But not *IMMIGRANT* white guys.

You aren't an immigrant if you were born here. How hard is that for you guys to understand?

I am not going to use liberal catch phrases (and no, I don't care if trump also used the term). Terms like muslim ban and free college make stupid people think there was a literal ban on a certain religion or that college professors and book makers are working for free.

Using your logic if my state isn't a swing state should I be able to "move" to a swing state for election day and vote in that state?

Indeed. You have to be a person to do something that is illegal.

Even though I'm a" free " speech guy, it would be nice if politicians were prohibited from using the word "free.". Nothing the government provides is " free. "

We should ban people from coming in the country that are statistically significantly more likely to commit violent crimes. I'm not sure being from a particular country, being 5'8"or liking chili without noodles would qualify as statistically significant but if it does then you should have to go through a harder vetting process and potentially not be considered for immigration.

To your point I'm not sure why we should care if someone kills someone via regular old murder or terrorism. If you want to bring up race, which I think is a pretty racist thing to do in this convo, and party association then I think you need to consider all races and political affiliations and the % of crimes they commit and not just if is it terrorist or not unless you value the lives of random people in a restaurant or school more than the kid shot in a drive by in the south side of Chicago (this would also lead me to believe you are racist).

More likely to commit violent crimes than who?

Based on your reference to statistical significance, I assume you propose to admit people based on some sort of profiling criteria. Is that correct?

The bolded statement above is, by definition, unconstitutional.

So you might want to try answering this question again.

People do have freedom of movement between states, yes. Is this a new concept for you?

Isn't this just banning Muslims via the Sam Harris gambit that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorism therefore it's perfectly fine to ban Muslims en toto? Otherwise you'd going to say that no, it doesn't have to do with religion but with their specific ties to specific people, organizations, etc, which was already in place, and has been in place since forever. I mean that's the natural conclusion I'm drawing from you here.

Empirical data shows Catholics are 133.7% more likely to commit a terrorist act than Episcopalians. I think we need Sam harris to deconstruct catholic theology to understand how it may contribute to this. Can we really afford to risk our security to appease the PC brigade?

Sam Harris is and was completely opposed the to the Muslim ban.

I can't read the Queen's English all that well, but it mentions being a citizen of the US a few times. Can you translate this puppy?

Can you highlight for me one of those few times where that clause mentions citizens?

wiizi has done that above wook.

It says that citizens can vote but the federal electoral power is determined by persons within the state, which has historically been interpreted as people, citizens or not.

He highlighted 9 words, none of which are "citizen" or "citizens."

This is a bad analogy because conservative women are typically not opposed to Donald trumps brand of sexism. They embrace it. They've been raised to believe in traditional gender roles. They would probably see a man who wasn't a little bit sexist as disingenuous or weak.

In contrast it's quite rare imo for black people to be tolerant of racism in the way that ,many women tolerate sexism.

As you can see, the amendment to the constitution was meant to abolish the three/fifths rule where black people were considered three/fifths a person in the census. I believe the rest has something to do with voting rights. The voting age was 21, only men could vote, and you had to be a citizen; hence, its specificity towards "male citizens twenty-one years of age" everywhere citizens is mentioned.

Undocumented immigrants are indeed people; therefore, they should have representation; unless you wish they be taxed without it. The Enumeration Clause mandates we count all people, the amendment counts each person in full, and we have always interpreted it this way since it's inception.

Trump's sexism extends far beyond believing in traditional gender roles, even if you ignore the overly sexual stuff. His comments about Megyn Kelly ("bleeding from her whatever"), Stormy Daniels ("horseface"), and Carly Fiorina ("Look at that face!") are just three examples among dozens.

How do you think most 60 year-old black people would answer the following question:

On how many occasions have you felt that circumstances compelled you to tolerate racism from a boss, co-worker, friend, police officer, or a service employee (waiter, cab driver, bus driver, cashier, retail salesperson, etc.)?

a. Never
b. 1-5 times
c. 6-25 times
d. More times than I can remember.

Terrorism is hardly even a blip on the rader in homicide / violence rates, so that is an interesting thought experiment.

Interestingly, by this logic a 3rd country should probably be more welcoming towards immigration from Iran than the USA. (Per this Wikipedia article)

Of course crime statistics is a difficult beast, and they are rarely directly comparable across country lines since countries count them in different ways, they investigate them in different ways and the judicial systems might be vastly different.

Why stop at iran? According to WHO estimates (via that article), intentional homicide rates are higher in the US than in niger, north korea, somalia, libya, and... well, the entire developed world.

Frankly I'm disgusted that Canada hasn't put an immigration ban on you savages. You guys are killing at 4x the rate as us! Sure, an immigration official could look at other criteria to evaluate the risk factors but lol thinking is hard.

Just because the murder rate is high in the US doesn't mean Americans who immigrate to another country are necessarily more likely to commit a violent crime in their new country. The US should have some component about a person's likelihood to commit a crime in the US & not their likelihood to commit that crime in their current country.

If you are having a tough time comprehending why these are different think about this: Kim Jong Un kills a lot of people in NK, but that doesn't mean a NK immigrant is more likely to kill someone because his current leader is a crazy person... lol thinking is hard.

The number one demographic, by FAR, to meet this criteria is men. Would you be in favor of banning males from immigrating?

jvs