[creato]

> People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.

Which people?

By this argument, aren't all immigration restrictions invalid? I don't think anyone is seriously making this argument.

[munk-a]

> > People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.

> Which people?

Legal people, because it is inline with other comprehensions of how "persons" are afforded rights. Immigration restrictions are not invalid because the right to immigrate (or even technically resettle) are not covered by the constitution. So a presidential order (or governor's order) could be levied to restrict the emigration of people from one region to another - it would possibly run afoul of the terribly broad 9th amendment (basically, you have the right to do anything you should be able to do) but isn't explicitly banned... interesting this would be wholly illegal in Canada which establishes "Freedom of mobility"[1] explicitly.

Laws are fun!

Politicians often make divisive hyperbolic statements with no basis in fact!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

[thaumasiotes]

> I don't think anyone is seriously making this argument.

I'm not responsible for what you think, but I'll note that in general it's a good idea to look at what people are saying before deciding what you think they're saying.

> By this argument, aren't all immigration restrictions invalid?

No; for example, if you apply for a visa and check the box saying "I am planning to engage in a terrorist attack against the United States", I'm pretty sure this argument would have nothing to say about denying your visa. It does invalidate plenty of historical restrictions.