“The First Amendment was not written for Muslims....."

Theyre not American citizens, and Trump is the President of the United States of America.

Trump is not the President of Christians

 

No sharia law does not support freedom of speech. And under Islam women are NOT property. OTOH, many muslim cultures are partriarchial in nature. OTOH, like christianity muslim women are enjoined to obey their husband's commands. then again Muslim women have had property rights and inheritance rights from day one, unlike christian women.

 

But he is the president of a couple few million muslims.

 

Yes women in Islamic countries have it made compared to women in western christian nations. Hands down for sure.

 

based on western cultural mores you'd be right, but I doubt that if you asked all those muslim women for their opinion of what kind of life they'd prefer to live, imo, there would be a majority that would endorse their way of life over any western one.

OTOH, having western social mores, I view this attitude as a combination of "you don't know what your missing" and "you don't know what you've got till its gone".

 

Actually that was sarcasm. Interesting that you didn't see it that way.

 

Poe's law.

 

Agreed

 

Lots of parts. Examples I've posted elsewhere: can be deported with judicial hearing, can't serve on jury, usually can't get a jury trial, can't own a firearm, can't vote, etc.

 

They can own a firearm. There is nothing that stops them from buying a firearm if they pass a background check and immigration status will not show up on that. They can get a jury trial for any felony they are accused of. They have the right to free speech, religion, assembly....etc.

 

Immigrants can buy a firearm but with restrictions that the citizen doesn't have. For instance if they do not have a green card (legal permanent resident) they can't buy guns. Immigration status is part of the background check. There are also some limits on requesting a jury trial. They basically have the 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights (and others -- but not all).

 

The left wishes it only applied to Muslims.

 

I think the First Amendment affects government, not individuals. If so then citizen or non-citizen is irrelevant.

 

the 1st Amendment protects all residents of the USA

 

I never even heard of this media outlet. I fail to see how they are relevant to anything. /shrug

 

The Bill of Rights are rights given to people. And those rights apply, at least in a limited fashion, to all who come in to contact with the US government.

 

People have fundamental lack of knowledge when it comes to our own constitution. The constitution spells out what government can, and can't do.
The first amendment clearly states that congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Muslims, like any other religion are protected from government infringement.

 

The entire Bill of Rights is directed at the individual as a shield against government. Though some of the rights refer to protection from government and not from private parties for instance.

 

I appreciate the clarification. But I was thinking of the First Amendment in particular. If I remember my history I'm pretty sure that in Britain at the time the laws were such that freedom of speech was pretty limited and the king was not quite an absolute monarch but not far from it. If that's correct then the framers of the constitution would have been painfully aware of the ability of government to crack down on public expression. So I was thinking perhaps the First was about restricting government's ability to do so. And a good thing too.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

Non-citizens (even illegals) have Constitutional rights

 

Agreed. The Bill of Rights, for instance, is a limitation on the encroachment of the federal government.

 

HELLO! Earth to Ronstar. Earth to Ronstar.

 

Some.... not all of them. Illegals have very few.

 

....except for the part that says kill infidels.....

 

Do Muslims say flying planes into buildings should be a form of protected speech?