re: Open Invitation: Explain How the Immigration EO is Unconstitutional

quote:

---

The 1st Amendment deals with laws pass by "Congress." It has been incorporated against the 50 states. How would that apply to the president, who is neither Congress nor a state?

---

Well the president took this action under 1182(f), an act of congress.

quote:

---

every law is discriminatory

our constitution says certain types of discrimination violate our constitution

---

I'm not sure our constitution says that, first of all, but that is a minor point. The major point is that the government can discriminate against noncitizens who are not under our jurisdiction as much as they want on whatever basis they want.

quote:

---

Do the protections of the United States Constitution extend to people who are not citizens or otherwise legal residents of the US?

Pretty sure our soldiers went kicking in door to door in Fallujah...no one cried that the occupants of those homes had their fourth amendment rights violated

---

What he said. I had no idea the constitution covered folks that aren't even here yet.

quote:

---

I'm not sure our constitution says that,

---

i mean the literal language of the first amendment begins with Congress shall make no law

quote:

---

The major point is that the government can discriminate against noncitizens who are not under our jurisdiction as much as they want on whatever basis they want.

---

not without limits

quote:

---

Is this illegal or unconstitutional? I honestly don't know but to me it feels shady, un-American, and wrong.

---

Spoken like a true leftist

Because in the end, its all about how you feel what it is, as opposed to what it actually is.

quote:

---

i mean the literal language of the first amendment begins with Congress shall make no law

---

It doesn't say that is discriminatory. It says that is verboten and even then, it isn't verboten because we have TPM regulations, and unprotected speech, and capital S speech arguments, fighting words, etc.

quote:

---

not without limits

---

I am not aware of any limit that has been applied to noncitizens/non-legal residents that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Got some precedent, counselor?

quote:

---

the one argument is religious preference. the part of the EO that gives preferential treatment to "minority religious" (which means Christianity) could be unconstitutional. the rest? should be fine, legally

---

I'll give you credit for not just saying it prefers Christians, without acknowledging that it has absolutely no such reference.

That being said, the policy of the US has long been that legitimate cases of religious persecution would be given priority. I have learned from my BLM friends that no group that is a majority can ever be a victim of any kind of "-sim", so that means that all religions EXCEPT Islam would be eligible under these criteria.

Now, some will say that even though the wording does not prioritize Christians, the actual outcome will, therefore, it is inherently intended to benefit Christians. Taking that logic train over to the welfare section of the neighborhood, it is reasonably well accepted that welfare creates a dependance on government help and disincentivizes achievement. So, the myriad social engineering legislation of the last 50 years that has disproportionately benefited/enslaved inner city African Americans was intended to keep them beholden to the government. Is this right?

Disparity of outcome is not the same as disparity in access. Even if it were, the fact that Syria is 87% Muslim and 10% Christian, yet last years immigration was 99 and 1, respectively, would tell me that we have some making up to do. Time for Affirmative Action, right?

quote:

---

You and your OP contain basic knowledge that a vast majority of America's citizens do not comprehend. They just haven't read the letter to the law. I don't know whether that's because they don't know where to find it or are just lazy and believe what they're generally heard.

I've almost given up explaining the 1st Amendment and how it applies to Congress, etc. to people. Thank you for your service

---

Makes me mad seeing armchair lawyers rave about what is and isn't constitutional. Lazy form of argument.

Also, as far as I know, disparate impact has never escaped the labor context as a doctrine.