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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.