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.