re: Hypothetical: If Trump Imposed A Permanent Ban On Immigration From Muslim Nations, Would..

quote:

---

OK you've failed the IQ test

---

Good heavens, dude. You bring up the matter of "IQ" more than everybody else on this board combined. Seriously, just how INSECURE are you?

Dude, I can and do run circles around you on a regular basis. Most of your responses consist of stupid memes, emojis, "Wut?" etc. That's why you are considered to be nothing but an agenda-driven little joke on this board.

The biggest difference between you and many of the rest of us? We aren't so insecure that we feel the need to talk about how "intelligent" we are in every 3rd post.

Seek help, you pathetic loser.

Oh my this is definitely a “post”

quote:

---

Country X is an enthusiastic hater of the US. It's government/people vow to bring the US to its knees, and by "people" let's say we're talking about 80% of the population. Immigrants from Country X, legal and illegal, have perpetrated 20 mass casualty attacks of some sort in the US over the last ten years.

The US cannot ban immigration from Country X if Country X is monotheistic?

---

You're changing the hypothetical posed in OP

quote:

---

Idiots like SFP have watched the decline and virtual fall of Europe over the past 20 years, but apparently they are either blind to it or simply don't care.


?

---

Right on cue. Another emoji response.

Okay, I'm out of my own thread. I've interacted with this narcissistic noncompoop enough over the past 2 days.

quote:

---

Right on cue. Another emoji response.

---

You got the appropriate level of response based on the quality of your post

What you are not seeing is that the unconstitutionality would not based on the non-citizen it would be applied to the US government that would be conducting a religious test with an actual Muslim ban. That it was directed at non-citizens would be moot. The US government would be the one being held to the standards of the US constitution.

quote:

---

No, you are an idiot.

---

Nothing you're saying is correct.

I even posted the language of the 1A for you, since you clearly don't understand what's being discussed, and you doubled down on being wrong.

quote:

---

I am still waiting on you to quote the part of the Constitution where it guarantees rights to foreigners wanting to come here.

---

This conversation is beyond you.

The Constitution doesn't "give" people rights. It is written to restrict the government with respect to certain rights. The Constitutional text differs between use of "person" and "citizen"/"the people". When it uses "person" this applies to anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the US. When it uses "citizen" or "the people" this references only citizens.

For example, the 2nd Amendment is written in terms of "the people" so it's not universal in application. This is much more rare than the general applicability.

quote:

---

What you are not seeing is that the unconstitutionality would not based on the non-citizen it would be applied to the US government that would be conducting a religious test with an actual Muslim ban.

---

I see that. I'm asking a question about how far it goes.

If Country X in my hypothetical was not monotheist, would the US gov't be able to ban citizens from that country?

Not based on religion alone. The onus would be on the government to find a way to make the ban about something like safety, as in the government of X country was so bad we could not be sure that those coming were actually from that country or that it was not a security threat to let them in.

Much better to focus on issues like security than religion. Then you could ban immigration from monotheistic countries, I don't know of any in actual existence, due to the inherent threat that anyone from that country would pose, be they of whatever religion.