One that existed long before a late 20th century amendment meant to give an easier option to a minority group long oppressed by the various regimes in Russia. But hey, sometimes “Jews get special treatment” is the more important message to get across, amirite?
11 Likes
15 Likes
And that includes all his right wing, white supremacist evangelicals…
11 Likes
… who are, AFAICT, examples of operating in the name of Christianity only, promoting if not also instituting the kinds of cruelties that conflict with much of what is written in the New Testament, attributed to Jesus.
Truly, by their fruits shall we know them (Matthew 7:16).
16 Likes
12 Likes
11 Likes
We know:
4 Likes
If no “aliens” could enter the country, then there would be no immigration.
Damn, if no “aliens” could enter, we’d be deporting a LOT of people right now, including all the parents and grandparents who immigrated here but were not born here. Half of my niece’s middle school classmates would lose their parents.
6 Likes
Due to Real ID® laws in Texas, when my 80-something year old mom had to change her state-issued driver’s license (I moved her to Texas so we could take better care of her), they (the Texas DMV) required her to prove that she was a U.S. citizen.
She became one in 1965.
And she still had the paperwork to prove it. Thank goodness.
I shudder to think how all those people who immigrated here must feel, here now, and especially in the scenario you describe.
15 Likes
Trump only worships himself.
6 Likes
This topic is about the Establishment Clause, which is a restriction on the givernment not a right of the people. Citizenship status has nothing to do with it.
5 Likes
Jewish family? I think it’s more accurately a “crime-family”.
his religion:
4 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
The music now playing in Trump’s head. Queued to current stage:
1 Like
I’m late to telling you everything that’s wrong with everything you said, but others did a pretty good job. But just so you know, while the Lautenberg Amendment did originally apply only to Jews escaping persecution in the former Soviet Union, it was later expanded to include any persecuted religious minority. In other words, that law specifically does NOT discriminate on the basis of religion. Whether you are Jewish, Christian, Zorastrian, or Muslim, if you are a persecuted religious minority, you can qualify for refugee status.
8 Likes
I said very clearly, aliens are not entitled to enter the country. They enter with the consent of the United States, which could be either a visa, or some visa waiver program. I’m a citizen. I am, in fact, entitled to enter the country. This is critical because denying entry isn’t harm.
Of course, and in most cases, rights are exactly the same, regardless of immigration status. But not for the 1A. Read the article I linked… it explains very clearly, from the point of view of a progressive attorney, non-citizens have lesser 1A rights. It does make some sense. Someone who is a foreigner, and comes here and wears a shirt that says “death to America”, maybe should lose some immigration benefits they are enjoying. This situation doesn’t apply to a US citizen, who isn’t enjoying any immigration benefits. 2A rights also don’t fully apply. Undocumented immigrants have literally no 2A rights. So it’s not so simple as, everyone gets the same constitutional rights regardless of immigration status.
I’m not sure if there are any other rights there are where citizen vs non-citizen would make a difference. Could the government say, “you’re not a citizen so we’re going to quarter troops at your home!” I would think not, although it’s probably never been tested in court.
In most cases, it’s totally the same. The right to trial by jury, the right to an attorney, etc, it makes absolutely no difference what the person’s immigration status is.
There’s a very clear and direct 1950 Supreme Court ruling on this.
It is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of Government to exclude a given alien
I saw a reference that author Farley Mawat was denied entry to the US due to his statements, which would have been 1A protected had he been a US citizen. The courts would give him no help, although eventually the government here got embarrassed and let him in. He sensibly refused the visa at that point.
I realize that. Although what’s amazing is that, at the time it passed, the USSR was on the brink of war with their own Caucus Muslim citizens, and in fact they ended up leveling Grozny and killing thousands. The one group who really really needed rescuing was excluded from the original Lautenberg amendment, and a different religious group, which didn’t need rescue, was rescued. This happened here in the US and not long ago…
Why are you even bringing this up? As I pointed out in an earlier comment, Trump instituted a Muslim ban when he was President and SCOTUS upheld it. So we know he would do this again, and we know SCOTUS will let him again. So what are you arguing here? That he’s right? What’s your point?
4 Likes
