Not target countries.

In the same way that denying import of a specific model of car is not a ban of that car.

But it is....

Banning a group of people from entering the country is not the same as banning that group of people from the country.

There are millions upon millions already here.

Okay, then he just wanted to ban all muslims from entering the USA (which is what everybody means when they talk about his Muslim ban BTW).

I was never arguing he wanted to deport all muslims currently living in the USA.

That's what a ban of all Muslims is, which you kept on about.

Which, I mean, I can't exactly say it's a bad idea.

Jesus christ

Muslim ban is the name given to trumps immigration ban

That is just what people call it

The immigration numbers are going be met, regardless.

And it's not like we're losing out on anything by turning down immigration from the ass crack of the planet

And if you actually think banning all people of a certain religion from entering the USA I guess you are against the constitution?

The constitution doesn't address immigration, nor non-American citizens.

So you don't think rights are inalienable?

Some are, yes.

But religious freedom isn't one of them

Immigration is not an inalienable right.

You can, for example, believe whatever you want. I don't have to let you stand in a particular place to allow you to do so, however.

So you are against religious freedom, understood.

Oh, God no.

Perish the thought.

I'm simply against the conflation of foreign nationals and American citizens, and the mistaken belief that they're somehow afforded the rights and protections granted by the US Constitution, as well as the mistaken logic that immigration is somehow an inalienable right provided by such.

So you think that rights are given by the government

Not given, no.

Yes, given.

Codified in some cases.

Not given, though.

Yes given

That's the meaning of inalienable.

They're not given by the government.

If they where not given by the government they would be applied to everyone

How do you mean

And no.

Yet you only think American citizens deserve religious freedom, hence you think that it is THE GOVERNMENT who awards rights.

That's, uh, that's not what I said.

That is uh, exactly what you said.

Where in that did you read that only Americans deserve religious freedom?

The fact that you think the American constitution (which awards religious freedom) only applies to American citizens and the fact that you therefor think it's okay for the American government to not care about the religious freedom of non-Americans.

The Constitution DOES only apply to Americans.

Not really

I am not subject to, for example, Canadian code and laws, nor the laws of Zimbabwe, or China.

The same way that a Saudi is not subject to the US Constitution.

By principle it shouldn't.

How do you figure

Seeing as the rights awarded by the constitution are inalienable.

They're sovereign countries, not bound by our laws.

God given rights

Not government given.

Just because we think that doesn't mean that the Crown Prince of Saud believes the same to be true.

Or the PM of the UK

Or the President of France

So while practically the constitution does apply only to American citizens, seeing as the rights are god given and inalienable the USA should give non-citizens the same rights

And not take away their religious freedom.

We're not taking away anything.

You are.

Saying that someone can't enter our country isn't denying them their religious freedom.

It is if you do it based on religious reasons

Allowing them to come into our country and then forcing them to convert under threat of the sword would be a sanction against religious freedom, sure.

Then it's religious discrimination, limiting their freedom. Seeing as otherwise they would have been able to immigrate into the United states.

But that's not what's taking place or even being discussed

Trump wanted that.

He wanted forced conversion under threat of violence?

Now you're really off your rocker.

No, he wanted to ban all people from a certain religion from being able to immigrate to the USA.

Which... again, doesn't apply to anyone who's an American citizen.

While it should.

It only restricted entry by foreign nationals.

Who are not, you know. American citizens.

Based on religion.

Which goes against the principles of your constitution.

Except the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals.

It applies to American citizens.

This is the point of sovereignty.

It does by principle apply to everyone.

Just not by law.

You don't seem to be very familiar with our Constitution.

Are the rights god given?

Yes or no?

We recognize them as such, under the Constitution, applying to citizens of the sovereign entity that is the United States of America. Outside of those parameters, the discussion is philosophical at best.

You're taking very long to answer a simple yes or no question

Ok, so the answer is yes.

So by principle the constitution should apply to everyone

No, of course not.

Because we're not in charge of the entire world.

And banning people from entering the country because they have a certain religion goes against its principles

I said by principle

Yeah, that's what I mean.

We don't owe the citizens of another country anything.

In reality they don't, because America isn't in charge of the whole world.

Including guaranteed admission.

However by the principles of the constitution everyone should have these rights.

The same way that France doesn't owe me anything.

Or Japan.

And restriction religious freedom for anyone, regardless of nationality, goes against the principles of your constitution.

I'm not extended any rights or protections under Japanese law that protects its citizens

Because I'm not a Japanese national.

I'm not arguing by law.