A third of Americans 'favour' Trump's Muslim ban

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

How about our current situation. Just wanting to hear the middle of the road opinion.

Prissy is our elected CIC, end of story.Any politician who wants to bypass the constitution scares me. People that scream impeach Prissy are just as out of touch as he is.

Sadly people are usally able to live with loss of liberty as long as it aligns with thier philosophy. It scares the heck out of me when our attorney general says she will not tolerate anti muslin rhetoric.

Conversely

The same people who lose thier mind when a politician is sworn in using the koran are usally the same ones , who are dogmatic about the 10 commandments being in a court room.

Liberties are important.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Prissy is our elected CIC, end of story.Any politician who wants to bypass the constitution scares me. People that scream impeach Prissy are just as out of touch as he is.

Sadly people are usally able to live with loss of liberty as long as it aligns with thier philosophy. It scares the heck out of me when our attorney general says she will not tolerate anti muslin rhetoric.

Conversely

The same people who lose thier mind when a politician is sworn in using the koran are usally the same ones , who are dogmatic about the 10 commandments being in a court room.

Liberties are important.

Probably because there's been a rise in hatred and violence towards Muslims. All about the 1st but when you have prominent leaders running for President saying derogatory statements about entire demographics of people which lead to confrontations(Since Trump has made his comments, you've had a Hispanic beaten up, a BLM member jumped on, and another American spit on at a Trump rally) there's an issue with that.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

I don't think banning all Muslims is the solution, with all due respect. Nor is it constitutional, nor would the supreme court ever allow such thing.

Interesting. Not sure that it would reach the Supreme Court -- very soon or at all. Consular officers aren't supposed to refuse visas on religious grounds, but a 214(b) denial has a wide range defining it. One would then have the "doctrine of consular nonreviewability" to face, and good luck overcoming that.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Interesting. Not sure that it would reach the Supreme Court -- very soon or at all. Consular officers aren't supposed to refuse visas on religious grounds, but a 214(b) denial has a wide range defining it. One would then have the "doctrine of consular nonreviewability" to face, and good luck overcoming that.

Former consular officers opinion on why it wouldn't work and why we shouldn't do it.

http://cis.org/seminara/stop-all-muslims-coming-usa-trump-visit-albania-instead

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Interesting piece. However, some COs could probably use 214(b) to keep a number of them out.

[Boiler 45,486]

Basically the way US Immigration is set up is that nobody gets in except certain areas where Congress has given the Executive some leniency to let some categories in.

Obviously it has been done before, no reason why it can not be done again.

[OriZ 3,157]

Interesting. Not sure that it would reach the Supreme Court -- very soon or at all. Consular officers aren't supposed to refuse visas on religious grounds, but a 214(b) denial has a wide range defining it. One would then have the "doctrine of consular nonreviewability" to face, and good luck overcoming that.

They could keep some out, yes, if they find them suspicious...but don't think they could use that to ban all Muslims just for being muslims.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Interesting piece. However, some COs could probably use 214(b) to keep a number of them out.

I think it would be better if they stick to legitimate and bona fide reasons for issuing the denial. Suspicion of links to terrorist groups or illegal activity are already valid reasons.

If the denial is based on religion, eventually there will be a case where a USC files a legal challenge for a 214(b) decision against an immediate relative. In those cases that are reviewed judicially, there must be a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for denial. The most recent supreme court challenge to the doctrine of non reviewability was a 5-4 decision and that was one where the reason was bona fide. Consular abuse will force the issue on this.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Maybe so.