• 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!

Dying US Senator apologizes for Trump's Islamaphobia

When did the U.S. citizens lose their right to decide who is allowed in? And why can't they say no to Muslims?

I control who is allowed into my house. Corporations control who can walk in. The White House controls...except for the fence jumpers.
 
shrubnose said:
eohrnberger said:
how would this violate the constitution?



the USA is not going to issue a blanket ban on Muslims entering the USA.

Wait and see.
Click to expand...


That wasn't the question.

You made the claim:

shrubnose said:
That would violate the U.S. Constitution and it's not going to happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I responded with the question:

eohrnberger said:
How would this violate the Constitution? Controlling who enters the nation, cross the national border, would seem to be pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...

So I'm asking you again, How would this violate the Constitution?

I'm not asking if it's going to happen or not. I'm asking you to substantiate your statement.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
shrubnose said:
That wasn't the question.

You made the claim:



I responded with the question:



So I'm asking you again, How would this violate the Constitution?
Click to expand...
I'm not asking if it's going to happen or not. I'm asking you to substantiate your statement.
Click to expand...



You can either study the constitution or talk to a lawyer.I don't have time to explain it to you.

IOW:Take a hike.

:lol:

Have a good day.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
shrubnose said:
There is no provision in the Constitution that mandates open borders, if that's what you mean.

Without any substantiation, you claim rings empty.
Click to expand...



Believe whatever misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution that you want to believe.

Get back with us after any religious group is denied entry to the USA strictly because of their religion.

I predict that won't happen,no matter what you or Trump say.

:lol:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
eohrnberger said:
Believe whatever misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution that you want to believe.

Get back with us after any religious group is denied entry to the USA strictly because of their religion.

I predict that won't happen,no matter what you or Trump say.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Your prediction may very well be accurate, that it'll never happen. You keep diverting to that point, but that's not the question that I raised.

Seems many legal opinions is that it would be.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
As a sovereign nation, the United States government has always had undoubted authority to decide who may enter the country, and the conditions for entry by those who seek it. It has long been understood that most of this power lies with Congress, under its authority to decide who may become a citizen and its power over foreign commerce. The president and the Executive Branch share some of this authority, through the power to manage foreign relations, globally and with individual nations.
Constitution Check: Would a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. be valid?
Click to expand...
Eric Posner, a professor at the respected University of Chicago Law School and specialist in executive power, says there is precedent to support a Trump-style ban on Muslim immigrants. He estimates the odds are about "50/50" that the Supreme Court would uphold Trump's plan, were it ever enacted. Trump's proposal is "just a terrible idea" that "violates important values" and does not "enhance security," Posner says, but as a legal matter, it may be constitutional.
Legal Scholar: Trump'''s Muslim Ban May Be Constitutional - NBC News
Click to expand...
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Law Blog that Mr. Trump’s plan “may be a very bad idea, but under the plenary power doctrine it may very well be constitutional.”
Is Trump?s Proposed Ban on Muslim Entry Unconstitutional? - Law Blog - WSJ
Click to expand...
So the question to you still stands to you, why do you believe that it would be considered unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
A dying man, on his death bed, should apologize for his own personal sins, not the sinfulness he perceives in others. And as for apologizing on behalf of the Republican Party, the Republican Party may have many things to apologize for, but the rantings of Donald Trump is not one of them.
Click to expand...

We don't know what was going on in his mind at the time, and if it makes him feel better and gives him hope to go out with a bang, he has a right to apologize or say whatever.
I am just not sure if we are going too far, and why we are to apologize for exercising our first amendment rights.
I just read that Eagles Of Death Metal shows cancelled following singer’s comments that ‘Muslims were celebrating in the streets’ during the Bataclan massacre
What kind of nonsense and cowardice is that? We aren't to speak what's on our minds, worrying we might offend someone? The truth is, we can't make everyone happy, and someone will find reasons to be offended.
Who knows why Mr. Trump is saying these things, if he means what he says. I don't like him. Chances are, he is babbling to hear himself talk, to draw a crowd, but I am hoping he speaks from the heart. I wish politicians would speak the truth, no matter what. Most are so measured in their responses, so coached, so careful, they come across as insincere. That I can't respect.
 
Lovebug said:
We don't know what was going on in his mind at the time, and if it makes him feel better and gives him hope to go out with a bang, he has a right to apologize or say whatever.
I am just not sure if we are going too far, and why we are to apologize for exercising our first amendment rights.
I just read that Eagles Of Death Metal shows cancelled following singer’s comments that ‘Muslims were celebrating in the streets’ during the Bataclan massacre
What kind of nonsense and cowardice is that? We aren't to speak what's on our minds, worrying we might offend someone? The truth is, we can't make everyone happy, and someone will find reasons to be offended.
Who knows why Mr. Trump is saying these things, if he means what he says. I don't like him. Chances are, he is babbling to hear himself talk, to draw a crowd, but I am hoping he speaks from the heart. I wish politicians would speak the truth, no matter what. Most are so measured in their responses, so coached, so careful, they come across as insincere. That I can't respect.
Click to expand...

Jesse Hughes apologised over two months ago for some of the absurd claims he made in that article.

"I humbly beg forgiveness from the people of France, the staff and security of the Bataclan, my fans, family, friends and anyone else hurt or offended by the absurd accusations I made," said Jesse Hughes, singer and guitarist of US band Eagles of Death Metal.

"My suggestions that anyone affiliated with the Bataclan played a role in the events of November 13 are unfounded and baseless, and I take full responsibility for them," he said in a statement. The artist, in an interview with the Fox Business channel, had cast suspicion on the guards of the Bataclan club, suggesting that some had been involved in the attack claimed by the Islamic State group.
Paris attacks: Eagles of Death Metal singer Jesse Hughes apologises for 'inside job' claim - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Click to expand...

Also

http://http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/jesse-hughes-apologises-for-suggesting-bataclans-security-guards-were-in-on-paris-attacks/news-story/beec0b68a8a04d1b4c92137338a62c15
Eagles of Death Metal's Jesse Hughes apologises for Bataclan slur
 
eohrnberger said:
shrubnose said:
So the question to you still stands to you, why do you believe that it would be considered unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I feel your pain. This is how empty-headed liberals debate - throw bs on the wall and see what sticks.

When asked for the source of their "wisdom", with straight face - if you could see it - they will tell you to figure it out yourself.

Even my 6-year-old granddaughter knows that an answer like that would be embarrassing.
Click to expand...
 
legalimmigrant said:
When did the U.S. citizens lose their right to decide who is allowed in? And why can't they say no to Muslims?

I control who is allowed into my house. Corporations control who can walk in. The White House controls...except for the fence jumpers.
Click to expand...

That would likely run afoul of the First Amendment. However, there is precedent for deciding by country. We could then allow for limited exceptions based on evidence of victims of ongoing persecution (many of those would just happen to be Christian). We can't directly exclude Muslims, but can take steps that have that effect.
 
Serenity said:
Jesse Hughes apologised over two months ago for some of the absurd claims he made in that article.



Also

http://http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/jesse-hughes-apologises-for-suggesting-bataclans-security-guards-were-in-on-paris-attacks/news-story/beec0b68a8a04d1b4c92137338a62c15
Eagles of Death Metal's Jesse Hughes apologises for Bataclan slur
Click to expand...

It may be absurd, but he has the right to make those claims. I find so many things offensive. No one is apologizing for those. It seems that our freedom of speech ends depending on who is outraged, who is threatening with boycotts or violence. I find that sad and absurd.
 
SDET said:
That would likely run afoul of the First Amendment. However, there is precedent for deciding by country. We could then allow for limited exceptions based on evidence of victims of ongoing persecution (many of those would just happen to be Christian). We can't directly exclude Muslims, but can take steps that have that effect.
Click to expand...

Which would be discriminatory, and deceitful at that.
 
shrubnose said:
I'm going to let you figure that out for yourself.
Click to expand...

Admitting you know s*** is a good beginning. For your European benefit, here it is:

Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best.

Per 8 USC §1182:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Did you get it or was it too complicated?
 
Who even cares? Besides of which, that's a pretty dumb thing to do in the first place.
 
SDET said:
That would likely run afoul of the First Amendment. However, there is precedent for deciding by country. We could then allow for limited exceptions based on evidence of victims of ongoing persecution (many of those would just happen to be Christian). We can't directly exclude Muslims, but can take steps that have that effect.
Click to expand...

Likely? Are you just guessing?

And what does the First Amendment have to so with immigration? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

President can discriminate against any class of immigrants all day long, including - a horror of horrors - Muslims.
 
Since Trump won't be moving into the White House in January he won't be stopping anyone from coming into the USA.

Wait and see.

:lol:
 
Lovebug said:
Which would be discriminatory, and deceitful at that.
Click to expand...

Yes, when it comes to banning immigrants, we can be as discriminatory as we wish. Discrimination is good.

I do it every single day in deciding where to go shopping, for example. All white area - good. All black area - not good.

You see, I have this weird desire to stay alive. Strange, isn't it?
 
shrubnose said:
Since Trump won't be moving into the White House in January he won't be stopping anyone from coming into the USA.

Wait and see.

:lol:
Click to expand...

So, this is what I get for a quickie on the presidential authority to keep the bums out? How about, thank you, I didn't know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom