What is the difference....

Sorry, but I have to correct you there. The Constitution is a document that outlines the powers of our federal government, and thus it applies to anyone under the jurisdiction of or doing business with the federal government. Thus the government is constrained by the Constitution when dealing with foreigners on our soil or applying to do so. Because of this, the 1st amendment restriction on prohibiting free exercise of religion apply once one applies for entrance to this country.

Remember, the Constitution does not grant rights to the people...it grants powers to the government and attempts to enumerate some inalienable human rights, which the government is prohibited from infringing upon...such as the freedom to pray to whatever flying spaghetti monster you like. Inalienable human rights apply to all people. the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments apply here...not by granting rights to anybody, but by dictating the government's limits in dealing with all people, citizens and non-citizens.

If it was national suicide, we'd be long dead.

They are not protected by our Constitution, but our government is prohibited from using religion as a criteria when dealing with them by our Constitution. The solution is very simple...use other criteria...such as national origin, travel history, etc. that we have always used, or simply ban everyone until we revamp the system...which it badly needs anyway.

Fine, just don't use religion as a criteria and we're golden. Trump overstepped our constitutional bounds by using a religious litmus test...there are plenty of other criteria we can use, including a total ban on everyone, that are not prohibited by the Constitution.

 

Sorry, but I have to correct you here...

The constitution limits the government's power when dealing with the people of the United States. Not only is there so such provision in the constitution, your extension would have our troops in Afghanistan obtaining warranrs to search a village for weapons...it is ludicrous.

I am well aware that the constitution guarantees rights...it does not grant them. If you can find any indication otherwise in my writings, please point them out...otherwise please don't act like everyone else is a second grader and you are the teacher.

 

I certainly have no serious problem with closing the borders to all at this point...or to all who cannot show that their admission will benefit the nation as opposed to harming it. I also have no problem with closing it to groups who intend harm to us and our way of life...whether they call themselves a religion or not.

 

Incorrect. As I outlined earlier, the Constitution makes clear distinctions by using the words persons and citizens.
If you feel I am lecturing you like a second-grader, fine, I will treat you as an adult who can read and do research:

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
http://www.nlg.org/sites/default/files/kyrpamphlet Eng 2014 FINAL.pdf
BlueCarp: The U.S. Constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. Check the text.

SCOTUS decisions:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Graham v. Richardson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage."
-- James Madison

We agree about limiting immigration, as long as we take the religious aspect out of it.

 

You may want to look again at the post to which you responded....I did not say citizens, I said people of the United States. I also said the constitution...not the courts. Stupid decisions by courts do not change the constitution, they merely change how it is interpreted by that particular idiotic judge or group of judges.,You might also take note of the fact that the judicial branch is not named in the constitution as the arbiter or interpreter of what the framers meant to say or should have said...that is a power they gave themselves. With the exception of the detainee decision, even the court decisions you quote refer to dealing with people physically present in the USA...not those seeking to enter.

Even Madison's statement that you quote specifies those aliens currently within the US and therefor currently subject to both it's laws and the protections of the constitution...not those wishing to enter. Those currently in the US lawfully certainly enjoy the constitutional protections afforded as people of the United States...and even those here illegally may deserve at least due process to determine that they are, in fact here illegally. However, the assertion that people wishing to enter are entitled to the full range of constitutional protections is pure folly.

Also, freedom of religion does not mean that because a group calls itself a religion we must ignore that the aforementioned group is dedicated to the forceful destruction of our form of government and way of life. Membership in such a group is sufficient under current immigration law to deny them entry.

 

1. Making an application to enter the country puts that application under the jurisdiction of our government and the government must treat that application as per the laws of our country...including the Constitution, which again makes a clear distinction between persons and citizens. Our government must operate under the rules of our country, no matter whom they are dealing with. I'd think that would be pretty obvious. The Constitution requires the government to apply the law equally and prohibits it from discriminating on the basis of religion...period, end of story, no matter how hard you want to wish it away. Of course the solution is pretty danged simple, since we do it all the time...use other, non-protected criteria...like country of origin, travel history, etc.

2. Whether we like it or not, Islam is an established religion...the second largest religion in the world.

3. This notion that Islam is bent on the destruction of our government is just as wacky as the one that claimed Catholics wanted to put our government under the control of the Pope. Again, the Constitution is our friend...at the same time it prohibits discriminating based on religion, it also prohibits adopting a religion. To destroy our government they would first have to destroy the Constitution...that you and I took an oath to defend. I can only hope you embrace and defend it, rather than allowing yourself to be hoodwinked into destroying it for them...which is EXACTLY what you are doing by trying to give them an out from the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments.

4. There is a reason why the law you cite hasn't been used to bar based on religion...because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and doing so would be unconstitutional.

 

....and what of "illegals" who have made no application? They are trespassers, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Fine...you believe that people should let tigers roam their neighborhood and I do not. We will leave it at that. The document is not the same as a person...the person is not currently under the jurisdiction of the US and we can leave them that way for any reason whatsoever. You can find reasons why that is not true if you wish, but they are specious.

Pax out...this time really and regardless. I have other things to do than waste my time with suicidal fools.

 

Of course...and we (should) treat them all the same, not differently based on their religion.

When a person applies for entry, that application...and thus the person in the context of that application...fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

And the "tiger" is of your own creation...there are plenty of other non-constitutionally prohibited criteria that we can and do use to control immigration. Indeed, there would be much broader support from those of us who take our oath to the Constitution seriously if the constitutionally prohibited criteria was replaced by other criteria. It's an easy solution, which is why it puzzles me that some are so vehement about making it only about religion.