|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 4, 2016 16:12:46 GMT
True. It is also guaranteed for Green Card holders and others in the U.S. legally.
That is yet to be settled by the courts. In any event, it would be un-American to ban any individual from entry into the U.S. solely based upon his religion. It is a ridiculous notion, especially when a perfectly acceptable and equally effective alternative exists, i.e., to ban entry into the U.S. based upon an individual's country of origin.
This has been ongoing ever since liberals have adopted the concept that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document that can be amended at will by federal courts. In effect, as long as liberals control a federal court, the Constitution is dead.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 4, 2016 16:58:24 GMT
Kendal Unruh, a teacher at the Jim Elliot Christian School in Denver, is a far greater (albeit unlikely) threat to Trump than Cruz, Romney and Kasich combined: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-anti-trump-movement-grows-to-include-hundreds-of-gop-delegates/2016/06/20/88fb25cc-36f7-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.htmlIn this bizzarro election, Trump should already have easily put Hillary away. She is a woeful campaigner, and is demonstrably crooked, incompetent and corrupt. Yet, Trump has been losing to Hillary consistently in both the national and key battleground states: Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina. It is a challenge to come up with the name of another Republican who would be losing to Hillary. www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwaMy biggest concern is that Trump will cause the Republicans to lose control of the Senate. If that was to happen, along with a Clinton victory, Hillary would have free reign to stack the SCOTUS and other federal courts with radical leftists. Trump's best hope might be for Hillary to be indicted. However, that would be a two-edged sword, as the Democrats might replace Clinton with a more formidable opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Jul 4, 2016 17:21:20 GMT
Kendal Unruh, a teacher at the Jim Elliot Christian School in Denver, is a far greater (albeit unlikely) threat to Trump than Cruz, Romney and Kasich combined: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-anti-trump-movement-grows-to-include-hundreds-of-gop-delegates/2016/06/20/88fb25cc-36f7-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.htmlIn this bizzarro election, Trump should already have easily put Hillary away. She is a woeful campaigner, and is demonstrably crooked, incompetent and corrupt. Yet, Trump has been losing to Hillary consistently in both the national and key battleground states: Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina. It is a challenge to come up with the name of another Republican who would be losing to Hillary. www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwaMy biggest concern is that Trump will cause the Republicans to lose control of the Senate. If that was to happen, along with a Clinton victory, Hillary would have free reign to stack the SCOTUS and other federal courts with radical leftists. Trump's best hope might be for Hillary to be indicted. However, that would be a two-edged sword, as the Democrats might replace Clinton with a more formidable opponent. Fear not...Hillary will save you.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 4, 2016 20:23:04 GMT
Hillary would destroy America. Trump might destroy America.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 4, 2016 22:27:55 GMT
True. It is also guaranteed for Green Card holders and others in the U.S. legally. agreed. In any event, it would be un-American to ban any individual from entry into the U.S. solely based upon his religion. It is a ridiculous notion, especially when a perfectly acceptable and equally effective alternative exists, i.e., to ban entry into the U.S. based upon an individual's country of origin. this is where you are just wrong. A persecuted Christian from Syria? Today? Ok. A Muslim family from Syria, today? No thanks. A decision, based solely on religion... Completely justifiable, and not banned by anything in the US constitution.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 4, 2016 22:48:12 GMT
Kendal Unruh, a teacher at the Jim Elliot Christian School in Denver, is a far greater (albeit unlikely) threat to Trump than Cruz, Romney and Kasich combined: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-anti-trump-movement-grows-to-include-hundreds-of-gop-delegates/2016/06/20/88fb25cc-36f7-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.htmlIn this bizzarro election, Trump should already have easily put Hillary away. She is a woeful campaigner, and is demonstrably crooked, incompetent and corrupt. Yet, Trump has been losing to Hillary consistently in both the national and key battleground states: Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina. It is a challenge to come up with the name of another Republican who would be losing to Hillary. www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwaMy biggest concern is that Trump will cause the Republicans to lose control of the Senate. If that was to happen, along with a Clinton victory, Hillary would have free reign to stack the SCOTUS and other federal courts with radical leftists. Trump's best hope might be for Hillary to be indicted. However, that would be a two-edged sword, as the Democrats might replace Clinton with a more formidable opponent. National polls are basically meaningless, since we don't have a national election.
Besides, some of those polls have a D+10 or worse sampling bias, once you look at the internals.
They would all be losing to Hillary worse than Trump. Most of them would be fine with Hillary as president, being the duplicitous RINOs that they are...
HIllary's spent $70 million on negative ads attacking Trump (he's spent almost nothing by comparison), and he's basically within the MOE.
It all comes down to genuineness, and by the primary voting enthusiasm, Trump has it, by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 4, 2016 23:29:58 GMT
Lol. You were "Trump"eting the polls when Trump was leading in the primaries!
The link I provided was to the Real Clear Politics average of polls. If Trump was leading, I guarantee that you would be claiming that the polls are meaningful.
You are correct that it isn't a national election, else we would have suffered under a President Gore. That is why I also provided the RCP averages of polls in critical battleground states. Trump might have to sweep these states in order to win the election. That is not impossible, but he has to quit saying and doing stupid things very soon, or pray that the FBI and Loretta Lynch will bail him out.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 4, 2016 23:41:00 GMT
Bevo: "this is where you are just wrong. A persecuted Christian from Syria? Today? Ok. A Muslim family from Syria, today? No thanks.
A decision, based solely on religion... Completely justifiable, and not banned by anything in the US constitution."
You have made your prejudices clear. I would be just as happy if no more Muslims ever entered the U.S.
But, taking the step to ban entry based solely upon religious beliefs is clearly at variance with historical and traditional American values. We do not know if such a ban would pass constitutional muster because it has yet to be tested in the SCOTUS.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2016 0:39:05 GMT
True, no telling what the SCOTUS might decide. We do know there is NOTHING in the constitution that bans it.
If we can't take this common sense step, then I would prefer we ban ALL immigration..... As we did from the mid 1920's until 1965.
Muslims seeking entry into the US today should have a very high bar for acceptance. I wouldn't say "none shall pass".... But, I'd definitely require extra scrutiny. ANY link to ANY terror group?? Forget it.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 5, 2016 4:33:20 GMT
Even if we could take this "common sense step", we shouldn't.
Trump himself has backed off. His spokeswoman portrays it as "refining his position". First, he made exceptions for Muslim athletes and government officials. Then, he exempted all Muslims from around the world, except those from the few nations with known terrorist strongholds.
All he would have to do in order to remain faithful to American values and traditions, and to avoid totally unnecessary controversy, would be to base his ban on national origin, rather than on religion. That would be a truly common sense step.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 5, 2016 12:04:44 GMT
True, no telling what the SCOTUS might decide. We do know there is NOTHING in the constitution that bans it. If we can't take this common sense step, then I would prefer we ban ALL immigration..... As we did from the mid 1920's until 1965. Muslims seeking entry into the US today should have a very high bar for acceptance. I wouldn't say "none shall pass".... But, I'd definitely require extra scrutiny. ANY link to ANY terror group?? Forget it. www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-refugee-admissions-more-double-may-june-03-percent-are
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2016 13:20:09 GMT
All he would have to do in order to remain faithful to American values and traditions, and to avoid totally unnecessary controversy, would be to base his ban on national origin, rather than on religion. That would be a truly common sense step.
As I've already shown you, basing the decisions solely on the nation is insufficient. That would require us to turn our backs on people who truly are being persecuted because of their religion. The decision needs to based on a variety of facts, with religion being one.... a major one.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 5, 2016 17:50:16 GMT
Bevo: "As I've already shown you, basing the decisions solely on the nation is insufficient. That would require us to turn our backs on people who truly are being persecuted because of their religion. The decision needs to based on a variety of facts, with religion being one.... a major one."
The most persecuted group by Al Qaida and ISIS are the Shia Muslims. If Trump bans all Muslims, as you advocate, he would be turning his back on the people who are the most persecuted because of their religion.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2016 18:58:28 GMT
The most persecuted group by Al Qaida and ISIS are the Shia Muslims. If Trump bans all Muslims, as you advocate, he would be turning his back on the people who are the most persecuted because of their religion.
Shia Muslims have plenty of support from others in the region. If needed, we can help with money and/or logistical support. I'm not willing to relocate ANY of them here.
Immigration should, first and foremost, consider whether it's to OUR benefit to allow people in.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 5, 2016 19:55:15 GMT
I thought that we shouldn't turn our backs "on people who truly are being persecuted because of their religion"?? Actually, you accidentally stumbled into a good point. It would have infinitely more sense to put displaced Syrians into refuge camps until it was safe for them to return home than to split them up and ship them out all over Europe and the U.S.
You are "refining" your position, just like Donald Trump. Actually, your point makes sense, but it is very different than allowing entry based upon whether an individual has been persecuted because of religion.
|
|