Trump's comments Constitutional. - Kimber Forum

Kimber


Go Back   Kimber Forum > Off Topic Area > Off-Topic Discussion Forum

Like Tree9Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2015, 08:18 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
The Tourist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,236
Trump's comments Constitutional.

I found this over at the Ann Coulter forum. It turns out that refusing muslim entries into the USA has foundation.

To our knowledge, it is still in effect and has not been repealed or amended.

I cannot wait for Richard and SnowTao's research...

U.S. CODE 1182--INADMISSIBLE ALIENS

(f) SUSPENSION OF ENTRY OR IMPOSITION OF RESTRICTIONS BY PRESIDENT

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of ANY alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. 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 appropriate." Enacted 1965.
Oreste and Hoffbrew like this.
__________________
...No matter where you are it's enemy territory...
The Tourist is offline   Reply With Quote
Remove Ads
Old 12-09-2015, 12:44 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,446
Originally Posted by The Tourist View Post
I found this over at the Ann Coulter forum. It turns out that refusing muslim entries into the USA has foundation.

To our knowledge, it is still in effect and has not been repealed or amended.

I cannot wait for Richard and SnowTao's research...

U.S. CODE 1182--INADMISSIBLE ALIENS

(f) SUSPENSION OF ENTRY OR IMPOSITION OF RESTRICTIONS BY PRESIDENT

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of ANY alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. 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 appropriate." Enacted 1965.
Why am I not surprised that it was on Ann Coulter's forum, Chico. Here, check out the real details: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unite...2/Section_1182 The law is much more specific than the Coulter Forum would have us believe.

Read the list of legitimate reasons. Note that religion is not one of them. Note, also, that not even the President can act in an arbitrary and capricious manner and get away with it.

ETA: I also found it under Findlaw, but it was more difficult to read, so I cited a source with better formatting. In any event, I did not see the same words in the law that you cited from the Coulter site. In fact, when searching on the entire sentence you quoted, no search returns are found.



__________________
Richard
NRA Life Member - 1982

Last edited by Richard; 12-09-2015 at 12:51 PM.
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2015, 03:04 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
The Tourist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,236
Good research, Richard. But it still demonstrates one thing. The pundits last night were eviscerating Trump for not following the law or The Constitution. None of this stuff was even eluded to, like the act didn't even exist.

This might not mention religion, but it does mention criminality. If the rag has a rapsheet from Interpol, would that suffice?

Then again, why not use the old gambit of manure on the barn door. The more you throw the more that sticks. When these guys are vetted we should be looking for problems, not excuses and loopholes.

Hey, if we piss them off what are they going to do? Threaten to kill us? Oh, yeah, they already did that...
Oreste and OLE442 like this.
__________________
...No matter where you are it's enemy territory...
The Tourist is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 12-09-2015, 03:39 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,446
Good research, Richard. But it still demonstrates one thing. The pundits last night were eviscerating Trump for not following the law or The Constitution. None of this stuff was even eluded to, like the act didn't even exist.
There is nothing at all about this in the US Constitution, as far as I am aware, so it appears that Trump might, indeed, be advocating not following the Constitution. Just because the Congress passed a law does not make it constitutional. It is the US Supreme Court, and ONLY the US Supreme Court, that decides which laws are constitutional, and which ones are not. I could find nothing at all in the 1965 law that allows an entire religion to be barred from entry into the US, so it doesn’t surprise me that it was not mentioned by anybody. It wasn’t referenced because it is not relevant to Trump’s insistence that Muslims be denied entry into the US for any reason whatsoever.

By the way, have you thought about the issues of members of the US military who happen to be Muslims, and who happen to be deployed overseas to fight for their country, would, under Trump's rules, not be allowed to return home? Trump doesn’t give a rip, but most Americans do.

This might not mention religion, but it does mention criminality. If the rag has a rapsheet from Interpol, would that suffice?
Trump is not referring to people with criminal histories. Those people are already barred from entering into the US regardless of their religion. Let’s keep the discussion on-point. We are talking about refugees, and we are talking about an entire religion being denied entry into the United States. Convicted felons have not been allowed entry into the US in my memory.

Then again, why not use the old gambit of manure on the barn door. The more you throw the more that sticks. When these guys are vetted we should be looking for problems, not excuses and loopholes.
So, why are you saying that? Are you telling us that the United States Department of State does not investigate the people who apply for refugee status in the United States, and that it never did? Would you accuse former Presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 of malfeasance because they had not prevented members of certain religions from entering the US? Should Presidents Nixon, Carter and Reagan have barred Catholics from entering the US after “the troubles” in England and Northern Ireland with the IRA? After all, the IRA was a demonstrably terrorist organization that killed a lot of innocent civilians, and it was a Roman Catholic organization.

Hey, if we piss them off what are they going to do? Threaten to kill us? Oh, yeah, they already did that...
Refugees did that?? Really??? C’mon, Chico. You know that’s not true. Did some 5-year-old Syrian kid threaten you? Jihadists might be making threats, but not refugees. Remain calm. Syrian refugees are not going to take over the East Towne Mall . . .



__________________
Richard
NRA Life Member - 1982
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2015, 04:27 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
The Tourist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,236
Richard, normally I'm not as hard on the "government" as most people. Sure, snail-mail is a joke, and I think Congress does too much posturing for re-election, but most often I believe it's better in the USA than anywhere else.

Having said that, I'm frustrated on how "provide for the common defense" can be so easily brushed aside for political correctness. I cannot tell a raving lunatic from a skilled actor, and it appears that Barry isn't even paying attention during morning briefings.

Yeah, it's going to be a pain in vetting thousands, but as California showed us, they cannot even discern a credible threat when the rags post their plans openly on social media.

In the past we have quarantined people for disease, ordered people out of their own homes for floods and fires, and even used force against college students for demonstrations--saw it myself in 1969. There is a "line" when the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few.

The segment I'm discussing is not American citizens, but supposedly they are tourists, students and businessmen. We owe them nothing, and frankly, they owe us everything. Some of them out-stay the parameters of their Visas. I think a ankle bracelet is a good idea, after all, it's better than getting beheaded by this flotsam.
Oreste likes this.
__________________
...No matter where you are it's enemy territory...
The Tourist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2015, 05:20 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
OLE442's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Way too close to the city
Posts: 1,455
If the rag has a rapsheet from Interpol, would that suffice?
Pardon me, but that's funny IMO!
OLE442 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2015, 05:30 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
The Tourist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,236
Originally Posted by OLE442 View Post
Pardon me, but that's funny IMO!
Ya' know, it does sound funny when you read it. But now that the California terrorists lives are being investigated, it's clear they left a blood trail akin to a wounded elephant stumbling through four feet of fresh powder. For all of the surveillance this country does, it's amazing warning bells didn't go off years ago.

Interpol must have dossiers on numerous terrorists. Wouldn't these records help us keep them out of this country?
Chuck43 and Oreste like this.
__________________
...No matter where you are it's enemy territory...
The Tourist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2015, 08:58 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,446
Originally Posted by The Tourist View Post
Richard, normally I'm not as hard on the "government" as most people. Sure, snail-mail is a joke, and I think Congress does too much posturing for re-election, but most often I believe it's better in the USA than anywhere else.

Having said that, I'm frustrated on how "provide for the common defense" can be so easily brushed aside for political correctness. I cannot tell a raving lunatic from a skilled actor, and it appears that Barry isn't even paying attention during morning briefings.

Yeah, it's going to be a pain in vetting thousands, but as California showed us, they cannot even discern a credible threat when the rags post their plans openly on social media.

In the past we have quarantined people for disease, ordered people out of their own homes for floods and fires, and even used force against college students for demonstrations--saw it myself in 1969. There is a "line" when the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few.

The segment I'm discussing is not American citizens, but supposedly they are tourists, students and businessmen. We owe them nothing, and frankly, they owe us everything. Some of them out-stay the parameters of their Visas. I think a ankle bracelet is a good idea, after all, it's better than getting beheaded by this flotsam.
Wait a minute, Chico. Are you changing the point of the debate?

I thought we were discussing refugees, not tourists. We all know that the 9/11 terrorists entered the country on Tourist Visas. Why would a terrorist bother to jump through the hoops required to get any other kind of visa other than a Tourist Visa? Nobody seems able or willing to answer this fundamental question. Trump and his friends are offering a distraction, and a lot of people are falling for it. He is like a stage magician who uses distraction to make his tricks work.

"Political Correctness" is nothing more than a buzzword that is meant to distract from real issues. Do you believe that it is "Morality" that is the buzzword -- that we Americans have no obligation to act in a moral manner?



__________________
Richard
NRA Life Member - 1982
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2015, 09:02 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,446
Originally Posted by The Tourist View Post
Ya' know, it does sound funny when you read it. But now that the California terrorists lives are being investigated, it's clear they left a blood trail akin to a wounded elephant stumbling through four feet of fresh powder. For all of the surveillance this country does, it's amazing warning bells didn't go off years ago.

Interpol must have dossiers on numerous terrorists. Wouldn't these records help us keep them out of this country?
One of the San Bernardino terrorists was BORN IN AMERICA. HE WAS A NATURAL US CITIZEN. How do you propose to keep Americans out of America, and how would Interpol have any records at all about a US citizen living in the United States? Do you believe that Interpol has a data file on every American?



__________________
Richard
NRA Life Member - 1982
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2015, 01:54 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
The Tourist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,236
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
Wait a minute, Chico. Are you changing the point of the debate? I thought we were discussing refugees, not tourists.
Richard, I'm not sure my government knows the difference. And frankly, the woman involved in the California shooting got into this country under some form of fiancée status. I didn't even know such a visa existed.

We might be discussing specifics, but far too many 'travelers' in all categories are getting into this country and now the shooting has started.

As I stated in another political forum, two suburban people at my gym--whitebread gentrified suburban types--have asked about defensive firearms. A few years ago these same types criticized me for seeking a CCW permit, now they want one, too.

So, yeah, maybe my comments about refugees should include tourists. How do we know if they're not all from the same lunatic fringe group, but just using varying methods of entry?
Oreste likes this.
__________________
...No matter where you are it's enemy territory...
The Tourist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comments on Hoppe's Elite gun cleaner? jonh1373 Kimber Talk 28 01-19-2016 11:38 AM
Donald Trump on Paris massacre Chuck43 Off-Topic Discussion Forum 4 11-14-2015 08:26 PM
How Obamacare passed Supreme Court as constitutional glokrok Off-Topic Discussion Forum 1 05-01-2015 10:45 AM
Constitutional carry proposed in Indiana Chuck43 Off-Topic Discussion Forum 4 01-13-2015 09:40 PM
Have a chance to buy a Stainless TLE II comments? Gunjunkee Kimber 1911 Forum 6 01-02-2015 03:52 PM