It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islamic Immigration is Illegal in the US

page: 2
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You read that correctly. Immigration of those who practice Islam is, by definition of law, illegal in the United States of America.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, passed June 27, 1952, becoming public Law 414 established both the law and the intent of congress regarding immigration of aliens to the United States, and is still in effect today.


It is still in effect but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Let's look at what President Truman had to say about it when he vetoed it-

The greatest vice of the present quota system, however, is that it discriminates, deliberately and intentionally, against many of the peoples of the world ... The desired effect [of selective admission of immigrants] was obtained ... People from such countries as Greece, or Spain, or Latvia were virtually deprived of any opportunity to come here at all, simply because Greeks or Spaniards or Latvians had not come here before 1920 in any substantial numbers.The idea behind this discriminatory policy was, to put it baldly, that Americans with English or Irish names were better people and better citizens than Americans with Italian or Greek or Polish names. It was thought that people of West European origin made better citizens than Rumanians or Yugoslavs or Ukrainians or Hungarians or Baits or Austrians. Such a concept is utterly unworthy of our traditions and our ideals. It violates the great political doctrine of the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal." It denies the humanitarian creed inscribed beneath the Statue of Liberty proclaiming to all nations, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

It repudiates our basic religious concepts, our belief in the brotherhood of man, and in the words of St. Paul that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free .... for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."


He didn't want this type of legislation to be used for or promoted towards what you wish to happen.

Truman went on to further state in a letter explaining his veto-

The basis of this quota system was false and unworthy in 1924. It is even worse now. At the present time, this quota system keeps out the very people we want to bring in. It is incredible to me that, in this year of 1952, we should again be enacting into law such a slur on the patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large part of our citizenry.

Today, we have entered into an alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty, with Italy, Greece, and Turkey against one of the most terrible threats mankind has ever faced. We are asking them to join with us in protecting the peace of the world. We are helping them to build their defenses, and train their men, in the common cause. But, through this bill we say to their people: You are less worthy to come to this country than Englishmen or Irishmen; you Italians, who need to find homes abroad in the hundreds of thousands — you shall have a quota of 5,645; you Greeks, struggling to assist the helpless victims of a communist civil war — you shall have a quota of 308; and you Turks, you are brave defenders of the Eastern flank, but you shall have a quota of only 225!



Islam, as guided by the Koran, Sharia Law, and the Hadith, all require complete submission to Islam, which, by its very definition, is antithetical to the United States government, the Constitution and the Republic.


You are aware that there are secular Muslim countries aren't you? This entire line of reasoning by you and the people you copied this meme from is what is antithetical to the US Constitution and is a violation of 1A Also, are you aware that Sharia, which literally means 'the way to the water' and is more commonly referred to as 'the way' is in no way an actual codified set of laws? They are fluid and can vary from one village to the next let alone one nation to the next. So crying about the horrors of Sharia law makes people look really ignorant because it shows they've engaged in zero due diligence and instead are simply reciting the words of someone else because they want to believe it is true.


Shariah literally means the way to the watering hole and is more commonly referred to as 'the way.' It is, most simply put, the law that guides Islamic beliefs and actions. But when Westerners think of a legal code, they tend to think of a fixed set of laws and Shariah is a lot more fluid than that, in part because there's no governing authoring in Islam. So while Islam's four major schools of law agree on many basic areas of Shariah, there are many areas that lack consensus and there's really a whole spectrum around the world in ways Muslims observe Shariah law. One of the key points is missing in this debate is that [among] Muslims living in non-Muslim countries like the United States, there is broad agreement that Shariah requires them to abide by the laws of the land in exchange for the right to worship freely.


nobody wants to hear that last line though do they?


This is not some document created a couple hundred years ago that some might claim no longer applies to modern day circumstances. This is relatively new and has been upheld in court even more recently than the date of its passing in to law.


It was originally written to update earlier codes from 1924 and its primary goal was to reinforce quotas on specific nations and nationalities. More specifically, it was written during the "Red Scare" period. Your new, and this interpretation truly is much newer than 414 because it never appeared prior to a month ago, is just another knee jerk reaction based on hysterical xenophobia. That type of behavior and rhetoric is an abhoration towards the US Constitution and the ideals of our founding fathers. By singling out all people of one specific religion you are in fact saying the first amendment isn't worth the hemp paper it was printed on. Or didn't they teach you that in school? The part where the Federal government can't favor one religion over another applies as well to demonizing, criminalizing or excluding a specific religious group based on irrational fears and blind, willful ignorance.


Public Law 414 has much to say regarding any of a variety of conditions for allowing immigration to this nation. A great many of them apply to this subject, however, for sake of discussion, I limit this thread to Chapter 2, Section 212.

well isn't that convenient, cherry picking which parts of a federal law you're willing to address because only one portion can be misconstrued to support your false premise.


True Islam can not assimilate to western society as it demands all society assimilate to Islam. That is in direct conflict with the law as stated.


Absolutely false. Certainly there are very extreme interpretations of Islam like Wahhabism but using that as your basis for irrational fear and xenophobia is as logical as using the Westboro Baptist Church as your marker for how all Christians act. It's an entirely ludicrous notion.




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is getting rather boring. New thread with different title but same copy/paste arguments.

What you are writing here about Quran,Hadiths,Sharia Law has already been repeated a zillion times on ATS.

What is the point of copy pasting arguments ? Can't you come up with something original?

Parrots


I have not seen Public Law 414 anywhere else on this site. It is the lame pathetic arguments from people who quote a verse they saw on yahoo and think they know the intricacies of the entire religion that demand it be spelled out for them as it would be to a child. I did the due diligence before creating this thread. Its a shame people don't show the same respect when responding.

It is just the same people out to derail any thread that suggests something against their partisan beliefs.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Here is an excerpt from a Pew Research paper released less than 2 weeks ago on December 7th which puts to bed your incorrect claims regarding Islam in general...


About six-in-ten Muslims living in the U.S. (63%) say there is no tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society, compared with a median of 54% of Muslims worldwide. U.S. Muslims are much less likely than Muslims worldwide to say that all or most of their close friends are Muslim (48% vs. global median of 95%).

Muslims say there generally is not a conflict between science and religion, compared with a median of 54% globally among Muslims. American Muslims are even more likely than Muslims in other countries to firmly reject violence in the name of Islam. In the U.S., about eight-in-ten Muslims (81%) say that suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians are never justified. Across the globe, a median of roughly seven-in-ten Muslims (72%) agrees.

Muslims in the U.S. are about as likely as Muslims in other countries to view science and religion as fully compatible. In the U.S., 59% of Muslims say there generally is not a conflict between science and religion, compared with a median of 54% globally among Muslims. American Muslims are even more likely than Muslims in other countries to firmly reject violence in the name of Islam. In the U.S., about eight-in-ten Muslims (81%) say that suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians are never justified. Across the globe, a median of roughly seven-in-ten Muslims (72%) agrees.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

How many times have you read the Quran and how long have you studied that faith?

If you did neither, your basically trying educate people about something you know nothing about.

They call that the blind leading the blind. Finding some quotes that fit your already biased belief system is not proof of anything, well maybe ignorance.
edit on 19-12-2015 by theonenonlyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: darkbake

The problem is that the Koran, Sharia law, and the Hadith all demand that true followers of Islam subjugate or destroy those who do not submit to the will of Islam. So, if they are of Islam, then by definition either they are not following the edicts of the religion, or, they should not be allowed to immigrate to the US.



“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]."

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


Those verses instruct followers to fight until non-believers pay the Jizya with willing submissin and feel themselves subdued. That pretty much sums it up as far as Public Law 414 and its application.


So does the old Testament. The Bible and the Koran both send mixed messages about peace and tolerance of other religions and destroying them. You toss out versus from both books to paint Christianity or Islam as religions of peace or of conquest. Lets face it both religions were mostly spread by conquests but, have in more modern time embraced the more peaceful elements of the their religions. Others embrace the more violent like ISIS in Islam and Lords Resistance Army in Christianity.

It is actually surprising that considering most Islamic nations were occupied as colonies of Christian powers until the 1960s and 70s that most Muslims have no interest in pay back.

And the founders did debate Islam in America as they did Catholics and Jews. In the end the decided religion simply did not matter. The fact the first nations to recognize America, signed Americas first and longest lasting treaty, and protected US ships in the Med from pirates when the Europeans refused was Morocco a Muslim state and still one of America's closest allies.

So lets us put this nonsense about Muslims not being able to be good Americans because they have been since our founding.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

That was a well thought out response - and completely rubbish.

Yes, Truman vetoed it with a very compelling speech. And was subsequently overruled by congress. That is why it is law today and not just a moot talking point. As compelling as his speech was, it was not enough.

The primary goal of the law was NOT to reinforce quotas on specific nations and nationalities. That was accomplished in one short section of the law. The entire body of the law encompasses a far greater range of necessary conditions for exclusion of immigration to the US.

And it extended well beyond communism.

Hysterical xenophobe? Really? LMAO

I am not cherrypicking or misconstruing anything. The law in its entirety is huge. Far too much for someone, say like you, to understand. I chose therefore to limit the discussion to the specific part of the legislation that applies to this thread. THIS thread. You can discuss the rest of the law to your auto-erotic content somewhere else. This thread is for discussing the part of the law that applies directly to the concept of people immigrating to the US who may, as determined by the consular or attorney general, commit acts deleterious to the US, the Constitution, or the Republic.

Is that clear enough for you?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: darkbake

The problem is that the Koran, Sharia law, and the Hadith all demand that true followers of Islam subjugate or destroy those who do not submit to the will of Islam. So, if they are of Islam, then by definition either they are not following the edicts of the religion, or, they should not be allowed to immigrate to the US.



“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]."

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


Those verses instruct followers to fight until non-believers pay the Jizya with willing submissin and feel themselves subdued. That pretty much sums it up as far as Public Law 414 and its application.


So does the old Testament. The Bible and the Koran both send mixed messages about peace and tolerance of other religions and destroying them. You toss out versus from both books to paint Christianity or Islam as religions of peace or of conquest. Lets face it both religions were mostly spread by conquests but, have in more modern time embraced the more peaceful elements of the their religions. Others embrace the more violent like ISIS in Islam and Lords Resistance Army in Christianity.

It is actually surprising that considering most Islamic nations were occupied as colonies of Christian powers until the 1960s and 70s that most Muslims have no interest in pay back.

And the founders did debate Islam in America as they did Catholics and Jews. In the end the decided religion simply did not matter. The fact the first nations to recognize America, signed Americas first and longest lasting treaty, and protected US ships in the Med from pirates when the Europeans refused was Morocco a Muslim state and still one of America's closest allies.

So lets us put this nonsense about Muslims not being able to be good Americans because they have been since our founding.


I agree with you regarding the history you described. However, the law is still a viable piece of legislation that has practical applications and, if enforced correctly, could help us avoid making mistakes like we did with the SB shooters, the Boston marathon bombers, etc.

I am not saying that all of Islam is out to gut our nation. But the words of Islam are clear. Whether this person or that one adhere to it to the letter is something none of us can argue with any certainty. The thing we can not afford to ignore is that some of islam take it word for word, letter for letter. We do not have to allow anyone to enter this nation, regardless of who they are or why they wish to enter.

We cant be so pc that we slit our own throats, or worse yet, invite someone who will do that for us.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

And so begin the last desperate acts of the ignorant... the ad hominem attacks. Just like you ignored the bulk of the legislation, you ignored the bulk of my post relating to just how absolutely wrong and full of it you are when it comes to Islam. Reading Comprehension isn't our strong suit today I guess so let me try this again... your claim that this law allows the AG's office to exclude Muslims from immigration is 100% false and based solely on ignorant fear mongering. It is a violation of the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment to exclude any groups based on their religion.414 is meant to address individuals and families seeking emigration to the US. It is not meant to keep out an entire religion.

The concept never appeared until the time Trump decided he wanted to bar entry from and deport every Muslim he could a few weeks ago.

Not a single portion of your OP is original material and is copied from others without giving credit to your source material. Rather intellectually dishonest and potentially a violation of ATS T&C to not properly cite your source material.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is getting rather boring. New thread with different title but same copy/paste arguments.

What you are writing here about Quran,Hadiths,Sharia Law has already been repeated a zillion times on ATS.

What is the point of copy pasting arguments ? Can't you come up with something original?

Parrots


I have not seen Public Law 414 anywhere else on this site. It is the lame pathetic arguments from people who quote a verse they saw on yahoo and think they know the intricacies of the entire religion that demand it be spelled out for them as it would be to a child. I did the due diligence before creating this thread. Its a shame people don't show the same respect when responding.

It is just the same people out to derail any thread that suggests something against their partisan beliefs.



"‪Islam and the Cultural Jihad in America‬"

"Closing The Borders On Islam"

"Abducting Women and Destrying Churches is REAL ISLAM"

"Saying "Only" Radical Islam Is The Problem, A Conspiracy Born Out Of PC ?"

"Islam IS a death Cult"

"So, you think this radical Islamic problem is new?"

These are titles of some of the threads about Islam on Ats where you can read exactly the same arguments you are using in your OP.

You are parroting same arguments the only difference is the title of the thread.
It's getting boring to read same worn out phrases each and every day.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Interesting, but not worth much. Ask a bunch of muslims in America, in today's social/political climate, if they can integrate into a modern society. What did you expect them to say?

If it is so easy, and there are so many moderate muslims, why do they not stop the rare extremists from throwing gay men off roof tops or stoning women to death for being raped - by them? If the extremists are such a small percentage it would seem like the vastly larger group of moderates could stop the extremists any time they wanted to. But they don't. I wonder why that is...



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Thank you. I will check those out. Do they actually talk about PL 414, or are you lumping them all together because they are anti islam or some variation thereof?

Well, that didn't take long. Those threads all talk about reasons and events. None of them discuss the legality of islamic immigration in light of Public Law 414. Not the same. There is a specific topic to this thread and for the most part, no one is addressing it, rather distracting from it.
edit on 19-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar
If the extremists are such a small percentage it would seem like the vastly larger group of moderates could stop the extremists any time they wanted to. But they don't. I wonder why that is...


Why don't the the majority of responsible American gun owners ever stop these mass shooters from creating havoc?

Obviously, the bad apple spoils the bunch... right back at ya mate.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Vroomfondel

And so begin the last desperate acts of the ignorant... the ad hominem attacks. Just like you ignored the bulk of the legislation, you ignored the bulk of my post relating to just how absolutely wrong and full of it you are when it comes to Islam. Reading Comprehension isn't our strong suit today I guess so let me try this again... your claim that this law allows the AG's office to exclude Muslims from immigration is 100% false and based solely on ignorant fear mongering. It is a violation of the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment to exclude any groups based on their religion.414 is meant to address individuals and families seeking emigration to the US. It is not meant to keep out an entire religion.

The concept never appeared until the time Trump decided he wanted to bar entry from and deport every Muslim he could a few weeks ago.

Not a single portion of your OP is original material and is copied from others without giving credit to your source material. Rather intellectually dishonest and potentially a violation of ATS T&C to not properly cite your source material.


Oh no sir. That did not begin the attacks. That already happened, to me.

I did not ignore the bulk of the legislation. There is part of the legislation that applies directly to the topic of this thread. The entire piece of legislation is huge and not going to be discussed here. You are free to discuss it at your leisure somewhere else. Please stop trying to derail this thread or change the topic.

Yes part of the OP is original material. You accuse me too quickly. My claim is not false, the law is quite clear.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Not that I think you will, but if you would like to quickly learn about a religion you clearly have no clue about then I suggest you watch these short 13 minute videos.






edit on 20-12-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
I have been led to believe that the muslim communities in the U.S. have
a lot of lawyers working hard on their behalf to circumvent our laws.


Be careful, someone will call you a hysterical xenophobe for saying that...

I have heard the same though.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar
If the extremists are such a small percentage it would seem like the vastly larger group of moderates could stop the extremists any time they wanted to. But they don't. I wonder why that is...


Why don't the the majority of responsible American gun owners ever stop these mass shooters from creating havoc?

Obviously, the bad apple spoils the bunch... right back at ya mate.


We try to, every time we have cause to. And sometimes we are successful.

That does nothing to advance the topic of this thread, however.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar
If the extremists are such a small percentage it would seem like the vastly larger group of moderates could stop the extremists any time they wanted to. But they don't. I wonder why that is...


Why don't the the majority of responsible American gun owners ever stop these mass shooters from creating havoc?

Obviously, the bad apple spoils the bunch... right back at ya mate.


We try to, every time we have cause to. And sometimes we are successful.

That does nothing to advance the topic of this thread, however.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I don't have issues with Muslims.
Many are very nice people.
I do have a problem with Islam because it is so much more than a religion; it's a social, economic and governmental system that precludes many of our cherished freedoms while including many practices Westerners have outlawed or find cruel and inhumane. All we need do is look at history to know what Islam is about.

Starting in the 7th century Islam spread from the tip of Saudi Arabia and by the 9th century had conquered an area that spanned from the Ganges in India west to Morocco on the Atlantic side of Africa. The Caliphate would last for 1,200 years until the breakup of the Ottoman empire in 1924. Now the Caliphate is back just 90 years later. What has changed about Islam since 1920? Not much. Expect the Islamic state to do what it has always done - spread it's dominion by the sword. ISIS doesn't really appear to be losing at this point either.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
double post, sorry



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
US constitution only applies to us citizens it does not apply to immigrants they have no protection under the constitution.If they did immigration laws would be unnecessary and handled by US courts.

Ultimately the oresident of the united states has the ability to block any class from entering the united states.Thus option has been used before it can be based on anything religion affiliation country origin doesn't mattrt.However this option wont be used especially since the president is pushing for immagratio. So arguing the legality of it is silly if another president takes office and decided to use thus option then it would be valid to discuss.Bottom line immagtation under current laws is decided by the president and as such its his responsibility.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join