And the great admission tour continues..

[Dill]

(12-22-2016, 05:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. Trumps job is to protect Americans and it's interests first. Cartels come right over the border, bring drugs, women and children to be exploited. Doesn't mean that they are all Mexican's either. He said it clearly in his speech that they are also coming from South America and Latin America. His intent??? taking pieces away clearly changes his intent. WTF is wrong with you? He clearly said not all people coming over are bad. You can't attempt to change what he said by trying to omit pieces to fit your agenda.

Hmm so blocking certain countries that are predominately Muslim is not a form of "Muslim" banning? Weird argument you want to run with.

is it Unconstitutional? I don't recall immigrants getting the same rights as Citizens get?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-muslim-ban-probably-legal

Easy way around most of it,
ban all immigrants from countries we are at war with (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia & Yemen)
ban all immigrants from countries where their is state sponsored terrorism (Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, South Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia)
ban all immigrants from Arabic speaking countries (covers a lot of them, including Israel).

So as you can see, there is ways around it with out actually making it about Religion :)

Now for your comments about the past 6 Presidents,
ps please note that what Carter did is very similar to what Trump wants to do:

No one is changing anything Trump said. I am just not ignoring what he said. And you cant just ignore parts of what he said to fit your agenda.

No one claimed that immigration, cartels, etc. are not a problem, or that all immigrants are Mexican, or that border security should not be a concern. The problem is whipping up hatred with inflammatory terms like "rapists."  It's like saying women are bitches, but some of them are good.  Trump is a person who thinks in ethnic stereotypes and cannot filter that out of his speech. And this isn't all about security. His desire to expel dreamers is just vicious.

And no, blocking immigration from predominately Muslim countries is not a form of "Muslim banning." (Though Muslim haters might be very happy with that--"close enough"). Thanks for providing a list of ways around Trump's original proposal which present non-religious criteria--all unnecessary unless the proposal was facing a legal/political block. You offer some legal opinions on how the ban might work, depending upon Congress, the Supreme Court, and a host of other factors.

My comments about the previous 6 presidents were not about executive orders or selective immigration. The US has often put racist criteria on immigration and used executive orders to manage security issues. No dispute there.  I was referring to 1) bans upon an entire religious faith, and 2) Trump's general vulgarity and racism. No post WWII president has spoken in such an unfiltered manner about women, non white races, and religious groups. No president has behaved like Trump since Jackson, who ethnically cleansed Georgia of the 5 civilized tribes.

Even if there had been a ban on an entire faith, like a Nazi style ban on Jews, it is unlikely such would fly today. It would require Congressional action to secure it from the courts.