Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    11 Mar '17 22:29
    Can the President---legally---put an outright and explicit ban on Muslims?

    The Travel ban has been considered nothing more than a sideways method of banning Muslims; but can the President just say he believes Muslims are a threat, and ban Muslims from every country from entering the U.S.? Is there anything stopping him?

    To avoid any confusion: I don't only mean can the president ban any Muslim country: I mean can the president legally ban Muslims *specifically* from anywhere? Because as far as I can tell, there's nothing stopping the president from considering Muslims a class of people who are detrimental to the U.S.

    *NOTE: I don't care about starting a discussion on the morality of such a ban; that's been done to death, and I'm bored to tears of it. Please refrain from that here.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Mar '17 22:452 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    Can the President---legally---put an outright and explicit ban on Muslims?

    The Travel ban has been considered nothing more than a sideways method of banning Muslims; but can the President just say he believes Muslims are a threat, and ban Muslims from every country from entering the U.S.? Is there anything stopping him?

    To avoid any confusion: I do ...[text shortened]... a ban; that's been done to death, and I'm bored to tears of it. Please refrain from that here.
    Vivify shows his ignorance or misunderstanding of the US Constitution's First Amendment.
    The First Amendment may be reasonably construed (though some judges might disagree)
    as prohibiting the abridgement of any person's rights simply on account of one's religion.

    In an earlier draft of the First Amendment, James Madison wrote:
    "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship,
    nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of
    conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

    Banning a person from entering or living in the USA only on account of one's religion
    would infringe that person's civil rights.

    Now Vivify might argue that the First Amendment could be repealed, after which it would
    be legal to discriminate explicitly against all Muslims or to make the USA into a Christian theocracy.
  3. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Mar '17 22:45
    Originally posted by vivify
    Can the President---legally---put an outright and explicit ban on Muslims?

    The Travel ban has been considered nothing more than a sideways method of banning Muslims; but can the President just say he believes Muslims are a threat, and ban Muslims from every country from entering the U.S.? Is there anything stopping him?

    To avoid any confusion: I do ...[text shortened]... a ban; that's been done to death, and I'm bored to tears of it. Please refrain from that here.
    If allowing them into the country is a possible danger to the country, then he can keep them out.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    11 Mar '17 22:51
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Vivify shows his ignorance or misunderstanding of the US Constitution's First Amendment.
    The First Amendment may be reasonably construed (though some judges might disagree)
    as prohibiting the abridgement of any person's rights simply on account of one's religion.

    In an earlier draft of the First Amendment, James Madison wrote:
    "The civil rights of no ...[text shortened]... al to discriminate explicitly against all Muslims or to make the USA into a Christian theocracy.
    Thank you. But this applies only to citizens, correct? Could it then be argued that this would not apply to aliens seeking entrance to the U.S.?
  5. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    11 Mar '17 23:00
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If allowing them into the country is a possible danger to the country, then he can keep them out.
    I know. So why have there been people saying a Muslim ban is unconstitutional? Since the President can ban any "class" of people that s/he deems a danger to the U.S., is there any validity to that claim?
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Mar '17 23:01
    Originally posted by vivify
    Thank you. But this applies only to citizens, correct? Could it then be argued that this would not apply to aliens seeking entrance to the U.S.?
    The US Constitution's protections do *not* apply only to US citizens (though Eladar has wrongly claimed such).
    If an illegal alien's arrested in the USA, the police cannot claim that the US Constitution
    does not protect him, so therefore the police can torture him as much as they like.

    I suppose that American supporters of a Muslim ban could argue that Muslim immigrants
    are not protected by the US Constitution, but I don't know which judges would agree with them.
  7. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    11 Mar '17 23:061 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The US Constitution's protections do *not* apply only to US citizens (though Eladar has wrongly claimed such).
    If an illegal alien's arrested in the USA, the police cannot claim that the US Constitution
    does not protect him, so therefore the police can torture him as much as they like.

    I suppose that American supporters of a Muslim ban could argue tha ...[text shortened]...
    are not protected by the US Constitution, but I don't know which judges would agree with them.
    "If an illegal alien's arrested in the USA, the police cannot claim that the US Constitution
    does not protect him..."

    Right. But Trump's ban refers to foreigners, not people already in the U.S. (that would then be a matter of deportation, or maybe even internment camps). But as far as a ban on those entering the U.S. is concerned, is there anything stopping Trump from banning foreign Muslims specifically?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Mar '17 23:11
    Originally posted by vivify
    "If an illegal alien's arrested in the USA, the police cannot claim that the US Constitution
    does not protect him..."

    Right. But Trump's ban refers to foreigners, not people already in the U.S. (that would then be a matter of deportation, or maybe even internment camps). But as far as a ban on those entering the U.S. is concerned, is there anything stopping Trump from banning foreign Muslims specifically?
    Look at it this way. *If* US President Trump believed that the courts would approve of
    an explicit Muslim ban, then he already would have issued that executive order.
    Instead, he told his friend Rudy Giuliani (a lawyer) that he wanted to find a way to dress
    up a 'Muslim ban' in legal terms to get around being blocked by the First Amendment.
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Mar '17 23:17
    Originally posted by vivify
    I know. So why have there been people saying a Muslim ban is unconstitutional? Since the President can ban any "class" of people that s/he deems a danger to the U.S., is there any validity to that claim?
    Because they want to destroy America.
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80055
    12 Mar '17 01:44
    Originally posted by vivify
    "If an illegal alien's arrested in the USA, the police cannot claim that the US Constitution
    does not protect him..."

    Right. But Trump's ban refers to foreigners, not people already in the U.S. (that would then be a matter of deportation, or maybe even internment camps). But as far as a ban on those entering the U.S. is concerned, is there anything stopping Trump from banning foreign Muslims specifically?
    In practical terms it would be quite difficult. If, for example say, a British Muslim (there are several million) wished to enter the US then since their religion is not on their passport and refusing entry on the grounds of their name or skin colour is going to produce all sorts of grief, it's not clear to me exactly how they could do that. Refusing entry from all predominantly Muslim countries would cause so many economic problems that it is difficult to imagine a situation where that could happen. So I think that this is entirely window dressing to keep Trump's core support support happy.
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    12 Mar '17 02:18
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    In practical terms it would be quite difficult. If, for example say, a British Muslim (there are several million) wished to enter the US then since their religion is not on their passport and refusing entry on the grounds of their name or skin colour is going to produce all sorts of grief, it's not clear to me exactly how they could do that. Refusing e ...[text shortened]... n. So I think that this is entirely window dressing to keep Trump's core support support happy.
    Funny how British Muslims were never banned but brought up as an example.

    Typical jibberish.
  12. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    12 Mar '17 02:26
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    In practical terms it would be quite difficult. If, for example say, a British Muslim (there are several million) wished to enter the US then since their religion is not on their passport and refusing entry on the grounds of their name or skin colour is going to produce all sorts of grief, it's not clear to me exactly how they could do that. Refusing e ...[text shortened]... n. So I think that this is entirely window dressing to keep Trump's core support support happy.
    Practicality isn't Trump's forte. If it's legal, there's still a good chance it may become an executive order, given that Trump vehemently promoted a ban during his campaign, and has been making anti-Muslim-immigrant statements (like the false one about Sweden), he may sign an executive order doing just that in the future; after all, he's already banned 7 Muslim countries.

    It seems that no legal reason exists to prevent Trump. One can speculate that the Supreme Court *may* have ruled such a ban unconstitutional, but, as of yet, I haven't seen any legal basis for doing so.
  13. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80055
    12 Mar '17 03:23
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Funny how British Muslims were never banned but brought up as an example.

    Typical jibberish.
    No it's not jibberish. If Trump insists on banning Muslims then logically he should ban them from non-muslim countries. If on the other hand he does not intend that then it is unclear to me what the ban is for. So what's it for, Mr Brains?
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80055
    12 Mar '17 03:33
    Originally posted by vivify
    Practicality isn't Trump's forte. If it's legal, there's still a good chance it may become an executive order, given that Trump vehemently promoted a ban during his campaign, and has been making anti-Muslim-immigrant statements (like the false one about Sweden), he may sign an executive order doing just that in the future; after all, he's already banned 7 Mu ...[text shortened]... ruled such a ban unconstitutional, but, as of yet, I haven't seen any legal basis for doing so.
    As I understand your constitution non-citizens such as myself have basic rights. So while entering the country may not be an automatic right the right of the US authorities to refuse me entry, which they could since I have neither a current passport or a visa, would depend on that rather than the colour of my skin or my religious affiliations (agnostic WASP). Were I a British Muslim with a passport and visa with no individual reason for banning then is it within his powers to ban my entry? And for that matter would visa restrictions on the basis of religious affiliation be regarded as unconstitutional?
  15. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    12 Mar '17 04:26
    Originally posted by vivify
    Can the President---legally---put an outright and explicit ban on Muslims?

    The Travel ban has been considered nothing more than a sideways method of banning Muslims; but can the President just say he believes Muslims are a threat, and ban Muslims from every country from entering the U.S.? Is there anything stopping him?

    To avoid any confusion: I do ...[text shortened]... a ban; that's been done to death, and I'm bored to tears of it. Please refrain from that here.
    A religious test such as a Muslim ban would violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. This was one of the grounds on which the first EO was struck down. I also think that element of the ruling would be agreed to by the vast majority of courts.
Back to Top