Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

And now Tamas understands my position--the West needs to actively resist its Islamization. No Western country should be letting even a single Muslim move in, Muslim non-citizens need to be harried and deported as much as legally possible.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I also think the US needs to draw red lines on NATO too; understanding that any NATO country that crosses certain lines (e.g. trying to delegitimize Israel), the U.S. should make it known they are not under the umbrella of our protection under Article V of the NATO charter.

[Barrister]

And now Tamas understands my position--the West needs to actively resist its Islamization. No Western country should be letting even a single Muslim move in, Muslim non-citizens need to be harried and deported as much as legally possible.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The constitution can never get in the way of doing what is necessary and right--something great American leaders have always understood (see: Lincoln.)

[Barrister]

The constitution can never get in the way of doing what is necessary and right--something great American leaders have always understood (see: Lincoln.)

OK, just making sure we know what side you're on then.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here. Unfortunately Muslim citizens have full constitutional protections, but the goal should be to make sure there are as few of those as humanly possible.

Muslims should also be entirely forbidden from using our refugee / asylum system, and any Muslims here on humanitarian parole or refugee status should be expelled.

[FunkMonk]

Otto, seeing your changing stance on Trump has been one of the most unsettling things that I have personally witnessed since he left office. The fact that someone as knowledgeable, well-reasoning and thoughtful as you can suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere start supporting Trump really makes me fear for the future of this country.   

[Barrister]

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here. Unfortunately Muslim citizens have full constitutional protections, but the goal should be to make sure there are as few of those as humanly possible.

Muslims should also be entirely forbidden from using our refugee / asylum system, and any Muslims here on humanitarian parole or refugee status should be expelled.

I mean we went through all of this in Trump's first term.  He wanted to ban Muslim immigration.  The Constitution however forbids discrimination on the basis of religion.  Trump had to settle for a ban on several majority-muslim nations, but that wound up having no real effect.

I mean I get it - you're on team "piss on the Constitution" - but that kind of stuff matters for most people.

[The Brain]

Wasn't nationalism evil a few weeks ago? And now Theodor Herzl's vision is the top US priority?

[Tamas]

And now Tamas understands my position--the West needs to actively resist its Islamization. No Western country should be letting even a single Muslim move in, Muslim non-citizens need to be harried and deported as much as legally possible.

I may understand your position but you sure as hell don't understand your own. Unleashing a randomised demented wrecking ball on your own country as well as its international relations cannot possibly be an improvement for "your position". You are either trolling or have been itching for the slightest of excuses to go back to the GOPs warm white supremacist embrace.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Being anti-Islamic is not white supremacist, I have no issue with other races--and having a certain shade of skin color doesn't determine whether one is Muslim or not--a large % of the world's Christians are in sub-Saharan Africa.

The development of political Islamism has made Islam intrinsically dangerous, akin to fascism or Nazism, even. In for a penny, in for a pound. It wears the clothing of a religion, for which much of the West's enlightenment extends protections, but it is really a fascist political movement in many contexts--for which the West's enlightenment has historically extended fewer protections (but admittedly, dealing with has never been easy--fascists often operate right up to the line of the rules.)

For the last decade I had frankly felt like we had a good handle on the problem, but the last 7 months have shown me how wrong I was. These people are a true fifth column in our society, they have shown themselves. This is Weimar Germany in 1924, the time to fight them is now, not when they are akin to the Nazis in 1933.

[The Minsky Moment]

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here.

That is not so.  Immigration is not a privilege under the Constitution. The Constitution established the limited set of powers that the federal government may exercise. Control on immigration is not one of those enumerated powers.  That is especially so because if one uses the Court's current history-based framework, it is pretty obvious that restricting entry is not a power the founding generation thought the federal government had.  The only effort to invoke something like such a power in the first 100 years - the Alien Friends Act - was never enforced, expired shortly after enactment, and was widely believed to be an unconstitutional usurpation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here.

That is not so.  Immigration is not a privilege under the Constitution. The Constitution established the limited set of powers that the federal government may exercise. Control on immigration is not one of those enumerated powers.  That is especially so because if one uses the Court's current history-based framework, it is pretty obvious that restricting entry is not a power the founding generation thought the federal government had.  The only effort to invoke something like such a power in the first 100 years - the Alien Friends Act - was never enforced, expired shortly after enactment, and was widely believed to be an unconstitutional usurpation.

Wrong.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act

There is no doubt that any sovereign state controls immigration, it never needed to be written into the constitution explicitly.

[Barrister]

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here.

That is not so.  Immigration is not a privilege under the Constitution. The Constitution established the limited set of powers that the federal government may exercise. Control on immigration is not one of those enumerated powers.  That is especially so because if one uses the Court's current history-based framework, it is pretty obvious that restricting entry is not a power the founding generation thought the federal government had.  The only effort to invoke something like such a power in the first 100 years - the Alien Friends Act - was never enforced, expired shortly after enactment, and was widely believed to be an unconstitutional usurpation.

So this is an aside, but...

Under the Canadian Constitution immigration is expressly reserved for the federal government (well "Naturalization and Aliens"), but even more generally any power not expressly enumerated to the provinces will go to the Feds.  That's how the Feds have jurisdiction over such topics that were not even conceived of in 1867 like aeronautics or radio waves.

Is there a similar "reserve clause" in the US Constitution?


(As a further aside though, between health care and education being reserved for the provinces, and provinces being granted jurisdiction over "property and civil rights" which has been judicially foiund to be quite broad, the Provinces generally have more power despite the reserve clause)

[Barrister]

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here.

That is not so.  Immigration is not a privilege under the Constitution. The Constitution established the limited set of powers that the federal government may exercise. Control on immigration is not one of those enumerated powers.  That is especially so because if one uses the Court's current history-based framework, it is pretty obvious that restricting entry is not a power the founding generation thought the federal government had.  The only effort to invoke something like such a power in the first 100 years - the Alien Friends Act - was never enforced, expired shortly after enactment, and was widely believed to be an unconstitutional usurpation.

Wrong.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act

There is no doubt that any sovereign state controls immigration, it never needed to be written into the constitution explicitly.

The Chinese exclusion Act was passed about 100 years after the Constitution so it kind of goes to Joan's point.