Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Un-american is such a beautiful word, because it is such a hilarious level of Newspeak.
edited 9th Dec '15 1:11:17 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIn a way, the proposal is highly American, if you consider that it speaks directly for a vocal subset of the population, who are as stereotypically American as it's possible to get. It's blatantly unconstitutional, of course, but that's not the same thing.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, technically speaking it appears it wouldn't actually be unconstitutional. There are laws on the books that allow a President to restrict immigration for classes of people, and under those laws the President could indeed restrict a religious group from entering the country. They were used in the past to prevent advocates of Communism from entering the country, for instance, or to bar the entry of Chinese workers even further back - and the laws were successfully defended in the Supreme Court, so there is precedent. Un-American therefore seems a more accurate term to use to describe the plan, if we're talking about TODAY's America, at least. It would certainly not be morally defensible either. And of course it would be unconstitutional to not allow a Muslim who is already an American citizen to re-enter the country, which Trump didn't seem to foresee as a possible problem with the plan.
But yeah, Paul Ryan came out lambasting Trump's espoused viewpoint, which is a bit stunning - though to be fair, Ryan tends to be more of an economic wonk (or at least has the reputation of being one).
And that said, one of the bigger aspects of Trump possibly getting nominated is that, if the bigwigs do decide to intervene and block it, that'd pretty much drain the credibility from our current voting system, which would be a mixed bag to say the least.
edited 9th Dec '15 1:27:51 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"The Constitutional provision of religious tests for elected office obviously doesn't apply to immigration. The Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment only applies to states, not on a Federal level. Immigration is a Federal level issue, not a state issue. The First Amendment provides protection of exercise of religion, but it would be an awkward argument that the right to immigrate is a protected religious right. The Supreme Court basically rejected the 1st Amendment as a grounds to be allowed to enter the country in a 1972 case - Kleindienst vs. Mandel, when Belgian Communist advocate Ernest Mendel was denied entry into the country. So there might not be constitutional grounds to make the plan illegal. Doesn't make it any less immoral though.
Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code: "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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
I beg to differ. The USA are not Redneckland, the country's identity does not belong to racist fucks. The USA are a huge, diverse country, with plenty of things that are unique to it and meritorious, noble, and admirable.
Sorry for jumping in like this, but I have strong feelings about this kind of intelligentsia antipatriotism. It was inappropriate and unfair in 1943
, and remains so today.
edited 9th Dec '15 1:40:08 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Hell, I would sign a petition to ban Trump from the UK, and I'm an American. Of course, I'd also like to ban him from the US, and every other nation in the world. Let him be like The Man Without a Country. (Except Trump would probably live on a mega-yacht, not be passed around from one ship to another.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.As I said, there was already a 1st Amendment case proposing that a person couldn't be barred from entry on the basis of free speech, and it failed 6-3 in the Supreme Court.
As of right now, yes, the President can choose to bar ANY class of aliens from entry, including a religious class.
I think no one one has changed this particular law because no one thought a President might want to bar a specific religion from entry into the country these days.
I think you're overreading the Kleindienst case. That explicitly referred to the right to immigration by free speech. This is different: it's a challenge to public policy.
The equal protection clause is applied to the federal government, as established by the 5th amendment through due process, as described in Bolling v Sharpe.
Don't get me wrong. Prohibiting immigration from "Muslim countries" would probably be permitted, but prohibiting immigration on the basis of the individual's religion very clearly fails the non-discrimination test.
edited 9th Dec '15 2:10:56 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/674624569156739073
"Watch Donald Trump get attacked by a bald eagle."
Specifics and context here: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-gets-attacked-by-bald-eagle-in-hilarious-video-watch-now-w159338
edited 9th Dec '15 2:25:36 PM by sgamer82

Many Republicans have also said the proposal is crazy and/or un-American, but I think Jolly is the first one to actually call for him to withdraw his candidacy over it.