WHO’S THE CRAZY ONE?

Frontpagemag.com ^ | December 10, 2015 | David Horowitz

[Biggirl]

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why Islamic terrorists have been able to enter our country and devised ways to protect ourselves. This has caused the left and right establishments to dogpile on Trump. Echoing the sentiments of virtually all Democrats and many Republicans, a Washington Post editorial has declared that Trump’s proposal disqualifies him as a candidate because in the Post’s view what he recommends is unconstitutional and therefore un-American.

[freedumb2003]

Trump’s detractors keep repeating “unconstitutional.”

I ask them to tell us all where, exactly, in the USC does it say Trump cannot do this proposal.

[BigEdLB]

The money paragraph at the end

This is the crux of the issue. Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country. That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over. The 2016 election will be a referendum on the defense of this country and its survival. Let`s see who answers the call.

[Gaffer]

Exactly. The only serious mention of immigration is in the 14th Amendment and that applies to those children born here in the US of foreign parents. Immigration is not specifically set forth as a government purview; naturalization is and that deals with foreigners who are HERE.

There are a number of federal laws about immigration, and there have been a number of changes, modifications, etc. to policy on immigration by US Presidents via their control of the State Department.

BUT! Federal laws and Executive Orders, Memoranda and policy are mutable; they can be CHANGED, they can be REPEALED. They are not Constitutionally sacrosanct. Any time anyone uses that “unconstitutional” blather just shows off his ignorance of what reality is.

[Gaffer]

I agree. We’re gonna see in November 2016 just how roiling the electorate is.

[Vic S]

For years Obama has been telling us how immigration is determined by the President. He tells Arizona and Texas they have no right to control their borders and that sanctuary cities are just fine.

It’s not a one-way street. If the President can open the border to anyone, he can sure as heck close it everyone.

[Max in Utah]

What I’m wondering is: what rights do citizens of foreign countries actually have under the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights?

They certainly do not have a “right” to enter the US at their pleasure.

[Gaffer]

That is a question that is bandied about more now than in my lifetime, certainly. Personally, I believe that Constitutional protections should only be for citizens or those DIRECTLY under the control of this government IN THIS COUNTRY, federal, state or local.

To me it does not apply to foreigners in other countries wanting to come here, nor does it apply to those here on VISAs or the like beyond the basic civil protections. It also does not say in the Constitution we are legally bound to have any immigration at all. What governs immigration are federal laws and executive policy - BOTH can be undone.

[4Liberty]

The IRS can profile and violate the rights of Tea Party groups, but the Feds can’t profile Islamic groups — do I have that right, democRats?

[Arm_Bears]

Obama’s been doing a lot of unconstitutional/extra-constitutional things, but no one seems to be too worried about any of that.

[Patton@Bastogne]

Exactly !

[Tucker39]

Precisely. Which is why we had NO immigration from 1924 until 1965. It was deemed that immigrants were flooding the Country and NOT actually assimilating into our culture and actually becoming Americans.

So immigration was completely halted for that 40 year period. IMHO, it was from 1965 that we started going downhill. Not from plain old legal immigration, per se. But from doors-wide-open, uncontrolled illegal immigration; so that we’ve lost all control and have no idea who is here.

We need Donald Trump very much and very soon.

[Rummyfan]

It IS Constitutional and eminently American. Let the media, the Democrat Party, and the RINOs have their hissy fit. The people aren't listening to them.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Trump is ahead of the DemocRATS and the GOPe again. There are Federal laws on the books that permit the banning of groups or individuals deemed a threat to the U.S. Eisenhower used these in the 1950’s. The media never researches these things.

[Rummyfan]

The 2016 election will be a referendum on the defense of this country and its survival. Let`s see who answers the call.

Indeed it will be. And if the brain-dead villainous venal lying hag - that's right, I said it - gets elected we are done for.

[paint_your_wagon]

A friend of mine just sent me this. I haven’t checked it out but...

Here is US Code for those that need help with thier knee jerk reactions to Trump....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
(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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

[Maceman]

"This outrage is missing and it is precisely because it is missing that Trump's unconstitutional proposal resonates with so many rightly concerned Americans."

I am shocked and saddened to read such ignorance coming from David Horowitz.

[ctdonath2]

Bill of Rights, “freedom of religion”. Trumps 8(1182)(f). Will require a supreme court case to decide, involving articulating the currently non-existent “bright line” between “freedom of religion” and “enemies foreign and domestic”.

Grumble. I may have to read the Koran to answer this.

[Vic S]

Here’s a fuller reading of the statute:

Per existing federal law at 8 USC 1182:

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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to appropriate.

No admission for any alien for Security and related grounds

(3) Security and related grounds
(A) In general
Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in
(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other unlawful activity, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible.
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who:
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of:
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;

(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years, is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

[DaveA37]

Tell me who are the crazy ones that are trying to protect this country by letting MUSLIM terrorists into this country un-vetted ?

There is NOTHING WRONG with Trump’s proposal and we already have such a law.