[nwrep]

The proposal to deny visas based solely on religion could be construed as unconstitutional. Ron should understand that.

Also, ending the birthright is unconstitutional, we may need a CA for it. I do agree with both on principle.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Also, ending the birthright is unconstitutional, we may need a CA for it.

I'm not so sure about that. IIRC, the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee citizenship to any and all who just happen to be downloaded on American soil. That's just the way it has been interpreted by liberal judges over the past few decades. Perhaps a Congressional "clarification" of the true meaning of the 14th amendment is in order.

[Vigilanteman]

There are some Muslims who are actually on our side. Such as the guy in my tagline and on my Freeper page.

[dcwusmc]

“Birthright” citizenship was, according to the discussion at the time of the 14th amendment, never intended to be as it is today. It was not within the meaning of the amendment at all so a simple clarifying law should do it...

I’m not sure how a law excluding muslims from terrorist-supporting nations, such as Saudi Arabia, could work, but it sure is worthy of a try!!!

[org.whodat]

ending the birthright is unconstitutional,

Is not!

http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm

[matthew fuller]

"The proposal to deny visas based solely on religion could be construed as unconstitutional. Ron should understand that. "

That may be true, but it's really irelevant- Islam is not only a religion, but it is also a system of government that believes in (A) Overruning their adopted land by unchecked breeding; or (B) VIOLENT overthrow of their adopted country. As such, they are constitutionally excludable.