• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brexit & Trump, Really Just a Call For "White Lives Matter"

I would argue that Congress has no authority to legislate immigration requirements based on one's religious beliefs, as such is barred by the first amendment. Even if they do have this authority, freedom of religious practice is absolutely a core founding principle of this nation.

This country has a mechanism for repealing the first amendment. It is within the scope of this nation's constitution to do that. But that still goes against our founding principles.

I don't know how the passage I quoted could have made any more clear that there is no subject the Supreme Court is less likely to question Congress's authority to regulate by law than the admission of aliens. Of course the right of Americans to the free exercise of religion is a core founding principle of this nation. And of course it is one which is completely irrelevant to aliens overseas. If you think otherwise, please cite us to any case where the Supreme Court has ever even implied that any of the protections of the First Amendment--any of them--applies to alien nationals outside U.S. territory.

You may wish we some "Constitution of the Planet" set the rules Americans had to live by, one that had some "Warm and Fuzzy Clause" which required Americans to accommodate the wishes of every foreigner on earth--or be haled before some international collectivist tribunal to answer for their hard-heartedness. The reality is otherwise. The design for our government--the only design for it--is the "Constitution of the United States of America." The American people, speaking through their elected representatives in Congress, do not need to justify to anyone any decision they may make about excluding any alien from U.S. territory. Despite the best efforts of leftists, this is still a sovereign nation.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how the passage I quoted could have made any more clear that there is no subject the Supreme Court is less likely to question Congress's authority to regulate by law than the admission of aliens. Of course the right of Americans to the free exercise of religion is a core founding principle of this nation. And of course it is one which is completely irrelevant to aliens overseas. If you think otherwise, please cite us to any case where the Supreme Court has ever even implied that any of the protections of the First Amendment--any of them--applies to alien nationals outside U.S. territory.
I can give you a thousand examples of cases where the Supreme Court has ruled the first amendment applies to Congress. It restricts Congress explicitly.

You may wish we some "Constitution of the Planet" set the rules Americans had to live by, one that had some "Warm and Fuzzy Clause" which required Americans to accommodate the wishes of every foreigner on earth--or be haled before some international collectivist tribunal to answer for their hard-heartedness. The reality is otherwise. The design for our government--the only design for it--is the "Constitution of the United States of America." The American people, speaking through their elected representatives in Congress, do not need to justify to anyone any decision they may make about excluding any alien from U.S. territory. Despite the best efforts of leftists, this is still a sovereign nation.
More straw man from the right-wingers. Shocking.
 
Only a cowardly bigot would ban an entire religion.
Possibly so, if it were intended as a permanent ban and not just a temporarily enforced policy until we can figure out who is who and what is what. Only a stupid idiot would not quarantine a potentially infectious group, demonstrated over and over again to be deadly, whoever they may be, in an effort to protect the innocent citizens of OUR country.

That is one of the first priorities/duties of a national government. I am offended that my government wants to knowingly unleash this known virus into the common community, into a unknowing populace without first trying its damnedest to try to eradicate this disease.

Speaking of bigotry and cowardice, those of you out there who try to use the bigotry of calling your fellow citizens names in hopes of intimidation, in hopes of making us back down, to cower upon being unjustly so labeled, well most of, inoculated from the overuse of this insidious tactic, are now immune.

Hat tip to all you girls and boys out there that cried wolf far too often.
 
If there is one clear difference between Heil Hillary and Crazy Donald, it's national sovereignty. Hillary will gladly trade some US freedom for global respect; Donald not so much. On this issue...Donald holds the winning cards, IMO.

Donald would turn the national mall into a golf course if he could make money at it. The last thing we need is a swindler who's M.O. is ripping people off.
 
The race card is getting really old.
Racism isn't what drove this historic vote! Issues of security, immigration and economic autonomy did.

Right wing blogs everywhere are celebrating this as a "victory for white people".
 
the Supreme Court has ruled the first amendment applies to Congress. It restricts Congress explicitly.

That is true. It is also irrelevant, because the protections of the Bill of Rights do not apply to aliens outside U.S. territory. The American people, acting through their elected representatives in Congress, are entirely free to make laws excluding any aliens for any reason they please. I challenged you to cite any case where the Supreme Court has ever even implied that the First Amendment restricts what Congress may do regarding aliens who have not entered U.S. territory. You can't, because there aren't any--so you try to change the subject by reiterating the truism that the First Amendment restricts what Congress may do.

I think a federal law that excluded aliens solely on the basis of their religion would be witless and ill-advised, but the question is whether it would violate anything in the First Amendment. You have not explained why, even if the protections of the First Amendment did extend to aliens overseas, such a law would prohibit those aliens' free exercise of religion. They would be perfectly free to keep practicing their religion, in whatever foreign nations they inhabited, just as they had been doing.
 
That is true. It is also irrelevant,

It's not.

Congress "shall make no law..."

There's nothing that says "well ok they can make laws about people who don't have rights."
 
Right wing blogs everywhere are celebrating this as a "victory for white people".

Not where I visit on the web. Either put up links to back your assumptions or shut the heck up .
 
Screen_Shot_2016-06-24_at_4.57.05_PM.jpg

Scotland voted to stay, jackass. They're talking about leaving the UK so they can stay in the EU.
 
It's not.

Congress "shall make no law..."

There's nothing that says "well ok they can make laws about people who don't have rights."

Instead of just continuing to prattle that assertion, why don't you back it up with some legal authority? I challenge you again to show us where the Supreme Court--or any other U.S. court--has ever even so much as implied that any of the First Amendment's protections extends to aliens who have not entered U.S. territory. You won't, because you can't. I already quoted a case in which the Supreme Court made very clear that it has a long-established policy of deferring to just about any action Congress may take regarding the admission of aliens to the U.S.

Also, as I pointed out, even if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment did apply to aliens outside U.S. territory, Congress would not be prohibiting any alien's free exercise of religion simply by refusing to admit him to U.S. territory. The aliens kept out of the U.S. by the law could go on practicing their religions in whatever nations they inhabited exactly as they had been before Congress acted.

Let any Muslim alien who imagines he can somehow enforce his imagined right to enter U.S. territory try to do that. WE--the American people--say who gets to enter our territory, and who does not, and we do not need to justify our decisions about that to anyone. That includes the justices of the Supreme Court, assuming they were ever so silly as even to consider enforcing your bizarre interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. You are, once again, pretending to know what you do not.
 
Last edited:
Instead of just continuing to prattle that assertion, why don't you back it up with some legal authority? I challenge you again to show us where the Supreme Court--or any other U.S. court--has even so much as implied that any of the First Amendment's protections extends to aliens who have not entered U.S. territory. You won't, because you can't. I already quoted a case in which the Supreme Court made very clear that it has a long-established policy of deferring to just about any action Congress may take regarding the admission of aliens to the U.S.

Also, as I pointed out, even if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment did apply to aliens outside U.S. territory, Congress would not be prohibiting any alien's free exercise of religion simply by refusing to admit him to U.S. territory. The aliens kept out of the U.S. by the law could go on practicing their religions in whatever nations they inhabited exactly as they had been before Congress acted.

You are pretending to know what you do not.

I've no reason to provide evidence for an argument I'm not making. I'm not arguing a protection extends into other nations. I'm arguing that a restriction applies to Congress in any and all laws they choose to make.

But hey, if you support the precedent that Congress has infinite power to decide who can and cannot become a member of our society, that's up to you buddy. Some of us like smaller government.
 
Who are we going to take it back from? Obama?

If you asked Obama "he'd say he does have ownership -certainly kingship". He thinks he is the ruler so yes, if you have to name a name- Obama.
 
I think Trump trying to associate his campaign with Brexit is laughable.

I truly believe that if Trump thought he could gain votes by praising Hitler - he would do it.

And how the heck is America taking back her country by electing some buffoon who wants to put gigantic tariff on imports and by barring certain religion(s) from entering the USA?

There is nothing patriotic in that.

Trump is saying (in essence) 'we cannot fight other countries economies on even terms. We can only do it with protectionism'. PLUS he is saying that 'America is afraid of Muslims so we will ban them'.

That is not strength - that is cowardice.

America is about free markets and free enterprise AND it is about being inclusive ('huddled masses') NOT reclusive.

Trump is NOT a proud American, IMO. He is a spoiled, trust fund brat who has nothing but failed businesses and failed marriages in his past. He is pathetic.

So is Clinton, but I guarantee you she will do less harm to America then Trump would as POTUS.

Though I still prefer Gary Johnson by MILES over both of them.

He's actually saying that in order to protect our countries economy trade deals should be fair - not biased in favor of the other countries. And, he's saying that in order to protect our citizens we need to make sure we have protected borders. You seem confused.

And how can you actually guarantee anything with regards to Clinton's actions?
 
Donald would turn the national mall into a golf course if he could make money at it. The last thing we need is a swindler who's M.O. is ripping people off.


Seriously, what evidence do you have that Trump has ripped off anyone. Saying it doesn't make it true.
 
Can you supply some data on the "inevitability" of immigrants becoming jihadists?

And while we're at it, can you site with reference exactly what it is about the Muslim faith that runs contrary to American values?

I think the evidence of the jihadists in Europe is proof enough. However, if that doesn't convince you - take a look at the country these immigrants are leaving behind. It is nothing but a desolate wasteland. The people that they were once affiliated with - the people of their country destroyed the land. It is nothing but sand and ruble. They destroy for the sake of destroying. Honestly, if you look at the pictures and see the end result - is that what you want for America? I don't and for me that is proof enough that they people coming here would ultimately destroy our country. It won't happen overnight - it will be our children's children that will live the misery of their destruction. We can't be that selfish in the name of humanitarian. We must protect the resources we have from those who would destroy them and leave them in rubble.
 
Never heard of this site and wonder who else has. But if you keep looking, I'm sure you'll find more like it. At issue, of course, is whether you can find legit conservative sources that back up your claim.

What's not legit about it? It's a blog ran by a conservative for conservatives.
 
Can you supply some data on the "inevitability" of immigrants becoming jihadists?

And while we're at it, can you site with reference exactly what it is about the Muslim faith that runs contrary to American values?

All religions are counter to American values. All religions attempt to take control of the populace that follow them. Religious freedom not only allows believers to believe what they want, it prevents non believers from being forced to believe something they don't want.
 
What's not legit about it? It's a blog ran by a conservative for conservatives.

So can I find a blog from some Liberal that says "Kill all white males" and use it as a blanket statement for all Liberals?
 
So can I find a blog from some Liberal that says "Kill all white males" and use it as a blanket statement for all Liberals?

I never used it as a blanket statement for all conservatives. BTW, you won't find a liberal blog that says "kill all white males".
 
Back
Top Bottom