Banning muslims from entering the US is 100% legal

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Meister, Dec 9, 2015.

  1. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #1
    It has been done before, by FDR and after WW2, it was the democrats and a democrat president that passed the law.

    Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens.

    This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president:

    "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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 nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    I decided to make a separate thread about this because the mainstream media is running a propaganda campaign that tries to brainwash people into believing that what Trump is proposing is somehow "unconstitutional" and other forum members continue to spread this blatant misinformation.

    What Trump is proposing is legal and plain common sense.
     
  2. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #2
    Wonderful... Another one of Meister's conspiracy theory threads about the pumpkin-flavored arsenic marshmallow known as Donald Trump.
     
  3. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #3
    Legal, perhaps, but common sense? Perhaps you can explain how this is common sense.

    Wouldn't it just be better to ask everybody coming in if they are a terrorist as opposed to Muslim?
     
  4. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #4
    Haven't we already covered this in other threads? What FDR did was to ban people from specific countries, a ban by nationality. It should be 2nd grade material to understand that nationality and religion are not even close to the same thing. Religion has no boarders and it's impossible to tell someone's religion just by looking at them. The 1st Amendment prevents laws from being created that discriminate against a religion. The 14th Amendment protects people under equal protection. And there is no possible way to create a test that would even remotely be accurate as anyone can just lie about their beliefs. You Trumpies are living in Trump's dream if you think this would remotely pass the SCOTUS cause that's the first place it would go if Trump tried to enforce such a ban.
     
  5. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    Whenever you want to find a legal rationale to set up a dictatorship - the Germans are your go-to guys.

    They've got experience doing it.
     
  6. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #6
    I don't think you read my post.
    This was not covered in the other thread.

    I am refering to US Code 1182 passed in 1952, which specifically states that the POTUS can temporarily ban specific classes of people from entering the US.

    This law describes precisely what Trump is suggesting

    Also, none of the amendments apply to non-US citizens trying to enter the US.
     
  7. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #7
    yes it CAN be legal, but it doesn't make it any less stupid (IMO).
    just like banning communists, chinese people, jews, catholics, et cetera has been "legally" done at various stages in the past
     
  8. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #8
    The more stupid and childishly simplistic an idea is, the more it appeals to Trump's followers.
     
  9. Thomas Veil, Dec 9, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2015

    Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #9
    I was wondering why there was no citation of this US code...so I went looking for it.

    Here it is. The whole thing.

    A lot of it has to do with drug addicts, human trafficking, diseases and such. And while the code does contain that paragraph, it's important to note that it's very vague. Elsewhere (3)(B), the code specifically addresses terrorism and, as it does over and over throughout the document, refers to "any alien", i.e., individuals, not groups. For example, here's a part of (3)(B):

    That's a lot less broad than what Trump is proposing to do.

    The section meister quoted is sort of a vague, catch-all category that probably wouldn't withstand constitutional muster. Has the Supreme Court ever affirmed that section? Has it ever even been legally challenged?

    Also, interestingly, I note that when you Google that entire paragraph (the one meister mentioned), three of the top four hits are: Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and...Orly Taitz. :p
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    It may not have to be. One should look further back in history to see the outcome of what actually happened when something similar was proposed and passed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

    The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882 and signed into law by Chester A. Arthur, and remained on the books for 61 years. It prevented any Chinese immigrant - Citizen, non-citizen, immigrant, or otherwise - from entering the country if they had left it, or prohibited their entry into the United States.

    That law was subsequently repealed by the Magnuson Act of 1943. However, there was a challenge to that law - United States v. Wong Kim Ark - which SCOTUS ruled that foreign parents legally domiciled in the United States and children born to those parents are subject to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, making them US Citizens, and as such, are permitted to enter the country after traveling abroad.

    This also means that any such ban - like the one Trump is proposing - is trumped (pun intended) by the 14th Amendment.

    Sounds like someone here, as well as Trump needs to read more than what a Google search in vain to prove Trump right would return.

    Busted.

    BL.
     
  11. Happybunny, Dec 9, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2015

    Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #11
    IMO I think that Meister's right wing obession can be seen in his choice of username. Or it is a hell of a freudian slip.
    (Please note Meister is a German citizen so does know the full history title)

    Meister hightest rank in the Ordungspolizei from the Derde Reich.

    [​IMG]

    Krakau Razzia von deutscher Ordnungspolizei
     
  12. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #12
    Kudos on the most subtle Godwinning I've seen.
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #13
    Normally I frown on the use of "Democrat" as an adjective, but it's a useful tell when it's necessary to dismiss right wing propaganda-- Democrats prefer to stick to the more grammatical "Democratic President".

    Here is the context in all its garishness, straight from some demagogue calling himself Rush Limbaugh


    The McCarren Act wasn't signed by Harry S Truman. It was vetoed by Truman.
    In the Senate, more republicans than democrats voted to override.

    I don't know why Rush Limbaugh chooses to blame the democrats for this bill. Perhaps Republicans these days are too obtuse to comprehend the notion of a conservative democrat or a liberal republican.
     
  14. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #14
    In regards to Trump, it's almost impossible to avoid... Even the venerable Tom Brokaw recently compared Trump to Nazism.
     
  15. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #15
    Is that the same Tom Brokaw who criticized presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton for her assertion that she didn’t really “think” about the effect of having an unsecured email server at the State Department?
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #16
    Oh geez. He said something bad about my side? Now I hate him forever.
     
  17. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #17
    If you don't know who Tom Brokaw is then you're even less worldly and aware than I thought you were.
     
  18. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #18
    The Man in High Castle. A movie about North America had the Nazis prevailed. Philip K. Dick novel was inspiration. All the lefties should get out the Kleenex to clean up after themselves while watching it.
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    You do know that fascism is a far right ideology, right?
     
  20. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #20
    Great .... ban foreign Muslims and turn domestic Muslims into terrorists.
     
  21. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #21
    Pro Tip: You might want to try reading the novel first before trying to act like you know anything about the plot.

    Apparently his hasn't got to the "2+2=4" stage yet...
     
  22. Micky Do macrumors 68000

    Micky Do

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Location:
    An island in the Andaman Sea.
    #22
    Merry Xmas…… only one of this lot is non-Muslim.
    Merry Xmas.jpg Merry Xmas 2.jpg
     
  23. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #23
    I started it a long, long time ago, but never got around to finishing it.

    Though I read enough to know that the series only takes the premise of the book, and some of its hooks. For one thing, the TV show isn't nearly so obsessive about the I Ching...
     
  24. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #24
    Well, that was directed to Mellish, who apparently lives in an alternate reality of his own making...
     
  25. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    He could afford to read some books on political theory, I know that much.
     

Share This Page