Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (906403)	12/8/2015 3:23:33 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 1573691

I haven't looked at the law closely, but what he proposes looks perfectly legal. No foreigner has a right to enter the U.S.

To: one_less who wrote (906403)	12/8/2015 3:26:17 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573691

" Trump is a blowhard who is getting tremendous mileage out of comments that touch many of us with some sort of resonance" We have a long history of fearing The Other. = From 1856, “Repeal of all naturalization laws … War to the hilt, on political Romanism … Hostility to all Papal influences, when brought to bear against the Republic … The sending back of all foreign paupers.” When People Flee to America’s Shores We are a nation of immigrants and refugees. Yet we always fear who is coming next. slate.com

To: one_less who wrote (906403)	12/8/2015 3:37:54 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By POKERSAM Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573691

it doesn't violate the constitution Trump’s immigration policy, which would bar all Muslim non-citizens from entering the country, does not violate the Constitution, however. The First Amendment does not apply to foreigners without American citizenship and not under American jurisdiction. Neither does the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. But for the left, the Constitution bars all that with which they disagree and greenlights all the goodies they want. Article VI is an even dumber Constitutional argument. That states, in relevant part, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” In other words, your eligibility for government office cannot be legally constrained by a religious test. That does not mean that anybody gets to come into the United States, or that we cannot impose any ideological or religious test for those who want to become citizens.

To: one_less who wrote (906403)	12/8/2015 3:38:54 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1573691

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act ( Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans. [1] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity". [2] Congressional opposition was minimal. The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.