The Instigator
adriantbh
Pro (for)
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)

Should Trump's Muslim ban be considered unconstitutional?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
adriantbh has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 99479
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

adriantbh

Pro

Trump's Muslim ban is unconstitutional. Firstly, It clearly goes against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, by singling out people based on their nationality and religion. Secondly, the order seems to go against the basic first amendment as well. The first amendment, if you don't already know, states exactly " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lastly, Trump's Muslim ban goes against Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus states that a person under arrest has the right to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention. Donald Trump's band upon Muslim's is very unconstitutional for many more reasons as well as those stated above.
Capitalistslave

Con

Let's clarify 2 things upfront:
1) there is no "Muslim ban" and this is wording often used by left-wing sites to arouse anger. While I am left-wing myself, I am inclined to defend someone even when it's something I don't agree with if I think that some criticism is unfounded, and I recognize when I am being fed bias that panders to my own view. Alternatively, there will also be wording in right-wing sources that will make it seem like Islam played no role in the choice of the countries president Trump chose to ban refugees from.
2) I don't agree with the ban myself, but I don't see anything unconstitutional about it.

It's not a full-out Muslim ban, for if it were, it would literally be banning muslims, but it's only banning refugees from 7 countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.[1] Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, among several other predominantly Islamic countries are still permitted to have their refugees enter the United States. To call it a Muslim ban is not entirely accurate, but at the same time to say Islam played no role in Trump's decision would be ignoring important facts too.

Rebuttals
In italics will be quotes from my opponent, and below that I will offer rebuttals.
Firstly, It clearly goes against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, by singling out people based on their nationality and religion.
It doesn't single out people based on religion, as I said, muslims from Saudi Arabia and other countries are still allowed to come here. Now, it can be said it single's people out based on nationality. However, let's read the 14th amendment, specifically the equal protection clause and the part before it:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." [2]
Call me nit-picky, but it clearly states that citizens have these immunities. Refugees from other countries are not citizens of the United States, thus they do not have protection under our laws like our citizens do. This is why it was perfectly legal for president Obama to deport millions of illegal immigrants(which I assume Trump will also do, if he hasn't started doing so already): they don't have rights that our citizens do, according to our laws.

The first amendment, if you don't already know, states exactly " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
First, it needs to be established that Trump's ban is purely because of religion, again, given that there are several predominantly Muslim countries he did not institute the ban on, it doesn't seem religion is the primary factor in this ban. The ban doesn't only apply to muslims, by the way. Technically it would apply to all religions within the borders of those countries. Albeit, other religions make up a very tiny portion of those countries' populations, it would still also apply to them. Thus, there is not an inherent bias towards one religion or the other with these bans.

Trump's Muslim ban goes against Habeas Corpus...
This one doesn't seem to make much sense. Habeas corpus applies to people who are being imprisoned or jailed. The refugees are not being imprisoned or jailed, at least I don't think they are. I've not heard of that at least. If they are, you can present evidence showing that they are, and I'll offer my take on that.

I believe I have refuted each of my opponent's arguments sufficiently, proving that the ban is not unconstitutional based on what they said. Since the idea of innocent until proven guilty exists in our government, Trump is innocent until proven guilty of doing something unconstitutional.


Sources:
[1] http://www.factcheck.org...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Is it a Muslim ban or a ban on International travel from selected areas? Being Muslim is not an exception to a Constitutional separation. There is a public burden that takes place to help hold the process Constitutional. That burden is expected to be shared equally under the United States Constitution which is a descriptive and well-regulated Constitutional Separation.
Posted by ss_anouse 1 year ago
ss_anouse
Listen, its not unconstitutional, do you wanna know why? its taking out the ILLEGAL immigrants, not the ones that have the paperwork to show that they were born here, OPEN YOUR EARS, a reason why is because teens like us will have no job because the illegal immigrants wouldve taken the jobs so we wouldve been selling stuff on ebay for money, WE NEED JOBS TOO, sometimes you got to think smart and for yourself, you cant always take other peoples back.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I should have clarified something, which I will mention in the next round too so it will officially be part of my debate. Refugees which are already here would have rights, and a right to stay here. However, they're not being affected by this ban. People in other countries don't have a right to move here. That's a privilege. So, refugees(before moving here) would have some rights, which are agreed upon by the United Nations but being able to move to the United States is not one of those rights.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.