Trump’s comments condemned by Muslims around the world

[Linky]

Worldwide muslims condemn Trump. American voters applaud him. Wonder which group will have the final say about his being president?

Worldwide not only muslims condemn trump.

When it comes election time most Americans will condemn him. Will you then renounce your US citizenship or just cry into your milk as republicans are used to doing?

Edited December 11, 2015 by Linky

[StevieH]

anonymous the latest group to condemn the fascist trump. could be fun if they hack his ludicrous twitter account.

http://usuncut.com/resistance/anonymous-begins-optrump/

[arjunadawn]

unnamed.jpg

Sorry but this cartoon is insidious in it's dishonesty and propaganda. The terrible facts are the refugees are not welcome in other Muslim countries, for instance Saudi Arabia said to let them in might spoil their way of life. This is surely an indictment on Islam but shows the cultural and racial divide is more a determining factor than the religion. It does not speak well of Islam at all.

The cartoon insinuates that refugees are running to Europe in order to sabotage the West and at the same time claim benefits.If the author was not so ignorant he or she would know the desperation of such people risking their lives in order to save themselves from death by other Muslims or whatever else.. I expect there would be some among them who are economic refugees and maybe some with ill intent going in under cover, but not the whole majority that this cartoon implies.

Again the fact that other Muslim countries are slow to help out speaks volumes of Islam and I am not impressed. It's interesting that Muslims are welcomed largely by the Christian liberal West but not by fellow Muslim countries. That was the only factual point in the cartoon.

But I am not impressed that this cartoon makes fun of the sad plight of people under impossible circumstances and that Ace of Pop felt it a laugh to share it speaks volumes of the poster too.

Very nice post. I am pretty sure I totally disagree with you on the large picture, the conclusions, but I think most of what you say here is accurate.

First, most people flying into Europe are not refugees. Refugees make up less than a majority of all coming. Most of these people, economic or war refugees, just want a better life. There is undoubtedly many who have mercenary/ulterior motives to begin. I think other muslim countries not taking people in may have a component of concern for insurgents but I think they would not have taken any in even if there was no regional conflict. I applaud your honesty in leveling the charge against the right source.

I deleted my follow-on because it is not really relevant to this OP but the vast majority do not assimilate and become dependent on the state. This is overwhelmingly clear from the data.

[arjunadawn]

And yet as of last night leading news was that while scottland yard was towing the line and rejecting Trump's claims police themselves were actually confirming Trump's claims; some were quite clear that they fear for their lives in certain areas. Its no longer amusing, it is just sickening the disconnect between the known world and the declared world in the socialist West.

The point is no longer even interesting to me- of course Trump is correct- any place and any person who is remotely connected to jihad by declaration of association should be subject to a revised profiling until the actual holes present, and then target immigration more surgically. The law as it currently exists from 1/2 century ago allows such discretion in immigration now. The absurd notion that we could not ban someone because of country of origin, age group, gender, profession, religion, etc., is absurd. One, more, all may be disagreeable or political madness, but they are equally ok. You see, the US Constitution applies to Americas on soil, or in jurisdiction, not applicants from any place, planet earth. The US previously closed all immigration last century. The US always varies immigration for age, location, skills, origin, etc.

Never let a crisis go to waste the US senate is now trying to enshrine the same pathology that causes this global problem in US law by granting special status to applicants to the US BECAUSE they are muslim. Of course, the unintended consequences are endless. Any denial then constitutes a lawsuit. This legislation pends now. It does not matter who agrees with Trump or not, it will not fly because there is a long standing interest in Global Progressive Migration. It is a plank of international Fabian/Progressives that there should be no borders. Trump... and the US, don't have a chance.

Yes, of course Trump is correct. Everyone in Wingnuttia think so.

This xenophobic rant never ends.

This is about (just in case you've lost the plot) 10,000 highly vetted refugees fleeing ISIS. If a terrorist is among those 10,000, it will be a miracle.

The chances of an American being killed in a terrorist attack is 20 million to one. It's more likely you'll be killed by lightning. The "unintended consequences" are non-existent except in the minds of the wingnuts.

GOP base is convinced it is living in a dystopian novel where the end of America is imminent and only they, this plucky band of armed, mobility-scooter-riding freedom fighters, can save it.

​Pathetic but really funny.

Sorry, I don't find any of it funny, particularly the race to the bottom whereby vast amounts of people are routinely maligned rather than the substance of what they complain about. Or having tried to rebut the underlying issues, one must nevertheless close with pejorative or innuendo. How... vacant.

Trump is both correct on many things and a buffoon. Both can coexist at the same time. The current narrative asserting that islamic jihad comes from...well, no where at all really. Perhaps climate change, it has been offered recently. Indeed, an Obama State department spokeswoman insisted jobs would help solve the problem. But certainly no narrative based on planet earth realities is offered to control the discourse. Instead, the obvious is abandoned leaving millions to connect dots to the only place they can connect to- islamic jihad comes from. While true, now that the Bully Pulpit is absence from discourse there is no constructive engagement, only a policy that has the paradoxical effect of alienating the very population they assert their policy is designed to protect. If this alone is not an utter refutation of current progressive policies toward anti terrorism no amount of information would suffice. After all, the larger muslim population is where the battle for the future will play out, not IS or AQ.

Saying 10,000 this, a miracle that, is actually saying nothing at all. Nothing. However, if even one among them is a terrorist that is one too many. The US constitution simply and absolutely does not extend to non citizens. They have no right to be here, but the president has every single imperative to protect Americans even if it means denying 10,000 to prevent the one terrorist from entry. America is the president's job, if he wants another job he should quit and apply.

I have no use for the GOP or the new Left's radical redesign couched in "Progressivism." However, the US is dystopic now. The US is free only insofar as ghosts haunt the deck of a ship like a movie clop replaying familiar steps over and over. In essence, much about the recent decline of America informs those who support Trump, less the man himself. I also do not agree that any band, political or otherwise, can save the US. America's wounds are already old and fatal.

[Harsh Jones]

Prince Of World Beheading Champion Saudi Arabia Calls Trump "A Disgrace To America"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/11/2015 - 14:48

You know you've 'made it' when the prince of one of the world's biggest human rights abuser (and leading 'beheader') nations calls you a "disgrace to America."

[sirineou]

And yet as of last night leading news was that while scottland yard was towing the line and rejecting Trump's claims police themselves were actually confirming Trump's claims; some were quite clear that they fear for their lives in certain areas. Its no longer amusing, it is just sickening the disconnect between the known world and the declared world in the socialist West.

The point is no longer even interesting to me- of course Trump is correct- any place and any person who is remotely connected to jihad by declaration of association should be subject to a revised profiling until the actual holes present, and then target immigration more surgically. The law as it currently exists from 1/2 century ago allows such discretion in immigration now. The absurd notion that we could not ban someone because of country of origin, age group, gender, profession, religion, etc., is absurd. One, more, all may be disagreeable or political madness, but they are equally ok. You see, the US Constitution applies to Americas on soil, or in jurisdiction, not applicants from any place, planet earth. The US previously closed all immigration last century. The US always varies immigration for age, location, skills, origin, etc.

Never let a crisis go to waste the US senate is now trying to enshrine the same pathology that causes this global problem in US law by granting special status to applicants to the US BECAUSE they are muslim. Of course, the unintended consequences are endless. Any denial then constitutes a lawsuit. This legislation pends now. It does not matter who agrees with Trump or not, it will not fly because there is a long standing interest in Global Progressive Migration. It is a plank of international Fabian/Progressives that there should be no borders. Trump... and the US, don't have a chance.

Yes, of course Trump is correct. Everyone in Wingnuttia think so.

This xenophobic rant never ends.

This is about (just in case you've lost the plot) 10,000 highly vetted refugees fleeing ISIS. If a terrorist is among those 10,000, it will be a miracle.

The chances of an American being killed in a terrorist attack is 20 million to one. It's more likely you'll be killed by lightning. The "unintended consequences" are non-existent except in the minds of the wingnuts.

GOP base is convinced it is living in a dystopian novel where the end of America is imminent and only they, this plucky band of armed, mobility-scooter-riding freedom fighters, can save it.

​Pathetic but really funny.

Sorry, I don't find any of it funny, particularly the race to the bottom whereby vast amounts of people are routinely maligned rather than the substance of what they complain about. Or having tried to rebut the underlying issues, one must nevertheless close with pejorative or innuendo. How... vacant.

Trump is both correct on many things and a buffoon. Both can coexist at the same time. The current narrative asserting that islamic jihad comes from...well, no where at all really. Perhaps climate change, it has been offered recently. Indeed, an Obama State department spokeswoman insisted jobs would help solve the problem. But certainly no narrative based on planet earth realities is offered to control the discourse. Instead, the obvious is abandoned leaving millions to connect dots to the only place they can connect to- islamic jihad comes from. While true, now that the Bully Pulpit is absence from discourse there is no constructive engagement, only a policy that has the paradoxical effect of alienating the very population they assert their policy is designed to protect. If this alone is not an utter refutation of current progressive policies toward anti terrorism no amount of information would suffice. After all, the larger muslim population is where the battle for the future will play out, not IS or AQ.

Saying 10,000 this, a miracle that, is actually saying nothing at all. Nothing. However, if even one among them is a terrorist that is one too many. The US constitution simply and absolutely does not extend to non citizens. They have no right to be here, but the president has every single imperative to protect Americans even if it means denying 10,000 to prevent the one terrorist from entry. America is the president's job, if he wants another job he should quit and apply.

I have no use for the GOP or the new Left's radical redesign couched in "Progressivism." However, the US is dystopic now. The US is free only insofar as ghosts haunt the deck of a ship like a movie clop replaying familiar steps over and over. In essence, much about the recent decline of America informs those who support Trump, less the man himself. I also do not agree that any band, political or otherwise, can save the US. America's wounds are already old and fatal.

"Within U.S. territory, non-citizens have rights because of the 14th Amendment, which declares “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

[arjunadawn]

And yet as of last night leading news was that while scottland yard was towing the line and rejecting Trump's claims police themselves were actually confirming Trump's claims; some were quite clear that they fear for their lives in certain areas. Its no longer amusing, it is just sickening the disconnect between the known world and the declared world in the socialist West.

The point is no longer even interesting to me- of course Trump is correct- any place and any person who is remotely connected to jihad by declaration of association should be subject to a revised profiling until the actual holes present, and then target immigration more surgically. The law as it currently exists from 1/2 century ago allows such discretion in immigration now. The absurd notion that we could not ban someone because of country of origin, age group, gender, profession, religion, etc., is absurd. One, more, all may be disagreeable or political madness, but they are equally ok. You see, the US Constitution applies to Americas on soil, or in jurisdiction, not applicants from any place, planet earth. The US previously closed all immigration last century. The US always varies immigration for age, location, skills, origin, etc.

Never let a crisis go to waste the US senate is now trying to enshrine the same pathology that causes this global problem in US law by granting special status to applicants to the US BECAUSE they are muslim. Of course, the unintended consequences are endless. Any denial then constitutes a lawsuit. This legislation pends now. It does not matter who agrees with Trump or not, it will not fly because there is a long standing interest in Global Progressive Migration. It is a plank of international Fabian/Progressives that there should be no borders. Trump... and the US, don't have a chance.

Yes, of course Trump is correct. Everyone in Wingnuttia think so.

This xenophobic rant never ends.

This is about (just in case you've lost the plot) 10,000 highly vetted refugees fleeing ISIS. If a terrorist is among those 10,000, it will be a miracle.

The chances of an American being killed in a terrorist attack is 20 million to one. It's more likely you'll be killed by lightning. The "unintended consequences" are non-existent except in the minds of the wingnuts.

GOP base is convinced it is living in a dystopian novel where the end of America is imminent and only they, this plucky band of armed, mobility-scooter-riding freedom fighters, can save it.

​Pathetic but really funny.

Sorry, I don't find any of it funny, particularly the race to the bottom whereby vast amounts of people are routinely maligned rather than the substance of what they complain about. Or having tried to rebut the underlying issues, one must nevertheless close with pejorative or innuendo. How... vacant.

Trump is both correct on many things and a buffoon. Both can coexist at the same time. The current narrative asserting that islamic jihad comes from...well, no where at all really. Perhaps climate change, it has been offered recently. Indeed, an Obama State department spokeswoman insisted jobs would help solve the problem. But certainly no narrative based on planet earth realities is offered to control the discourse. Instead, the obvious is abandoned leaving millions to connect dots to the only place they can connect to- islamic jihad comes from. While true, now that the Bully Pulpit is absence from discourse there is no constructive engagement, only a policy that has the paradoxical effect of alienating the very population they assert their policy is designed to protect. If this alone is not an utter refutation of current progressive policies toward anti terrorism no amount of information would suffice. After all, the larger muslim population is where the battle for the future will play out, not IS or AQ.

Saying 10,000 this, a miracle that, is actually saying nothing at all. Nothing. However, if even one among them is a terrorist that is one too many. The US constitution simply and absolutely does not extend to non citizens. They have no right to be here, but the president has every single imperative to protect Americans even if it means denying 10,000 to prevent the one terrorist from entry. America is the president's job, if he wants another job he should quit and apply.

I have no use for the GOP or the new Left's radical redesign couched in "Progressivism." However, the US is dystopic now. The US is free only insofar as ghosts haunt the deck of a ship like a movie clop replaying familiar steps over and over. In essence, much about the recent decline of America informs those who support Trump, less the man himself. I also do not agree that any band, political or otherwise, can save the US. America's wounds are already old and fatal.

"Within U.S. territory, non-citizens have rights because of the 14th Amendment, which declares “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

Yes, indeed, but that is not what I speak to.

[chuckd]

And yet as of last night leading news was that while scottland yard was towing the line and rejecting Trump's claims police themselves were actually confirming Trump's claims; some were quite clear that they fear for their lives in certain areas. Its no longer amusing, it is just sickening the disconnect between the known world and the declared world in the socialist West.

The point is no longer even interesting to me- of course Trump is correct- any place and any person who is remotely connected to jihad by declaration of association should be subject to a revised profiling until the actual holes present, and then target immigration more surgically. The law as it currently exists from 1/2 century ago allows such discretion in immigration now. The absurd notion that we could not ban someone because of country of origin, age group, gender, profession, religion, etc., is absurd. One, more, all may be disagreeable or political madness, but they are equally ok. You see, the US Constitution applies to Americas on soil, or in jurisdiction, not applicants from any place, planet earth. The US previously closed all immigration last century. The US always varies immigration for age, location, skills, origin, etc.

Never let a crisis go to waste the US senate is now trying to enshrine the same pathology that causes this global problem in US law by granting special status to applicants to the US BECAUSE they are muslim. Of course, the unintended consequences are endless. Any denial then constitutes a lawsuit. This legislation pends now. It does not matter who agrees with Trump or not, it will not fly because there is a long standing interest in Global Progressive Migration. It is a plank of international Fabian/Progressives that there should be no borders. Trump... and the US, don't have a chance.

Yes, of course Trump is correct. Everyone in Wingnuttia think so.

This xenophobic rant never ends.

This is about (just in case you've lost the plot) 10,000 highly vetted refugees fleeing ISIS. If a terrorist is among those 10,000, it will be a miracle.

The chances of an American being killed in a terrorist attack is 20 million to one. It's more likely you'll be killed by lightning. The "unintended consequences" are non-existent except in the minds of the wingnuts.

GOP base is convinced it is living in a dystopian novel where the end of America is imminent and only they, this plucky band of armed, mobility-scooter-riding freedom fighters, can save it.

​Pathetic but really funny.

Sorry, I don't find any of it funny, particularly the race to the bottom whereby vast amounts of people are routinely maligned rather than the substance of what they complain about. Or having tried to rebut the underlying issues, one must nevertheless close with pejorative or innuendo. How... vacant.

Trump is both correct on many things and a buffoon. Both can coexist at the same time. The current narrative asserting that islamic jihad comes from...well, no where at all really. Perhaps climate change, it has been offered recently. Indeed, an Obama State department spokeswoman insisted jobs would help solve the problem. But certainly no narrative based on planet earth realities is offered to control the discourse. Instead, the obvious is abandoned leaving millions to connect dots to the only place they can connect to- islamic jihad comes from. While true, now that the Bully Pulpit is absence from discourse there is no constructive engagement, only a policy that has the paradoxical effect of alienating the very population they assert their policy is designed to protect. If this alone is not an utter refutation of current progressive policies toward anti terrorism no amount of information would suffice. After all, the larger muslim population is where the battle for the future will play out, not IS or AQ.

Saying 10,000 this, a miracle that, is actually saying nothing at all. Nothing. However, if even one among them is a terrorist that is one too many. The US constitution simply and absolutely does not extend to non citizens. They have no right to be here, but the president has every single imperative to protect Americans even if it means denying 10,000 to prevent the one terrorist from entry. America is the president's job, if he wants another job he should quit and apply.

I have no use for the GOP or the new Left's radical redesign couched in "Progressivism." However, the US is dystopic now. The US is free only insofar as ghosts haunt the deck of a ship like a movie clop replaying familiar steps over and over. In essence, much about the recent decline of America informs those who support Trump, less the man himself. I also do not agree that any band, political or otherwise, can save the US. America's wounds are already old and fatal.

"Within U.S. territory, non-citizens have rights because of the 14th Amendment, which declares “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

How is it possible that an applicant for a visa to enter the US would be covered under the 14th Amendment?

To answer my own question...It isn't possible.

[JHolmesJr]

The west is slowly getting sick of the muzzlim terrorism scourge and people are slowly starting to take the law in their own hands….just saw that a mosque in california has been lit up.

Its the start of a dangerous trend.

[OMGImInPattaya]

That statement from the Saudi religious authorities is rich...as Saudi Arabia is basically an ISIS that's made it.

Doublwya Bush created ISIS. Idiot Republicans.

I agree with you,

But Obama also has his share of the blame, His administration destabilized Syria by supporting the removal of Assad with out a strong replacement to fill the vacuum, Politics abhors a vacuum , Obama is no political idiot, who did he expect to fill it?That is why I think there is a different game being played than what it appears.

You both missed completely the thrust of my post...that it's rich for Saudi authorities to condemn ISIS as Saudi Arabia is basically an ISIS state in terms of their religiously based civil and moral codes and punishments.

[sirineou]

That statement from the Saudi religious authorities is rich...as Saudi Arabia is basically an ISIS that's made it.

Doublwya Bush created ISIS. Idiot Republicans.

I agree with you,

But Obama also has his share of the blame, His administration destabilized Syria by supporting the removal of Assad with out a strong replacement to fill the vacuum, Politics abhors a vacuum , Obama is no political idiot, who did he expect to fill it?That is why I think there is a different game being played than what it appears.

You both missed completely the thrust of my post...that it's rich for Saudi authorities to condemn ISIS as Saudi Arabia is basically an ISIS state in terms of their religiously based civil and moral codes and punishments.

I agree with you that Saudy Arabia is a de facto ISIS country,But I think that if the Saudis condemn ASIS They did not condemn the Religious practices they condemned the terrorist acts

[sirineou]

Yes, of course Trump is correct. Everyone in Wingnuttia think so.

This xenophobic rant never ends.

This is about (just in case you've lost the plot) 10,000 highly vetted refugees fleeing ISIS. If a terrorist is among those 10,000, it will be a miracle.

The chances of an American being killed in a terrorist attack is 20 million to one. It's more likely you'll be killed by lightning. The "unintended consequences" are non-existent except in the minds of the wingnuts.

GOP base is convinced it is living in a dystopian novel where the end of America is imminent and only they, this plucky band of armed, mobility-scooter-riding freedom fighters, can save it.

​Pathetic but really funny.

Sorry, I don't find any of it funny, particularly the race to the bottom whereby vast amounts of people are routinely maligned rather than the substance of what they complain about. Or having tried to rebut the underlying issues, one must nevertheless close with pejorative or innuendo. How... vacant.

Trump is both correct on many things and a buffoon. Both can coexist at the same time. The current narrative asserting that islamic jihad comes from...well, no where at all really. Perhaps climate change, it has been offered recently. Indeed, an Obama State department spokeswoman insisted jobs would help solve the problem. But certainly no narrative based on planet earth realities is offered to control the discourse. Instead, the obvious is abandoned leaving millions to connect dots to the only place they can connect to- islamic jihad comes from. While true, now that the Bully Pulpit is absence from discourse there is no constructive engagement, only a policy that has the paradoxical effect of alienating the very population they assert their policy is designed to protect. If this alone is not an utter refutation of current progressive policies toward anti terrorism no amount of information would suffice. After all, the larger muslim population is where the battle for the future will play out, not IS or AQ.

Saying 10,000 this, a miracle that, is actually saying nothing at all. Nothing. However, if even one among them is a terrorist that is one too many. The US constitution simply and absolutely does not extend to non citizens. They have no right to be here, but the president has every single imperative to protect Americans even if it means denying 10,000 to prevent the one terrorist from entry. America is the president's job, if he wants another job he should quit and apply.

I have no use for the GOP or the new Left's radical redesign couched in "Progressivism." However, the US is dystopic now. The US is free only insofar as ghosts haunt the deck of a ship like a movie clop replaying familiar steps over and over. In essence, much about the recent decline of America informs those who support Trump, less the man himself. I also do not agree that any band, political or otherwise, can save the US. America's wounds are already old and fatal.

"Within U.S. territory, non-citizens have rights because of the 14th Amendment, which declares “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

How is it possible that an applicant for a visa to enter the US would be covered under the 14th Amendment?

To answer my own question...It isn't possible.

It seems to me you have being listening to the little voices in your head way too much and answering your own questions.

Too harsh a reply?? Should I forget about your vote for POTY? how about Pottymouth of the year

it is not the individuals that are protected by the constitution, the individuals are clearly foreign and have their own constitution. It is the Process that is protected which is clearly an American process.

You mean to tell me that , an American that falls in love with a foreign Muslim girl, would not have the same rights as an other American who falls in love with a girl of a different religion???

and it would be constitutional???????

[Scott]

It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution. The foreign born wife, unless/until she sets foot on US soil does not have the same protection and there is no law that says she has a right to live in the US. Even if she makes to US soil, she could be denied the right to stay, although the process could involve a lengthy legal process.

[pmarlowe]

This thread has been labyrinthine but fascinating, excepting the person to person oneupmanship crap. the only thing i really want to add, living in a big middle eastern populated neighborhood here in BKK, is why so many able bodied young muslims sit in Starbucks stuffing their faces with multiple double cheese croissants when they should be in uniform fighting the Islam-corrupting Daesh? I do not get it.

[sirineou]

It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution. The foreign born wife, unless/until she sets foot on US soil does not have the same protection and there is no law that says she has a right to live in the US. Even if she makes to US soil, she could be denied the right to stay, although the process could involve a lengthy legal process.

as you said in your first sentence."It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution"

it is not the foreign wifes rights that are protected by the constitution but rather the American citizens right to have a foreign wife of any religion,, that is protected.

I can forgive people for not making the distinction, but Trump knows better, he is not making a honest mistake he is purposely and maliciously Demagoguing.

[chuckd]

It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution. The foreign born wife, unless/until she sets foot on US soil does not have the same protection and there is no law that says she has a right to live in the US. Even if she makes to US soil, she could be denied the right to stay, although the process could involve a lengthy legal process.

as you said in your first sentence."It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution"

it is not the foreign wifes rights that are protected by the constitution but rather the American citizens right to have a foreign wife of any religion,, that is protected.

I can forgive people for not making the distinction, but Trump knows better, he is not making a honest mistake he is purposely and maliciously Demagoguing.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to have a foreign born wife.

Care to point out chapter and verse so I can read up on it?

[Scott]

There are numerous people who have been unable to get their Thai wives into the US for a variety of reasons. Probably the most common is because of lack of funds followed by medical conditions which must be treated before they can legally enter. There are other factors, such as legal convictions, such as drugs and I know of one person rejected for trafficking underage girls for prostitution (under current conditions, she will never be allowed to enter the US).

The average run-of-the mill marriage is going to be difficult to enforce a ban based on religion. It probably can be done, but I think there is going to be some very, very bad press and eventually someone will find a legal loophole. In the past, it was the arranged marriages that were targeted since it is questionable whether it is a genuine relationship or a marriage for immigration purposes, which is against the immigration code.

As it now stands, there are a large number of Muslim students in the US. They are going to have their visa's rescinded or not renewed. Those individuals will have greater latitude in invoking rights since they are already on US soil and may have to deported, which is not a particularly quick or easy process.

[sirineou]

It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution. The foreign born wife, unless/until she sets foot on US soil does not have the same protection and there is no law that says she has a right to live in the US. Even if she makes to US soil, she could be denied the right to stay, although the process could involve a lengthy legal process.

as you said in your first sentence."It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution"

it is not the foreign wifes rights that are protected by the constitution but rather the American citizens right to have a foreign wife of any religion,, that is protected.

I can forgive people for not making the distinction, but Trump knows better, he is not making a honest mistake he is purposely and maliciously Demagoguing.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to have a foreign born wife.

Care to point out chapter and verse so I can read up on it?

That's not the only thing you missed

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​last I checked it was lawful to have a foreign wife of any religion To allow you to have a buddhist wife but not alowed me to have a muslim wife would defeat the Fourteen Amendment,

[chuckd]

It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution. The foreign born wife, unless/until she sets foot on US soil does not have the same protection and there is no law that says she has a right to live in the US. Even if she makes to US soil, she could be denied the right to stay, although the process could involve a lengthy legal process.

as you said in your first sentence."It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution"

it is not the foreign wifes rights that are protected by the constitution but rather the American citizens right to have a foreign wife of any religion,, that is protected.

I can forgive people for not making the distinction, but Trump knows better, he is not making a honest mistake he is purposely and maliciously Demagoguing.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to have a foreign born wife.

Care to point out chapter and verse so I can read up on it?

That's not the only thing you missed

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​last I checked it was lawful to have a foreign wife of any religion To allow you to have a buddhist wife but not alowed me to have a muslim wife would defeat the Fourteen Amendment,

OK, now I would ask you to read very carefully what you just posted.

Specifically:

"no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​The key words you seem to be missing are...within its jurisdiction...(space added for clarification)

No states rights exist beyond the borders of any particular state. The jurisdiction of the State of Texas ceases at the borders of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, to also include the Gulf of Mexico and the international border with Mexico.

I really believe you can rest assured the state of Texas will have absolutely no jurisdiction over a fiance or wife visiting the US Embassy in Bangkok or any other embassy or consulate in the world.

Since the state has no jurisdiction in the Bangkok Embassy, they are not denying any rights to anybody.

Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment.

In addition, you have no constitutional right to have a wife of your choice...ergo, no constitutional protection.

[sirineou]

as you said in your first sentence."It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution"

it is not the foreign wifes rights that are protected by the constitution but rather the American citizens right to have a foreign wife of any religion,, that is protected.

I can forgive people for not making the distinction, but Trump knows better, he is not making a honest mistake he is purposely and maliciously Demagoguing.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to have a foreign born wife.

Care to point out chapter and verse so I can read up on it?

That's not the only thing you missed

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​last I checked it was lawful to have a foreign wife of any religion To allow you to have a buddhist wife but not alowed me to have a muslim wife would defeat the Fourteen Amendment,

OK, now I would ask you to read very carefully what you just posted.

Specifically:

"no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​The key words you seem to be missing are...within its jurisdiction...(space added for clarification)

No states rights exist beyond the borders of any particular state. The jurisdiction of the State of Texas ceases at the borders of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, to also include the Gulf of Mexico and the international border with Mexico.

I really believe you can rest assured the state of Texas will have absolutely no jurisdiction over a fiance or wife visiting the US Embassy in Bangkok or any other embassy or consulate in the world.

Since the state has no jurisdiction in the Bangkok Embassy, they are not denying any rights to anybody.

Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment.

In addition, you have no constitutional right to have a wife of your choice...ergo, no constitutional protection.

"Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment."

Ok , I will try one more time and than I give up

It is not my fiance , here or there who is denied equal protection under the law, and by the way this is not only limited to finances, this applies to many instances , But I used the fiance because it is something readers in this forum are familiar with can relate and understand. I could have used labor immigration law or adoption etc etc.

so , again , It is not my fiance that is protected , it is ME, as an American citizen.and my right to have a fiance, hire , adopt,etc etc anyone of any religion.

The government can exclude a set of people by showing a compelling interest, in this case terrorism , and is narrowly tailored to serve this interest.

For instance in the instance where we are at war with a country , the government can show compelling interest , narrowly tailored to the citizens of the country we are at war with.

Excluding a major religion is not a narrowly tailored interest, the word SHOTGUN comes to mind

[chuckd]

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to have a foreign born wife.

Care to point out chapter and verse so I can read up on it?

That's not the only thing you missed

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​last I checked it was lawful to have a foreign wife of any religion To allow you to have a buddhist wife but not alowed me to have a muslim wife would defeat the Fourteen Amendment,

OK, now I would ask you to read very carefully what you just posted.

Specifically:

"no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​The key words you seem to be missing are...within its jurisdiction...(space added for clarification)

No states rights exist beyond the borders of any particular state. The jurisdiction of the State of Texas ceases at the borders of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, to also include the Gulf of Mexico and the international border with Mexico.

I really believe you can rest assured the state of Texas will have absolutely no jurisdiction over a fiance or wife visiting the US Embassy in Bangkok or any other embassy or consulate in the world.

Since the state has no jurisdiction in the Bangkok Embassy, they are not denying any rights to anybody.

Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment.

In addition, you have no constitutional right to have a wife of your choice...ergo, no constitutional protection.

"Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment."

Ok , I will try one more time and than I give up

It is not my fiance , here or there who is denied equal protection under the law, and by the way this is not only limited to finances, this applies to many instances , But I used the fiance because it is something readers in this forum are familiar with can relate and understand. I could have used labor immigration law or adoption etc etc.

so , again , It is not my fiance that is protected , it is ME, as an American citizen.and my right to have a fiance, hire , adopt,etc etc anyone of any religion.

The government can exclude a set of people by showing a compelling interest, in this case terrorism , and is narrowly tailored to serve this interest.

For instance in the instance where we are at war with a country , the government can show compelling interest , narrowly tailored to the citizens of the country we are at war with.

Excluding a major religion is not a narrowly tailored interest, the word SHOTGUN comes to mind

You are convinced you have a 14th Amendment Constitutional right to obtain a visa for an imagined wife or virtually any such imaginary instance. I am convinced no such right exists.

The 14th Amendment applies only AFTER you have obtained a visa and entered the jurisdiction of a state. It has absolutely not one thing to do with whatever might occur OUTSIDE a particular state's jurisdiction.

You keep coming back to the religion issue. I'm saying the right doesn't exist for any religion. The State Department will issue visas on whatever the flavor of the day is as dictated from Foggy Bottom and couldn't care less what you think your constitutional rights demand.

Let me make this suggestion. Take your wife into the US Embassy in Bangkok, tell them you need a visa for your wife and the 14th Amendment guarantees you the right to obtain one.

My guess is you will either be laughed out or thrown out of the Embassy but please let us know how it goes.

Good luck.

[sirineou]

That's not the only thing you missed

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​last I checked it was lawful to have a foreign wife of any religion To allow you to have a buddhist wife but not alowed me to have a muslim wife would defeat the Fourteen Amendment,

OK, now I would ask you to read very carefully what you just posted.

Specifically:

"no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​The key words you seem to be missing are...within its jurisdiction...(space added for clarification)

No states rights exist beyond the borders of any particular state. The jurisdiction of the State of Texas ceases at the borders of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, to also include the Gulf of Mexico and the international border with Mexico.

I really believe you can rest assured the state of Texas will have absolutely no jurisdiction over a fiance or wife visiting the US Embassy in Bangkok or any other embassy or consulate in the world.

Since the state has no jurisdiction in the Bangkok Embassy, they are not denying any rights to anybody.

Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment.

In addition, you have no constitutional right to have a wife of your choice...ergo, no constitutional protection.

"Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment."

Ok , I will try one more time and than I give up

It is not my fiance , here or there who is denied equal protection under the law, and by the way this is not only limited to finances, this applies to many instances , But I used the fiance because it is something readers in this forum are familiar with can relate and understand. I could have used labor immigration law or adoption etc etc.

so , again , It is not my fiance that is protected , it is ME, as an American citizen.and my right to have a fiance, hire , adopt,etc etc anyone of any religion.

The government can exclude a set of people by showing a compelling interest, in this case terrorism , and is narrowly tailored to serve this interest.

For instance in the instance where we are at war with a country , the government can show compelling interest , narrowly tailored to the citizens of the country we are at war with.

Excluding a major religion is not a narrowly tailored interest, the word SHOTGUN comes to mind

You are convinced you have a 14th Amendment Constitutional right to obtain a visa for an imagined wife or virtually any such imaginary instance. I am convinced no such right exists.

The 14th Amendment applies only AFTER you have obtained a visa and entered the jurisdiction of a state. It has absolutely not one thing to do with whatever might occur OUTSIDE a particular state's jurisdiction.

You keep coming back to the religion issue. I'm saying the right doesn't exist for any religion. The State Department will issue visas on whatever the flavor of the day is as dictated from Foggy Bottom and couldn't care less what you think your constitutional rights demand.

Let me make this suggestion. Take your wife into the US Embassy in Bangkok, tell them you need a visa for your wife and the 14th Amendment guarantees you the right to obtain one.

My guess is you will either be laughed out or thrown out of the Embassy but please let us know how it goes.

Good luck.

I am trying to show you why Trumps idea is unconstitutional toward American citizens and you are replying that the constitution does not apply to foreigners.

are you sure you are American? because you don't seem to understand english very well.

[chuckd]

That's not the only thing you missed

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​last I checked it was lawful to have a foreign wife of any religion To allow you to have a buddhist wife but not alowed me to have a muslim wife would defeat the Fourteen Amendment,

OK, now I would ask you to read very carefully what you just posted.

Specifically:

"no state shall deny to any person within itsjurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

​The key words you seem to be missing are...within its jurisdiction...(space added for clarification)

No states rights exist beyond the borders of any particular state. The jurisdiction of the State of Texas ceases at the borders of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, to also include the Gulf of Mexico and the international border with Mexico.

I really believe you can rest assured the state of Texas will have absolutely no jurisdiction over a fiance or wife visiting the US Embassy in Bangkok or any other embassy or consulate in the world.

Since the state has no jurisdiction in the Bangkok Embassy, they are not denying any rights to anybody.

Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment.

In addition, you have no constitutional right to have a wife of your choice...ergo, no constitutional protection.

"Once you get your bride inside the US, then she falls under the 14th Amendment. But only when she is within the confines of the USA is she eligible for the protections offered in the 14th Amendment."

Ok , I will try one more time and than I give up

It is not my fiance , here or there who is denied equal protection under the law, and by the way this is not only limited to finances, this applies to many instances , But I used the fiance because it is something readers in this forum are familiar with can relate and understand. I could have used labor immigration law or adoption etc etc.

so , again , It is not my fiance that is protected , it is ME, as an American citizen.and my right to have a fiance, hire , adopt,etc etc anyone of any religion.

The government can exclude a set of people by showing a compelling interest, in this case terrorism , and is narrowly tailored to serve this interest.

For instance in the instance where we are at war with a country , the government can show compelling interest , narrowly tailored to the citizens of the country we are at war with.

Excluding a major religion is not a narrowly tailored interest, the word SHOTGUN comes to mind

You are convinced you have a 14th Amendment Constitutional right to obtain a visa for an imagined wife or virtually any such imaginary instance. I am convinced no such right exists.

The 14th Amendment applies only AFTER you have obtained a visa and entered the jurisdiction of a state. It has absolutely not one thing to do with whatever might occur OUTSIDE a particular state's jurisdiction.

You keep coming back to the religion issue. I'm saying the right doesn't exist for any religion. The State Department will issue visas on whatever the flavor of the day is as dictated from Foggy Bottom and couldn't care less what you think your constitutional rights demand.

Let me make this suggestion. Take your wife into the US Embassy in Bangkok, tell them you need a visa for your wife and the 14th Amendment guarantees you the right to obtain one.

My guess is you will either be laughed out or thrown out of the Embassy but please let us know how it goes.

Good luck.

I am trying to show you why Trumps idea is unconstitutional toward American citizens and you are replying that the constitution does not apply to foreigners.

are you sure you are American? because you don't seem to understand english very well.

I never made the claim the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution didn't apply to foreigners.

The Constitution applies to anybody legally resident, and illegal immigrants, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PHYSICALLY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

You've been harping on about some imagined 14th Amendment right YOU have to get a foreign wife a visa into the US. No such right exists in the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution.

To conclude this inane conversation I will repeat my earlier comment about foreigners and will stress it appropriately...

THE US CONSTITUTION COVERS FOREIGNERS WHILE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE USA.

IT COVERS NO FOREIGNERS UNLESS THEY ARE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE USA.

I don't know any other way to say it so why not send somebody you trust a PM and get his opinion on your question.

If you have nobody you can trust, why not try reading Scott's post #227 on this very page where he says the following:

"It is the US citizen that is protected by the constitution. The foreign born wife, unless/until she sets foot on US soil does not have the same protection and there is no law that says she has a right to live in the US. Even if she makes to US soil, she could be denied the right to stay, although the process could involve a lengthy legal process."

Since you seem to think I am an idiot and if you don't trust Scott, try reading the following article to put your mind at ease. Trump, or any other President may constitutionally exclude a group of people based on religion only.

Your constitutional rights are immaterial in the visa process.

Law Professors: Trump’s Muslim Moratorium Is Constitutional

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/12/law-professors-trumps-muslim-moratorium-is-constitutional/

[JHolmesJr]

I thought the slogan was "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses......not give me your radicalised, sharia loving, unwilling to integrate potential terrorists"

[sirineou]

There are numerous people who have been unable to get their Thai wives into the US for a variety of reasons. Probably the most common is because of lack of funds followed by medical conditions which must be treated before they can legally enter. There are other factors, such as legal convictions, such as drugs and I know of one person rejected for trafficking underage girls for prostitution (under current conditions, she will never be allowed to enter the US).

The average run-of-the mill marriage is going to be difficult to enforce a ban based on religion. It probably can be done, but I think there is going to be some very, very bad press and eventually someone will find a legal loophole. In the past, it was the arranged marriages that were targeted since it is questionable whether it is a genuine relationship or a marriage for immigration purposes, which is against the immigration code.

As it now stands, there are a large number of Muslim students in the US. They are going to have their visa's rescinded or not renewed. Those individuals will have greater latitude in invoking rights since they are already on US soil and may have to deported, which is not a particularly quick or easy process.

Not limited to marriage immigration,

as I said in another reply, I made this example because it is one that many of as can relate to, It could be Labor immigration, where one company can bring in an expert and an other company could not hire an other competing expert because that expert is a muslim,

or the Hart Celler act that abolished quotas based on national origin and established a policy of reuniting immigrant families.

Trumps proposal is not only unconstitutional under equal protection clause of the 14th amendment but it would defeat the Hart Celler act. Imagine a Muslim US citizen who could not sponsor their mother to come and live with them because their mother was muslim.

equal protection under the law, all American citizens can bring their immediate families to live in the US regardless of their religion.

to make an exclusion the government has to show compelling reason, in this case terrorism, and it has to be limited to that scope. and only for the duration of the scope

Trump's proposal is anything but limited, We could exclude. let's say Syrians, and only for the duration of the difficulties we are having with them, not all Muslims

in the past we have made exclusions, the Japanese internment was one , an other one that comes to mind is the Chinese exclusion of 1882, both of which we had to apologise for.

A dark chapter in our history. Now it seems some of as want to revisit that era, I hope calmer minds will prevail.

[NeverSure]

There are numerous people who have been unable to get their Thai wives into the US for a variety of reasons. Probably the most common is because of lack of funds followed by medical conditions which must be treated before they can legally enter. There are other factors, such as legal convictions, such as drugs and I know of one person rejected for trafficking underage girls for prostitution (under current conditions, she will never be allowed to enter the US).

The average run-of-the mill marriage is going to be difficult to enforce a ban based on religion. It probably can be done, but I think there is going to be some very, very bad press and eventually someone will find a legal loophole. In the past, it was the arranged marriages that were targeted since it is questionable whether it is a genuine relationship or a marriage for immigration purposes, which is against the immigration code.

As it now stands, there are a large number of Muslim students in the US. They are going to have their visa's rescinded or not renewed. Those individuals will have greater latitude in invoking rights since they are already on US soil and may have to deported, which is not a particularly quick or easy process.

Not limited to marriage immigration,

as I said in another reply, I made this example because it is one that many of as can relate to, It could be Labor immigration, where one company can bring in an expert and an other company could not hire an other competing expert because that expert is a muslim,

or the Hart Celler act that abolished quotas based on national origin and established a policy of reuniting immigrant families.

Trumps proposal is not only unconstitutional under equal protection clause of the 14th amendment but it would defeat the Hart Celler act. Imagine a Muslim US citizen who could not sponsor their mother to come and live with them because their mother was muslim.

equal protection under the law, all American citizens can bring their immediate families to live in the US regardless of their religion.

to make an exclusion the government has to show compelling reason, in this case terrorism, and it has to be limited to that scope. and only for the duration of the scope

Trump's proposal is anything but limited, We could exclude. let's say Syrians, and only for the duration of the difficulties we are having with them, not all Muslims

in the past we have made exclusions, the Japanese internment was one , an other one that comes to mind is the Chinese exclusion of 1882, both of which we had to apologise for.

A dark chapter in our history. Now it seems some of as want to revisit that era, I hope calmer minds will prevail.

You're still mistaken about the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and the legal definition of "jurisdiction".

Scott correctly noted: "There are numerous people who have been unable to get their Thai wives into the US for a variety of reasons".

Thai wives. That could be because of race, ethnicity, religion, or any host of reasons. The Thai wife has no Constitutional right to come in and her husband has no Constitutional right to get her in.

The bottom line proof that you're mistaken is found in all of the rejections for foreign wives to live in the US or even to visit. The legal term is "precedent". There isn't and never was any of what you imagine there is and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Your idea of rights hasn't been forthcoming and precedent proves you are mistaken.

Cheers.

[sirineou]

There are numerous people who have been unable to get their Thai wives into the US for a variety of reasons. Probably the most common is because of lack of funds followed by medical conditions which must be treated before they can legally enter. There are other factors, such as legal convictions, such as drugs and I know of one person rejected for trafficking underage girls for prostitution (under current conditions, she will never be allowed to enter the US).

The average run-of-the mill marriage is going to be difficult to enforce a ban based on religion. It probably can be done, but I think there is going to be some very, very bad press and eventually someone will find a legal loophole. In the past, it was the arranged marriages that were targeted since it is questionable whether it is a genuine relationship or a marriage for immigration purposes, which is against the immigration code.

As it now stands, there are a large number of Muslim students in the US. They are going to have their visa's rescinded or not renewed. Those individuals will have greater latitude in invoking rights since they are already on US soil and may have to deported, which is not a particularly quick or easy process.

Not limited to marriage immigration,

as I said in another reply, I made this example because it is one that many of as can relate to, It could be Labor immigration, where one company can bring in an expert and an other company could not hire an other competing expert because that expert is a muslim,

or the Hart Celler act that abolished quotas based on national origin and established a policy of reuniting immigrant families.

Trumps proposal is not only unconstitutional under equal protection clause of the 14th amendment but it would defeat the Hart Celler act. Imagine a Muslim US citizen who could not sponsor their mother to come and live with them because their mother was muslim.

equal protection under the law, all American citizens can bring their immediate families to live in the US regardless of their religion.

to make an exclusion the government has to show compelling reason, in this case terrorism, and it has to be limited to that scope. and only for the duration of the scope

Trump's proposal is anything but limited, We could exclude. let's say Syrians, and only for the duration of the difficulties we are having with them, not all Muslims

in the past we have made exclusions, the Japanese internment was one , an other one that comes to mind is the Chinese exclusion of 1882, both of which we had to apologise for.

A dark chapter in our history. Now it seems some of as want to revisit that era, I hope calmer minds will prevail.

You're still mistaken about the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and the legal definition of "jurisdiction".

Scott correctly noted: "There are numerous people who have been unable to get their Thai wives into the US for a variety of reasons".

Thai wives. That could be because of race, ethnicity, religion, or any host of reasons. The Thai wife has no Constitutional right to come in and her husband has no Constitutional right to get her in.

The bottom line proof that you're mistaken is found in all of the rejections for foreign wives to live in the US or even to visit. The legal term is "precedent". There isn't and never was any of what you imagine there is and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Your idea of rights hasn't been forthcoming and precedent proves you are mistaken.

Cheers.

are you guys reading anything I write??

sure there are numerous people who for whatever reason can't get their wife or people they want to employ, or relatives or ,or, or....

what does that have to do with anything I say?

Jurisdiction????

How about the right of a US citizen to bring his immediate family to the US???

How about compelling reason, How about limited scope?

Gentlemen, what we have here is failure to communicate,

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

are you guys reading anything I write??

sure there are numerous people who for whatever reason can't get their wife or people they want to employ, or relatives or ,or, or....

what does that have to do with anything I say?

Jurisdiction????

How about the right of a US citizen to bring his immediate family to the US???

How about compelling reason, How about limited scope?

Gentlemen, what we have here is failure to communicate,

Yep...I'm back again.

Perhaps the problem is your communication skills and not our reading abilities.

In the first place, you have no "right" to bring your immediate family to the US. You will still have to go through the State Department in an attempt to get your spouse a visa. End of story.

There is absolutely no reason why you cannot request an exception to existing immigration restrictions based on a compelling reason or to request a limited scope exception to policy from the State Department. The official might even listen to your request.

Notice the word "request"?

You have no constitutional rights in this matter whatsoever and, if the State Department official has had a bad day, you might not even be permitted to sit with your spouse during the interview.

As a US citizen you may request anything your heart desires but I wouldn't go in and start quoting the 14th Amendment demanding anything.

You won't be well received if you do.