Bush and Cruz - Ignoring our Constitution!

Post Reply New Topic

Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush seem to have forgotten what it means to be Americans - they want only Syrian refugees who are Christians given refugee status in this country. Have they forgotten th Constitution already? The First Amendement states ...

In other words, screening refugees on the basis of their religion - by requiring a test of Biblical knowledge, for example - is not only un-constitutional, but it is un-American!

There have been governors making noise about not "allowing" Syrian refugees to settle in their prospective states, which is illegal also.

The entire situation just turns my stomach. Politics have never been savoury, but rationality and accountability seems to be swirling down the drain pretty quickly these days.

Many americans (mis)use the first amendment to ostricise anyone who is not a christian, since anyone with a different religion (or lack of religion) "hinders them in practicing their faith".
You know things are on their heads when a presidential candidate doesn't have a real chance of being elected when he isn't a christian, even while the government is constitutionally obliged to be religion-less (while on-duty, personal convictions are obviously allowed and irrelevant)

I do like the counterpoint of no Syrian immigrants= no Steve Jobs

Guess what.

Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. "In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit," Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. "One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ights.html


As a matter of national security, congress has the authority to restrict immigration. That's not unconstitutional.

Ignoring real threats to security seems pretty irrational to me.

The fact that refugees may be Syrians does not automatically constitute a threat. All refuges coming into this country are heavily vetted, and should not be discriminated towards because of their religion or nationality.

Governors are prohibited under the Refugee Act of 1980 from blocking refugees from settling in their communities, said Lavinia Limon, president and CEO of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigration.

Although I've been following the political situation in Syria for a while, I've sorta ignored the repercussions and grandstanding here.

Is "Syrian" simply a euphemism for "Muslim" in this case?

Is "Israeli" a euphemism for "Jew"?

It's well within our right, Christians are a persecuted group and are threatened with genocide all over the Middle East. We're not obligated to take anyone.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You're not obligated to travel to the Middle East, either.

Sure, it's within our "rights" to refuse clothing, food, health care, housing, and protection to any refugee regardless of his ethnicity, religion, or the color of his skin ... but isn't that exactly what their persecutors were doing to them in the first place?

If we, as a nation, refuse to take in refugees, then we are no better than the tyranny they're trying to escape.

go, fnord.

and how does this do this? what law is there? it's a negative, it doesn't exist, we don't have to accept anyone and you can moral browbeat about that all you want but we're not obligated to take two of every creature like it's Noah's Ark, we can say no to anyone. Christians are not a security threat, they will be able to integrate. Why would you want to bring these people and their families to a climate like this? What do you think that will produce years down the line? A lot more Tamarlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's. Look at France now, they face an impossible security situation where so many of these 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants are becoming radicalized, they live in poverty in huge ghettos. What hope can these refugees have at integrating when they're hated, feared, and not wanted there? This isn't good for any one involved, this is their war not ours so keep it there.

I think they are invoking natural security by selecting only Yazidis or christians they basically are minimising risk of terrorists slipping into the US...even here in Australia our foreign minister Julie Bishop stated most of the Syrian refugees (those given priority) will be Yazidis and Christians

It will be a bit hard to hide behind the first amendment if even one Syrian refugee turns out to be an ISIS sleeper and takes over a jet liner and flies it into the white house...even those of us on the left are not keen on this...

stephen colbert said it well tonight: bush says syrian christians can prove their christian so they (not muslims) can be let into the US. colbert suggests testing them with this verse - i was hungry and you fed me. i was thirsty and you gave me drink. i was a stranger and _________. - if they don't answer with, "you welcomed me," they're either a terrorist or a candidate.