leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution

[NobleHunter]

Were you napping? It's been done.

Where?

[Pete at Home]

Were you napping? It's been done.

Where?

Scottification of Northern Ireland.
Chinafication of Tibet
Syrian islamification of Christian Lebanon in 1960-79

[NobleHunter]

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?

[AI Wessex]

Pete, this is a better summary of statements from Jeb on his Christian immigration strategy, including his vetting process:

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?

[Pete at Home]

"“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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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?

[Pete at Home]

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. 

[Pete at Home]

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. 

[Pete at Home]

"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.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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. 

[Pete at Home]

"
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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[Pete at Home]

"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.

[yossarian22c]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

"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.

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

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.

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?

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pete at Home]

"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. 

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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).

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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?

[Pete at Home]

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?

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Pete at Home]

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!)

[Pyrtolin]

"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.

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pete at Home]

If the US oath of naturalization has nothing to do with religion, then many forms of Islam and Judaism aren't religions. Think again.