Posted on 05/11/2016 1:01:48 PM PDT by Mechanicos
11 Dec 2015 Thursday night on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed ban Muslim for entering the Untied States would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Giuliani said, “I think we have to be very careful about who we let in. I don’t think we should let any of the refugees in. I think they should be put in a safe zone in Syria, but if you do a ban on all Muslims, I have no question that you violate the first amendment. The reality is if you let no one in, you could say well, they have no Constitutional rights but once the government sets up a system, the government cannot discriminate in the way it applies that system. So the minute the government sets up an immigration system it can’t use religion as a test or race or gender as a basis for why someone can’t come in.”
He continued, “We have to tell people things that are realistic. Thousands and thousands of Egyptian people from Dubai, people from the Arab Emirates, we do business with them. We own businesses there, they own businesses here. We trade oil, natural gas.”
He added: "We don’t have a right to ban all Muslims…How do you stop a businessman who’s been coming back and forth to conduct his business every month. You cannot establish a ban on all Muslims, And also if you did that, you would really take that population and start radicalizing a lot more of them if you did it. To me, it’s not a sensible proposal.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/11/giuliani-no-question-trump-muslim-violates-first-amendment/
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
He is flat out wrong.
That’s what I thought. No one wants to keep law-abiding business people out of the country - for short periods of time, of course. The Bin Laudens were business types as I recall.
“The proposed temporary suspension would be completely legal and completely constitutional. And if that’s the case, then it’s reduced to a policy dispute,” said Ting, who served as deputy commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department in the George H.W. Bush administration.
Could be....as Osama bin Laden was a big time contractor throughout the Middle East.
His argument is not that they have rights, rather that it is tantamount to establishing a religion in reverse. That is, it “unfairly” rejects one religion over all others. I’m sure the courts would agree, right or wrong.
As a strategy, Trump would have to somehow define Islam as a political movement, which, or course, it is. But that will be unlikely, according to the definitions of religion that exist.
Nonsense. The solution is to deny Islam 1st Amendment religious status. Two grounds immediately come to mind - first, it formally decrees harm to non-believers. Second, it formally demands the replacement of the Constitution with its own governmental system. Any organization containing such requirements can easily be denied 1st Amendment religious status on numerous legal grounds.
Mark my words, it WILL come to this.
Giuliani needs a position that enforces the current laws....not one where he can create them.
Carter used it himself to keep Iranians out of the country back in 1979. Then he made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States in 1979.
How does the first amendment apply to people in foreign countries?
Exactly
How does the first amendment apply to people in foreign countries?
Giuliani may have a point from the “establishment” point of view. We aren’t dealing with reality, we’re dealing with courts, who will almost certainly define the ban on muslim immigration as a roundabout “establishment.”
So, strategically, Trump should amend his criteria to temporarily ban immigration from specific countries. Lots of specific countries.
I don’t agree with Rudy on this but that is not to say how some federal judge would rule.
More importantly, given the difficulty of identifying a person’s religion, particularly if they do not advertise it, perhaps the best way to implement the Muslim ban would be on a country-by-country basis. In other words, keeping out all Saudis, Pakistanis, Somalis... would go along way to banning Muslims without having to do an investigation as to a person’s religion. And if that is over broad and bars some tiny percentage of non-Muslims from those countries, well that is collateral damage that we can accept.
Giuliani is, of course, utterly wrong that the 1st would apply in any form or fashion to a border entry matter. Just as the 5th doesn’t apply when customs is searching your bags.. Well, whatever, I’m good with people being morons once or twice, just don’t make a habit out of it, Giuliani.
Guiliani is a lawyer. How does he get this wrong? (He’s not the first smartest-guy-in-the-room to say this kind of swill, btw.)
ALL shia and sunni muslims believe that ALL governments must come under sharia law.
That makes them the enemies of all other cultures and absolute traitors to the US constitution.
We are under no obligation, legal or moral, to embrace or even tolerate any group that seeks to destroy our government or culture. In fact, this is why we have wars; to persuade such people to cease and desist.
No kidding. Had family members sent back to Ze Fatherland as war with Germany started. The Japanese experience is the only one covered it seems, however many peoe were sent back to the Nations if we were at war with them. We are at war with Islam. Keep em out, and send the ones we have here to Mexico for all I car. Eat that Vincente Fox.
Go Trump
No to Giuliani!
Oy. Giuliani flunked this test.
Exactly
Thank you.
I thought he was brighter than this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.