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: 9
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Stone age morons?


No, their murdering Christian religious bigots

And their are Muslim murdering religious bigots, as well


Show all, not one group so people can look only at Muslims


Their pre-modern crazies in all religions.


Muslims are victims so what you do is only make it worst by making this reality look like ONLY Muslims are responsible for this.




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Christians in America murdered millions of Africans and Native Americans, and unlike ISIS, got away with it.


They were allowed to have their Christian state at the expense of Africans, who as slaves made them rich and native American heathens were just outright mass murdered to take ALL the land IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

And they didn’t have a secular power to stop them

LOOK AT YOUR FOUL SELF BEFORE YOU DARE JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!


Well, this is 2015, not the 1800s...and by the way, had the blacks not been brought over from Africa with the slavers, most of their genetics would have been wiped out during African wars or still would have been enslaved to the Muslims, not given the greatest opportunity in history.

It was too bad about the Native Americans, but you cant blame We The People...When did We ever have the Power to stop the Government?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

I have read it and it does not say that anywhere in section 212.


Section 212 says nothing but that. Aliens whom the consular officer or AG know or has reasonable ground to believe will:
"...engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the US relating to espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activity subversive to the national security, etc."

Would that include acts of terror? SB shootings? Blowing up the Boston marathon? Nowhere does it specify asking about their religion. That is your hang up. The defining criteria are separated into three paragraphs, A, B, and C. Paragraph C is not required and applies to communist organisations. It does not say anywhere that everyone who falls under suspicion per PL 414 must register as a communist. And you claim you read this? Either you are lying through your teeth or your comprehension skills are severely lacking.


The section you are quoting would only apply to people in which the AG or the consular have specific information that would indicate the applicant poses a risk.


Yes! You got it!

And being part of a religion that is proving to be determined to launch more and deadlier terror attacks on US soil, whose members are immigrating with inadequate vetting procedures and have been proven to be extremists with questionable or falsified documentation, and a growing history of death and injury in their wake, qualifies under PL 414.
edit on 20-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Central African Republic: Muslims Forced to Flee

Christian Militias Unleash Waves of Targeted Violence



The minority Muslim population in the Central African Republic is being targeted in a relentless wave of coordinated violence that is forcing entire communities to leave the country, Human Rights Watch said today. The Central African Republic government as well as French and African peacekeepers should take urgent steps to protect the remaining Muslim population from revenge attacks by predominantly Christian militias and allied residents.



This is happening in many places across the globe even in Burma where Buddhists murder Muslims but this MSM only cites Muslim ATROCITIES and rarely do you hear the other religious people doing injustice

I wonder why?

Jews oppress Muslims in Palestine as well and the MSM, largely Jewish, rarely report it

And this OP pretends ONLY Muslims are doing wrong!

And only they use religion to oppress and abuse

A clear distortion that plays into the hands of bigotry



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
What about dual citizen Jewish people are they unconstitutional?

Imagine a dual citizen Muslim?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Central African Republic: Muslims Forced to Flee

Christian Militias Unleash Waves of Targeted Violence



The minority Muslim population in the Central African Republic is being targeted in a relentless wave of coordinated violence that is forcing entire communities to leave the country, Human Rights Watch said today. The Central African Republic government as well as French and African peacekeepers should take urgent steps to protect the remaining Muslim population from revenge attacks by predominantly Christian militias and allied residents.



This is happening in many places across the globe even in Burma where Buddhists murder Muslims but this MSM only cites Muslim ATROCITIES and rarely do you hear the other religious people doing injustice

I wonder why?

Jews oppress Muslims in Palestine as well and the MSM, largely Jewish, rarely report it

And this OP pretends ONLY Muslims are doing wrong!

And only they use religion to oppress and abuse

A clear distortion that plays into the hands of bigotry


I am not pretending only muslims do anything wrong. THIS THREAD REGARDS PUBLIC LAW 414 AS IT APPLIES TO US IMMIGRATION. IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH BURMA, AFRICA, OR ANY OTHER PATHETIC CRAP YOU ARE SPEWING.

YOU ARE COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:33 PM
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. : (



As much as I would like to believe that. It's sinply not true.

I have been a Victim a few times.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

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. : (



As much as I would like to believe that. It's sinply not true.

I have been a Victim a few times.


The law stated applies only to people immigrating to the US and extends beyond muslims. It does not apply to US citizens. Any events where you have been victimized were not resulting from this legislation.

I don't know what happened to you, but if you were undeserving I can only say it should not have happened.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Willtell
Central African Republic: Muslims Forced to Flee

Christian Militias Unleash Waves of Targeted Violence



The minority Muslim population in the Central African Republic is being targeted in a relentless wave of coordinated violence that is forcing entire communities to leave the country, Human Rights Watch said today. The Central African Republic government as well as French and African peacekeepers should take urgent steps to protect the remaining Muslim population from revenge attacks by predominantly Christian militias and allied residents.



This is happening in many places across the globe even in Burma where Buddhists murder Muslims but this MSM only cites Muslim ATROCITIES and rarely do you hear the other religious people doing injustice

I wonder why?

Jews oppress Muslims in Palestine as well and the MSM, largely Jewish, rarely report it

And this OP pretends ONLY Muslims are doing wrong!

And only they use religion to oppress and abuse

A clear distortion that plays into the hands of bigotry


I am not pretending only muslims do anything wrong. THIS THREAD REGARDS PUBLIC LAW 414 AS IT APPLIES TO US IMMIGRATION. IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH BURMA, AFRICA, OR ANY OTHER PATHETIC CRAP YOU ARE SPEWING.

YOU ARE COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.



Your whole premise is absurd.

Many religions from Jehovah Witness to Mormons have different world views from the constitution. As long as they don’t disobey American laws and try not to overthrow the US constitution for their Sharia they are all right by the 1st amendment.

You’re whole premise is bogus and is itself unconstitutional

My posts are just to point out that many religions have adverse rules and laws that are different from the US constitution and for you to single out Muslims for disfavor and neglecting other religions is bigoted.

Where do you see loads of Muslim immigrants trying to upend the constitution?


When you have been clearly shown that within the very sharia is a rule that Muslims are obligated to obey the laws of the country they are living in.


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



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



knows or has reasonable ground to believe


We have a system in place now that relays information and provides a database of people under suspicion of certain acts or crimes. That applies to all people, not just Muslims. Religion is not considered a factor in determining visa approval. (except in the example I am about to give) Nor should it be.



Nowhere does it specify asking about their religion.


Exactly. A visa application only requires an answer on religion if they are applying for religious asylum or religious-work visas. "Yes and No" are also acceptable answers on an application.



Paragraph C is not required and applies to communist organisations.


Exactly. But isn't that part of the entire argument?



whose members are immigrating with inadequate vetting procedures and have been proven to be extremists with questionable or falsified documentation


Prove that.



qualifies under PL 414.


As it is quoted in the OP, the consul or AG can only reject visas if they know or have reasonable ground to believe someone is a risk. Religion is not listed as a criteria in any official US policy. They must have more evidence or reason to go on.

Add to that the inability of the government to classify Muslims under section C and you have no leg to stand on.

Any half-assed lawyer working pro bono could tear this argument to shreds based on the legislation's language alone.
edit on 20-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell



You’re whole premise is bogus and is itself unconstitutional


Congress didn't think so when they made this law. If I have to choose between their interpretation and yours - much like in life, you lose.



My posts are just to point out that many religions have adverse rules and laws


So what? Start a thread and talk about it to your hearts content. And talk about burma and africa too. No one is stopping you.



Where do you see loads of Muslim immigrants trying to upend the constitution?


The law has so very much more than just that. But you cant admit that because you wouldn't have anything to whine about.



When you have been clearly shown that within the very sharia is a rule that Muslims are obligated to obey the laws of the country they are living in.


And you have been clearly shown that in sharia and the hadith there are many conflicting verses. You choose only to focus on the ones that allow you to continue to whine and derail with off topic bs. Funny how you accuse me of only showing one side when you do the same as much or more than I. But that does not surprise me in the least. You do have a bit of a history...



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You are entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.

The law does not specify religion, however, the consular or AG can consider religion as an organisation if they choose to and if that is a qualifying condition, they can act on it. It is their call, not yours.

Paragraph C is part of the law, but is not part of this thread nor is the thread dependent on its inclusion.

It has already been proven. Your lack of knowledge does not preclude the fact.

Religion is not listed specifically, nor is it prohibited from inclusion. It is up to the consular or the AG.

If any half-assed lawyer could have torn this to shreds, it never would have passed congress with veto override in to law.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

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. : (



As much as I would like to believe that. It's sinply not true.

I have been a Victim a few times.
Its not a perfect world, and by far this country sure isn't perfect. I personally have never been abused by any muslims, but then again, i live nowhere near any large populations of them. I however had almost been murdered several times by blacks, but had it not been for other more responsible blacks i wouldn't be rattling keys here today....So, no ones perfect, but most folks are good people, But now keep in mind that real murderous Islamic Terrorists are here in the US and they don't care what religion you are and have every intention on killing as many innocent people they can before getting taken out..and that's the problem



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



the consular or AG can consider religion as an organisation if they choose to and if that is a qualifying condition, they can act on it. It is their call, not yours.


Please provide official US policy documentation that proves that.

I've looked. They do not have that power.



Paragraph C is part of the law, but is not part of this thread nor is the thread dependent on its inclusion.


It's very important because this particular paragraph was invoked in the OP. Let's put things in proper context.



If any half-assed lawyer could have torn this to shreds, it never would have passed congress with veto override in to law.


There is no religious test in the law. That is why it passed.

AG's and consuls have rules to follow, none of which discuss religion, and you can't label a group under paragraph C unless they are specifically communist.



You are entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.


Thoroughly debunked because you cannot prove anything you have claimed.
edit on 20-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Don't confuse a governments actions with a religion.this is purely a straw man argument. The United states dropped a bomb on Japan not Christianity. The US has what's called a secular government meaning there is a separation of church and state. So please point out where the christian religion nuked anyone I personally am very sure the Vatican doesn't have nukes. And baptists and protestants or even Mormons have them either.

Truth is the new testament changed the behavior of Christians beliefs. The old testament was cast out and a new agreement if you will started. Thus didn't happen in the Muslim religion there fore all that nasty stuff in the old testament is alive and well in islam. I can say there is an opertunity for this to extend into Islam as they do recognize Jesus as a prophet. Unfortunately radical sects ignore that fact.
edit on 12/20/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel
Nowhere in your link does it state Islam is a threat or that Islamic immigration is illegal.
I assume by the title of your thread and opening post you consider Islam to be a threat and therefore should not be allowed into the United States. For such an accusation of over 1.6 billion people you will need much more proof than what I have read so far. I trust you are not casting false accusations.

Even if you believed Islam a threat, who are you? Are you a law maker of any sort, constitutional lawyer, have you studied Islam or any other religion? Perhaps this is just your opinion and, just like mine, is only that, an opinion.
I hope your judgment of others does not cause harm to anyone. Be careful of false accusations and judgment of others.

I hope wisdom finds you with compassion, patience and tolerance because they will serve you well.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 12:56 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.


A blanket punishment? ISIS has placed operatives within the refugees. Are you saying it's better to risk the lives of citizens instead of denying entry to the refugees until we figure out a better vetting system? Do you then deny that San Bernardino was an act committed by individuals with sympathies towards ISIS or were directly radicalized? How would you rectify the situation, given that the Middle East has been at war with itself for centuries, as well as with western civilizations?

Your whole post is a strawman.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar


First, it is your opinion and nothing more. Second, I am not calling for anything. I am simply pointing out that according to US law islamic immigration can be determined illegal. THAT is the fact.


Then perhaps you should be more clear in the future and include that in your OP because the way you present it and argue so stringently in favor of this new interpretation (that 414 can be used to exclude an entire religion) comes across as if you are indeed advocating for the exclusion of Muslims because they are dangerous to America. Especially when you make statements like this in your reply to Darkbake on page 1-



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.



Congress, with full attention to the Constitution, created and passed that law.


This is why we have a system of checks and balances and 3 branches of Federal government.



If you want to assert you know more about my education and knowledge than I do, you are welcome to look like a fool any time you like.


Why would I want to steal your thunder? Your glaring ignorance to our system of government and civics makes you look the fool, not me. I'm making no claims regarding your education, I'm simply saying you are ignorant to the facts.


If you want to assert that you know more about Constitutional law than congress, you are a fool with an agenda to heavy for your narrow shoulders to support.


The fool with the agenda is the one ignorant to our past as well as how a Democratic-Republic works under our Constitution. SCOTUS is constantly reviewing laws passed by congress to see if they pass muster and they can strike down all of a bill or just portions of it they deem unconstitutional. I'm not claiming that 414 is unconstitutional, I'm saying that you and your cohorts who wish to use this law to exclude an entire religion consisting of over 1.5 Bn people is indeed unconstitutional. As I and many others have explained exactly why this is the case, I'm not going to rehash it again.




That is the third time you have accused me of T&C violations. Obviously the mods do not agree with you. Now to that you add the accusation of plagiarism. You are on dangerous ground. Three times you have accused me of this and not once have you shown me the text you are referring to.


So you're going to tell me that the 2nd paragraph of your OP being word for word from multiple sources is mere coincidence? You paraphrased enough of the rest of it that its not full on plagiarism but not an iota of this is original work, it's all derivative of and paraphrased from, someone else's work and you did not cite your sources. That IS plagiarism. That IS a violation of T&C. The mods likely haven't said anything to you yet because I actually have a life outside of ATS and had yet to compile my list of other sources with the exact same text. Let's begin shall we?

comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com...

www.teapartynation.com...

www.usacarry.com...

www.worthychristianforums.com...

Should I go on Mr. Plagiarist? Now that I can provide the material that is the basis for your OP, the mods will be alerted to your activities.


This law has existed since 1952. There is nothing new about it that has not been expressed before. Nothing. True credit would belong to the first person to make any given statement. I have read several texts regarding this legislation and the ideas and thoughts of people who agree with it. To expect me to not incorporate that information into my own dialogue is disingenuous.


I'm not debating that. It's when you use their work word for word and fail to provide a citation that there is a problem.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You cited four references. Two of them are the same. Ignorant.

The first reference is claimed to be written by, Sherrie Lynn Aldrich, with no additional citation.

The second reference is claimed to be written by, Catherine, with no additional citation.

The third and fourth reference is claimed to be written by, Bill Wilson, with no additional citation.

None of the four articles are identical to the word. They are all paraphrased to some degree, probably from an as yet undetermined additional source(s).

I saw NONE of those articles you cited. NONE. Once something has been shared, operative word, on public media multiple times citing reference is nearly impossible. Your own efforts resulted in three different authors. I first received text similar to this from a friend on FB. He had no references cited, as did the person he received it from. That is why citing reference for verbiage shared on social media is difficult, if not impossible.



not an iota of this is original work


That is an absolute undeniable lie. These are the TWO SENTENCES I PARAPHRASED:

"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. "

"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."

Everything else is my own work. EVERY WORD OF IT.

And lastly, plagiarism requires intent to deceive. I did not have any such intent. I knew the information had been shared multiple times by the time I saw it, each with a different name attacked to it. I used two non-consecutive sentences from the source material I received for my thread. That is all.

You attack the information because you don't like it and fail. You attack me, and fail. So you attack the citation, and fail.

You refuse to acknowledge that congress created this law and passed it with veto over-ride majority. They knew what it said and they knew what it meant. You don't like it. Too bad. The checks and balances system worked just fine. And this law is the result, whether you agree with it or not. Your argument has been reduced to an entirely off topic rant about proper citation when crediting the original author is not possible. I am a writer, in more than just title here. If it were possible to cite the original author I would do so. It is not. You proved that yourself by citing three different authors for the same work.

If you spent as much time learning about the subject as you spend trying to attack it, and me, you might be able to converse in something other than a childish combative brat-like reflex to anything you disagree with.
edit on 21-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Honestly, I don't know why you continue on. I've already put this to rest.

There is nothing in the law that states a consular or an AG can use religion alone as a criteria to deny a visa application, and Muslims are not applicable to section 7.

So that is that. Your op and it's premise are bunk.
edit on 21-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join