The President has the constitutional power to ban Muslims from coming to the US
If Donald Trump becomes President he has the constitutional power to ban Muslims from coming to the US:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-
Presidential Proclamation--Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses
SUSPENSION OF ENTRY AS IMMIGRANTS AND NONIMMIGRANTS OF PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS AND OTHER ABUSES
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
The United States enduring commitment to respect for human rights and humanitarian law requires that its Government be able to ensure that the United States does not become a safe haven for serious violators of human rights and humanitarian law and those who engage in other related abuses. Universal respect for human rights and humanitarian law and the prevention of atrocities internationally promotes U.S. values and fundamental U.S. interests in helping secure peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises around the globe. I therefore have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to take action to restrict the international travel and to suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of certain persons who have engaged in the acts outlined in section 1 of this proclamation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore hereby proclaim that:
Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:
(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
(b) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply with respect to any person otherwise covered by section 1 where the entry of such person would not harm the foreign relations interests of the United States.
Sec. 3. The Secretary of State, or the Secretary's designee, in his or her sole discretion, shall identify persons covered by section 1 of this proclamation, pursuant to such standards and procedures as the Secretary may establish.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of State shall have responsibility for implementing this proclamation pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.
Sec. 5. For any person whose entry is otherwise suspended under this proclamation entry will be denied, unless the Secretary of State determines that the particular entry of such person would be in the interests of the United States. In exercising such authority, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to derogate from United States Government obligations under applicable international agreements, or to suspend entry based solely on an alien's ideology, opinions, or beliefs, or based solely on expression that would be considered protected under U.S. interpretations of international agreements to which the United States is a party. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the authority of the United States to admit or to suspend entry of particular individuals into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) or under any other provision of U.S. law.
Sec. 7. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 8. This proclamation is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary of State determines that it is no longer necessary and should be terminated, either in whole or in part. Any such termination shall become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.
BARACK OBAMA
SUSPENSION OF ENTRY AS IMMIGRANTS AND NONIMMIGRANTS OF PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS AND OTHER ABUSES
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
The United States enduring commitment to respect for human rights and humanitarian law requires that its Government be able to ensure that the United States does not become a safe haven for serious violators of human rights and humanitarian law and those who engage in other related abuses. Universal respect for human rights and humanitarian law and the prevention of atrocities internationally promotes U.S. values and fundamental U.S. interests in helping secure peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises around the globe. I therefore have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to take action to restrict the international travel and to suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of certain persons who have engaged in the acts outlined in section 1 of this proclamation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore hereby proclaim that:
Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:
(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
(b) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply with respect to any person otherwise covered by section 1 where the entry of such person would not harm the foreign relations interests of the United States.
Sec. 3. The Secretary of State, or the Secretary's designee, in his or her sole discretion, shall identify persons covered by section 1 of this proclamation, pursuant to such standards and procedures as the Secretary may establish.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of State shall have responsibility for implementing this proclamation pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.
Sec. 5. For any person whose entry is otherwise suspended under this proclamation entry will be denied, unless the Secretary of State determines that the particular entry of such person would be in the interests of the United States. In exercising such authority, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to derogate from United States Government obligations under applicable international agreements, or to suspend entry based solely on an alien's ideology, opinions, or beliefs, or based solely on expression that would be considered protected under U.S. interpretations of international agreements to which the United States is a party. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the authority of the United States to admit or to suspend entry of particular individuals into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) or under any other provision of U.S. law.
Sec. 7. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 8. This proclamation is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary of State determines that it is no longer necessary and should be terminated, either in whole or in part. Any such termination shall become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.
BARACK OBAMA
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-
(edited 7 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Maybe he should also offer asylum to those from Europes who have to live near the "refugees".
(edited 7 years ago)
I'm not sure what merely being a Muslim means you'v committed serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.
Also, we need to keep this in perspective. While of course Muslims represent a real threat to Americans, it is nothing compare to the threat posed toddlers. Muslim terrorists have shot zero Americans in 2016. In the sam time period, 23 Americans have been shot by toddlers including 7 fatally. Don't let the mainstream media blind you to the real threat.
Also, we need to keep this in perspective. While of course Muslims represent a real threat to Americans, it is nothing compare to the threat posed toddlers. Muslim terrorists have shot zero Americans in 2016. In the sam time period, 23 Americans have been shot by toddlers including 7 fatally. Don't let the mainstream media blind you to the real threat.
How does one identify a Muslim?
Yeah, no part of that says that he can blanket ban Muslims.
In fact:
Erm...
In fact:
Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to derogate from United States Government obligations under applicable international agreements, or to suspend entry based solely on an alien's ideology, opinions, or beliefs, or based solely on expression that would be considered protected under U.S. interpretations of international agreements to which the United States is a party.
Erm...
(edited 7 years ago)
Let him do it. If it causes more problems, the whole world will give him a boo.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Aceadria
How does one identify a Muslim?
You just fling bits of bacon with cartoons of the prophet Mohammed drawn on them at prospective migrants, and then see how they react.
Original post by garfeeled
Whilst I have my issues with aspects of the Muslim community a ban would fail to make any real change.
Not only that whilst Islamic terrorism is a threat according to police forces it is movements like the sovereign citizen movement which they rank as being the biggest threat.
Not only that whilst Islamic terrorism is a threat according to police forces it is movements like the sovereign citizen movement which they rank as being the biggest threat.
Might be a case of too little too late but it will do more help than harm I believe.
"Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses"
Hold on, when did I do this? Have I been sleep walking again?
Hold on, when did I do this? Have I been sleep walking again?
Original post by Jebedee
Might be a case of too little too late but it will do more help than harm I believe.
I have to disagree.
A ban on all Muslim immigration will keep the current status quo at best in my opinion. With a ban no more Muslim can come in that can help combat the issues faced by the Muslim community (I support efforts to prevent immigration of any people that hold positions that clash greatly with society in general eg sexism, racism, homophobia so on.)
With a ban three paths are open to improve things.
1The Muslim community gets its act together by its self and supports not only preventing the spread but reducing the support of such opinions
2 society a whole takes control and forces the change
3 the Muslim community and society as a whole work together to achieve the desired effect (the best option I think)
Now for one that isn't going to work. Younger British Muslims and Muslims around the western world are more supportive of homophobia, sexism and tyrannical belief practise. So actually the at best the problem would be growing less fast but would still be present and spreading.
For two that is only going to make things worse. Society as a whole will be seen by those that support clashing beliefs as being an attacking ideology, not only encouraging people to stick to the clashing beliefs more firmly but encouraging them to make more active effort to spread it. A solution may arrive. But first things would have to get far worse, and a solution is not guaranteed.
For three the ban will make things problematic. To the Muslim community society will have singled them out, encouraging them to hide issues and not expose them for fear of greater restrictions on the Muslim community, whilst also having the same issues (to less of an extent though) as number 2.
Original post by garfeeled
I have to disagree.
A ban on all Muslim immigration will keep the current status quo at best in my opinion. With a ban no more Muslim can come in that can help combat the issues faced by the Muslim community (I support efforts to prevent immigration of any people that hold positions that clash greatly with society in general eg sexism, racism, homophobia so on.)
With a ban three paths are open to improve things.
1The Muslim community gets its act together by its self and supports not only preventing the spread but reducing the support of such opinions
2 society a whole takes control and forces the change
3 the Muslim community and society as a whole work together to achieve the desired effect (the best option I think)
Now for one that isn't going to work. Younger British Muslims and Muslims around the western world are more supportive of homophobia, sexism and tyrannical belief practise. So actually the at best the problem would be growing less fast but would still be present and spreading.
For two that is only going to make things worse. Society as a whole will be seen by those that support clashing beliefs as being an attacking ideology, not only encouraging people to stick to the clashing beliefs more firmly but encouraging them to make more active effort to spread it. A solution may arrive. But first things would have to get far worse, and a solution is not guaranteed.
For three the ban will make things problematic. To the Muslim community society will have singled them out, encouraging them to hide issues and not expose them for fear of greater restrictions on the Muslim community, whilst also having the same issues (to less of an extent though) as number 2.
A ban on all Muslim immigration will keep the current status quo at best in my opinion. With a ban no more Muslim can come in that can help combat the issues faced by the Muslim community (I support efforts to prevent immigration of any people that hold positions that clash greatly with society in general eg sexism, racism, homophobia so on.)
With a ban three paths are open to improve things.
1The Muslim community gets its act together by its self and supports not only preventing the spread but reducing the support of such opinions
2 society a whole takes control and forces the change
3 the Muslim community and society as a whole work together to achieve the desired effect (the best option I think)
Now for one that isn't going to work. Younger British Muslims and Muslims around the western world are more supportive of homophobia, sexism and tyrannical belief practise. So actually the at best the problem would be growing less fast but would still be present and spreading.
For two that is only going to make things worse. Society as a whole will be seen by those that support clashing beliefs as being an attacking ideology, not only encouraging people to stick to the clashing beliefs more firmly but encouraging them to make more active effort to spread it. A solution may arrive. But first things would have to get far worse, and a solution is not guaranteed.
For three the ban will make things problematic. To the Muslim community society will have singled them out, encouraging them to hide issues and not expose them for fear of greater restrictions on the Muslim community, whilst also having the same issues (to less of an extent though) as number 2.
Name me one example country from around the world where muslims actually helped and successfully stopped salafism...
I think it is safe to say that the amount of muslims in a country is directly correlated to the amount of terrorism and barbarity, So it follows that less is a good thing.
Original post by Jebedee
Name me one example country from around the world where muslims actually helped and successfully stopped salafism...
I think it is safe to say that the amount of muslims in a country is directly correlated to the amount of terrorism and barbarity, So it follows that less is a good thing.
I think it is safe to say that the amount of muslims in a country is directly correlated to the amount of terrorism and barbarity, So it follows that less is a good thing.
Again disagree. If the problem is only going to get worst under a ban, as I believe. Then I'm not going to support a ban until that opinion changes.
Beside the Muslim community has been a beacon for progress before it can do it again and even if it hadn't there is a first time for everything. Ending slavery, abolishing apartheid all had a first time. Women's rights, civil rights, workers rights, lgbt rights all had first times.
Original post by garfeeled
Again disagree. If the problem is only going to get worst under a ban, as I believe. Then I'm not going to support a ban until that opinion changes.
Beside the Muslim community has been a beacon for progress before it can do it again and even if it hadn't there is a first time for everything. Ending slavery, abolishing apartheid all had a first time. Women's rights, civil rights, workers rights, lgbt rights all had first times.
Beside the Muslim community has been a beacon for progress before it can do it again and even if it hadn't there is a first time for everything. Ending slavery, abolishing apartheid all had a first time. Women's rights, civil rights, workers rights, lgbt rights all had first times.
Just ban them until they have caught up with civilised society, simple.
Original post by Jebedee
Just ban them until they have caught up with civilised society, simple.
And how will that help. Some of the biggest exporters of terrorist and extremist ideology are Saudi Arabia and the like. Banning Muslims from britian if anything makes Saudi Arabia more able to export their desired ideology. Besides there will still be Muslims in britian and the issues of the Muslim community will remain.
Original post by garfeeled
And how will that help. Some of the biggest exporters of terrorist and extremist ideology are Saudi Arabia and the like. Banning Muslims from britian if anything makes Saudi Arabia more able to export their desired ideology. Besides there will still be Muslims in britian and the issues of the Muslim community will remain.
No, they are able to export their ideology already, and they are doing so very successfully. The purpose of it is to fool the people into allowing more muslims into the country.
Sure Britain will still have the same problem, but it isn't America's responsibility to help us out with that, we need the balls to shut our borders ourselves and be more prepared to deport.
Original post by Omen96
Oh no, I'm sure terrorism will sky rocket in America if he bans Muslims, but of course these terrorists are not at fault, they are victims who need liberal love
1) so muslims are peaceful or violent? you're suggesting the latter
2) terrorism doesn't happen via such trivial causes. they happen via serious foreign policy issues, e.g. israel vs palestine, arguably - why would muslims even want to join the "kufar" in america anyway, right?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- who is donald trump
- What do you think will happen to Donald the dump Trump?
- Constitutional law
- Edexcel A Level History American Dream Essay
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- In a committee for a society and I am tired of dealing with this
- 2023 Edexcel A level Politics Paper 3 Predictions?
- Is the Monarchy essential for Britain?
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Family falling apart over my sisters boyfriend...
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Politics 25 mark extract question structure
- Who do you think is the best military commander ever?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Is THIS form of “magic” actually magic/haram?
- 2023 King's Speech
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
