There already are strict background checks in place for anyone wanting to become a citizen
Yes there are. Not so much for visitors, though.
Im not saying I have a perfect answer either, but I find it a little bit hypocritical when people pick and choose what they want to stick to in the constitution.
No one is asking for the perfect answer, just a reasonable one will do. And you certainly don't need to limit yourself to the three options I gave above, as if you can think of more options than that, it would be awesome.
They will have no problem ignoring the constitution when it comes to muslims, but other situations ( i.e. gun control ) they want to preach real hard about the second amendment.
No one that I know of is suggesting that we deport Muslims because they're Muslims, especially if they're US citizens. That would be unconstitutional. But the Constitution doesn't infer upon or guarantee anyone the right to emmigrate to here. For that matter, there's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees an alien the right to visit here.
The Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over
naturalization. Meaning, the federal government has the power to decide who is and is not, and who can be and cannot be, a US citizen. Immigration is handled through laws enacted by Congress. And even at that, Congress does not have any
explicit power over immigration, per se. Such a power has been inferred from its power over naturalization, but naturalization (the power to determine who shall be citizens) is different from the power over immigration of non-citizens.
We can infer such a power from two different clauses of Article I of the Constitution, however.
The first is Article I, Section 8, is the section that tasks Congress the authority over naturalization by stating,
"The Congress shall have power... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization." So Congress is who decides the rules for becoming a naturalized citizen. Since immigration is practically a requirement of being naturalized, we can also infer that Congress can make immigration laws, despite them not having been explicitly granted that power by the Constitution.
The second clause is the
non-importation clause in Article I, Section 9, which provides:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.” (that's 1808). Meaning, any immigrants the states had let in prior to 1808, and were agreeable to allowing those immigrants to remain, Congress couldn't just up and deport them. Until 1808, the States had total control over immigration insofar as who was allowed to emigrate to their State. The negative inference from this clause is that Congress would
eventually (after 1808) have a power to prohibit immigration (but the clause does not similarly imply that Congress would also have the power to force states to accept immigration, which is why several of the States got all bent out of shape and refused to accept refugees from Syria).
While the federal government (Congress) is explicitly delegated the power of naturalization by the Constitution, the power of immigration is an inferred power, not an explicit power. Thus, when the government's motivation for enacting immigration laws is to further genuine compelling foreign policy goals, or, as it says right there at the very top of the Constitution,
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," the laws will be upheld.
On the flip side of that, when the government's motivation is nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism, strict scrutiny will usually operate to defeat those laws. It may take a while, depending on the reasons for enacting the law in the first place. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first significant legislation that set the most serious restrictions on a specific ethnic group. The Act outright prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers, and was intended to last 10 years, but was renewed in 1892, and made permanent in 1902. When it was extended in 1902, it required each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, they faced deportation. It wasn't repealed until 1943 (in no small part because two years earlier China became an official allied nation during WW II). Ethnic Chinese still couldn't own property or business until 1967.
While on the face of it the Chinese Exclusion Act may seem like an act out of fear or hatred or favoritism, and the strict scrutiny should apply to repeal that law, but the reality is that
domestic Tranquility, common defence, general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty outweighed the strict scrutiny of discrimination. The Supreme Order of Caucasians was just one of many anti-Chinese groups that regularly engaged the Chinese in violence. There were riots in the streets, murder was rampant from both sides, it was a real mess. The reason for the Act was not a secret, it was straight up because Chinese immigrants "endangered the good order of certain localities" and could eventually spread to most of the country.
But very few Chinese who were already here were deported. The ban was on visitors and those wanting to emmigrate to here. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah. Trump, Muslims, visitors and immigrants.
The argument your making about banning muslims can be made for gun control also.
Not really. Not successfully, anyway. The
right of the people from infringement to keep and bear arms is enumerated right there in the Constitution, and it is a right that cannot be revoked by legislation, whereas the
privilege of Muslims to enter the country can be granted or revoked by Congress as they see fit.
Look at all the gun violence in this country, but do the right wingers want to ban guns? No, because they believe it to be unconstitutional. Just like banning someone from the county based on their religious.
They believe the banning of guns to be unconstitutional because, like, you know, it is. Banning someone from the country for religious reasons, or any other compelling reason, like
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, is not.
Oh, and for your redhead analogy. If there were a SMALL group of redheaded women kicking guys in the nuts, no I would not be weary of redhead women I see, because I don't buy into fear mongering. Plus I love redheads, so they can get near my nuts all day long.
Well, I used the very imprecise term "bunch" because the analogy didn't really require a lot of specificity beyond that. You translated that to mean "SMALL" whatever small is. The intent in using "bunch" was to mean a lot, a significant number as to take notice of, rather than something small and insignificant, not to be bothered with. But more to the point, I didn't say it was a bunch of redheaded women kicking guys in the nuts, I said they they had posted online that whenever they see YOU specifically, they would be kicking YOU in the nuts. YOU are the target of the entire bunch. No one else. Just YOU.
The kicked in the nuts analogy is always a little iffy, because every now and then you run into someone who actually enjoys that sort of thing. Or, you run into someone who really, really likes redheads and are willing to risk that the one who is approaching his isn't a part of the "bunch."
Perhaps a better analogy would be a certain police jurisdiction, let's say the Evansville Police Department, puts out an BOLO for you. They want you bad. They've got every cop on the lookout specifically for you. Sure, the Evansville Police Force is a small number of cops, compared to all cops. So if you are across the river you're good to go. The Henderson police
probably aren't looking for you,
probably, and even if they're aware of the BOLO they might not really care since it's not their jurisdiction. But can you be sure? If you see one of Henderson's finest, unless you can be sure of his intentions, you're quite likely to avoid him.
The thing is, you guys are doing exactly what the terrorists want by adopting that attitude. They want to create an enormous rift between the U.S. and the entire muslim religion, because when that happens more muslims are going to feel persecuted against and that makes them easier for the terrorists to manipulate and radicalize.
So again, what's the alternative? allow any and all Muslims into the country on a tourist visa as long as they tell us up front they won't hurt anybody?
Anyways, I shouldn't have even posted, I hate getting involved in political bickering.
If you view it as bickering, then you probably shouldn't. If you view it as voicing your opinion and balancing that with the opinions of others, as a means of learning about different ways of looking at things, then posting your opinion goes a long way in fostering the debate and the exchange of ideas.
