Friday, December 11, 2015

Framing the Muslim Immigration Debate

The framing of the debate has already been accomplished by the liberal establishment, and it has been  slavishly accepted by all the 'conservatives' and Republicans, with, of course the notable exception of Trump. This is of course what the faux right has always done in this country. It puts on a show of opposing the leftist juggernaut, and then caves in at the end.

The First Amendment statement on religion is meant to apply to the United States and its citizens. It does not apply to foreigners, whether they're prospective immigrants or not. In fact, nothing in the Constitutions applies to foreigners, because it's the US Constitution, not the Terran Constitution. If all the stuff in the Constitution about religion, race, etc., applied to foreigners, the government would be obliged first of all never to give aid to foreign governments that violate those principle, and also, I suppose, to use US military power to ensure that there are no established churches anywhere on earth (which would certainly upset Queen Elizabeth) and that religious discrimination is outlawed, which would bollix up a lot of places, most notably Israel.

And, of course, as I've already reported on this blog, the Lautenberg Amendment [link] discriminated against Russian gentiles, and that was never even suspected of being unconstitutional.

In fact, though the talking heads on TV, including the majority of them on 'conservative' Fox News, have dismissed any possibility of keeping Muslims out being legal or constitutional or moral, it would in fact be all these things, and a damned good idea, too.

Remember this: When they tell you the Constitution prohibits a 'religious test' for immigrants they are absolutely wrong. Don't let anybody get away with telling you that. Bring up the Lautenberg Amendment.

And, you know what? Vox Day has discovered that there's already a law on the books that applies and which has never been ruled unconstitutional.  Obama could start enforcing it tomorrow if he wanted to, but of course he doesn't want to, because he very much wants to screw the country up as much as he possibly can before he leaves office.

This from Vox Day's blog at

Muslim immigration ban is constitutional

Furthermore, there is even precedent for it:
Is an immigration ban on Muslims unconstitutional? Probably not. The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine. The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections. While the Court has not ruled on religious discrimination, it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from the general rule.

There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.
Plenary power doctrine. Shove that in the face of every cuckservative who blathers ignorantly about the unconstitutionality of Trump's proposed policy. There is more than a century of precedent demonstrating otherwise. Anyone who says a religious immigration ban is unconstitutional is either ignorant or lying.

Furthermore, the Federalist Papers make it clear that the several States have the ability to pass religious bans as well. And in a MSNBC poll, 92 percent of Americans 18-24 said Trump is not going too far in his proposal to ban all Muslim immigration.

After all, they're the ones who would have to live with them.

1 comment:

  1. 9/11 was a propaganda exercise that involves BUSH big time. No highjackers flew planes into the Twin Towers, Pentagon or into the ground at Shankesville to disappear in a hole.