Muslim control vs gun control

[Quipling]

Wrong... gun ownership is a right, while immigration is not

Whether or not something is a right is not determinative as to whether the government can consider someone's religion in doing something about it.

Having a job is not a constitutional right, but, per the 1st and 14th amendments, the government cannot bar someone from being employed on the basis of their religion.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The interaction between things that happen abroad and the constitution is complicated. Most constitutional rights apply to anyone within the United States, including noncitzens, so you're correct there. Some dispute over specifics, like the 2nd - I think there's a circuit split on that.

As far as outside the United States, it's a lot harder to say and cases have been really mixed. At the very least, per Boumediene v. Bush and related cases, the writ of habeas corpus can also apply to foreign nationals detained by the US Gov. outside the United States. But there have been a few cases with allegations of clear constitutional violations abroad, even against US citizens, that have been rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshal_v._Higgenbotham. There's also this recent case: Mexican teenager was shot while in Mexico by a border guard in the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-118_97bf.pdf. Court dodged the extra-territoriality element.

I see, thanks.

I'm not sold on the bolded section, and neither are a lot of judges. I think even some the judges who would have upheld the travel ban would have stopped short of saying that a blatent muslim ban would be constitutional - just that the challenges weren't proper for x-y-z. Agee, a highly conservative judge in the Fourth Circuit, dissented from the court's ruling against the travel ban on the basis that the litigants didn't have standing to challenge the ban. Other judges dissented because they believed that the suit should have been dismissed because they didn't think Trump's campaign statements should have been considered.

But would you say the question isn't settled as it is in the case of constitutional protections for non-citizens in the US? That it could plausibly be deemed constitutional?

 

[Quipling]

I see, thanks.

But would you say the question isn't settled as it is in the case of constitutional protections for non-citizens in the US? That it could plausibly be deemed constitutional?

I'd agree that the question isn't settled as to constitutional protections for people outside the US. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that people outside the US (generally) can't bring constitutional challenges to immigration decisions. But that's not the same as saying those immigration decisions are themselves unconstitutional - its just a limit on who can challenge them. That's why the challenges to the travel ban were often by groups within the United States that could argue that they were affected in some fashion.

I'm really loathe to say that the underlying decision is plausibly constitutional. I think there's a reason that lots of rejections of constitutional challenges to immigration decisions have been about who can bring the challenge.

 

[TSO]

I think the government making no law based on religion is constitutionally protected.

that isn't what it says though.

 

[VivaRevolution]

that isn't what it says though.

In what way?

 

[TSO]

So the rights come from not only from citizenship but also visas? I thought you said constitutional protections were only for citizens though?

They're not constitutional protections. they're protections for people with visas. They can't buy guns, vote, speak freely, or pretty much anything else other than have protection from illegal search and seizure. And even that isn't set in stone.

 

[TSO]

In what way?

Those are not the words it says. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Those are not the words it says. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

Oh so you mean those aren't the exact configuration of the words, because I promise those words are in fact in the passage.

 

[Orgasmo]

Guns do not kill on their own. Unfortunately I can't say the same for Muslims.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Guns do not kill on their own. Unfortunately I can't say the same for Muslims.

Ah yes, the famous choking massacre.

 

[Lord Coke]

I think you're both wrong. Freedom of religion and other constitutional protections do apply to non-citizens but as far as I know only non-citizens in the US. So it might very well be constitutional to ban Muslim immigration so long as the people immigrating don't have American citizenship but you couldn't ban Islam or enact discrimination against non-citizen Muslims in the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong @panamaican, @Quipling, @alanb

That is basically right. You can discriminate against noncitizens to a degree but you have to have a really good reason and religion is not one of them. I overturned Hawaii's ban on green card holders being allowed to own guns. There is a discussion of the pertinent issues in there.
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2014cv00333/117486/37

 

[Islam Imamate]

That is basically right. You can discriminate against noncitizens to a degree but you have to have a really good reason and religion is not one of them. I overturned Hawaii's ban on green card holders being allowed to own guns. There is a discussion of the pertinent issues in there.
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2014cv00333/117486/37

I figured this question was right up your alley since you're always involved in 2A cases, thanks for the input.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Whether or not something is a right is not determinative as to whether the government can consider someone's religion in doing something about it.

Having a job is not a constitutional right, but, per the 1st and 14th amendments, the government cannot bar someone from being employed on the basis of their religion.

Wait do rights apply to non citizens?

 

[Quipling]

Wait do rights apply to non citizens?

Yes. Here's AlanB's hawaii case for 2nd amendment rights to greencard holders http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/138864051/

Here's the SCOTUS cases I discuss:
http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/138848613/

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Yes. Here's AlanB's hawaii case for 2nd amendment rights to greencard holders http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/138864051/

Here's the SCOTUS cases I discuss:
http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/138848613/

So non citizens appear to have more rights then citizens. Lovely

 

[Quipling]

So non citizens appear to have more rights then citizens. Lovely

Nobody has said that.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Nobody has said that.

I'm saying that. They have the rights of US citizens, plus the benefits of not being documented.

My buddy recently broke his hip falling on a hover board (you can laugh I sure did lol) and ended up paying something like 5k in medical bills (with Insurance).

An illegal in the same position would have been patched up for free.

Seems equitable

 

[Lord Coke]

I'm saying that. They have the rights of US citizens, plus the benefits of not being documented.

My buddy recently broke his hip falling on a hover board (you can laugh I sure did lol) and ended up paying something like 5k in medical bills (with Insurance).

An illegal in the same position would have been patched up for free.

Seems equitable

Illegals have some rights but not nearly as many as citizens i.e. federal law does not allow them to own a gun and the courts have found that to be constitutional. Lawful visitors have more rights than illegals but not that many. Finally lawful permanent resident i.e. green card holders have almost all the same rights.

 

[panamaican]

I think you're both wrong. Freedom of religion and other constitutional protections do apply to non-citizens but as far as I know only non-citizens in the US. So it might very well be constitutional to ban Muslim immigration so long as the people immigrating don't have American citizenship but you couldn't ban Islam or enact discrimination against non-citizen Muslims in the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong @panamaican, @Quipling, @alanb

Fairly close but the more accurate way to think about it is that freedom of religion applies as a restriction on the government. The question is who can bring the lawsuit when the government violates that restriction. And non-citizens can bring that lawsuit if it applies to them.

So a non-citizen outside of the U.S. might not be able to bring the lawsuit because our laws don't necessarily apply to them (there are always circumstances where people outside the U.S. might have standing for laws inside the U.S., immigration falls in that gray area because it affects people inside and outside the country). But a non-citizen living inside the U.S. can bring the lawsuit because they are affected by the laws inside the U.S., they agreed to be governed by those laws when they were granted legal access and that relationship works both ways.

 

[panamaican]

No, the constitution only applies to the people, and the people is defined as the citizenry.

Actually the constitution only applies to the government - it's the rules the government has to follow. It doesn't apply to the people.