Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
This is common sense in order to defend the U.S. from jihad terror, but Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law says that “legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional.”
That is not necessarily true. The Constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens. Moreover, due consideration should be made of the fact that those targeting us are of a particular religion.
“Trump expected to order temporary ban on refugees,” by Julia Edwards Ainsley, Reuters, January 25, 2017:
U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders starting on Wednesday that include a temporary ban on most refugees and a suspension of visas for citizens of Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries, say congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.
Trump, who tweeted that a “big day” was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place.
Another order will block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.
In his tweet late on Tuesday, Trump said: “Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!”
The border security measures probably include directing the construction of a border wall with Mexico and other actions to cut the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States.
The sources say the first of the orders will be signed on Wednesday. With Trump considering measures to tighten border security, he could turn his attention to the refugee issue later this week….
Both Trump and his nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, have since said they would focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than a ban on those of a specific religion.
Many Trump supporters decried former President Barack Obama’s decision to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States over fears that those fleeing the country’s civil war would carry out attacks.
Detractors could launch legal challenges if all the countries subject to the ban are Muslim-majority nations, said immigration expert Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law.
Legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional, he said.
“His comments during the campaign and a number of people on his team focused very much on religion as the target,” Motomura said….

Alien Republican says
Hopefully European countries will follow.
andra says
Right you are.
Christianblood says
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan
should be included in the list of the countries that support terrorists.and who ar banned from entering the US.
Daniel Triplett says
Foreign nationals from all 57 Muslim countries in the OIC must be banned from being in America.
Demons don’t belong in Heaven.
Christianblood says
Good point!
Champ says
“Demons don’t belong in Heaven.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good one, Daniel! LOL! 😀
Angemon says
Countries like France, Germany, Holland or Russia should enact the same kind of bans. Don’t you agree?
Daniel Triplett says
@Angemon
Yes, I do agree.
Which brings us back to the main point: Just about every nation on Earth has Muslim citizens.
So how do we sort out the French, German, Dutch, Russian, etc Kaffirs from the Muslims? It’s nearly impossible without Worldwide criminalization.
We should only allow visitors to America from nations where practicing or proselytizing Islam a capital offense.
That’s the problem. I don’t pretend to know the answer though. One day, perhaps only in my imagination, I envision Worldwide recognition of Islam as the Crime syndicate it is. Of course, we can’t control thought, but if we can prove the other 100 felonies, and especially Conspiracies for Sedition, Treason, Genocide, etc. then maybe we could at least get all Dar al-Harb nations to make practicing or proselytizing Islam a capital offense. As in anyone attending mosque/madrasa or proselytizing Islam gets swiftly executed. You’d REALLY want to be a devout demon to press your luck with that kind of penalty.
In Dar al-Harb nations, we should offer a one month grace period where every Muslim is forced to register with the national government. At the end of the one month grace period, they must choose between Apostasy or death. Penalty for not registering or showing for the hearing begets death. The Taqiyya-proof Apostasy test will be a challenge, and I don’t know the answer. But after that, anyone caught committing the multitude of felonies in the Islamic source texts, declaring Islam as the motivating factor, or anyone attending mosque/madrasa or proselytizing Islam gets swiftly executed. This is war. It’s time we fight it like one.
Then comes the tough part, or rather the easy part, but quite bloody: And that’s forcing criminalization of Islam on all 57 OIC. This won’t happen conventionally. After 16 years, $6.5 Trillion US, 6500 lost American Patriot lives, and worse conditions now than the day we first set foot there, just trying to control TWO of the 57 OIC, we’ve proven convincingly that no conventional military solution exists.
Incremental, random nuclear strategic area bombing is the only answer; because it works. Ask General Curtis LeMay, US Commander of US Army Air Forces during WWII.
And just ask the 1 out of every 7 Green-on-Blue US KIAs in Afghanistan how well befriending those demons works, showing them how great Western life is, and trying to talk them out of the violence of their faith with reason and logic: They’re rewarded with an unexpected, sudden death 5.56 round to the head from their new “friends.” This, from people our military “vetted” and trained: US trained Afghan troops.
And remember, under Islamic law, Muslims can feign Christianity. This goes all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition. They can attend Catholic Mass, participate in Christian rites, and even accept the Holy Eucharist.
So, how can we possibly develop a method to vet people willing to do that? We can’t.
And aren’t most of the recent terror attacks in Europe and America happening by “vetted” Muslims? How’s that working out?
Our grandfathers also realized they couldn’t separate the good Germans/Japanese from the bad. So, we bombed every German/Japanese man, woman, and child in sight until they surrendered unconditionally. Don’t believe me? Just look at post-attack Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) photos of Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg, Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, etc. We razed 67 Japanese cities to the ground, much like Germany.
How many women and children do you suppose died in those strikes? We would’ve lost the war if we didn’t do that.
Our grandfathers weren’t uncivilized monsters. And they weren’t amoral or less intellectual than we. To the contrary, they were smart, they were scared, they knew what had to be done to win, and they had the balls and the stomach to do it. The FDR/Churchill combo was priceless. Can you imagine Obama and May trying to win WWII, or III?
Surrendering Islam must be forced, and it will be violent. But that’s the only long term solution for future Kaffir generations, such as our children, that I see.
I’d post the link to my Strategy essay again, but you’ve already seen it 100 times, so I won’t patronize you with it again.
Daniel Triplett says
@Andrew
I’m not sure if such International computer databases exist. If not, they should, immediately. That’s a good idea.
I’ve assumed they’ve been doing that already, if the technology exists.
The problem is that we’re talking about people coming form third World shitholes. They bring no wallets, purses, or Passports with them. No birth certificates. No papers at all.
Just their useless Taqiyya words.
Dum Spiro says
And Islam is a polity, not a religion.
Even Jimmy (“Dhimmi”) Carter stopped entry into the US from Iran during the hostage crisis, didn’t he? We have finally reached the point again of some common sense…
— Spero
thevilestofcreatures says
Wow, I never thought he’d follow thru on this! Good for him
Kessler says
Well, good for all of us. He sets an example for all Western leaders to follow. We just need to vote them in first. Wilders has a good chance in March and Le Pen to follow.
Thank you Trump for leading the way
andra says
Mr. Motumura does not understand the principle of cause and effect. The US, as all other Western nations have accepted Muslims from all the world. Today, however, we Westerners, have to learn that it was a deadly mistake, as many of those immigrants turn to hard-core Islam and want to install the house of peace in our Homelands. It is not discrimination, Mr. Motumura, it´s self-defence.
Dum Spiro says
Don’t you mean the House of Submission/subjugation?
— Spero
andra says
No, I mean the House of Peace. This is in contrast to the House of War. The House of War stands for those regions where Islam is not or only as a minority present. The House of Peace stands for those regions that are dominated by Islam.
Dum Spiro says
Are you referring to Dar al Islam?
Dar al Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلا) is the area of the world under the rule of Islam , literally, “the home of Islam” or “the home of submission.”
Islam does not mean “peace”: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/means-peace.aspx
Maybe I should have said “/surrender” instead of “/subjugation”…
–Spero
andra says
I think we talk about the same thing using different termini.
Richard Paulsen says
Terrible things are being said on twitter and otherwise against president Donald Trump in my country Sweden.
Two have lost their jobs therefore. One woman at the Swedish broadcast company Sveriges Radio TV (SVT). She attacked the young son of the president.
One politician and a male representing the swedish socialdemocrats. The same party forming government together with the Green party (Miljöpartiet). He expressed a threat to the president.
There also are a few terrible tweets by others and young people.
I apologize sincerely on behalf of these unthoughtful persons. Do not know any in person. Do not wish to.
It is much the same as being said in U.S.A. Swedes copying the big brother. Please look after and stop these persons expressing hate.
Westman says
Don’t apologize, Mr. Paulsen.
Actually this a good sign that Sweden will be forced to enlarge freedom of speech. Here in the US we treasure our ability to speak our minds; which came directly from realizing Kings had a “divine right” to absolutely nothing beyond that granted the citizen.
Unfortunately, too many European countries have vestige remnants of Feudalism and have not made the full transition to freedom. Their leaders still think of themselves as aristocracy and the citizens are cowed by dependence on a socialism that can be withdrawn for speaking the truth.
Sweden and Denmark are apparently doomed to eventual Sharia due to a selfish birthrate that won’t sustain the original stock and uncontrolled immigration. I can only assume the Aristocracy is thinking IWBH and YWBH when it happens(I won’t be here and you won’t be here) to your grand-children’s or great-grand-children’s lives.
We have a robust freedom that comes at the cost of allowing horrible things to be said about us. When criticism goes beyond normal bounds, in a free society, it is simply a barometer of change.
When “Madonna” foul-mouths the White House it simply means she knows change is coming. When some Swedes criticise the US it simply means they know perks like NATO and their cost of living are changing. These changes are nothing compared to those that are coming from uncontrolled immigration.
So maybe I should appologize to you for the changes coming to “globalism”. Thomas Friedmann would have us all in a race to the bottom. He ignored the fact that large countries, with sufficient resources, can create their own economic systems if they give up the idea of “maximizing return to shareholders” with no regard to the citizens who get hurt. Donald Trump was elected because of seditionist, irresponsible, “globalist” corporations.
Richard Paulsen says
Thank you. Yes there is a difference between U.S.A. and Europe. To the advantage of U.S.A..
Mirren10 says
So, according to this fool., Motomura, the US is *obliged*, under its Constitution, to let in those who wish to harm and attack it ?
What a dhimmi tool. I hope President Trump ignores wicked idiots like this.
Alien Republican says
They use the more generic “discrimination” as a means to stop you acting and silencing disssent. In Germany, after new years ever in Cologne the police was accused of “racism”, “stereotyping” for sorting out and frisking by ethnicity.
However, multiculturalists THEMSELVES advance cultural differences in order to excuse crimes when it suits them. On a subcultural level they won’t hesitate to stereotype “whites”, “males”, “females”, “republicans”. It is safe to say that we have common ground in seeing the usufulness of stereotyping although we disagree on categories and the patterns very much support the assumption that the new POTUS is being reasonble rather ideologically blinded.
somehistory says
It is known among lawyers that on any given day, an attorney can take one side and argue vehemently and the next day, take the other side and argue just as vehemently.
So, if this matamuro guy still had o as his prez, and o was doing as he did…not allowing in Christians and sending them back when they came anyway, he would likely say that o as prez had the *legal* authority to decide from which countries and how many from each would be allowed into the country.
Now that he no longer has o as his prez, he can argue that it is unconstitutional to do what o did because the shoe is on the other foot and moslims might be restricted from entering.
When they don’t like it, they bring up the Constitution. When they do like it, there is *legal authority* for doing it.
bernie says
Discrimination against certain ethnic and cultural groups is reasonable when it comes to immigration. While it was wrong for America to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps and to seize their money and property during World War 2, it would not have been unjustified to call for extreme vetting of Japanese, German and Italian immigrants, and to practice increased surveillance of cultural centers for those groups (including houses of worship, such as churches and temples, dominated by those ethnicities). There is ample reason to be concerned about Muslim immigrants and jihadism at the current time, though it’s clearly unfair to blame all or even most Muslims.
Angemon says
“Ban on refugees”, eh? Does this mean that, for example, a Tibetan Buddhist seeking to escape political persecution done by the Chinese government won’t even be considered for admission into the US? Of course that’s not the case – at best, that’s a click-bait title, at worst it’s disinformation of the worst kind.
So he won’t “ban refugees”, like the headline reads, he just wants to let in actual refugees – people escaping persecution.
Now then – weren’t you talking about “refugees”? Why the shift to “migrants”? And what exactly is wrong about not letting in “migrants” who could pose a threat to people already living in America, whether American citizens or migrants?
Why? According to Trump, his administration will “focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than a ban on those of a specific religion”. What “legal challenges” can arise from that, regardless if the nations whose migration will be curtailed are muslim or not? Who is going to campaign in favour of forcing potentially dangerous “migrants” into America?
Again: “Both Trump and his nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, have since said they would focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than a ban on those of a specific religion“.
How does that “discriminate against a particular religion”, exactly? It’s simply taking an issue (blocking potentially migrants from entering the US), focusing on a particular characteristic of a sub-group of the people affected by said issue (in this case, religion) and crying “discrimination”. It’s making an issue out of a non-issue, and it’s immoral, at best.
Anyway, I bet European bleeding-heart liberals will retort to it by doubling down on “open border, no questions asked” policies. Expect plenty of abject virtue-signalling from the usual suspects on this side of the pond.
Daniel Triplett says
I think a great start would be a National push to “de-religionize,” and instead “criminalize” Islam. This must happen either with President Trump addressing the Nation in front of a camera from his desk, or maybe better, a prominent legislator standing in front of packed House Floor.
I can imagine a no-nonsense, tough as nails Congressman like Trey Gowdy standing in front of the House Floor with a stack of poster boards, with one violent “revelation” written on each poster board. And underneath the Islamic passage, in boldface, write down the Section and Paragraph in the US Code of Federal Regulations that makes that passage a Federal felony under current US Law.
Then just start reading through them. All 75+ of them.
At the end, asking:
“Does this look like a ‘religion’ to anyone?”
“Could anyone start this ‘religion’ today?”
“What if it didn’t have the benefit of a 1400 year name called ‘Islam,’ but instead we changed its name to ISISism?” “Would everyone yield to it the same respect, tolerance, and Constitutional protections with its new name?” “If not, then why are we giving it any respect under its 1400 year name?”
“Why must we tolerate this and give it Constitutional protections?”
“If we removed the binders to these Islamic source texts, holding, examining, and judging each page individually on its own merit, would it still look like a ‘religion’ as a whole?” “If not, why then when we bind the pages back altogether with a binder do they transform from crimes back into ‘religious doctrine’?”
etc, etc. A stud like Trey Gowdy could think of 1000 compelling, persuasive questions that I can’t. At the end, I’m sure Congressman Gowdy will have made the point, and the campaign to criminalize Islam would begin, ushering in a new era of Freedom and protection for the US (and the World).
Rev g says
The first amendment only ties the hands of Congress regarding religion. State religions existed well after the bill of rights came to be, and we’re not eliminated because of it.
Jaladhi says
Not a single Muslim should be allowed to enter from anywhere! We have enough of them already and no more.
no_one says
He had to include Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Morocco. Most aggressive migrants in Europe seem to come from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghan men have the tradition to rape young boys. Others seem to prefer girls. I fear for these kids every day.
Aspy says
I don’t blame Trump. On the contrary its an excellent decision based on the fact that these are hot spots. He should in fact widen the ban, extending it to more countries that only cause strife, disharmony & trouble for their host nations.
Yes, European morons need to take a leaf out of the Trump book on immigrants & act asap.
This guy Hiroshi Motomura’s premise is flawed. If a certain region is the cause of strife & trouble to the host country then they should be banned,as simple as that. It is immaterial if they happen to follow a particular religion. In which case all followers of that particular religion need to chosen wisely before allowing them in…..
Don McKellar says
The doubters and deniers of Donald Trump just don’t understand a simple fact about his nature which is there for everyone to see as clear as day: Donald Trump NEEDS the approval of the Common Man. He really wants the public to love him. Call it a fault if you want, but you know what that means? It means he’s going to do every damn thing he said he’d do if at all possible. Otherwise how is going to go out there and face the adoring, cheering crowds? He wants to be their champion, their hero. He wants to be that desperately. It is the guiding light of his life. Again, call if a fault if you want — but it is the defining point of his character. And there is only one way he can do it: to succeed wildly at doing exactly what he said he’d do — or at least get as close as the laws of physics allow. Read his Gettysburg speech. Get ready.
Gary says
Watch the lefties cry “Hate Monger” “Intolerance” “Racist”
To which the President can reply…..
Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited.
U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens
(f) 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, 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.
“The Preamble to the US Constitution states that one of the purposes of government is to “provide for the common defence [sic].” Article four, section four of the Constitution states specifically that the “United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” It is a constitutional requirement that the federal government defend the nation. ”
Daniel Triplett says
Nice work Gary. Perfect.
duh swami says
Hot spots have the ability to jump around,…Possibly it would be better to put the fire out all together…
Don McKellar says
He’s already pledged to do that.
Aspy says
That seems to be the only solution for world peace, even if the cost is great.
Kilfincelt says
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the right to create statutes governing immigration and immigrant rights in this country and those who wish to immigrate. If federal statutes extend the Bill of Rights to those who want to immigrate then they are entitled to its protections. In the absence of any such statutes, no such protections exist. As far as I know, potential immigrants are not covered by the Bill of Rights because no applicable federal statute exists.
Tom Davis says
“This is common sense in order to defend the U.S. from jihad terror, but Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law says that “legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional.”
All the Constitution says is what is in the First Amendment, and the clause stating that there shall be no religious test for any office under the United States. For Mr. Motomuta to be correct legal alien residency and refugee status would have to be an “office”. Good luck with that.
Furthermore, in the absence of legislation the courts have historically shown great deference to executive authority. By naming countries rather than religions the administration will avoid being tagged with the charge of religious discrimination, especially if it lets the poor Christians from those lands suffer as a result.
Seabird says
So muslim immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and. Somalia are banned while those from S.Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar and other Muslim countries are welcome?
What could possibly go wrong here?
I’m not defending the Regime but when was the last time an Iranian committed a terrorist attack inside the US and what other muslim countries (not on the list) have both a Christian and Jewish population in their countries like Iran?
What keeps a terrorist from simply moving to one of the “approved” countries mentioned, securing false paperwork and coming in or just being a home-grown terrorist? Nothing (but it’s a good start by Trump).
overman says
“So muslim immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and. Somalia are banned while those from S.Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar and other Muslim countries are welcome?”
Yes, l was thinking the same. lsn’t pakistan a jihadi hotspot?
l expect S.Arabia will be the last to be banned.
He’s just formed an alliance with Sisi of Egypt against ISIS, so nothing will happen there..
Det.Lee. says
Step by step.
Walter Sieruk says
Banning Islamic immigration from jihad “hotspots” is a very good start. Nevertheless,not all Muslim terrorists need to enter the United States from directly from Jihadist “hotspots” countries as Iraq and Syria .Somethings the jihadists be they ISIS al Qaeda or of some other like-minded Jihad terror organizations only need enter America through porous borders with the nation of Mexico
Porous borders with Mexico has enabled ISIS and Al Qaeda operatives as well as jihadists of other like-minded Islamic terror entities to infiltrate into the United States. Furthermore, illegal immigration from Mexico is dangerous because of crime by gangs of hooligans who enter the US through pours borders with Mexico. As for example, the gang of thugs called MS-13 who originated in El Salvador the come into America through Mexico. Those gangsters commit crimes as murders, rapes, drug dealing. They are also known, for a price, to smuggle jihadists of Al Qaeda in America. In addition, to all this, with illegal immigration also comes higher welfare cost and an increased chances of the spread of contagious diseases, such as TB. Furthermore, with more illegal come more environmental degradation and more urban sprawl. Therefore, there is a great need for a good for a good border control system with a strong tall wall that’s patrolled by armed American officers who may be allowed to uses their guns if they deem it necessary. Along with a good filtering system to let in to the United States only good decent hard working people with visas and not and not gangsters and jihadists. In conclusion all the above may be summed up by the wisdom found in the words of Ronald Reagan when he as, so well, stated “A nation without borders is not a nation.”
Daniel Triplett says
Just about every Republican would be on board with you Walter. The problem has always been, and continues to be the Dummycrats.
davej says
Banning immigration by country of origin (based on source of terror ideology) seems logical and constitutional. It’s not our fault that many of these countries are 98-99% Muslim.
But the social grievance folks will try to make it about religion via fake news stories.
Babs says
Theresa May should develop a backbone and follow his example. More power to him!
Guest says
That happened faster than I expected
Daniel Triplett says
Robert, you’re a humble man, yet perhaps the most knowledgeable, insightful, strategic, rational, and persuasive Counter-jihadist representing Kaffirs in the World.
When you feel the time is right, we need to get you a meeting with the President. Perhaps a well-constructed, persuasive letter, passed to Pamela Geller, passed to Steve Bannon, passed to the Man himself is in order.
Just a thought. You know what you’re doing, and certainly don’t need me advising you how best to perform the duties of a Counter-jihad 4-Star.
May our Lord be with you always.
Dan
Clearsighted says
The statement that the Constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens of the United States is not correct. If a non-citizen is already inside the United States, he is entitled to most Constitutional protections. For example, a non-citizen who is charged with a crime has the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, the right to confront witnesses, the right to a jury trial, etc. Moreover, non-citizens who are legally resident in the United States may not be prevented from practicing their profession (unless natural born citizenship is specified for the job in the Constitution as for president).
The correct statement of the law is: The Constitution does NOT apply to non-citizens who have not been admitted to the United States. A pertinent example: There is NO constitutional prohibition against barring entry to the United States to any non-citizen on ANY basis whether it be race, religion, creed, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation. Put another way, there is NO constitutional right for non-citizens to be admitted to the United States. NOTE: For example, Congress may CHOOSE to allow gay aliens admission to the United States, but they are not COMPELLED to do so by the Constitution.
Communists are barred on the basis of their political belief. Persons who believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States are barred. (On this basis alone, devout non-citizen Muslims who have not yet been admitted to the United States may constitutionally be denied entry.) On the other hand, if a person of a particular religion is admitted into the United States, then that person becomes entitled to most (but not all) of the constitutional rights that citizens have. For example, non-citizens in the United States DO NOT HAVE the right to vote (a point not well understood by Californians or Democrats.).
In short, there is nothing in the Constitution which REQUIRES the United States from admitting ANYONE to the country.
Champ says
“The correct statement of the law is: The Constitution does NOT apply to non-citizens who have not been admitted to the United States. A pertinent example: There is NO constitutional prohibition against barring entry to the United States to any non-citizen on ANY basis whether it be race, religion, creed, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation. Put another way, there is NO constitutional right for non-citizens to be admitted to the United States.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good to know–thank you!
Daniel Triplett says
Excellent distinction. Better than I could’ve ever said.
You could be a lawyer if you wanted.
Champ says
Trump expected to order ban on immigration from jihadi hotspots
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent–do it!! You certainly have my blessing.
sidney penny says
Trump and his administration cannot be expected to sit on its arse and do nothing.Especially after promising so much.
He should take a leaf out of the former Australia Prime Minister John Howard.
Added to John Howard’s statement should also be a statement about who visits ( tourists visas and students on visas) as well not just about immigration.
https://museumvictoria.com.au/immigrationmuseum/discoverycentre/identity/videos/politics-videos/john-howards-2001-election-campaign-policy-launch-speech/
“we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”
sidney penny says
“Moreover, due consideration should be made of the fact that those targeting us are of a particular religion.”
This is just common sense but many do not take it that way.
The days of the politically correct madness is over.
Reality needs to kick in.
sidney penny says
my eyesight has improved since the font became darker
Harry says
So how will immigration department know where these people come from?
There’s a lot of promises Trump made that can’t be kept.
Including his wall which wouldn’t work in any event.
Rev g says
People will need verifiable papers to get in, simple. Got none? Go away.
Walls have done well at keeping people out for millenia. I guess you never got the memo.
Daniel Triplett says
Walls do work. Just ask Bibi Netanyahu.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/netanyahu-president-trump-is-right-i-built-a-wall-along-israels-southern-border-great-idea