Donald Trump says ban all Muslims traveling to US
-
Agree on the part that Trump saying "all muslims" is bad wording, but he had ample chance to correct himself or revise the statement and didn't.
Secondly I think most people don't understand how the economy works.
Our economy has started/mostly "evolved" from the old days of manufacturing goods, etc. We're at the point where people have higher wages, more skill positions, more service positions, etc.
Aside from that, I see all these people screaming for "bring our manufacturing jobs back" "stop importing foreign goods"
It's not that easy. People have higher standards of living here, demand higher wages. If we manufactured most goods here - then prices would balloon, consumption would go way down. We wouldn't be able to compete internationally (who would want to import a 100%-US made Ford, when it'd cost them 2x as much as what they are making elsewhere).
We have plenty of issues, but they aren't quite as simple as isolating ourselves from the rest of the world - basically 10% of the population owns the 90%, pretty big problem that the simple isolationist bring back manufacturing approach would magnify ten-fold.
--
Hey, maybe we could work to drive up wages for some of the skill positions, service positions, etc that our economy has become driven by in this 21st century? Stop paying CEOs 5000% more than the average worker?
Oh wait, that makes too much sense.
-
Banning all Muslims would be a great idea, and I'm glad he has the balls to just say it.
-
How do you put people back in manufacturing jobs? Stop importing cheap foreign goods.
The price of items would sky rocket. I understand your thought process but every country that has tried this idea has ended up tanking their economy.
The price of items would sky rocket. I understand your thought process but every country that has tried this idea has ended up tanking their economy.
The economy is already in dire need of a full overhaul. But as I think I said in my original statement that isolationism is impossible and isn't going to happen
-
The price of items would sky rocket. I understand your thought process but every country that has tried this idea has ended up tanking their economy.
The economy is already in dire need of a full overhaul. But as I think I said in my original statement that isolationism is impossible and isn't going to happen
The economy is already in dire need of a full overhaul. But as I think I said in my original statement that isolationism is impossible and isn't going to happen
It's also a ridiculous idea that would fall flat on its face.
-
Suck it chris. I rarely get pissed off in posts bit right now you're accomplishing it.
-
Suck it chris. I rarely get pissed off in posts bit right now you're accomplishing it.
Suck it chris. I rarely get pissed off in posts bit right now you're accomplishing it.
By calling out your stupidity?
-
by making all of us put up with your assholeness, Chris.
You go ahead and be a gun free society and welcome terrorists into your
country, we'll pass.
-
I guess I am just disagreeing with Chris and not pissed off at him.
-
The Fighting Side Of Me
by Merle Haggard
G
I hear people talking bad
D7
About the way we have to live here in this country
Harping on the wars we fight
G
And griping about the way things oughta be
And I don't mind 'em switching sides
D7
And standing up for things they believe in
When they're running down my country man
G
They're walking on the fighting side of me
D7 G D7
Yeah they're walking on the fighting side of me
Running down the way of life
C G
Our fighting men have fought and died to keep
If you don't love it leave it
G7 C
Let this song I'm singing be a warning
D7
If you're running down my country man
G
You're walking on the fighting side of me
I read about some squirrelly guy
D7
Who claims he just don't believe in fighting
And I wonder just how long
G
The rest of us can count on being free
They love our milk and honey
D7
But they preach about some other way of living
When they're running down my country hoss
G
They're walking on the fighting side of me
repeat #3 -
So Trump says he'll eliminate muslim terrorists from entering our country and that's a bad thing?
guns don't kill kids-pitt bulls do. -
Suck it chris. I rarely get pissed off in posts bit right now you're accomplishing it.
By calling out your stupidity?
by being a bitch. If you say you'd like something theoretically to happen but it's impossible how is that stupid. I'd like to fuck Megan Fox too but it's probably impossible. Want to pick that apart?By calling out your stupidity?
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I guess I am just disagreeing with Chris and not pissed off at him.
I guess I am just disagreeing with Chris and not pissed off at him.
I very rarely get legit pissed off at anything but in my original statement I said it wasn't possible. What more do you want?
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
So Trump says he'll eliminate muslim terrorists from entering our country and that's a bad thing?
So Trump says he'll eliminate muslim terrorists from entering our country and that's a bad thing?
He said he'd stop all muslims from coming into the country until our representatives "figure out what's going on"
That's the actual press release from his campaign, and what he repeated several times since all the criticism.
Nothing was very specific, but the main point is you can't stop somebody from coming to the US based on their religion - it's unconstitutional or something along those lines.
-
Immigration
The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification. -
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/40/naturalization
NaturalizationARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4
Few powers are more fundamental to sovereignty than the control over immigration and the vesting of citizenship in aliens (naturalization). According to the Declaration of Independence, "obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners" was one of the grievances that led the American colonists to break with Britain.
Under the Articles of Confederation, each state retained authority over the naturalization of aliens. This resulted in widely varying state practices, which James Madison in The FederalistNo. 42 called a "fault" and "defect" of the Confederation. At the Constitutional Convention, there was virtually no opposition to moving the naturalization power from the states to the new national government, and in the ratification debates only a handful of Anti-Federalists even raised the issue. James Madison seemed to speak the sentiment of most when at the Convention he expressed his wish "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
Congress passed the first "uniform Rule of Naturalization" under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed "any alien, being a free white person" and "of good character" who had resided in the United States for two years to become a "citizen of the United States" by taking an oath in court "to support the constitution of the United States." Although Alexander Hamilton had argued in The Federalist No. 32 that the power to establish "an uniform rule of naturalization...must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a distinct rule, there could not be a uniform rule," some states continued to naturalize foreigners even after Congress had acted. In 1795, Congress claimed exclusive authority over naturalization by establishing new conditions—"and not otherwise"—for aliens "to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them." In Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac (1817), the Supreme Court affirmed that "the power of naturalization is exclusively in congress," notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary.
Individual naturalizations following Congress's "uniform Rule" were not the only avenues to citizenship for those who were not American citizens by birth. The incorporation of the Louisiana Territory and Florida into the Union in the first decades of the nineteenth century raised the issue of whether the national government through treaty or law could vest citizenship collectively. A federal circuit court in 1813 and then the Supreme Court inAmerican Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton (1828) upheld collective naturalization. Moreover, in 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, offered the Mexican inhabitants of the territories ceded to the United States the option of maintaining their Mexican citizenship or, if they made no such request, becoming American citizens.
From the beginning, American naturalization law and practice assumed that a free citizen of one country had the right to transfer his allegiance to another if the latter allowed: hence, the provision of the 1795 law that required the new citizen to "absolutely and entirely renounce" any previous allegiance. However, this essential element of social-contract theory—that political communities are the free association of individuals to promote their mutual security and happiness—violated settled European norms. Sir William Blackstone had written inCommentaries on the Laws of England that the "natural allegiance" owed by all those born within the sovereign's domain could not be "forfeited, cancelled, or altered" by any act of the subject himself, including moving to another country and "swearing allegiance to another."
This conflict of views on the legitimacy of voluntary expatriation led to considerable conflict between the new nation and both Britain and France, especially when the latter two nations captured on the high seas and impressed into their naval service former nationals who had moved to the United States. This was one of the American grievances that led to the War of 1812. As late as the 1860s, the British government refused to recognize the American naturalization of former Irish subjects. In response, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868, which declared that "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a "good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States"; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.
Current law, which is much more detailed than the first naturalization statutes, also requires competency in the English language and excludes those who advocate world communism or the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. Also, current law prohibits discrimination in naturalization on the basis of race, sex, or marital status. The elements of the oath have been expanded to include a solemn commitment "to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and...to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law, or...to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law" (with exceptions for conscientious objectors).
Federal law and regulations establish procedures, administered by the Department of State, by which Americans can voluntarily renounce their citizenship. In addition, federal law lists a variety of acts that shall result in the loss of citizenship if "voluntarily perform[ed]...with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." These include obtaining naturalization in a foreign state; declaring allegiance to a foreign state; serving in the armed forces of a foreign state as an officer or when the foreign state is engaged in hostilities against the United States; and, in some cases, serving in governmental office in a foreign state.
Prior to several important Supreme Court decisions in the last half of the twentieth century, federal law had also required loss of citizenship for, among other acts, voting in a foreign election; deserting during wartime; leaving the country during wartime to evade military service; and, for those who acquired dual nationality at birth, voluntarily seeking or claiming the benefits of foreign nationality and residing in the foreign state for three years continuously after the age of twenty-two.
Although the Supreme Court in MacKenzie v. Hare (1915) upheld Congress's power to expatriate, in 1958 the Court began to cut back on Congress's power in a number of closely decided cases. Although it upheld expatriation for voting in a foreign election, Perez v. Brownell (1958), it overturned expatriations for desertion from the military during wartime,Trop v. Dulles (1958), and for service by a dual national in the Japanese army during World War II, Nishikawa v. Dulles (1958). In 1963, in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, the Court ruled that a citizen could not be expatriated for fleeing the country during wartime to evade military service. The following year, it extended the limits on expatriation to naturalized citizens who returned to their native countries and resided there for at least three years. Schneider v. Rusk(1964). Then in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), it overturned Perez v. Brownell by ruling that a naturalized American citizen who relocated to Israel and voted in an election for the Israeli Knesset could not lose his citizenship as a result.
In Rogers v. Bellei (1971), however, the Court did uphold a statute requiring that if a person acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to an American citizen, he shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in the United States continuously for five years between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight. But this statute applied only to a person who was neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the United States. In any event, in 1978, Congress removed from federal law the residency requirements upheld in Rogers v. Bellei.
Finally, in Vance v. Terrazas (1980), the Court clarified its decision in Afroyim by holding that it was not enough to show that an individual voluntarily committed an act that Congress determined was inconsistent with American citizenship. It was necessary also to show independently that the individual "intended to relinquish his citizenship." Given the broad language of the more recent cases, it seems that no involuntary expatriations are lawful. The one exception, which applies only to naturalized Americans, is the denaturalization (and deportation) of those who became citizens through fraud or illegality. It has been applied most notably in recent decades to former Nazis who engaged in war crimes during World War II and later lied about their wartime activities either when they entered the United States as "displaced persons" or when they applied for citizenship.
Until recent decades, American public policy consistently prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains a part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the offspring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held political office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law.
-
So, I think, that since Islam is not just a religion, but also a political movement,
there is merit to the idea that Muslims who believe in the "islamic state"/caliphate/sharia law...
should stay the hell out of our country.
It isn't a matter of religion... it's a matter of politics and security and loyalty to our country.
-
I think its close to treason to continue to allow any perceived threat into our country.
PC shit needs to end.
-
by being a bitch. If you say you'd like something theoretically to happen but it's impossible how is that stupid. I'd like to fuck Megan Fox too but it's probably impossible. Want to pick that apart?
i'm fucking rolling
-
The economy is already in dire need of a full overhaul. But as I think I said in my original statement that isolationism is impossible and isn't going to happen
It's also a ridiculous idea that would fall flat on its face.
It's also a ridiculous idea that would fall flat on its face.
yeah but partial mediated isolationism is possible and probably is what needs to happen.
Rand Paul 2016 <----
-
Small government teabags and right wingers are the loudest group right now. You'd think Rand would get more traction given he actually has thought out plans, is a real small government guy, and knows what he's talking about.yeah but partial mediated isolationism is possible and probably is what needs to happen.
Rand Paul 2016 <----
I disagree with him on a bit, but I'm 100% with him on foreign policy - no idea why the Republican party isn't giving him the time of day. Not bible thumping anti gay and such enough I guess.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login