APP - It looks like Jimmy Carter violated "our principles" and the US Constitution

[canceled.2021.1]

It looks like Jimmy Carter violated "our principles" and the US Constitution

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...k-president-jimmy-carter-banned-iranians-u-s/


Remember that pesky little incident in 1979 when the Iranian mullahs kidnapped US citizens and held them hostage?

Well, in response to that on Nov. 27, 1979, Jimmy Carter signed Executive Order 12172,

Carter directed that:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 USC 1185 and 3 USC 301, it is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1-101. Delegation of Authority. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General are hereby designated and empowered to exercise in respect of Iranians holding nonimmigrant visas, the authority conferred upon the President by section 215(a) (1) of the Act of June 27, 1952 (8 USC 1185), to prescribe limitations and exceptions on the rules and regulations governing the entry of aliens into the United States.
SEC. 1—102. Effective Date. This order is effective immediately.

JIMMY CARTER
The White House,
November 26, 1979.

In December of that year, a U.S. Appeals Court allowed the deportation of the 7,000 Iranian students who were found to have visa violations. About 15,000 Iranians were told to leave the United States.
In addition, Iranians entering the United States were forced to submit to extra border screening, and many Iranians’ existing visas were cancelled. On April 7, 1980, Carter directed:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Now I know some will be dismayed that this came from Breitbart, so I took the liberty of posting a link from The American Presidency Project.

Additionally, some may argue that Carter didn't necessarily ban the religion, he was addressing the country. That is a fair point, but considering that Iran is 99.4% muslim, I would argue that he effectively banned a religion wouldn't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Iran

 

[Jarod]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...k-president-jimmy-carter-banned-iranians-u-s/


Remember that pesky little incident in 1979 when the Iranian mullahs kidnapped US citizens and held them hostage?

Well, in response to that on Nov. 27, 1979, Jimmy Carter signed Executive Order 12172,

Carter directed that:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 USC 1185 and 3 USC 301, it is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1-101. Delegation of Authority. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General are hereby designated and empowered to exercise in respect of Iranians holding nonimmigrant visas, the authority conferred upon the President by section 215(a) (1) of the Act of June 27, 1952 (8 USC 1185), to prescribe limitations and exceptions on the rules and regulations governing the entry of aliens into the United States.
SEC. 1—102. Effective Date. This order is effective immediately.

JIMMY CARTER
The White House,
November 26, 1979.

In December of that year, a U.S. Appeals Court allowed the deportation of the 7,000 Iranian students who were found to have visa violations. About 15,000 Iranians were told to leave the United States.
In addition, Iranians entering the United States were forced to submit to extra border screening, and many Iranians’ existing visas were cancelled. On April 7, 1980, Carter directed:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Now I know some will be dismayed that this came from Breitbart, so I took the liberty of posting a link from The American Presidency Project.

Additionally, some may argue that Carter didn't necessarily ban the religion, he was addressing the country. That is a fair point, but considering that Iran is 99.4% muslim, I would argue that he effectively banned a religion wouldn't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Iran

NO you would be banning Iranians, but the other Billion Muslims would still be free to be in the Untied States.

I am sure you can see the difference, 249 Million Indonesian Muslims would still be free to visit or apply for a visa or apply to immigrate.

Brietbart is playing dumb, and you are falling for it.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

NO you would be banning Iranians, but the other Billion Muslims would still be free to be in the Untied States.

I am sure you can see the difference, 249 Million Indonesian Muslims would still be free to visit or apply for a visa or apply to immigrate.

Brietbart is playing dumb, and you are falling for it.

But there is precedent for banning groups of people correct? So if Trump said he would ban immigration from Pakistan where Jihad Jane came from you would agree?

 

[Truth Detector]

Let us remember that the ONLY ones who have ever banned a people for their nationality or race has been the Democratic Party. Let's also never forget they were the party of racists.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Let us remember that the ONLY ones who have ever banned a people for their nationality or race has been the Democratic Party. Let's also never forget they were the party of racists.

It is interesting that icons in the democrat party have led the way on banning people from entering this country based on race and religion for national security reasons.

One can only surmise that Carter and FDR were consummate racists and today's democrat party wishes to ignore it OR today's democrat party does not wish to take national security as seriously as FDR and Carter.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

But there is precedent for banning groups of people correct? So if Trump said he would ban immigration from Pakistan where Jihad Jane came from you would agree?

Yes. We do have a tradition of banning groups of people. Sometimes we have done so justifiably, as was the case in Iran, when other nations have committed acts of war against us. Other times we have done so in what we would now consider a regrettable and bigoted manner based on race as we did in the immigration act of 1924 under the Coolidge Administration.

Carter in no way violated American tradition or the Constitution as Iraq had committed an act of war against the U.S. and the Executive branch has authority over issues of immigration and there are no Constitutional constraints for the Executive branch to deny immigration into the US for any reason. Those include reason that we would now consider inappropriate such as banning based on religion, ethnicity, race, gender or sexual orientation. So consider your Jimmy Carter argument debunked.

As for the constitutionality of Trumps proposed ban on Muslims, in the narrow scope, most of Trumps proposed ban on Muslims entering the country are not Un-Constitutional except where he proposed that "US Citizens" of the Islamic faith living abroad should also be banned entry into the country. That is unquestionably Un-Constitutional. Conversely if the court of public opinion determines that denying entry into our nation based on bigotry of entire races and religions (which has been done in the past) does not represent our Constitutional values than such actions can be prohibited on a Constitutional basis but only by the Executive and/or Legislative branches and not the Courts since powers on immigration are not delegated to the courts.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Let us remember that the ONLY ones who have ever banned a people for their nationality or race has been the Democratic Party. Let's also never forget they were the party of racists.

You're simply wrong. Calvin Coolidge, A Republican, signed the Immigration Act of 1924 which included the "National Origins Act" and the "Asian Exclusion Act" which forbade the immigration of Africans, Arabs and Asians into the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited the emigration of Chinese laborers, was signed into law by Chester A. Arthur, a Republican, in 1882. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, signed into law the Expatriation act of 1907 that revoked the Citizenship of any US Women who married a noncitizen.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Teddy was a douche, to be sure. Apparently, if we just ban Syrians, then our current problem is solved...

 

[Frank Booth]

The very fact that some ****** rightwingers are referencing Jimmy Carter as some sort of precedent is entertaining - kind of a third derivative of irony, when the usual memes they use to guide their thoughts can't advance past second-order irony.

In 2016, we are witnessing the last gasp of electoral trailer park politics - and the man to conduct that runaway train is the Donald. I'll grab my popcorn and watch; while I am not thrilled about a Hillary Presidency, the GOP has gotten so bad that I wait in joyful hope for a gay Asian President in 2024, and perhaps a transvestite Dominican President in 2032.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes. We do have a tradition of banning groups of people. Sometimes we have done so justifiably, as was the case in Iran, when other nations have committed acts of war against us. Other times we have done so in what we would now consider a regrettable and bigoted manner based on race as we did in the immigration act of 1924 under the Coolidge Administration.

Carter in no way violated American tradition or the Constitution as Iraq had committed an act of war against the U.S. and the Executive branch has authority over issues of immigration and there are no Constitutional constraints for the Executive branch to deny immigration into the US for any reason. Those include reason that we would now consider inappropriate such as banning based on religion, ethnicity, race, gender or sexual orientation. So consider your Jimmy Carter argument debunked.

As for the constitutionality of Trumps proposed ban on Muslims, in the narrow scope, most of Trumps proposed ban on Muslims entering the country are not Un-Constitutional except where he proposed that "US Citizens" of the Islamic faith living abroad should also be banned entry into the country. That is unquestionably Un-Constitutional. Conversely if the court of public opinion determines that denying entry into our nation based on bigotry of entire races and religions (which has been done in the past) does not represent our Constitutional values than such actions can be prohibited on a Constitutional basis but only by the Executive and/or Legislative branches and not the Courts since powers on immigration are not delegated to the courts.

There is no proposed BAN on Muslims; it is a false narrative promoted by a media determined to elect Hillary Clinton and intended for the consumption of low information dullards who still trust a media that has shed any pretense of objectivity.

DUMB!

 

[Truth Detector]

You're simply wrong. Calvin Coolidge, A Republican, signed the Immigration Act of 1924 which included the "National Origins Act" and the "Asian Exclusion Act" which forbade the immigration of Africans, Arabs and Asians into the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited the emigration of Chinese laborers, was signed into law by Chester A. Arthur, a Republican, in 1882. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, signed into law the Expatriation act of 1907 that revoked the Citizenship of any US Women who married a noncitizen.

I stand corrected; one Republican versus all the Democrats which still doesn't make the idiot false argument of the leftist media by attempting to pretend that Trump is unique in his assertions.

Thank you.

 

[Truth Detector]

The very fact that some shit-head rightwingers are referencing Jimmy Carter as some sort of precedent is entertaining - kind of a third derivative of irony, when the usual memes they use to guide their thoughts can't advance past second-order irony.

In 2016, we are witnessing the last gasp of electoral trailer park politics - and the man to conduct that runaway train is the Donald. I'll grab my popcorn and watch; while I am not thrilled about a Hillary Presidency, the GOP has gotten so bad that I wait in joyful hope for a gay Asian President in 2024, and perhaps a transvestite Dominican President in 2032.

Awwww....are you mad? I have to laugh when leftists get pissed off watching this President fail. Liberals aren't intelligent. If they were, they would not have been so enamored by, and elected the dumbest, most divisive, arrogant, naive punk in the history of the presidency.

Repeat after me; President Trump. Hell, I am thinking of voting for the idiot just to watch leftist heads explode.

FACT: there is nothing "intelligent" about the DNC or Democrats who think that terrorism is stopped by allowing tens of thousands of Muslims from Syria with little or no vetting or by banning guns and shitting on the US Constitution.

FACT: there is nothing "intelligent" about an ideology whose primary goal is to turn every citizen in this nation into a dependent ward of the state and then disarm them to prevent Government Fascism.

 

[midcan5]

America, the most powerful nation on earth is too often pushed to extremes by fear. But isn't that the way it works. Donald Trump entire candidacy is about fear, whether it be immigrants or terrorists. It is so interesting listening to Trump and then in the back of one's head thinking is this right or is this the best America can do? It reminds me of times spent in the taproom or VFW bar, listening, all the problems of the world so simple so solvable just listen.....

"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." Herman Wouk

"...In fact, terrorism just isn’t a serious threat to American security or prosperity, especially compared to other dangers, and at some level the American people know that no matter what they tell pollsters. They get excited and fearful after an attack here at home, or after some tragic carnage overseas, but they don’t want government officials to do anything that might inconvenience them or force them to abandon some cherished special interest. They don’t demand fundamental shifts in U.S. Middle East policy (in part because the connection between that policy and the terrorist problem is obscured), and they don’t want to pay more taxes, register their guns, or go through any more security checkpoints. It’s easier just to target some minority population, blow smoke about “sealing the border,” and believe you can solve the problem by “banning Muslims” or electing an unqualified blowhard president.

All of which goes to underscore a theme I’ve made clear many times before: The United States is a very lucky country. It is rich enough that it can throw large sums of money at minor problems. It is secure enough that it can interfere all over the world and experience painful but endurable moments of backlash here at home. Indeed, it is so well-off that it can even afford a political class that is increasingly an embarrassment on a wide array of important issues. With this good fortune comes the luxury of being able to do the same dumb things over and over, which is a pretty fair summary of our entire approach to contemporary terrorism."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/11...st-the-islamic-state-obama-san-bernardino-us/

and this: 'What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat' by Louise Richardson

 

[Damocles]

The very fact that some ****** rightwingers are referencing Jimmy Carter as some sort of precedent is entertaining - kind of a third derivative of irony, when the usual memes they use to guide their thoughts can't advance past second-order irony.

In 2016, we are witnessing the last gasp of electoral trailer park politics - and the man to conduct that runaway train is the Donald. I'll grab my popcorn and watch; while I am not thrilled about a Hillary Presidency, the GOP has gotten so bad that I wait in joyful hope for a gay Asian President in 2024, and perhaps a transvestite Dominican President in 2032.

Too much cursing up in the APP section will wind up making your APP Access diminish to zero...

 

[Frank Booth]

Too much cursing up in the APP section will wind up making your APP Access diminish to zero...

Understood. I'll clean that up a bit.......

 

[Frank Booth]

Awwww....are you mad? I have to laugh when leftists get pissed off watching this President fail. Liberals aren't intelligent. If they were, they would not have been so enamored by, and elected the dumbest, most divisive, arrogant, naive punk in the history of the presidency.

<<Usual middle American rantings of political despair and anger>>

Mad? I've done very, very well in the past eight years, and to be bluntly honest, I never voted for the current President (nor do I enjoy defending his record). It must be said that not only has Obama won two elections with over 50% of the popular vote, he has maintained a much higher approval rating than the last GOP President. The economy is much better in 2015 than it was in 2008. We are rid of some of the more stupid social constraints imposed on people being free in this country. I know you really, really want Trump to be your Obama, but it's not going to happen; you are going to end up with President Hillary. Meditation is a great coping mechanism later in life - something politicians often do in convoluted, inane rituals on occasions called "prayer breakfasts". But I digress.

Obama has one less 9/11, one more dead Bin Laden and about 6,000 less dead troops on his hands. I'm pretty sure he could have claimed this regardless of how many guns were sold, brown people were rejected at the border, or how close we get to some evangelical myth about the whole federal government / anti-Christ / fascist conspiracy that makes the pamphlet circuit at gun ranges and klan rallies. As for your claim of Obama "sh**ting on the constitution", when an liberal, Ivy-league educated constitutional law professor assumes the Presidency, he probably has at least as cogent a view on the constitution as Rush Limbaugh or anyone in an anonymous internet forum, and has the additional King's X of being able to stack the federal judiciary. People who were born smart, hit the books hard in their youth, and shimmy their way to positions of political influence will always be able to influence your laws more than people who hoard guns and canned munitions. But then again, maybe you are right - that people who made better academic grades and passed the rigors of bar examinations and professorial tenure are in fact "not intelligent" - and that real wisdom exists at the gun store or the NASCAR track.

At the end of the day, nothing satisfies like winning Presidential elections. Which one of us is "mad", again?