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: 4
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 03:42 AM
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.


Good find. Considering I am sure those even in law just brushed over this part. With that written as law, then ideally no muslim in America should have any right to be there nevermind ask of resources to promote or live a life that is designed to slowly bring western ways to the ground.




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Double post for some reason. Odd.
edit on 20-12-2015 by BlackProject because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Nice find!
US citizens should demand for this to be implemented..
Or end up like Europe...


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



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
www.snopes.com...

This Public Law 414 garbage was a viral campaign that has been debunked already.


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



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You, sir or madam, are a spoilsport! Tsk tsk tsk!




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Just because you wish it to be doesn't make it true. The US constotution applies to US citizens. All rights are granted through immigration laws meaning they can be changed. So do you fall under the french constitution if your not french? Don't be silly immigrants have no rights granted under the constitution but if you care to prove me wrong where in the constitution does it mention immigrants??
edit on 12/20/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

It is also technically illegal in the UK but that does not stop it and never has, the title of the monarch in the UK is the defender of the Faith and of course she is the official head of state but it was her own cousin Mountbatten whom was also behind an aborted coup plot in the 70's whom when he was the last serving viceroy of india made a blanket invitation to them to come and live with us.

There is always someone profiting from this misery and the trouble and stress they cause, even from the downfall of nation's but in our case the reason was simple, they had left wing democrats and right wing monarchists/feudalists whom wanted to keep the status quo, there problem the poor and lower middle class were in agreement and unified under the socialist and democratic banner of old labour and were still getting stronger so they solution was Divide (or keep divided) and conquer by creating divisions in the heartland of the labour party by flooding it with immigrant's and then subsequently blaming labour for what in reality was there own policy.

But yes there are many law's and even your constitutional oath in the US which should actually be stopping Islamic migration to the US as it's adherents do not obey US law or Secular law but only there Shariah law as a priority and the other law's after and only so long as they do not interfere with there law.

Also in the US the Term other religions meant other branches of Christianity though it was broadened to include Judaism and the US founding fathers whom were almost all devout Christians of various denominations though primarily protestants of one ilk or another most certainly did not intend it to include Islam though they did intend it to mean all branches of christianity and that is a simple fact, indeed many of those founding fathers were Christian theologians.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: buster2010
Cool now we can keep the Christians out as well seeing how their religion also says to convert everyone. Op don't quit your day job and try to become a lawyer because you will then starve.


If you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, I might be concerned. As it is...

The law is in regard to immigration. It has no bearing on US citizens.

And for the record, I was raised catholic but no longer belong to the church. Not once in my entire life did anyone associated with the church ever demand, or even request, that I try to convert anyone. Not once.

I would advise you not to give up your day job, but I really doubt you have one...

Three words nullifies your ignorant argument. Freedom of Religion this applies to everyone not just citizens. I would try to explain this at a level you can actually understand but my crayon app isn't working.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: peter vlar

Just because you wish it to be doesn't make it true. The US constotution applies to US citizens. All rights are granted through immigration laws meaning they can be changed. So you fall under the french constitution if your not french? Don't be silly

Sorry but you are wrong the Constitution applies to everyone in America not just citizens it applies to immigrants as well. Maybe you should read it sometime.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is exactly the same BS that has been used against Jews and Catholics. Only white Anglo-Saxon protestants can be loyal Americans because everyone else is blindly loyal to a foreign religious leader like the Pope, or an incompatible set of laws, like the Talmud. Not all Muslims are jihadists.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I don't wish to derail the subject of this thread, but it is my understanding that the Quran is not arranged into a chronological order like the Bible is. Just because some Quranic text comes before or after other text doesn't indicate the original order as it came from Mohammad. I don't have a horse in this race, but you would need some in depth study to determine which of these verses came first (if that even matters). Perhaps, as many Islamic apologists would point out, the context of these verses need consideration in order to determine what is truly mean by them. Then it would have to be proven that these verses only apply to a given situation and no others.

It seems to me that when certain commandments are repeated, generally it is an indication of their importance over others. Also, if Mohammad was actually divinely inspired, as with any religious prophet, saint or master, there should be no contradictions from one commandment to another, otherwise God is a fickle creator given to a changing mind or they were not actually inspired by anything but their own thoughts and desires. IMO an almighty and omnipotent being that created such a perfectly balanced universe wouldn't be changing the rules for mankind on some whims.

As for this particular law, banning Islam could make sense because of the inclusion of the political and military aspects of the religion, but the same could be said of most any of the older religions. It most likely applies to individual cases under consideration.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


So you fall under the french constitution if your not french?


Yes; it's called "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen" for a reason. This document has been incorporated, with some modifications, into the constitutions of the various republics ever since. The American Bill of Rights are intended to be universal. Obviously, one is required to be a citizen in order to vote or hold office, but everyone has the right to freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, freedom from unnecessary searches and seizures, and so forth. Except for Indians and slaves, of course.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Double post, wonky internet dongle sorry.

edit on 20-12-2015 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Good point, I missed that out, a lot of the founding fathers including one George Washington were actually Slave owners even though that was actually against Christian belief though perhaps not THERE interpretation of it, then again most of them had come from England were indentured servitude still existed though if was not then as common as it had been a few hundred years earlier in the Serf/Master society built on the Norman Hierarchy which had been implemented originally to suppress the English under Norman rule, indeed though the disease of slavery was pandemic among the Imperial European powers and copied from the Barbarous Muhammadens for whom slavery was a religious right it can be argued that slavery in the English speaking world can trace it's legacy back primarily to the serf/master feudal system of rule.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Why are you so afraid?.


Why do you guys always assume its fear and/or hate? Why has discussion of prudent safety for all become hate speech and bigotry?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
www.snopes.com...

This Public Law 414 garbage was a viral campaign that has been debunked already.



Sorry, but your debunking has been debunked.



Simply put, the rumor maintained that Muslims as a group were ineligible for admission to the United States based upon a law that prohibited entry to any alien who "belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by 'force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.'" The meme didn't directly reference the Islamic State (ISIS) as the organization in question, instead suggesting that Islam itself (particularly because of Sharia law and adherence to it by devout Muslims) was a prohibited group.


Here the author, a left leaning blogger, tries to distract from the statement of law by asserting it was directed at all muslims rather than at isis. It was never meant to be directed specifically at isis. The author you quoted makes no explanation of that assertion nor validates it in any way.



The meme's basic claim hinged on the tautological assertion that adherence to Islam alone constitutes participation in an "organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by 'force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.'" Most major religions involve basic, agreed-upon sets of tenets by which their faithful live, and no widely-accepted understanding of Islam encompasses a prohibition on following the laws of any country or advocates the overthrow of government.


Other sections in the law prohibit immigration of those who would become a burden to the state financially. obama is bringin in ten thousand so-called refugees, giving them homes and free food, using tax payer dollars. Still other sections of the law prohibit immigration of people who have no usable job skills, or those whose skills already exist in the skill set of naturalized citizens.

As I stated earlier, there are numerous ways in which this law applies but they are being ignored.

The author intentionally ignores the basic fundamental rule of islam, Sharia law, and the hadith, and offers no support for the assertion that islam does not meet the criteria cited in the law, only that in her opinion it does not.

The article you cited offers no references, only personal opinion. She does refer to the speech from Truman who disagreed with the law but ignores the fact that his veto was overturned by congress.

Her entire blog is anecdotal at best. Something you expressly denied as evidence in the thread "Germany in a State of Siege".

The letter of the law is clear. Your blogger does not agree with it, and calls it fake. But offers no proof other than her own interpretation as evidence. Fail.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

True Islam can not assimilate to western society as it demands all society assimilate to Islam.


Chapter 109 of the Glorious Quran contradicts your assertion completely.


You are quoting outdated verse. See below...



Qur'an (8:39) - “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 ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” Translation from the Noble Quran

Qur'an (9:29) - "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." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad narrated - hence abrogating what came before, including the oft-quoted verse 2:256 -"There is no compulsion in religion...".


Ok Verse 109 is "outdated" but Verse 8 & 9 are still applicable...


Have fun with your thread that isn't about learning about reality.


Much like how the New Testament nullifies many things from the Bible, the later Q'uran verses (ie this 8 & 9) nullify the earlier ones as well. It's called Abrogation.

Many muslims try to say that this is false, and you will no doubt link some web page that refutes it, however, having worked with muslims for 5 years of my life, I can tell you they all said that, yes the q'uran does indeed abrogate itself many times.

So, "outdated" is the wrong choice of word. "Abrogated" would be the correct term.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: buster2010
Cool now we can keep the Christians out as well seeing how their religion also says to convert everyone. Op don't quit your day job and try to become a lawyer because you will then starve.


If you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, I might be concerned. As it is...

The law is in regard to immigration. It has no bearing on US citizens.

And for the record, I was raised catholic but no longer belong to the church. Not once in my entire life did anyone associated with the church ever demand, or even request, that I try to convert anyone. Not once.

I would advise you not to give up your day job, but I really doubt you have one...

Three words nullifies your ignorant argument. Freedom of Religion this applies to everyone not just citizens. I would try to explain this at a level you can actually understand but my crayon app isn't working.


Nice try, but freedom of religion does not encompass those who would undermine the Constitution, the government, or the Republic. And the law clearly says so. Law written by and passed by congress.

You should try coloring with the crayons, not eating them.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Why are you so afraid?.


Why do you guys always assume its fear and/or hate? Why has discussion of prudent safety for all become hate speech and bigotry?
Maybe because this thread is predicated upon the blanket punishment of an entire group of people based on their religion? The premise of this thread, like every other thread on ATS seems to be these days, is "Muslims are criminals." This is no different than saying "Christians are criminals." The fact that Islamophobes can't see that speaks volumes.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I don't wish to derail the subject of this thread, but it is my understanding that the Quran is not arranged into a chronological order like the Bible is. Just because some Quranic text comes before or after other text doesn't indicate the original order as it came from Mohammad. I don't have a horse in this race, but you would need some in depth study to determine which of these verses came first (if that even matters). Perhaps, as many Islamic apologists would point out, the context of these verses need consideration in order to determine what is truly mean by them. Then it would have to be proven that these verses only apply to a given situation and no others.


I tried explaining that to someone earlier but he was unable or unwilling to understand it. Suras 5 and 9 were the last narrated by muhammed and abrogate 109 - which seems to be the isolated verse that some would claim clears islam of any motive. That has been proven wrong numerous ways but the devoutly ignorant continue to bang that drum.







 
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join