Giuliani: ‘No Question’ Trump Muslim Ban Violates First Amendment

[sinkspur]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/11/giuliani-no-question-trump-muslim-violates-first-amendment/

Giuliani: ‘No Question’ Trump Muslim Ban Violates First Amendment

by PAM KEY

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.”

[sinkspur]

So, based on what Trumps DHS guys says, the Muslim ban is out.

[Dexter]

Out of curiosity, did Trump advocate a permanent and all-encompassing ban on all Muslims, or is there important context that was cut out for the purpose of creating a narrative?

[BuckeyeTexan]

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.”

Correct in every way. However, US Code permits the president to stop the immigration of a group of people based on national security. We don't have to ban Muslims. We can halt immigration from the Middle East, period.

[sinkspur]

Out of curiosity, did Trump advocate a permanent and all-encompassing ban on all Muslims, or is there important context that was cut out for the purpose of creating a narrative?

"A ban on all Muslims until our people in Washington can figure out what's going on."   So all Muslims.

Well, not quite all Muslims.  Last month Trump said the wealthy Muslims who do business here would be exempt.

Then, yesterday, he said the new Muslim mayor of London would be exempt. 

So, it's just the slugs who want to visit family here or would like to get a work visa.  Of course, Trump has never said how he will identify who is Muslim.

Does he intend to require all passports to list a religion?  And just how does the home country verify the religion.  Could a Muslim claim to be a Christian?

This ban would never work.  And I think everybody knows it wouldn't work.

[Wingnut]

This ban would never work.  And I think everybody knows it wouldn't work.

Everyone save for his Followers in the Church of the Almighty Orange

[sinkspur]

Correct in every way. However, US Code permits the president to stop the immigration of a group of people based on national security. We don't have to ban Muslims. We can halt immigration from the Middle East, period.

This is not just about immigration. It's about visitors as well.  So, Israelis are from the Middle East.  Ban them too?

Ban Indians?  Bangladeshis?  Jordanians? 

You have GOT to be kidding me.  This is an insane idea from an ignorant, incoherent bigot.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is not just about immigration. It's about visitors as well.  So, Israelis are from the Middle East.  Ban them too?

Ban Indians?  Bangladeshis?  Jordanians? 

You have GOT to be kidding me.  This is an insane idea from an ignorant, incoherent bigot.

I am finding bigotry less and less noxious with each passing year.    As more evidence continues to accumulate,   it appears that we will either be forced to bow to Islam,  or we will have to fight it.   


Call it whatever you like,  but at some point it would appear to become a necessity for survival. 

[don-o]

Trump folks need a lot of skill

[sinkspur]

I am finding bigotry less and less noxious with each passing year.    As more evidence continues to accumulate,   it appears that we will either be forced to bow to Islam,  or we will have to fight it.   


Call it whatever you like,  but at some point it would appear to become a necessity for survival.

Nah.  Muslims assimilate better in the US than anywhere in the world.  They're too busy making money and providing for their families.   

[driftdiver]

This is not just about immigration. It's about visitors as well.  So, Israelis are from the Middle East.  Ban them too?

Ban Indians?  Bangladeshis?  Jordanians? 

You have GOT to be kidding me.  This is an insane idea from an ignorant, incoherent bigot.

@BuckeyeTexan

Ignorant and bigoted are those who prohibit people from other religions from bringing their religious material into the country.  Bigotry is prohibiting a female from driving or even walking down the street without a male escort.

Bigotry is prohibiting people from other religions from visiting certain parts of your country.  Bigotry is teaching children that people from other religions are apes and dogs.  That they deserve to die.  That its ok to rape their women, and have sex with their camels.

All while exporting your religion to their countries.

It doesn't get any more bigoted then the countries which are run by muslims.

[driftdiver]

Nah.  Muslims assimilate better in the US than anywhere in the world.  They're too busy making money and providing for their families.

Please explain what you mean by assimilate?   Because if we look at places like Dearborn MI, it would seem Muslims are far more interested in changing America to match the typical Muslim country.

[driftdiver]

"A ban on all Muslims until our people in Washington can figure out what's going on."   So all Muslims.

Well, not quite all Muslims.  Last month Trump said the wealthy Muslims who do business here would be exempt.

Then, yesterday, he said the new Muslim mayor of London would be exempt. 

So, it's just the slugs who want to visit family here or would like to get a work visa.  Of course, Trump has never said how he will identify who is Muslim.

Does he intend to require all passports to list a religion?  And just how does the home country verify the religion.  Could a Muslim claim to be a Christian?

This ban would never work.  And I think everybody knows it wouldn't work.

Why do you think its wrong for America to choose who comes here?   

[sinkspur]

Please explain what you mean by assimilate?   Because if we look at places like Dearborn MI, it would seem Muslims are far more interested in changing America to match the typical Muslim country.

I look at places like Dallas, Texas, with a large Muslim population.  Houston has a lot of Muslims too.  Dearborn has a much heavier concentration of Muslims, I'm sure.  One or two cities out of thousands though proves my point.

[sinkspur]

Why do you think its wrong for America to choose who comes here?   

It's fine to choose.  But not on the basis of religion.  That just appeals to bigotry.  Besides, it's impossible to enforce such a thing.

I always thought we should attempt to attract the smartest, brightest people with our visa and immigration policies.  It seems a shame to train people in our Universities then let them go home and, instead, welcome in millions of unskilled laborers.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nah.  Muslims assimilate better in the US than anywhere in the world.  They're too busy making money and providing for their families.

I am understanding you to say that they are okay so long as they don't take their religion and it's requirements too seriously.    But what happens when they decide to start taking their religion and it's requirements seriously?   


Of course they won't rock the boat while they are in the minority.   But we see time and again that when they attain sufficient percentages of a population,   they suddenly develop a new found inclination to push a little harder at getting their religious preferences adhered to by everyone.   


The concept of "equality"   and "tolerance"  are alien to Islamic teaching.   The whole system is a big socially stratified pecking order from the lowest slave,  all the way up to the Monarch,  and beyond him to Mohammed and Allah.   

Slavery is acceptable in Islam.   In fact,  it is a virtual requirement.   The slave trade here was pretty much fed by the Muslim slave trade in Africa.   (Which is still going on today)   


Islam and it's teachings are incompatible with Western Civilization.   We will have one,  or we will have the other,  but we will not see them both existing peacefully together,   for long,   and only then so long as the Islamic portion of the population is small.   


 

[sinkspur]

I am understanding you to say that they are okay so long as they don't take their religion and it's requirements too seriously.    But what happens when they decide to start taking their religion and it's requirements seriously?   


Of course they won't rock the boat while they are in the minority.   But we see time and again that when they attain sufficient percentages of a population,   they suddenly develop a new found inclination to push a little harder at getting their religious preferences adhered to by everyone.   


The concept of "equality"   and "tolerance"  are alien to Islamic teaching.   The whole system is a big socially stratified pecking order from the lowest slave,  all the way up to the Monarch,  and beyond him to Mohammed and Allah.   

Slavery is acceptable in Islam.   In fact,  it is a virtual requirement.   The slave trade here was pretty much fed by the Muslim slave trade in Africa.   (Which is still going on today)   


Islam and it's teachings are incompatible with Western Civilization.   We will have one,  or we will have the other,  but we will not see them both existing peacefully together,   for long,   and only then so long as the Islamic portion of the population is small.

Not going to argue with you.  We should be glad we seem to have a happy Muslim population here in the US instead of painting a bleak picture of conditions that likely will never happen.

[DiogenesLamp]

I look at places like Dallas, Texas, with a large Muslim population.  Houston has a lot of Muslims too.  Dearborn has a much heavier concentration of Muslims, I'm sure.  One or two cities out of thousands though proves my point.

I look at a wide sweep of History,   not just the tiny bit  to which my own life has been limited.    You generally cannot judge the eventual success or failure of a sociological effect within just the scope of one lifetime.     The methodology  of Hijrah always begins peacefully,   for if it did not,   it would never work. 


If they continue to grow in these communities,  and they continue to adhere to their religion,   then conflict with the existing social structure is inevitable.   In the short term (such as a  man's life)   it appears to be successful assimilation,   but that is not actually the case.   

[sinkspur]

I look at a wide sweep of History,   not just the tiny bit  to which my own life has been limited.    You generally cannot judge the eventual success or failure of a sociological effect within just the scope of one lifetime.     The methodology  of Hijrah always begins peacefully,   for if it did not,   it would never work. 


If they continue to grow in these communities,  and they continue to adhere to their religion,   then conflict with the existing social structure is inevitable.   In the short term (such as a  man's life)   it appears to be successful assimilation,   but that is not actually the case.

The same kinds of scary things used to be said about Catholics in the mid-1800s.  There were all kinds of fears that Catholics were going to try to impose The Pope on the United States.  The people who were virulenty opposed to Catholic immigration were known as "No-Nothings."

[Right_in_Virginia]

Out of curiosity, did Trump advocate a permanent and all-encompassing ban on all Muslims, or is there important context that was cut out for the purpose of creating a narrative?

He's always talked about a temporary ban on the entry of  Muslims from Syria into the US until and unless we have a proper vetting process in place.  In the interim, Trump supports helping the Saudi's fund (the Saudi's are going to be busy during the Trump administration  ^-^)  a safe zone for Syrian refugees in the Middle East....rather than transferring them to Western nations.

I wonder if dropping the word "Muslins" and making it a total cessation of any immigration and/or transfers from war torn Syria would meet with the approval of those in opposition.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

The same kinds of scary things used to be said about Catholics in the mid-1800s.  There were all kinds of fears that Catholics were going to try to impose The Pope on the United States.  The people who were virulenty opposed to Catholic immigration were known as "No-Nothings."

Have you paid attention --at all--to what's happening in Germany and London?  Do you see any differences between Catholic immigration and Islamic terrorism?  Any at all?

[Mechanicos]

Is $neverTrump really on the side of Soros and the Caliphate? Giuliani is wrong and hes likely out over this.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's fine to choose.  But not on the basis of religion.  That just appeals to bigotry.  Besides, it's impossible to enforce such a thing.

The founding document of this Nation,  the "Declaration of Independence"  cites God as it's authority,   The Articles of Confederation do as well,    and both the Articles and the US Constitution specifically refer to Jesus.   


Our system began with a deliberate and inherent bias against other religions,   and it is a modern fiction that it was ever secular.   

I always thought we should attempt to attract the smartest, brightest people with our visa and immigration policies.  It seems a shame to train people in our Universities then let them go home and, instead, welcome in millions of unskilled laborers.

I think we should concern ourselves with our own family before extending charity to others,   Especially others who bring with them ideas  and attitudes which can only turn our land into  a place like that from whence they fled.   


I am also for imposing bans on Californians leaving their state,   but *THAT*   is probably not enforceable. 

[sinkspur]

He's always talked about a temporary ban on the entry of  Muslims from Syria into the US until and unless we have a proper vetting process in place.  In the interim, Trump supports helping the Saudi's fund (the Saudi's are going to be busy during the Trump administration  ^-^)  a safe zone for Syrian refugees in the Middle East....rather than transferring them to Western nations.

I wonder if dropping the word "Muslins" and making it a total cessation of any immigration and/or transfers from war torn Syria would meet with the approval of those in opposition.   

Wrong, RIV, and you know what you just posted is wrong.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

Not just from Syria and not just refugees, but ALL MUSLIMS.  This includes visitors with family here, businessmen,  and women and children. 

I see even you aren't in favor of a total ban.  Good.  That's a start.  Get your boy to back off.  He hasn't yet, except for wealthy Muslim businessmen and the mayor of London.

[sinkspur]

Have you paid attention --at all--to what's happening in Germany and London?  Do you see any differences between Catholic immigration and Islamic terrorism?  Any at all?

I see what's happening in the EU.  Nobody is favoring a million Muslim refugees coming from Syria being admitted to the US. 

The difference between Catholics and Muslims is not the point.  The reaction and accusations made were almost identical about Catholics 150 years ago.