:11:15 PM
The constitution says what the government can do, I'm talking about what it should do. As a general rule, I don't think it should make immigration decisions based on religious beliefs or ideology. I'm not even sure it is capable of making those decisions effectively.
As a *general* rule I tend to agree. But in extremis, there is no other way that a democratic society can peacefully survive alongside totalitarian societies that have power to brainwash tens of thousands of people then force them to emigrate.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 15, 2015, 02:12:30 PM
I've been fascinated by the reports regarding Daesh fighters and aversion to being killed by women. Almost makes opening our front line combat roles to women a valuable strategic move.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 15, 2015, 02:24:06 PM
There is no other way that a democratic society can peacefully survive alongside totalitarian societies that have power to brainwash tend of thousands of people then force them to emigrate.
When they actually start doing that, then I'll worry.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 02:27:58 PM
@ Pyr
Yes.  And the Kurds are way ahead of us there.  (The Kurds are exhibit One why trump's proposal, even if constitutional, is moronic.) We need to do more to arm the Kurds.  Perhaps the Kurds should teach Americans how to better treat the wo.in in the ranks ... we have some problems in that area ...
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 02:29:50 PM
There is no other way that a democratic society can peacefully survive alongside totalitarian societies that have power to brainwash tend of thousands of people then force them to emigrate.
When they actually start doing that, then I'll worry.

Were you napping? It's been done.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 15, 2015, 02:43:23 PM
Were you napping? It's been done.
Where?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 02:55:10 PM
Were you napping? It's been done.
Where?

Scottification of Northern Ireland.
Chinafication of Tibet
Syrian islamification of Christian Lebanon in 1960-79
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 15, 2015, 03:00:47 PM
The Ireland and Tibet examples aren't emmigration but internal population movement (I'm not familiar enough with the relationship between Lebanon and Syria to comment on it). I also question if there was "brain washing" beyond pre-existing beliefs among the mobile population.

And since when is the UK totalitarian?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 15, 2015, 04:41:03 PM
Pete, this is a better summary of statements from Jeb on his Christian immigration strategy, including his vetting process:
Quote
Republican presidential candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said in a radio interview Tuesday that “you can tell when someone is a Christian in the Middle East” based on indicators such as their name and birth certificate.

“I can promise you that,” Bush told New Hampshire radio host Jack Heath. “By name, by where they’re born, their birth certificates. There are ample means by which to know this.”
...
Bush said last week that he would ultimately be willing to admit some refugees, such as orphans or Christians, to the U.S. When asked how to prove that someone is Christian, he said then, “You’re a Christian — I mean, you can prove you’re a Christian. You can’t prove it, then, you know, you err on the side of caution.”

On Tuesday, Bush also repeated that he feels the country has a “moral obligation” to support Syrian Christians.

“I’ve used the example of Syrian Christians that are — but for the United States and but for the world community, they’ll be slaughtered, beheaded, raped, pillaged, because of their faith,” Bush said. “I think we have a moral obligation to support them.”
Not Muslims?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 15, 2015, 06:17:21 PM
"“I’ve used the example of Syrian Christians that are — but for the United States and but for the world community, they’ll be slaughtered, beheaded, raped, pillaged, because of their faith,” Bush said. “I think we have a moral obligation to support them.”

What Job actually says is that he uses Christians as an EXAMPLE  of groups the US and world need to save.  Groups that would be slaughtered without outside help. Other obvious such groups include Yazidis, Kurdish Muslims, Jew's, Al a wire Muslims.

"Not Muslims?"

Um, in your own quote he said orphans and obviously that includes Muslim orphans.  There are also Muslim groups targeted for extermination by DAESH, and those by implication fall into his unspecified other groups.

Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 15, 2015, 07:57:34 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is offering the same open arms to Muslims?  Orphans, maybe, but all you have to do to get past his guard is have a Christian name, birth certificate and say you're coming from a city or village that he identifies as Christian. If you can't *prove* it, then you'll have to work a little harder.  Nowhere in his position does he say that if you have a Muslim name, birth certificate and come from a Muslim city you'll be as welcome.  Get serious, Pete.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2015, 05:06:45 PM
The Ireland and Tibet examples aren't emmigration but internal population movement (I'm not familiar enough with the relationship between Lebanon and Syria to comment on it). I also question if there was "brain washing" beyond pre-existing beliefs among the mobile population.

And since when is the UK totalitarian?

No reasoning with you, NH, if you say Tibet was part of China and Ireland part of the UK to the extent that those actions were "internal" matters.

The UK was, at several points in history, every bit as totalitarian as the PRC was under Mao.  Obviously when the law makes it a capital crime to merely THINK certain thoughts, the government is totalitarian.  And the UK's dealings with Ireland during the period I spoke of were horiffic.

In any event, you don't even argue the Lebanon example so my point stands.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 16, 2015, 05:15:28 PM
They were internal in that the government sponsoring the move controlled immigration to the area under consideration. They were internal in the same way that Anglophones moving into Quebec is internal; or if the US Federal government moved non-Mormons into Utah after it was officially a US State (did they try that? That totally sounds like something they'd do); or carpet-baggers in the South.

Unless you're suggesting Tibet and Northern Ireland were sovereign states when this happened?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2015, 05:16:27 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is offering the same open arms to Muslims?  Orphans, maybe, but all you have to do to get past his guard is have a Christian name, birth certificate and say you're coming from a city or village that he identifies as Christian.

Cute how you evade my point that you spoke FALSELY when you misrepresented Bush as saying that he said we should ONLY take Christians.  My interpretation is the most reasonable interpretation of what Jeb said.  What you said is ruled out twice by the plain text of your own quotes.

I don't know what Her wants but I can read what he said.  Why can't you?

And yes, given his family history I reckon Jeb wants to let Muslims immigrate.  He puts that proposal under wraps (describing them as endangered groups "LIKE CHRISTIANS" because he is running for president in the face of the false flag Trump candidacy that you Clintonites created to screw up the Republicans a la Perot. 
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2015, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: NobleHunter

[Chasing tangents
Unless you're suggesting Tibet and Northern Ireland were sovereign states when this happened?

Lebanon was sovereign and you did ask me for just one example. 
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2015, 05:30:35 PM
"Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is offering the same open arms to Muslims?  "

Hey holds no federal post and cannot "offer" open arms to Christians, either.  His words establish that he is using Christians and Orphans as examples of several groups that he wants given open arms.  Since he is talking to frightened persons who profess Christianity, he has framed the issue to persuade fellow Republicans to rethink a closed door policy, and to initiate a discussion that will result in more groups including some (but hopefully not all!) Muslim groups being admitted.

I say not all because unlike some Iberian's here I think we should exclude, as best we can, violent Islamist's and Muslims who find DAESH's claims theologically credible.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Seriati on December 16, 2015, 05:33:54 PM
A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.
This is the kind of statement you make that drives me crazy.  You just assert things you wish were true as if they were in fact true.  The only thing you said that is verifiable and accurate is that there are legal grounds to deny dangerous people from immigrating.
Quote
The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.
The first Amendment isn't a "positive" right, because the framers believed in natural law rights, hence the amendments don't grant rights - as the government can't give anything to the citizens, only the other way around.  They are clarification that the citizens did not provide the government with the authority to interfere with those rights.

However, that doesn't get you anywhere on this question, because it's not a denial of rights to exclude someone from the country.  Nor does it interfere with their free exercise.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2015, 05:37:05 PM
Incidentally, Goebbels, Hitler, and Himmler all made statements to the effect that Nazism should be considered a religion that would replace Christianity.  This was taught to the Hitler Youth.  I would much rather have Congress keep it's power to exclude dangerous religious groups than to get into the business of certifying what groups are or are not religions.

Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 16, 2015, 05:56:05 PM
Lebanon was sovereign and you did ask me for just one example.
Okay. To return to the question of US policy, is Lebanon sufficiently similar to the US that it offers relevant lessons? I can think of a whole host of differences that might make Lebanon too dissimilar to be worth considering.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2015, 06:13:39 PM
In what ways are you claiming Americans differ from Christian Lebanese?  Of all middle easterners, (including Israelis) Christian Lebanese are most like Americans, from my own interactions (dating, coworkers, clients, fellow students)

At this time America does not face such issues as a matter of geography.  That's why Trump's broad proposal is foolish.
And why I argue for specific measures to screen and isolate violent jihad candidates.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 16, 2015, 06:37:58 PM

To remind you of what you said originally
There is no other way that a democratic society can peacefully survive alongside totalitarian societies that have power to brainwash tend of thousands of people then force them to emigrate.
When they actually start doing that, then I'll worry.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 16, 2015, 06:47:56 PM
Well, the US is the most powerful country on the planet and there are over three hundred million of them. How many immigrants would have to show up for the same proportional effect?

Though you seem to be talking about two distinct problems: demographic change caused by mass immigration and terror attacks by foreign nationals. Raising one in the context of the other does not seem like a recipe for effective policy decisions.


To remind you of what you said originally
Right. Note the present tense. That's it been done (under vastly different circumstances) does not seem like a reason to worry about it now.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 17, 2015, 02:02:52 PM
Just for the record, you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said "When they actually start doing that, then I'll worry"?  Because it's one thing to move onto a different topic, but quite another to pretend that we were talking about a different question from the onset..

So you are now saying that for me to give a relevant example, I have to show that it's already successfully been done to America, in which case it's already too late.

Who is this strange new creature that started hijacking NH's account a couple weeks ago?  NH doesn't mess with time waster filibuster questions. 
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 17, 2015, 02:11:22 PM
"
Though you seem to be talking about two distinct problems: demographic change caused by mass immigration and terror attacks by foreign nationals"

Yes.  The latter is a problem the US currently faces.  Kosovo and Lebanon are examples of the former.  Deng Xiao Peng, premier of China during the 70s, threatened Carter with the former and got Carter to shut up about free migration from the PRC.  ("How many would you like, Mr President? One hundred million? Two hundred million?")

While America does not currently face such a threat, we need to maintain the power and right to close borders should any such threat arise.  The NH that used to post here would not act as if we were debating a different point to avoid acknowledging a point made.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 17, 2015, 02:51:03 PM
The problem is that given the two examples you provided, I don't find it likely that the last one will be valid. Especially since a quick look at wikipedia doesn't seem to support it. I also think the present tense matters, else I wouldn't have mentioned it. That's it been done is irrelevant when compared to the question of is it being done or will it be tried.  Given that the answers are "no" and "not bloody likely," I think it's reasonable to dismiss the concern. I think it's actually more responsible to dismiss it since we're talking about the potentially immoral or unethical use of government authority.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 17, 2015, 03:04:11 PM
Well a quick look at Wikipedia has always been a good reason for an anonymous Canadian blogger to change the meaning of the US constitution, so there goes my argument.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 17, 2015, 04:43:33 PM
Since I wasn't commenting on the constitutionality of any given immigration policy, I don't think you need to worry about the result of my wikipedia survey.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 17, 2015, 05:45:35 PM
My whole point about the history of free countries being overrun by brainwashed masses from other lands was to argue that the Constitution should not be rewritten or reinterpreted to prevent Congress from closing the borders, as some Americans has advocated.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Wayward Son on December 17, 2015, 08:03:10 PM
My whole point about the history of free countries being overrun by brainwashed masses from other lands was to argue that the Constitution should not be rewritten or reinterpreted to prevent Congress from closing the borders, as some Americans has advocated.

AFAIK, no one has advocated that the boarders be thrown open.  The latest brouhaha has been about 10,000 Syrian refugees--hardly a size to "overrun" anyplace but a small town, if they happen to all get placed there.

And no one has advocated to let in "brainwashed masses."  Refugees that are fleeing a despotic religious ideology are probably not "brainwashed" by it--else why are they running?  ;)

To say that any or all Muslim are not worthy of seeking refuge in our country is the point here.  Yes, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from being a bunch of bigots that say practically all Muslim are potential terrorist or worse.  And the fact that is it a religion that most of them don't understand, or have prejudicial views of, makes it even more problematic in a country founded on freedom of religion and the principle of not having an official, established religion.  Allowing only those who pass a specific religious test--a religion that is perfectly legal in this country--smacks of making this a religious conflict, which is precisely what ISIS wants.

Whether Kosovo or Lebanon were overrun by "brainwashed masses" isn't the point.  That ain't gonna happen here.  Because no one wants that many refugees in this country, and the ones we let in probably won't be brainwashed by the people they're fleeing from.  It's a matter of letting our fears overriding our common sense, especially fears motivated by a skewed view of an entire religion.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 17, 2015, 10:07:52 PM
"AFAIK, no one has advocated that the boarders be thrown open."

You err. Pyr has. And others here were arguing for a constitutional construction that would bar any religious discrimination in religion. That's what I was responding to when I said that a free society needed the OPTION of closing it's borders to any group that poses a threat.  It's a straw man  to claim I ever said that this particular group of Syrians risks engulfing our democracy.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: yossarian22c on December 17, 2015, 11:09:19 PM
I really don't see why anyone would disagree with what Pete is proposing.  He has simply said that we should exclude people who openly support ideologies that call for killing Americans.  Now we can debate how effective such a tactic could be but it certainty would be grounds for deporting someone who comes and begins trying to radicalize/recruit (under the guise of free speech/religion) without crossing the line into planning attacks. 

Pete doesn't come close to proposing a blanket ban on all Muslims, just the ones openly supporting the terroristic branch.  I seriously doubt this is much different from current policy.  I suspect if a back ground check showed an individual wanting to relocate to the USA promoted ISIS's ideology that they would get a VISA.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: NobleHunter on December 18, 2015, 09:16:11 AM
In this specific instance, it doesn't seem especially problematic since it involves an ideology of violence and the incitement of violence. I would prefer the basis for exclusion avoid citing ideology directly.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 11:13:12 AM
"AFAIK, no one has advocated that the boarders be thrown open."

You err. Pyr has.
No I haven't. I've always specifically supported health and security based check. But only those checks, not race, income, etc... We should be operating on a reason to deny basis, not on an arbitrary quota basis.

Quote
And others here were arguing for a constitutional construction that would bar any religious discrimination in religion. That's what I was responding to when I said that a free society needed the OPTION of closing it's borders to any group that poses a threat.  It's a straw man  to claim I ever said that this particular group of Syrians risks engulfing our democracy.
If a group poses a threat, then the functional way taht it poses a threat can be filtered for without regard to religion. At no point is there a reasonable basis for saying "Well if we just ban this religion, then we'll have mitigated the threat properly" because there is no situation where any religion and threat exist entirely on a one to one basis and the threat cannot be expressed in a way that requires reference to the religion.

If you just try to ban a religion, you improperly exclude members of that religions taht do not represent a threat, and you also miss people who represent substantially the same threat but claim other or no religious affiliation.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 11:15:25 AM
I really don't see why anyone would disagree with what Pete is proposing.  He has simply said that we should exclude people who openly support ideologies that call for killing Americans.
That would be fine. He's arguing that we should consider allowing let religion to stand in for ideology instead of focusing on ideology alone without regard to religion.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 11:47:37 AM
A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.
This is the kind of statement you make that drives me crazy.  You just assert things you wish were true as if they were in fact true.  The only thing you said that is verifiable and accurate is that there are legal grounds to deny dangerous people from immigrating.
If you want to make a counter argument make it. If you only want to point out that I'm making an argument and thus must be wrong because it's the position I'm taking, then you're pretty much just trying to handwave away the argument by assertion.

If this were a matter of settled, verifiable facts, then it wouldn't be worth discussing.

Categorical discrimination against any religion by any government agency amounts to a restriction on the free practice of that belief.
Quote
Quote
The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.
The first Amendment isn't a "positive" right, because the framers believed in natural law rights,
Did apples not fall downward before Newton invented gravity? The Amendments starts off "Congress shall make no law" that's a active limit on the power of Congress, which, by definition is a negative right. The fact taht they didn't make the explicit distinction at one point in time does not prevent us from later using categorical descriptions, especially since your argument here is that they only believed in negative rights, even though other powers and amendments debunk that notion.

Even if we take what you said for granted, it only serves to underscore my point here. Any government action taken on the basis of religion violates what's been codified as a fundamentally recognized human.natural right that the constitution has language noting that the government should not have power over. Wile it explicitly restricts congress from exercising power over religion, that implicitly suggests that the other branches also should not do so, otherwise the Congressional restriction is moot.

Quote
hence the amendments don't grant rights - as the government can't give anything to the citizens, only the other way around. 
Ah, so jury trials arise naturally, and they are the default state of affairs without interference?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
I really don't see why anyone would disagree with what Pete is proposing.  He has simply said that we should exclude people who openly support ideologies that call for killing Americans.
That would be fine. He's arguing that we should consider allowing let religion to stand in for ideology instead of focusing on ideology alone without regard to religion.

I deny that  any dispositive difference between religion and ideology exists, for purposes of first Amendment and immigration purposes.  I don't want the USA walking down the same path as Germany, declaring Scientology a false religion and therefore not protected from immigration restriction. Better to have power to restrict a religious group than to declare a group "not a real religion".  Note the parallel to my position re personhood and abortion.  The fact that all the GOP (despite its current fury and overreach) has recoiled from Trump's proposal shows that there is a very high threshold for enacting such bans.

Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
I would go farther than turning back those that *openly* support ISIS.  I propose that persons attempting to immigrate from ISIS source populations be subject to lie detector tests. Christians not exempt, because I see it as inevitable that ISIS will use non-Muslims to carry out attacks, using family members as hostages.

Questions would include training, associates, and religious beliefs (eg do they think DAESH is the Grand Caliphate, etc).  The process and interview should be videoed and saved for intelligence and publicity purposes.  As long as the subject remains law abiding, nothing gets aired.

If you think of the motives and objectives of terrorist, you can probably think of why it would be useful to have this stuff on-hand.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 12:49:34 PM
"it only serves to underscore my point here. Any government action taken on the basis of religion violates what's been codified as a fundamentally recognized human.natural right that the constitution has language noting that the government should not have power over."

You take a true principle and overstate it to the point of absurdity.  Obviously the government has taken some actions  on the basis of religion (admitting Jew's as a persecuted group) without the awful results as describe.

It's not the US' duty to protect freedom of religion beyond it's borders. To the extent that freedom of religion IN America can be protected by preventing certain groups from entering America, such a NARROWLY TAILORED) exclusion is legitimate for consideration. 

Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 12:52:40 PM

I deny that  any dispositive difference between religion and ideology exists, for purposes of first Amendment and immigration purposes.
Sure there is. "I am of this faith"

Religion.

"I believe it is okay to kill people in the name of religion"

Ideology.

Not ideology as in "A formally named system of beliefs" Ideology as in "a specific willingness or desire to take a categorically harmful actions"

We can target based on specific beliefs or practices without religions. WE can outlaw murder, and thus prevent human sacrifice, and that's the right way to do it. We can't ban people who adhere to a reconstruction of Aztec religious beliefs on the basis that some of them might support human sacrifice. Target the actual practice or belief not the religion that our current bias inclines us to associate with it.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 12:54:55 PM
You take a true principle and overstate it to the point of absurdity.  Obviously the government has taken some actions  on the basis of religion (admitting Jew's as a persecuted group) without the awful results as describe.
First of all, that's not a limiting action. SEcond, taht's an action based on _perscution_ not based on their religion.

Were we to _only_ recognize persecution of Jews, that would be a violation of the principle, because then the decision would be centered around the religion and not the action.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:00:30 PM
Pyr, you are jerryrigging the words again. Consider this:
,,Not ideology as in "A formally named system of beliefs" Ideology as in "a specific willingness or desire to take a categorically harmful actions"

That's a bull*censored* definition. Since when are all ideologies "harmful"?  The k harder and try again.

Also remember that the 1st Amendment protects EXERCISE of religion so your construction of passive religion vs active ideology does not plug rationally into the constitution.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:12:07 PM
If we DID use Pyr's ghastly religion/ideology construct, it would serve as such a facile end run around the first Amendment that Trump's proposed Muslim ban would slip through easily.  Trump says Islam is an "ideology" since it's adherents are willing indeed cannot be stopped from, "harmful" halal food practices which are unsanitary by FDA standards and (by other hypocritical modern standards) exemplify "animal cruelty."

(hypocritical because while it's OK for a farming mega corporation to keep animals in unsafe unsanitary conditions for their whole lives, we insist that the slaughter process for animals far exceed the standard of humane-ness and comfort afforded in the American capital punishment system).
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 01:16:11 PM
Pyr, you are jerryrigging the words again. Consider this:
,,Not ideology as in "A formally named system of beliefs" Ideology as in

That's a bull*censored* definition. Since when are all ideologies "harmful"?
Who said all of them are? We're talking about the subset of harmful ideologies here. If the ideology isn't harmful, it isn't germane to the conversation.

Do you have a point here, or are you being absurdly pedantic?

"a specific willingness or desire to behave in certain ways" if it pleases you, then apply the context that we're specifically talking about limits on harmful ones, not any out of the entire field.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:16:39 PM
You take a true principle and overstate it to the point of absurdity.  Obviously the government has taken some actions  on the basis of religion (admitting Jew's as a persecuted group) without the awful results as describe.
First of all, that's not a limiting action.

You didn't limit your statement to limiting actions. Don't blame me if you did not mean what you said.  I agree that your statement becomes less ludicrous if you limit the scope, and if you limit the scope to the point the statement becomes true, I will stop pointing out the absurd loopholes.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:22:19 PM
Note Pyr chops out the context before asking the question answered by what he chopped out:

Pyr demanded that we employ this definition of "ideology":

"Ideology as in "a specific willingness or desire to take a categorically ,harmful actions""

He now asks me "who said" that all ideologies involved a willingness to do harm". Why you did, Pyr.

To misspeak is human.  To refuse to own up to one's error is demented. 

If you can't own up, why don't you just restate intelligently and I will try to move on without rubbing it in.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
If we DID use Pyr's ghastly religion/ideology construct, it would serve as such a facile end run around the first Amendment that Trump's proposed Muslim ban would slip through easily.  Trump says Islam is an "ideology" since it's adherents are willing indeed cannot be stopped from, "harmful" halal food practices which are unsanitary by FDA standards and (by other hypocritical modern standards) exemplify "animal cruelty."
Except "Islam" is not an ideology" here "I only eat food taht had been slaughtered under these standards" is the ideology.
He could not identify "Islam" as the ideology under my standard- he'd have to specify the specific belief or practice and argue why it should be targeted regardless of what religion gives rise to it.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 01:24:11 PM
You take a true principle and overstate it to the point of absurdity.  Obviously the government has taken some actions  on the basis of religion (admitting Jew's as a persecuted group) without the awful results as describe.
First of all, that's not a limiting action.

You didn't limit your statement to limiting actions. Don't blame me if you did not mean what you said.  I agree that your statement becomes less ludicrous if you limit the scope, and if you limit the scope to the point the statement becomes true, I will stop pointing out the absurd loopholes.
I didn't limit the scope, because the conversation we're having makes the scope clear.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 01:26:19 PM
Note Pyr chops out the context before asking the question answered by what he chopped out:

Pyr demanded that we employ this definition of "ideology":

"Ideology as in "a specific willingness or desire to take a categorically ,harmful actions""

He now asks me "who said" that all ideologies involved a willingness to do harm". Why you did, Pyr.

To misspeak is human.  To refuse to own up to one's error is demented. 

If you can't own up, why don't you just restate intelligently and I will try to move on without rubbing it in.
What, like I did in that reply to avoid exactly this kind of absurd derailment? Why don't you address the point instead of coming up with every possible out-of-context misinterpretation and wasting time on debating them?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:28:34 PM
Ah, sorry, missed this:


"a specific willingness or desire to behave in certain ways" if it pleases you, ,,[goes on to instruct me not to use this definition in a way that demonstrates it's absurdity]."

You mean I should not cite to you the line from James defining PURE RELIGION as helping widows and orphans and keeping oneself unspotted from the world?

BTW, are you familiar with the US oath of naturalization?  Do you think that requiring such an oath is constitutional?

Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:36:34 PM

What, like I did in that reply to avoid exactly this kind of absurd derailment? Why don't you address the point instead of coming up with every possible out-of-context misinterpretation and wasting time on debating them?

The context here is Trump's obscene proposal, so if you word your principle in a way that supports Trump rather than hindering him, it is you not I who have lost sight of context.

Once you narrow your sweeping statements to the point that they cease to be absurd, I will cease to object.

Take the effort to say what you mean, and stop blaming others for "misinterpreting" you. I don't read minds. I read words.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Seriati on December 18, 2015, 01:39:19 PM
A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.
This is the kind of statement you make that drives me crazy.  You just assert things you wish were true as if they were in fact true.  The only thing you said that is verifiable and accurate is that there are legal grounds to deny dangerous people from immigrating.
If you want to make a counter argument make it. If you only want to point out that I'm making an argument and thus must be wrong because it's the position I'm taking, then you're pretty much just trying to handwave away the argument by assertion.
Counter argument to what?  We were discussing Constitutional interpretation and you jumped in with your assertions - based on your philosophical interpretation - and asserted them as true.  To my thinking, you've not added anything to the debate to argue against.
Quote
If this were a matter of settled, verifiable facts, then it wouldn't be worth discussing.
If we were discussing policy, then your opinions would be worth considering.  If we're talking legality, then you need to address it in the terms that actually apply.
Quote
Categorical discrimination against any religion by any government agency amounts to a restriction on the free practice of that belief.
Then please cite the case that so states.  You are mixing up rationales without regard to the thought process behind them.
Quote
Quote
Quote
The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.
The first Amendment isn't a "positive" right, because the framers believed in natural law rights,
Did apples not fall downward before Newton invented gravity? The Amendments starts off "Congress shall make no law" that's a active limit on the power of Congress, which, by definition is a negative right. The fact taht they didn't make the explicit distinction at one point in time does not prevent us from later using categorical descriptions, especially since your argument here is that they only believed in negative rights, even though other powers and amendments debunk that notion.
My argument is NOT that they only believed in negative rights.  My argument is that they did not believe the Constitution created or grants rights to the people but rather that it establishes the powers and limits on the government.  The people have rights inherently.
Quote
Even if we take what you said for granted, it only serves to underscore my point here. Any government action taken on the basis of religion violates what's been codified as a fundamentally recognized human.natural right that the constitution has language noting that the government should not have power over. Wile it explicitly restricts congress from exercising power over religion, that implicitly suggests that the other branches also should not do so, otherwise the Congressional restriction is moot.
It only "underscores" your point, if - as I've said three times now - there is a right or entitlement to immigrate.  Congress is not interfering with anyone's free exercise by not making a privledge available to them.
Quote
Quote
hence the amendments don't grant rights - as the government can't give anything to the citizens, only the other way around. 
Ah, so jury trials arise naturally, and they are the default state of affairs without interference?
Sigh.  The right of a government to subject its citizens to trial does not arise without being granted, hence the limitations on such use of the granted police power being necessary clarifications.  In fact, the jury trial itself is directly structured specifically to ensure that the citizens control that exercise of the power of the state to avoid the potential for abuse in an unaccountable government convicting people of crimes against the government.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:44:12 PM
If we DID use Pyr's ghastly religion/ideology construct, it would serve as such a facile end run around the first Amendment that Trump's proposed Muslim ban would slip through easily.  Trump says Islam is an "ideology" since it's adherents are willing indeed cannot be stopped from, "harmful" halal food practices which are unsanitary by FDA standards and (by other hypocritical modern standards) exemplify "animal cruelty."
Except "Islam" is not an ideology" here "I only eat food taht had been slaughtered under these standards" is the ideology.
He could not identify "Islam" as the ideology under my standard- he'd have to specify the specific belief or practice and argue why it should be targeted regardless of what religion gives rise to it.

Again, I think you grossly misapprehend Islam when you say that it is merely a religion and not an ideology. I think your characterization would offend most of the world's Muslims.

Islam is as much of a political and economic ideology as Communism or free enterprise.  (The fact that the word is interpreted as numerous competing ideological visions does not distinguish it from Communism or free enterprise!)
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 01:50:44 PM
"a specific willingness or desire to behave in certain ways" if it pleases you, ,,[goes on to instruct me not to use this definition in a way that demonstrates it's absurdity]."
Which is to say, I reminded you of the context that we're discussing so that we can talk coherently instead of wasting hours and hours making sure that the wording doesn't change the price of tea in China, despite it not have any relevance here.

Quote
BTW, are you familiar with the US oath of naturalization?  Do you think that requiring such an oath is constitutional?
Seems fine, and it has nothing to do with religion, so isn't relevant to the context. To the degree that some sects might fall afoul of it, that's incidental. Not one word of the oath in question even pretends to reference religion.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 01:56:53 PM
The context here is Trump's obscene proposal, so if you word your principle in a way that supports Trump rather than hindering him, it is you not I who have lost sight of context.
The context is what is a reasonable basis for restricting immigration. Harmful ideologies are a reasonable basis. Religions are not, even if some harmful ideologies might be associates with some subset of them. If you want to ban an ideology, you should ban the ideology, not a specific religion, because the ideology is the problem, regardless of what religion it arises from, while there is no problem with adherents of a religion that do not support a specific ideology.

Keep in mind, that you're the one supporting Trump when you say "We should be free to arbitrarily ban religions if we feel taht some members of them may support ideologies taht we want to restrict" against peopel saying that we should focus on the ideology rather than blanket religious discrimination.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 01:57:26 PM
If the US oath of naturalization has nothing to do with religion, then many forms of Islam and Judaism aren't religions. Think again.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 02:02:40 PM
Pyr misrepresented me as saying: "We should be free to arbitrarily ban religions if we feel taht some members of them may support ideologies taht we want to restrict""

I never said any such thing. Never used those words and never said words that could reasonably be interpreted in good faith as signifying what you just MI's attributed to me.

This is why I use specifics, Pyr, rather than making obscenely broad overreaching statements.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2015, 02:07:24 PM
"Religions are not, even if some harmful ideologies might be associates with some subset of them. I"

Please let's not be pusillanimous.  Out of the group thatbelieves that DAESH is Allah's annointed Califate, DAESH is associated with the whole group, not just a subset.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 02:44:14 PM
Again, I think you grossly misapprehend Islam when you say that it is merely a religion and not an ideology. I think your characterization would offend most of the world's Muslims.
Islam includes ideologies. I'm not sure how it's a disservice that I point out taht it's a large portfolio of smaller pieces, and not an individual small piece. That doesn't change the fact that our laws should pick out the specific pieces that we find harmful an prohit those instead of blindly targeting the entire body of faith regardless of individual ideology
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 02:46:05 PM
Pyr misrepresented me as saying: "We should be free to arbitrarily ban religions if we feel taht some members of them may support ideologies taht we want to restrict""

I never said any such thing. Never used those words and never said words that could reasonably be interpreted in good faith as signifying what you just MI's attributed to me.

This is why I use specifics, Pyr, rather than making obscenely broad overreaching statements.
you said, over and over, that we should retain the freedom to ban immigration based on religion. That that should be okay rather than only targeting specific practices and behaviors without regard to specific religion. That's the entire point of the debate on teis thread of the conversation.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 02:53:53 PM
And others here were arguing for a constitutional construction that would bar any religious discrimination in religion. That's what I was responding to when I said that a free society needed the OPTION of closing it's borders to any group that poses a threat.
Here for example. You say taht we need to allow for discrimination based on religion- the ability ban any given group based on religion because we might construe the religion itself to pose a threat.

And again, the point is, that we can identify the beliefs and behaviors that represent the threat and ban those without reference to any specific religion. it's the latter that represents any given threat, not any given religion itself. The degree to which any given religion faction happens to be excluded becomes purely incidental, rather than needed to keep a laundry list of religions taht we decide taht we're going to discriminate against this week.

It's the willingness and desire to cause harm that's the problem, not the nominal religion that peopel identify with.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Seriati on December 18, 2015, 05:00:24 PM
I think part of the issue is that Pyrtolin always manages to say things in the most offensive manner possible.  But let's not lose sight of the simple concept he's going on about, we'll really don't accept religion as a basis for discrimination within our society.  To make a law that discriminates among citizens it would have to attach to behaviours - eg barring certain drugs like Peyote that have religious significance - and not to the religion itself.  Even then we often make exceptions for exceptional impact on the practice or beliefs of a person (e.g. the HobbyLobby case).  That's a societal tenant that we accept.

It doesn't however help in this case, though I agree with that back-drop the courts might go out of their way to construct a remedy.  There is not a prohibition on Congress discriminating in the admission of foreigners that can be construed as impermissible interference with the free exercise of religion.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 18, 2015, 07:32:34 PM
Counter argument to what?  We were discussing Constitutional interpretation and you jumped in with your assertions - based on your philosophical interpretation - and asserted them as true.  To my thinking, you've not added anything to the debate to argue against.
To whether discrimination based on religion in immigration policies amounts to a restriction on the freedom or religion. You have only counters the argument on pure assertion, not presenting any reasoning to support your case.

Quote
Quote
If this were a matter of settled, verifiable facts, then it wouldn't be worth discussing.
If we were discussing policy, then your opinions would be worth considering. 
A proposal to restrict immigration on the basis of religion is a matter of policy. Policy, then defines who legally can and cannot immigrate.

Quote
Quote
Categorical discrimination against any religion by any government agency amounts to a restriction on the free practice of that belief.
Then please cite the case that so states.  You are mixing up rationales without regard to the thought process behind them.
What do you mean case? Gravity make things fall toward the Earth, there's no case needed to support that. Categorical discrimination against religion penalize the free exercise of religion by making it subject to that discrimination. It prohibits any person applying for entrance to the US from freely practicing whatever religion they choose to by restricting them only to the State approved family of religions.

Quote
My argument is NOT that they only believed in negative rights.  My argument is that they did not believe the Constitution created or grants rights to the people but rather that it establishes the powers and limits on the government.  The people have rights inherently.
So what? That's not relevant here. We're not talking about what they believed, but the functional result of what they produced based on modern language for classification.

Quote
It only "underscores" your point, if - as I've said three times now - there is a right or entitlement to immigrate.  Congress is not interfering with anyone's free exercise by not making a privledge available to them.
 
Ah, so since driving is a privilege, a law the forbade Methodists from driving wouldn't be an imposition on them?

It doesn't matter whether the restriction is on a privilege or a right. All it matters is that it creates an imposition on them because of their specific chosen belief system.The amendment doesn't read "Congress may abridge no rights" on the basis of religion. It says "Congress shall pass no law" That means a law that would restrict privileges or rights. That's what the fundamental nature of the right to free exercise entails. That there will be not direct impediment to your rights or privileges on that basis.

If there were a right to immigration, the the religion issue would be moot. It's specifically because immigration is not a right unto itself taht the free exercise clause is relevant- because it means taht religion cannot be used as an excuse to restrict it without regard to whether it's a right or privilege.

Quote
Sigh.  The right of a government to subject its citizens to trial does not arise without being granted, hence the limitations on such use of the granted police power being necessary clarifications.
Power, not right. People have rights, not governments.

 
Quote
In fact, the jury trial itself is directly structured specifically to ensure that the citizens control that exercise of the power of the state to avoid the potential for abuse in an unaccountable government convicting people of crimes against the government.
Indeed. But that doesn't change the fact that the right to a trial by jury is a positive provision of government. It's an active obligation of the government to provide something that would not exist if the government did not act to establish and maintain it. It's not simply a limit on the government's power to restrict an existing freedom.

Again, it doesn't matter how the founders happened to define the word "right" here. The simple fact is taht this provision created a positive obligation on the part of the government to the people. SOmething that it was required to provide to them. That's what a positive right, by modern terminology, is.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 18, 2015, 11:12:28 PM
If I understand correctly, if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a majority on the Supreme Court that there is a compelling government interest to do something then the Constitution is fair game for an exercise in flexibility. This could happen with demonstrating a compelling government interest not to reward undocumented immigrants by granting their children automatic citizenship or by denying entry to Muslims if the terrorism situation is getting out of control.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: AI Wessex on December 19, 2015, 06:44:46 AM
If I understand correctly, if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a majority on the Supreme Court that there is a compelling government interest to do something then the Constitution is fair game for an exercise in flexibility. This could happen with demonstrating a compelling government interest not to reward undocumented immigrants by granting their children automatic citizenship or by denying entry to Muslims if the terrorism situation is getting out of control.
You mean they could ignore some amendments to the Constitution if they want.  Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th:
Quote
    The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment conveys U.S. citizenship on all persons “born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Obviously we are talking here about persons “born … in the United States.” Thus the children of illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens only if they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

    But there is no sense in which children of illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
So long as they remain in the United States, they are subject to U.S. law. If they violate U.S. law, they can be arrested by U.S. law enforcement, brought before a U.S. court, and sentenced to U.S. prison.
In they really can do that, I hope they do go ahead and give some "comfort" to the fearful now to establish a precedent so that when the majority swings back the other way they can do something about caving on the 2nd.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 19, 2015, 08:56:57 AM
If I understand correctly, if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a majority on the Supreme Court that there is a compelling government interest to do something then the Constitution is fair game for an exercise in flexibility. This could happen with demonstrating a compelling government interest not to reward undocumented immigrants by granting their children automatic citizenship or by denying entry to Muslims if the terrorism situation is getting out of control.
Compelling interest is the key. There is no compelling interest for religious discrimination, because it's not the members of the religion that are a threat, but specific behaviors by a minority that could arise in any religion, so the proper interest is in looking for that behavior.

As for immigration, there really is not credible threat there either, and if there is, then it's the behavior that actually brings threat that should be watched for, not the high complement paid to us by people that believe their kids will be better off as US citizens.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 20, 2015, 05:09:14 PM
A compelling interest for religious discrimination in apparent violation of the 1st Amendment might be used against a religion that also violates the 1st Amendment by making and carrying out terroristic threats against people who convert out of it or blaspheme its prophet. A compelling interest argument against birthright citizenship might be that it pulls millions of illegals into America and if that's not enough then there is also the fact that with that many people coming across the border illegally it makes it impossible to stop terrorists and drug dealers and sex slavers from sneaking in with them because it overburdens law enforcement efforts to stop them. If it makes you feel any better there could be a compelling interest to limit the 2nd Amendment if gun violence becomes too excessive. This compelling interest business is pretty open ended and basically left to the whims of the government and the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 20, 2015, 07:24:59 PM
And others here were arguing for a constitutional construction that would bar any religious discrimination in religion. That's what I was responding to when I said that a free society needed the OPTION of closing it's borders to any group that poses a threat.
Here for example. You say taht we need to allow for discrimination based on religion- the ability ban any given group based on religion because we might construe the religion itself to pose a threat.

And again, the point is, that we can identify the beliefs and behaviors that represent the threat and ban those without reference to any specific religion. it's the latter that represents any given threat, not any given religion itself. The degree to which any given religion faction happens to be excluded becomes purely incidental, rather than needed to keep a laundry list of religions taht we decide taht we're going to discriminate against this week.

It's bad enough when you make idiotically vague statements of your own. It's offensive and vile when you put such false and idiotically vague statements into my mouth.

I never said that it's generally OK to discriminate on a religious basis. I said that Congress can specifically discriminate WITH RESPECT TO ENACTING IMMIGRATION RULES.   You admitted that they can and do discriminate on the the basis of religion when they specifically allow one persecuted religious group in.  As far as the first Amendment goes, that is no different from discriminating against a religious group that goes the persecuting.  Your social science pontificating has no constitutional meaning.  Religious discrimination is religious discrimination.  Such discrimination would require a compelling interest to apply within the US or to US nationals, but as far as immigration rules go, there is no judicial review.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 20, 2015, 07:53:22 PM
Let's not forget either that our government is still fighting to protect its right to discriminate against people solely based on their race. Specifically white people and sometimes Asians of course. They say there is a compelling interest. And everyone fighting against a compelling interest for discriminating based on religion because it violates the Constitution nevertheless supports doing exactly that when it comes to race.

But I'm sure "that's different".
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 20, 2015, 10:22:02 PM
Not different. The courts have struck down most forms of affirmative action and have held that it is only legitimate to do it for purposes of diversity, which according to the court does meet strict scrutiny standard of compelling state interest.

That's precisely why I laughed at Pyr's claim that favorable discrimination is constitutionally different than other sorts of discrimination.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 21, 2015, 12:10:44 AM
Again, I think you grossly misapprehend Islam when you say that it is merely a religion and not an ideology. I think your characterization would offend most of the world's Muslims.
Islam includes ideologies. I'm not sure how it's a disservice that I point out taht it's a large portfolio of smaller pieces, and not an individual small piece. That doesn't change the fact that our laws should pick out the specific pieces that we find harmful an prohit those instead of blindly targeting the entire body of faith regardless of individual ideology

I specifically rejected the idea of excluding Muslims as a group.  Those I want excluded from immigrating are those who believe the demagogues such as Khomeini and DAESH who proclaim that Muslims have a religious duty to do harm to Americans.

You say that we can exclude based on BEHAVIORS and I say it's a day late and a dollar short to expel those who have already done harm. 
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 21, 2015, 12:14:56 AM
Would it be fair to ask Muslims and Christians and even Yazidis if they strongly believe in the death penalty for anyone converting out of their religion and that members of their religion should not be discouraged from carrying out such penalties?
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 21, 2015, 12:15:39 AM
It's true that the Court is in the process of striking those laws down but it's also fair to say that most of the time when there are some on the court who favor keeping racism legal they overwhelmingly are liberal justices.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: DJQuag on December 21, 2015, 02:30:40 AM
Again, I think you grossly misapprehend Islam when you say that it is merely a religion and not an ideology. I think your characterization would offend most of the world's Muslims.
Islam includes ideologies. I'm not sure how it's a disservice that I point out taht it's a large portfolio of smaller pieces, and not an individual small piece. That doesn't change the fact that our laws should pick out the specific pieces that we find harmful an prohit those instead of blindly targeting the entire body of faith regardless of individual ideology

Interesting. Based on this statement, you would think that you wouldn't have a problem with a law that forbids religious courts from stripping human rights from people without specifying any one religion that it is referring to.

And yet, when people in Texas passed a law like that,  one that targeted behaviours and not a specific region,  you had a problem.

Somehow,  I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: DJQuag on December 21, 2015, 02:46:09 AM
I was under the assumption that you have to at least be physically present in the country,  or a citizen or resident if abroad, for Constitutional rights to apply. I don't see how 1st Amendment rights apply to potential refugees who are not Americans and have never lived there.

I can see how people might morally and ethically have issue with not allowing Muslims to immigrate here, but I don't see a legal problem.

Now,  if the Muslim turns around five minutes after entry and says he was just kidding, Allahu akbar,  well then he IS protected.

Which is to say, you couldn't kick them out or penalise them if they immediately went back to Islam after being granted entry. The 1st Amendment would apply there.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 21, 2015, 08:21:06 AM
It's bad enough when you make idiotically vague statements of your own. It's offensive and vile when you put such false and idiotically vague statements into my mouth.

I never said that it's generally OK to discriminate on a religious basis. I said that Congress can specifically discriminate WITH RESPECT TO ENACTING IMMIGRATION RULES.
So which is it? That it's okay to discriminate on the basis of religion or not okay? You only get one or the other.

Quote
  You admitted that they can and do discriminate on the the basis of religion when they specifically allow one persecuted religious group in.
That, again, is discrimination on the basis of _persecution_ not religion.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 21, 2015, 08:23:14 AM
Let's not forget either that our government is still fighting to protect its right to discriminate against people solely based on their race. Specifically white people and sometimes Asians of course.
Nope. That's pure fantasy. The fact that programs taht exist to mitigate the effects of certain kinds of discrimination do not apply to people that are not suffering from that kind of discrimination is not discrimination against those that already aren't negatively affected in that particular sphere.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 21, 2015, 08:33:54 AM
I specifically rejected the idea of excluding Muslims as a group.  Those I want excluded from immigrating are those who believe the demagogues such as Khomeini and DAESH who proclaim that Muslims have a religious duty to do harm to Americans.
Neither or which are religions, but ideologies and political affiliations that can be filtered for without breathing a word about Islam, as you actually seem to be admitting here. Congress/the Executive do not need to retain the option of religious discrimination to enact those exclusions.

You say that we can exclude based on BEHAVIORS and I say it's a day late and a dollar short to expel those who have already done harm.
[/quote]
I said a willingness or commitment to engage in certain behaviors. Ideologies which can arise _independent_ of a specific religion. A fundamentalist Christian who has had been radicalized to attack medical providers or other sources what they see as of moral corruption should be equally banned. Or an atheist radicalized to try to take out the WBC. It's the willingness to use violence to attain political ends that should be the behavioral/ideological filter not just the fact taht they're Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or any other religious identification as was proposed.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 21, 2015, 08:36:33 AM
Islam includes ideologies. I'm not sure how it's a disservice that I point out taht it's a large portfolio of smaller pieces, and not an individual small piece. That doesn't change the fact that our laws should pick out the specific pieces that we find harmful an prohit those instead of blindly targeting the entire body of faith regardless of individual ideology

Interesting. Based on this statement, you would think that you wouldn't have a problem with a law that forbids religious courts from stripping human rights from people without specifying any one religion that it is referring to.
You're suggesting that there is something inherently harmful or dangerous to society about a given human right that would justify using the law to restrict it? I'm not sure how you get from "We can filter for ideologies that represent a manifest danger to us without singling out entire religions" to "we can arbitrarily strip rights as long as we don't mention religion"
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 21, 2015, 08:41:06 AM
I was under the assumption that you have to at least be physically present in the country,  or a citizen or resident if abroad, for Constitutional rights to apply. I don't see how 1st Amendment rights apply to potential refugees who are not Americans and have never lived there.
The First Amendment doesn't extend any explicit rights. It limits Congress's/the government's power to take actions that curtail freedoms, creating rights in the negative space where government isn't allowed to act. You don't need to be a citizen to benefit from the fact that Congress is actively denied the authority to act in those areas.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 21, 2015, 01:13:22 PM
Congress .she'll makeall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exerciseshall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereothereof
Not what Pyr said.

Nothing that stops Congress from selective immigration
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pyrtolin on December 21, 2015, 04:07:08 PM
Congress .she'll makeall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exerciseshall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereothereof
Not what Pyr said.

Nothing that stops Congress from selective immigration
I guess that means there's nothing preventing Congress from passing laws that say taht peopel of a particular religion aren't allowed to drive then. Or to cross the street on Mondays. Any infringement on the freedom of people based on their religion amounts to a burden of free exercise of religion.

And that would include the freedom to be considered for immigration.
Title: Re: leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution
Post by: Pete at Home on December 21, 2015, 06:15:13 PM
What stops them from doing that is the first Amendment, as understood by persons more educated and willing to learn than a chump who is so gullible that he thinks he can "win" a legal argument by demanding that his opponent answer a question as yes or no, when he's already been told that such a simple answer to that question would be misleading.

The first Amendment governs some Congressional powers and not others.  If Congress chooses to declare war on Nazi Germany simply because it is associated with Japan, Hitler cannot take Congress to SCOTUS and say boo hoo, this declaration of war infringes on my freedom of association.

Or do you not grasp that a declaration of war is also an act of Congress?

If Congress passes a law granting favorable immigration status to Jew's from Russia or Christians from Afghanistan, ththe underlying reason for the law may be persecution but the selection BASIS is religion.  So it's been done.

I agree that discrimination against a specific religion is morally different from discrimination in favor of a persecuted people on the basis of religion. But as far as constitutional law goes, this is a distinction without a difference.

Congress' ability to admit or deny categories of people into the country is as plenary as its power to declare way. There is no judicial review.  Sputter and obfuscate all you want: it won't Chang the established meaning of the constitution and bill of rights.

If Congress was to pass a law giving $1 to every Seventh Day Adventist in the country, that would be no more or no less unconstitutional than a law fining every Muslim in the country $1.

No constitutionally protected "freedom to be considered for immigration" exists. No constitutionally protected right to not have Congress declare war on you exists.  Congress' power to enact rules regarding property capture on land or water, likewise unchecked.