Dare you to find one LIBERAL imbecile to comment on this

[Stocktracker]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ath-muslim-classmates-teacher-read-newspaper/

These acts has nothing to do with Islam. Mohammed first wife was a Christian Catholic and the person who thought Mohammed how to read and write was a Catholic priest. So Mohammed is innocent from these crimes that being committed in his name.

Open your mind think for yourself!

 

[SoesWasBetter]

I didn't realize we had so many Jihadists here.

 

[newwurldmn]

Foreigners have no tight to protection under the US Constitution. No one was complaining about religious discrimination when we were giving favors to Russian jews. Now suddenly immigration policy cannot look at religion or we are destroying the Constitution? Nonsense.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Foreigners with a relationship to the US were protected under the first amendment.

 

[Stocktracker]

I didn't realize we had so many Jihadists here.

I am more of a Monk than Jihadist. And I guess you are more of a bigot than Christian!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The Supreme Court disagreed. Foreigners with a relationship to the US were protected under the first amendment.

Wrong. There is no opinion to that effect. They merely declined to stay the Ninth Circuit order with respect to those people. Balance of hardships is a factor in granting or denying injunctive relief. While I think they got that part wrong, they clearly did not issue an opinion holding that people living abroad have any claim under the Constitution regarding religious discrimination.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The Supreme Court disagreed. Foreigners with a relationship to the US were protected under the first amendment.

Not really. The court most definitely has not ruled that anyone has a constitutional right to a visa or to entry. It ruled that the president cannot ban travelers who fall into categories where congress has already passed law establishing a legal relationship- which means that congress can change the law if they so decide- rather than saying that they are constitutional protected.

It is important to keep things in perspective here. The court justices just cobbled together a decision about what to do with an emergency request until the court can hear the case in full in the October term. Court won on some issues too- temporarily- just as the other side won on some issues- temporarily. But there absolutely has not been and will not be any decision saying that someone has a constitutional right to a visa just because of a familial relationship. No side is arguing that anyway. The argument was about whether congress had already spoken there.

You have zero right under the constitution to come to this country if you are not an american citizen. You may or may not have that privilege if you fall into a category where congress wants to grant that privilege.