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: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

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.


The law is clear. It has nothing to do with fear. That is a projection by you, which apparently makes you feel stronger in your position. This law refers to people who would ignore US law, undermine the government, the Constitution, and the Republic. It was not directed specifically at islam. But islam falls within that description. Whether you think so or not.




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta


Meanwhile I'll be over here praying i don't get tossed into a detention camp before that.


Ah, sniff. (this is a serious sniff, not a sarcastic one).

I don't think anyone is going after the American Muslims. You hold tight. People are just worried about the influx. Not you. : (



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



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.


That is exactly what the "blogger" said.


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.




The author intentionally ignores the basic fundamental rule of islam, Sharia law


That's because it has nothing to do with the topic.



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


The piece has many references which are linked within. Click away. Also, read the last paragraph.


The meme "ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952" claimed that adherence to Islam and/or Sharia law constituted definitive membership within an "organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by 'force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.'" Multiple non-factual statements or implications were presented in the meme, including the notions that all Muslims strictly adhere to Sharia law, that Sharia law is a cohesive faith-based form of governance, that adherence to Sharia law is mutually exclusive with adherence to the laws of the United States, that Islam in some way demands the eventual overthrow of the United States government, or that any "organization" to which Muslims purportedly belong by merit of their faith somehow places them under the provisions of section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Not one of those assertions or implications is supported by extant law, precedent, or any accepted interpretation of Islam, United States immigration policy, or the act in question.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

The law is clear. It has nothing to do with fear. That is a projection by you, which apparently makes you feel stronger in your position. This law refers to people who would ignore US law, undermine the government, the Constitution, and the Republic. It was not directed specifically at islam. But islam falls within that description. Whether you think so or not.
Let's pretend that's true for a moment. Are we then supposed to imagine we're in the business of predicting criminal acts based upon someone's philosophy?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Kapusta


Meanwhile I'll be over here praying i don't get tossed into a detention camp before that.


Ah, sniff. (this is a serious sniff, not a sarcastic one).

I don't think anyone is going after the American Muslims. You hold tight. People are just worried about the influx. Not you. : (

What's the difference exactly?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




That's because it has nothing to do with the topic.


Not only does it have something to do with the topic, it IS the topic. This thread.



Not one of those assertions or implications is supported by extant law, precedent, or any accepted interpretation of Islam, United States immigration policy, or the act in question.


Again, her opinion is that the law does not apply and her opinion only. There are many interpretations of Islam, all available for examination at any time, some even on this thread, that disagree. Again, it is only her opinion and nothing more.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

The law is clear. It has nothing to do with fear. That is a projection by you, which apparently makes you feel stronger in your position. This law refers to people who would ignore US law, undermine the government, the Constitution, and the Republic. It was not directed specifically at islam. But islam falls within that description. Whether you think so or not.
Let's pretend that's true for a moment. Are we then supposed to imagine we're in the business of predicting criminal acts based upon someone's philosophy?




(29) Aliens with respect to whom the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, after entry, (A) engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United States relating to espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activity subversive to the national security, (B) engage in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, or (C) join, affiliate with, or participate in the activities of any organization 54 Stat. 993. which is registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the 50 USC 786. Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950;


Any immigrant who fits any of those descriptions can be denied entry. Can you even allow for the possibility that members of islam may fit that description or are you so blinded by partisan rhetoric that no amount of information can get through to common sense?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Can you show where in the law it states that the government has the authority to deny immigration based on interpretation of religious beliefs or texts?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Well it's like this, most radical Islams wouldn't dare back down from pronouncing their faith, being they're constantly under threat of death for doing such things. So asking the simple question of which religion an incoming immigrant subscribes to would in fact help and if they so happen to proclaim Islam, this law would righteously become enforced and their entry would be denied.

great thread OP.
edit on 20-12-2015 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.

Sorry but Freedom of Religion applies to everyone not to everyone except people you wet your pants at everytime you think of them. Now go pay homage to your little idol of Trump.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:28 AM
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.


You are absolutely right. A true muslim follows his faith entirely. If a fatwa is declared all the way over in Saudia Arabia, or Persia then Muslims in the United States and other nations will be expected to respond to the calling-- whatever the fatwa and calling maybe.

Grant it, It is true that there are some coffeeshop muslims, like coffeeshop christians who really do not practice a faith, but merely represent token membership therein- those are not the individuals we are referring to or considering as "dangerous." How to distinguish between the two varieties, I do not know, but I suppose it would have to do something with open mindedness about faith and religion in general, and an ability to appreciate the principles of democracy in which we live. They have to love the constitution and American Law and Order, above and beyond their own personal faith. That should be easy, since they should be able to recognize that law in ME countries is opposite to American Law..Sharia Law is a very dangerous legal structure that condemns entirely the legal structure of the us.


I just wanted to say not to worry too much about the early starters in the thread, who say they are muslims and insist on distorting and derailing your thread which can become very irritating and frustrating..especially during the first couple of pages when you expect the thread to begin taking off. Look at where it is now: Top Topics!! Great job. I am happy that none of the tabletop "fidels" were unable to injure or do wrong with your topic.

Essentially what the 414 law implies is the following:

If Muslim faithfuls by virtue of their relationship with their scriptures are caused to see as enemy those members and citizens of the United States who represent a different philosophy politically (Islam as political faith),

then it would bea requirement to screen and question, and interrogate every muslim immigrant attempting to arrive, take refuge, or seek asylum in the united states of america. If their opinions and philosophies about the united states of america are not dangerous, and they are able to abide by it's law they might have a chance of remaining--

The problem is that currently, the FBI is NOT EVEN ALLOWED to question refugees and immigrants arriving from muslim countries; they are not allowed, they are FORBIDDEN to even investigate them. This while we are walking in a War Against Terrorism. Is that outrageous?


Those immigrants are being over protected and over guarded by the us gov- Ask yourselves why? Why has the Obama administration ordered those immigrants to receive such investigative immunity..? It's most suspicious in my opinion..





edit on 20-12-2015 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: introvert

Well it's like this, most radical Islams wouldn't dare back down from pronouncing their faith, being they're constantly under threat of death for doing such things. So asking the simple question of which religion an incoming immigrant subscribes to would in fact help and if they so happen to proclaim Islam, this law would righteously become enforced and their entry would be denied.

great thread OP.

So you are implying that all Muslims are extremist.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: tony9802



I just wanted to say not to worry too much about the early starters in the thread, who say they are muslims and insist on distorting and derailing your thread which can become very irritating and frustrating.

Yes pointing out where the OP was wrong about Islam can be irritating. Did you notice when the Muslims said he was wrong he immediately said that part of their religion didn't apply? He knows next to nothing about Islam hell he claims to be raised a Catholic but never took time to even read the bible.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

You called me a hysterical xenophobe. Does that not qualify?


If it's a fact, it's not a not an ad hominem attack. You're calling for the exclusion of an entire religion from immigration to this country. That is xenophobic.



No, it does not. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. PL 414 was passed in 1952, and clearly defined the intent of congress. If your statement is true, then congress must be wrong. Given the two choices of interpretation, I go with congress.


Perhaps choice 3 would be more beneficial? Try taking a civics class to see how out our system of government actually works before you slip the noose around your own neck. See, in the US, the Constitution is the law of the land. Just because a law was passed, doesn't mean that the way YOU and other fringe thinkers want to interpret it can be implemented if your personal interpretation violates others constitutional rights. This is a massive chip of cognitive dissonance to try to rationalize the legitimacy of this position when you know it defied the 1st and 14th Amendments. You should be ashamed. The entire premise is anti-American cloaked in false patriotism.



First you said none of it was original. Now you say some of it is original. Were you lying then or are you lying now?


I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. How is that lying? I'm not the one who just admitted that not all of their OP was original material yet in citations have appeared except for tagged excerpts from 414 and a link to a PDF of the law. You and I both know this is neither an original thought by you nor is all of the material presented your own.




I wrote two paragraphs, quoted the section of the law that was applicable, then wrote three more paragraphs, then included the link to the source. That is twice now you have publicly accused me of T&C violations.



And now I'll go for 3. You used external tags for excerpts from 414 that suited your argument and gave a link to a PDF of the full legislation. Great.but we both know that you borrowed heavily from others work and provided no citations for that work That's plagiarizing. It's a violation of T&C I'll be courteous and give you the opportunity to address the matter properly. When I get home tonight though I will certainly pull up all sources of the material you are plagiarizing and present it to mods.

Your bit about OP's has nothing to do with the fact that you didn't cite the material you borrowed your OP from and pretended that it as all your own work. It isn't and we both know it. Do you think everyone on ATS just responds to posts willy nilly without due diligence? Ha!



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
This is why laymen aren't qualified to understand immigration law or the law in general and its wider application. There's numerous examples in US case law that would detail exactly why the specific application of the law you're advocating would be deemed wholly unconstitutional and laughed out of a courtroom.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Ummm, here's a simple question for you and the validity of this so called law, has it stopped any Muslims from entertaining and living in the USA since it's inception?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Vroom. I applaud your tenacity to bring the light of truth to the trolls and shills that are so quick to come out with belittlement and ad hominem attacks. I have faced the same attacks, from the SAME people too mind you. Be wary of the folks with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of points attributed to their accounts, there is clearly a conspiracy abrew along the lines of utterly fake credibility.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   


(29) Aliens with respect to whom the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, after entry, (A) engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United States relating to espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activity subversive to the national security, (B) engage in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, or (C) join, affiliate with, or participate in the activities of any organization 54 Stat. 993. which is registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the 50 USC 786. Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950;


The above quote has nothing directly or indirectly to do with Islam.
It dose state true that Anyone, any religion, from any country entering the USA is "prohibited" from doing the above, even including outside Christian organizations to be honest.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:22 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.



(29) Aliens with respect to whom the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, after entry, (A) engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United States relating to espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activity subversive to the national security, (B) engage in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, or (C) join, affiliate with, or participate in the activities of any organization 54 Stat. 993. which is registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the 50 USC 786. Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950;


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. 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.

link


I have some idea of who is not 'assimilating' and it isn't Muslims.

This thread is a public disorder.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The AG doesn't have to be 100% sure that Muslims will cause trouble upon entering to use this law, only that they "probably" will.

Moreover, why would Muslims want to move here, in effect immersing themselves in all things non-Muslim and provoking the rage and wrath of Allah in the first place?



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join