leaders that lie to the people about the Constitution

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pete at Home]

"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.

[Pyrtolin]

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

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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:

    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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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".

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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. 

[cherrypoptart]

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?

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[DJQuag]

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.

[DJQuag]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

  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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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"

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.