We would have to exclude people from certain countries, not by religion as the SCOTUS would strike down any law or EO that excluded only Muslims.
The problem would be that while you may prohibit immigrants from Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, etc, we would not shut off immigration of Muslims from France. the UK, Mexico, Germany and other European or Latin America.
What army does SCOTUS have to enforce its corrupt decisions?
Unless you re-classify Islam as a cult or extremist political viewpoint.
The Congress needs to find that Islam is not a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, and remove the issue from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Can Congress remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the entire federal judiciary? I think so.)
“We would have to exclude people from certain countries, not by religion as the SCOTUS would strike down any law or EO that excluded only Muslims.”
Excluding Christians fleeing Pakistan or Iran does not make sense. Looking at the Syrian refugees, almost none are Christians or Yazidis. They are all Sunni Muslims, so they are following same religion as ISIS.
Not only that, you would have radical Muslims saying they are “Christian” just to get into the nation...then the next thing you know, the media gets to say “radical Christian goes on shooting spree.”
Shutting down the borders and working on assimilation of the existing population and/or the deporations of the illegals may be the best way to go.
I would use countries of ethnic origin.
I can’t remember where I read it today, but Islamists were claiming that the US is a majority-Muslim country now. The significance of that is that it’s the point at which sharia is MANDATORY. The only point at which Islam is a religion rather than a political/military ideology is when there are 8% or fewer Muslims in a place. The Muslims very clearly consider themselves to have reached the tipping point from a religion to a military ideology, and as such anybody who truly holds to the teachings of Islam - that sharia MUST be implemented in majority-Muslim nations - is an enemy combatant against the US Constitution, as Ben Carson pointed out quite well.
Teh difference between “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam” is what the percentage of Muslims in a nation is, because when it hits about 8% all Muslims are required to become “radical Muslims”.
We have GOT to know our enemies, in order to know how to fight them. I think Trump, Cruz, and Carson all understand what we’re up against. Islam is merely a cult until it becomes the majority; then it becomes an absolute enemy of freedom.
Immigration is a privilege applied to NON CITIZENS and can be subject to all sorts of arbitrary criteria, historically including education, race and income; I see no reason why religion couldn't be used.
Could you show me..in the constitution, where the federal government has the authority for immigration?
They have the authority for naturalization, but, I believe it is the states who are to determine immigration.
Few people know that Federal Regulations REQUIRE that the religion of immigrants be asked.
Not asking is breaking federal regulations.
Entry can be refused on that answer.
Rush went into it in some detail, quoting the specific regulation.