President of the US Picks

[therajraj]

When I was applying for immigration I was tested for HIV as people with HIV are denied visas and green cards based on their condition. Are people with HIV being punished by this rule?

[anon50325502]

@therajraj

When I was applying for immigration I was tested for HIV? Are people with HIV being punished?

Would they have denied your paperwork if you were positive?

HIV isn’t covered under the 1st.

[therajraj]

@anon50325502

@therajraj

When I was applying for immigration I was tested for HIV? Are people with HIV being punished?

Would they have denied your paperwork if you were positive?

HIV isn’t covered under the 1st.

Yes. If you have certain diseases you cannot get permanent residence strong text

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

There is no distinction. The Obama administration created a policy that violates the 1st. A Trump administration wants to create a policy that violates the 1st.

The Obama administration created a policy that violates the 1st because it infringes on US citizens. A Trump administration wants to create a policy that doesn’t violate the 1st because it can’t violate the 1st because the 1st doesn’t apply to Indian Muslims.

I disagree. It seems pretty clear to me why:

@anon50325502

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

[anon50325502]

@therajraj

@anon50325502

@therajraj

When I was applying for immigration I was tested for HIV? Are people with HIV being punished?

Would they have denied your paperwork if you were positive?

HIV isn’t covered under the 1st.

Yes. If you have certain diseases you cannot get permanent residence strong text

That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I would say that yes you’re being punished, but in this case, well, that just suck. Unfortunately for HIV-positive individuals Congress isn’t restrained​ from making laws as it relates to your health. They are as it relates to religion, as they should.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

First, they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Muslim.

A Trump admin wouldn’t/couldn’t be coming for the Muslims. It would be the other way around. The Muslims would be coming to the US and the Trump admin would say, " No, not now, too many of you folks are so fucked up in the head that we are going to take a breather for awhile."

Come on Push, you’re a history buff. What happen after the travel ban occur? There are 2.7M Muslims here already. You think they’re just going to be left alone?

Trump will probably throw them on the same buses he plans to use to deport all the illegals. Or intern them since there’s precedent there…

*Remember, we’re at war with them. All of them.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

You would be banning their entry based solely on their religion.

Violation of the 1st, sorry.

We can do it if we want because of the…distinction.

Agree to disagree. I’m not a lawyer.

It is still logistically impossible to carry out a ban.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

I’m not even remotely qualified or even interested in getting into the legal minutia surrounding a potential SCOTUS challenge.

Trumps plan violates the first, plain as day.

Not a good enough answer by a long shot.

Summary: foreigners don’t have standing in this regard because of the distinction of them being foreigners because of the distinction of the Constitution not applying to them.

The 1st says “Congress shall make no law…”

No

None

Zilch

Nada

How can the Congress make an Immigration law that is Constitutional and lists a religion as the sole reason for barring entry? I’m all ears.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

Tribe, while being considered a smart guy, is a bona fide liberal progressive. Remember to factor that in to your thinking when quoting Tribe.

I have. The SCOTUS is moderate if not liberal now with Scalia’s passing and could very well (under Trump or Clinton) lean even further left when such a challenge would reach their desk.