Last I heard our Constitution did not apply to foreign people outside the Borders of our Country and territories. IMHO if hes this wrong on such a fundamental Constitutional concept as Jurisdiction then he is the wrong person for this position.
Screw you, Giuliani. You ought to know after 9/11 what jihad means.
NEXT!!
How does the first amendment apply to people in foreign countries?
IF you exclude “mohamedans”, perhaps. But if you exclude certain countries of origin, No.
The Constitution is not a 72 virgins pact and foreign refugees have no, Nada, none 1st Amendment rights. Or 2nd Amendment rights. Etc, etc etc
It was my understanding Trump was speaking of the 100,000’s of refuges that we cannot correctly identify. Not an arab business man. Am I wrong??
I haven’t read this through but the title confuses me. How can a Muslim foreigner be granted 1st Amendment rights? Please tell me what I’m missing.
Also, I assumed, wrongly perhaps, that the ban is about people coming here to LIVE not businessmen who visit.
First thing I thought of.
There is no "right to enter" the United States. The Religious Test he's concerned about is about who can be in the government.
But we don't have to be fools about that either. If the Communists declare themselves to be a "religion" tomorrow, do we have to be credulous morons and buy it?
Islam is a political movement disguised as a religion. Only fools don't see this. Could you say the same about Christianity? Possibly, but the founder of that religion drew a clear line between his church and the government.
Contrary to what Guiliani thinks, the First Amendment doesn’t cover people in other countries, and there is no constitutional right for anyone to come here. Carter ban Iranians, and deported about 15,000 of them.
Odd, it did not stop this country from stopping Nazis or Communists during WWII.
Rudy should put some up in his guest room.
Let’s see WWOD. What would Obama do? Executive order. So sue me....
He is flat out wrong.
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.
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.
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.