Trump's Immigration Policy

[kalm]

Exactly. You're putting up his heavily sanitized policies from his website.

What about his other ludicrous proposals that (for some reason) didn't make it to his website?

For example: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." (clearly unconstitutional. and harms the "but, we just want to follow the laws!" argument)

Nothing pisses me off more than this partial statement. If you want to criticize it, stop being a pussy by shying away from the rest of the actual statement. He called for a temporary ban until they can be properly vetted. Passing the vetting process is part of the immigration laws. And it is absolutely NOT clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, I reserve the right to agree with you if you can show me how your are right and I am wrong.

Wait! Trump is suggesting we vette immigrants coming into the country?

Brilliant!

(Although as an aside, I wasn't aware the constitution provided rights to those trying to get here).

[Skjellyfetti]

Not that I agree with Trump's position, as I don't, but what is unconstitutional of not allowing immigrants to this country if they are Muslim?

Granted, it's impossible to ever say something is unconstitutional or constitutional until SCOTUS rules on a specific case. I'll concede that I shouldn't have said "clearly"....

But, it would be pretty damn difficult to see them upholding this.

His Vice Presidential pick called it unconstitutional back in December.

The 14th amendment, and really most of the constitution, refers to citizens or people of this country. It's fairly quiet on government and people from outside the government.

The Constitution uses explicit language for "citizens".

Compare:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States

14th Amendment:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does "any person" really refer to only citizens?

Why use the "any person" language?

Why not just say "nor shall any State deprive any [citizen] of life, liberty, or property..."?




This is the reasoning behind Gitmo. We can keep them there without subjecting them to any protections under the Constitution. Moving them to the US requires giving them due process.



SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 14th Amendment applies to non-citizens.


1888:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that

"all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

http://openjurist.org/532/f2d/268/franc ... on-service

[93henfan]

Wait! Trump is suggesting we vette immigrants coming into the country?

Brilliant!

I think we should Camaro them rather than vette them. Brown people like Camaros more than Vettes.

[Skjellyfetti]

And, I guess I should add that I don't see any problem with vetting immigrants, of course.

But, a blanket ban based on religion is nonsensical. Especially as a country that was largely founded by religious refugees.

[GannonFan]

Not that I agree with Trump's position, as I don't, but what is unconstitutional of not allowing immigrants to this country if they are Muslim?

Granted, it's impossible to ever say something is unconstitutional or constitutional until SCOTUS rules on a specific case. I'll concede that I shouldn't have said "clearly"....

But, it would be pretty damn difficult to see them upholding this.

His Vice Presidential pick called it unconstitutional back in December.

The 14th amendment, and really most of the constitution, refers to citizens or people of this country. It's fairly quiet on government and people from outside the government.

The Constitution uses explicit language for "citizens".

Compare:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States

14th Amendment:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does "any person" really refer to only citizens?

Why use the "any person" language?

Why not just say "nor shall any State deprive any [citizen] of life, liberty, or property..."?




This is the reasoning behind Gitmo. We can keep them there without subjecting them to any protections under the Constitution. Moving them to the US requires giving them due process.



SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 14th Amendment applies to non-citizens.


1888:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that

"all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

http://openjurist.org/532/f2d/268/franc ... on-service

Well, Pence is not a constitutional scholar so what he tweets about the Constitution is just opinion.

We have consistently, for at least the past 100 years, placed limitations on immigration to this country, including by nationality, and it has passed Constitutional muster as overseen by the SCOTUS. No SCOTUS will ever rule that people who are not citizens of the US have a Constitutional right to come to the US and become citizens. I think Trump's position (although as others have said, he's never said a full out and out ban, just a cessation until vetting can occur) is poor policy, but I don't think it rises to the level of unconstitutional, or even close to it.

[YoUDeeMan]

skelly...

We have had immigration quotas with regards to specific countries...apparently, no one thinks that qualifies as discrimination. Wonder why?

[CID1990]

skelly...

We have had immigration quotas with regards to specific countries...apparently, no one thinks that qualifies as discrimination. Wonder why?

We still do. Immigrant visas are limited to country specific quotas. Every country in the world has a fixed number of chargeable immigrant visas.

Countries that are considered to be underrepresented have the Diversity Visa lottery. The DV program in Nigeria ended 2 years ago as it was determined by the currently used formula that Nigerians are no longer underrepresented as an immigrant group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

skelly...

We have had immigration quotas with regards to specific countries...apparently, no one thinks that qualifies as discrimination. Wonder why?

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Was I talking about immigration quotas to specific countries or a blanket ban of an entire religion?

[CAA Flagship]

And, I guess I should add that I don't see any problem with vetting immigrants, of course.

But, a blanket ban based on religion is nonsensical.

Again, he called for a TEMPORARY ban, dammit. Say it. SAY IT!!!!!!!

Nonsensical? Really? Do you not think our vetting process deserves an audit? We have a new adversary that is not tied to a single nation or single continent. Maybe we need a pause to determine how to best handle that.

Especially as a country that was largely founded by religious refugees.

Interesting that you mention that. The Native Americans did not secure their border, and they did not vet the "religious refugees". Now they are mascots.

[Skjellyfetti]

Again, he called for a TEMPORARY ban, dammit. Say it. SAY IT!!!!!!!

have I been saying it is permanent or something?

Why do you think I don't get that? Have I mentioned anything about its time-length?

I'm not arguing against it because of its time length.

Say it!!!! SAY IT!!!!!

I'm arguing against it because it's a blanket ban.

We have plenty of non-citizen Muslims who live in this country and contribute to society who are not terrorists. They are engineers, professors, business executives, etc.

They would no longer be allowed to work in this country and contribute. Simply because of the flavor of god they worship. It's ridiculous.


It reminds me of Alabama's controversial immigration law.

All of a sudden the German executive at the Mercedes-Benz plant got arrested for not having his papers.

As Mercedes-Benz executive Detlev Hager negotiated the streets of Tuscaloosa last week, he drove right into the controversy over Alabama's tough new immigration law.

The rental car he was driving, lacking a tag, caught the attention of a local policeman, who stopped Hager on Wednesday. When the officer asked for a driver's license, all he had on him was a German ID card.

"He was taken into custody," Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steven Anderson said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-immig ... DT20111122

Then a Honda executive was arrested.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... ration-law



Alabama wised up after they realized the repercussions that would come from from foreign businesses that make their home in Alabama and took out the controversial elements.





Trump's blanket ban on Muslims (REGARDLESS OF TIME-LENGTH) will have far reaching repercussions. It's impulsive and ill conceived.

[CAA Flagship]

Again, he called for a TEMPORARY ban, dammit. Say it. SAY IT!!!!!!!

have I been saying it is permanent or something?

Why do you think I don't get that? Have I mentioned anything about its time-length?

I'm not arguing against it because of its time length.

Say it!!!! SAY IT!!!!!

I'm arguing against it because it's a blanket ban.

We have plenty of non-citizen Muslims who live in this country and contribute to society who are not terrorists. They are engineers, professors, business executives, etc.

They would no longer be allowed to work in this country and contribute. Simply because of the flavor of god they worship. It's ridiculous.


It reminds me of Alabama's controversial immigration law.

All of a sudden the German executive at the Mercedes-Benz plant got arrested for not having his papers.

As Mercedes-Benz executive Detlev Hager negotiated the streets of Tuscaloosa last week, he drove right into the controversy over Alabama's tough new immigration law.

The rental car he was driving, lacking a tag, caught the attention of a local policeman, who stopped Hager on Wednesday. When the officer asked for a driver's license, all he had on him was a German ID card.

"He was taken into custody," Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steven Anderson said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-immig ... DT20111122

Then a Honda executive was arrested.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... ration-law



Alabama wised up after they realized the repercussions that would come from from foreign businesses that make their home in Alabama and took out the controversial elements.





Trump's blanket ban on Muslims (REGARDLESS OF TIME-LENGTH) will have far reaching repercussions. It's impulsive and ill conceived.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he was only talking about temporarily banning INCOMING Muslims. Not kicking out the ones that are already here.

[Skjellyfetti]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he was only talking about temporarily banning INCOMING Muslims. Not kicking out the ones that are already here.

Well, I'm not talking about people here permanently and have their green cards. They have no need to change their status.

But, there are plenty of people who come here for business on temporary visas. They would have to get a new visa each time. And, if they are are Muslim... they would get denied each time. The Honda exec and the Mercedes exec didn't have green cards but temporary work permits, for example.


But, since you mention it -- why aren't you (and Trump) also afraid of Muslims already here? If we're going to ban all Muslims from entering the country until we "figure it out" - shouldn't we also rescind all the immigration papers for those already here? What about the ones that already slipped through the cracks???

[CAA Flagship]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he was only talking about temporarily banning INCOMING Muslims. Not kicking out the ones that are already here.

Well, I'm not talking about people here permanently and have their green cards. They have no need to change their status.

But, there are plenty of people who come here for business on temporary visas. They would have to get a new visa each time. And, if they are are Muslim... they would get denied each time. The Honda exec and the Mercedes exec didn't have green cards but temporary work permits, for example.


But, since you mention it -- why aren't you (and Trump) also afraid of Muslims already here? If we're going to ban all Muslims from entering the country until we "figure it out" - shouldn't we also rescind all the immigration papers for those already here? What about the ones that already slipped through the cracks???

Let's face it. There's a better chance that people from other countries are radicalized compared to the ones that are already here. The ones that are here should be "known" and we have to rely on citizens to report any "radical" behavior. The Dallas Police shooter and the San Bernardino shooters, in hindsight, raised flags that were not reacted to.

Regarding business travelers, they are easier to vet. There is a history with them that is easier to trace, and there are likely US contacts that can be contacted for verification. The problem group is students. No history and no US contacts. That is a group that requires a stronger vetting program.

[Skjellyfetti]

So, is it just a stronger vetting program or a blanket ban on all Muslims "until we get it sorted out."

Here's his FULL press release from his original announcement back in January (so you don't accuse me of taking it out of context).

This is a blanket ban on all Muslims. Maybe that is no longer his position. But, what do you think?

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again."

- Donald J. Trump

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration

[CAA Flagship]

So, is it just a stronger vetting program or a blanket ban on all Muslims "until we get it sorted out."

Here's his FULL press release from his original announcement back in January (so you don't accuse me of taking it out of context).

This is a blanket ban on all Muslims. Maybe that is no longer his position. But, what do you think?

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again."

- Donald J. Trump

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration

I believe it is a blanket ban on all Muslims until a stronger vetting program can be developed.
While not 100% clear, I think a reasonable person can put the 25% and 51% with the "able to determine and understand" statement. Meaning that it is those percentages of people that he wants to identify and ban.

I don't think this statement addresses Muslims already in America. But I can see where a person with only a little bias can twist this in that direction because it doesn't spell it out clearly.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think this statement addresses Muslims already in America. But I can see where a person with only a little bias can twist this in that direction because it doesn't spell it out clearly.

Pump the breaks. I'm not saying it says that.

I'm saying if you are afraid of Muslims coming here enough for a blanket ban on all Muslim visas.... Surely, you would want the visas of Muslims already here rescinded.

I'm not saying Trump has called for that or you have. I'm saying that the logical next step from banning all Muslims from entering is kicking out the ones already here (nonpermanent residents and citizens).

[Ivytalk]

I don't think this statement addresses Muslims already in America. But I can see where a person with only a little bias can twist this in that direction because it doesn't spell it out clearly.

Pump the breaks. I'm not saying it says that.

I'm saying if you are afraid of Muslims coming here enough for a blanket ban on all Muslim visas.... Surely, you would want the visas of Muslims already here rescinded.

I'm not saying Trump has called for that or you have. I'm saying that the logical next step from banning all Muslims from entering is kicking out the ones already here (nonpermanent residents and citizens).

*brakes

[GannonFan]

I don't think this statement addresses Muslims already in America. But I can see where a person with only a little bias can twist this in that direction because it doesn't spell it out clearly.

Pump the breaks. I'm not saying it says that.

I'm saying if you are afraid of Muslims coming here enough for a blanket ban on all Muslim visas.... Surely, you would want the visas of Muslims already here rescinded.

I'm not saying Trump has called for that or you have. I'm saying that the logical next step from banning all Muslims from entering is kicking out the ones already here (nonpermanent residents and citizens).

No offense, but there's nothing logical about saying that a temporary cessation of immigration by non-citizens (redundant) based on a particular faith would then lead to a removal of all people of the same faith from this country, including non-permanent residents and even citizens. Whereas you were incorrect in asserting the unconstitutionality of barring potential immigrants based on a religious faith (there is nothing in the Constitution that would explicitly or otherwise prohibit that - immigration has and can be a case of pick and choose who we want - we've done that for the past 100 years after we cut the spigot on unlimited immigration), the Constitution is perfectly clear that you cannot kick out people already here legally based on religious belief. So therefore, there is no logical step, as you surmise there is, from one to the other.

[CAA Flagship]

I don't think this statement addresses Muslims already in America. But I can see where a person with only a little bias can twist this in that direction because it doesn't spell it out clearly.

Pump the breaks. I'm not saying it says that.

I'm saying if you are afraid of Muslims coming here enough for a blanket ban on all Muslim visas.... Surely, you would want the visas of Muslims already here rescinded.

I'm not saying Trump has called for that or you have. I'm saying that the logical next step from banning all Muslims from entering is kicking out the ones already here (nonpermanent residents and citizens).

Let's let Trump make the call on that. I'm not for banning permanent or temporary Muslims that are currently in this country. But once visas have expired, a new visa should require the more stringent review process. Maybe there would be a requirement that temps would be subject to immediately (maybe something like having to go through questioning within the next 30 days), even before the visa expires. I don't know if there would be anything wrong with that.

I'm interested in knowing how they will be able to identify Muslims. Clearly, there are, or at least was, Christian sand crabs. They likely look(ed) and talk(ed) like Muslims, minus the carpets.