U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should Islamic immigration to the United States be stopped or banned?
Yes, ban all Islamic immigration 172 49.14%
Yeah, but only stop it temporarily 17 4.86%
No 161 46.00%
Voters: 350. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2013, 09:45 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 1,052,661 times
Reputation: 847

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
My gawd (dont want to offend you, being an atheist and all, Im agnostic myself), If Congress decides to pass a law prohibiting members of a certain religion from entering the US, Congress can do so, hell, they deported known communists. SCOTUS has already established Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
There is no point to concede to you, you simply dont understand US Immigration Law, and had you understood the conversation you would already see that I have agreed that an immigrant once inside the US would fall under DCs claim, but an immigrant outside the US can only enter based on the criteria as set forth by Congress, if religion is a factor for denial, Congress has full authority to make that a criteria, theres nothing you can do about it, it is law as set by SCOTUS and the USC, it is what it is whether you concede the point or not..
You're beating a dead horse. Neither posters will concede that such powers have been upheld. They are the sort who believe if they wish something, somehow magically it makes it true. You'd have better success rationalizing with a soap dish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2013, 09:52 PM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,220,383 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
My gawd (dont want to offend you, being an atheist and all, Im agnostic myself), If Congress decides to pass a law prohibiting members of a certain religion from entering the US, Congress can do so. SCOTUS has already established Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
I don't doubt it. The Supreme Court also ruled DUI checkpoints constitutional. Clearly, just because it is one's job to do something (e.g., determine the constitutionality of something) does not mean one will always do it and do it correctly.

DC told you there was little to be interpreted, and he was right.

Where the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", there is no room to do what you are saying the SCOTUS has done and make exceptions. There are no exceptions permitted here. Where/if they have made exceptions, they have failed to do their job.

Hardly justifies targeting Muslims, whether they are current or prospective citizens. We are talking word-for-word about Congress making a law that directly favors alternatives to Islam. I said it before. It just doesn't matter how they do it or who it's directed at. Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion is unconstitutional. I'm taking the text itself over your preferred interpretation of it, Arbordude, and that's just the way it's going to be for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2013, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
561 posts, read 412,421 times
Reputation: 430
Immigration officials should be more concerned with someone's ideology rather than religion. You can't lump all Muslims into one group. Their are litterally dozens of sects just within the most conservative Sallafist branches of Islam, and they vary on their ideology. Training our agents to have a better understanding of what they should be looking for would be the best plan to have in place. There are terrorists of all religions and races. It would be very shortsighted to only target a specific group of people due to their religious beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2013, 11:52 PM
 
29 posts, read 16,844 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
I don't doubt it. The Supreme Court also ruled DUI checkpoints constitutional. Clearly, just because it is one's job to do something (e.g., determine the constitutionality of something) does not mean one will always do it and do it correctly.
So I guess all the SCOTUS cases involving immigration and the Plenary Powers of Congress since 1795 are merely all incorrect. Thats an awful lot of SCJ that have interpreted this particular law the same throughout the centuries. I guess you believe they are all incorrect.

Quote:
DC told you there was little to be interpreted, and he was right.
Let me repeat this, DCs claim is only correct for immigrants and citizens within the US, it has no bearing on immigrants wanting to immigrate into the US, Congress can deny them entry based on any criteria they choose, religion, ideology, sex, looks, etc. There is no inherent right for any immigrant to enter the US.

Quote:
Where the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", there is no room to do what you are saying the SCOTUS has done and make exceptions. There are no exceptions permitted here. Where/if they have made exceptions, they have failed to do their job.

Hardly justifies targeting Muslims, whether they are current or prospective citizens. We are talking word-for-word about Congress making a law that directly favors alternatives to Islam. I said it before. It just doesn't matter how they do it or who it's directed at. Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion is unconstitutional. I'm taking the text itself over your preferred interpretation of it, Arbordude, and that's just the way it's going to be for me.
Do you understand that text/phrase (obviously you dont since you think it doesnt allow Congress to deny entry to immigrants based on religion), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", this does not prevent Congress from denying an immigrant entry into the US based on said immigrants religion. Congress simply can not create a "Church of England" in the US; Congress can deny entry to immigrants solely based on their religion if Congress so desires to institute that criteria, in the past Congress has denied the Chinese, limited other Asians, kicked out communists, etc. It would not effect religion within the US whatsoever. No matter how you attempt to claim otherwise, whether you think your opinion is right, you will always be wrong about it, its just the way it is, SCOTUS has declared it, the USC allows for it, the Plenary Powers of Congress over immigration trump your opinion of it or your interpretation of a phrase you dont even truly understand.

Last edited by Arbordude; 08-28-2013 at 12:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2013, 06:20 AM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,220,383 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
So I guess all the SCOTUS cases involving immigration and the Plenary Powers of Congress since 1795 are merely all incorrect. Thats an awful lot of SCJ that have interpreted this particular law the same throughout the centuries. I guess you believe they are all incorrect.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The text does not read "Congress shall make no law pertaining to current citizens but can make laws pertaining to prospective citizens respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't matter whether you are kicking Muslims out or just keeping more from coming in. Both are concerning an establishment of religion in the U.S. if the religion is your only factor for admitting/denying prospective American citizens. I personally do not trump the Supreme Court. But the U.S. Constitution should. Unfortunately, the ones bucking it are the only ones we have designated to defend it, so fortunately for you "it is what it is".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
Let me repeat this, DCs claim is only correct for immigrants and citizens within the US, it has no bearing on immigrants wanting to immigrate into the US, Congress can deny them entry based on any criteria they choose, religion, ideology, sex, looks, etc. There is no inherent right for any immigrant to enter the US.
No need to repeat any of that. I've read it and responded to it before. But I must clarify something for you. I'm not out to defend the immigrants' rights to enter the U.S. I'm saying that government should never use its power to discriminate against people based on their religion. I'm saying the Constitution says it is not Congress' place to determine which religion is more heavily represented in the U.S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
Do you understand that text/phrase (obviously you dont since you think it doesnt allow Congress to deny entry to immigrants based on religion), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", this does not prevent Congress from denying an immigrant entry into the US based on said immigrants religion. Congress simply can not create a "Church of England" in the US
Everson v. Board of Education, Supreme Court ruling:
Quote:
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.
Congress is part of the federal government, and you are saying you are OK with them passing a law which would aid all religions except for Islam, a law which would prefer all alternatives. Forget about immigrants' rights or their lack thereof; it is still an abuse of power to regulate representation of religion within the U.S., choosing who comes in solely based on prospective citizens' religious beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
Congress can deny entry to immigrants solely based on their religion if Congress so desires to institute that criteria, in the past Congress has denied the Chinese, limited other Asians, kicked out communists, etc.
Questionable? Yes. Controversial? Yes. Unconstitutional? I don't think so. What we're discussing at the moment, is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
It would not effect religion within the US whatsoever.
You've got to be kidding. If you cannot see how controlling what percentage of new American citizens are Muslim and what percentage are of another belief system would effect religion within the U.S., I'm utterly shocked and there's no way of communicating with you.

All I'm seeing is that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause you personally approve of. You have found what you believe to be an excellent way of rationalizing it, and you're fervently pushing it at everyone here. Some will buy it; some won't. I won't. That will have to be good enough for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2013, 07:27 AM
 
40,018 posts, read 24,279,337 times
Reputation: 12594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbordude View Post
Good for you, maybe you should have followed the conversation.







Actually it does make a difference, one who is in the US certainly falls under the USC and DCs claim, one outside the US isnt covered by the USC and may enter the US only if he/she meets the criteria as set forth by Congress. Congress can deny entry based on religion. Your opinion of that really doesnt matter, it is what it is.



DCs argument would work prvided the immigrant was within the US, outside the US the immigrant isnt covered by the USC, since we are talking about immigrants outside the US, DCs claim is fallacious.
DCs argument DOES work, because Congress is within the US, and Congress cannot pass laws that are Unconstitutional. More than that, we DON'T want Congress passing laws that violate the Constitution. We want the Constitution to be as strong a bulwark against injustice as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago
248 posts, read 312,762 times
Reputation: 103
America, Canada, UK and Australia really should consider this ban, it would bring so much less drama to these countries, I am NOT a racist, I respect all ethnics, but the religion of Islam is out of control, they throw protests in all these countries hating on the country they live in, I do RESPECT Muslims but they immigrate they should not bring there hatred, these countries are developed and aren't like Libya or Sudan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 12:37 PM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,220,383 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by INsync3 View Post
America, Canada, UK and Australia really should consider this ban...
No countries with a Constitution that explicitly forbids this sort of law should consider this ban. I can't speak for other nationalities. But as an American, I am firmly against such outright violations of the U.S. Constitution.

For elaboration, please see my last post here, just three posts up from this one.

Have a nice day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:38 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,723 posts, read 4,513,397 times
Reputation: 1860
LOL at the fact that about half of the people who voted in this poll voted Yes.

I have no problem with preventing terrorists from coming to the U.S., but most/many Muslims are decent individuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2013, 03:13 PM
 
40,018 posts, read 24,279,337 times
Reputation: 12594
I think you're missing the big picture. The problem isn't Islam, it's patriarchal Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all stem from the original Abrahamic belief system. And fundamentalist Judaism, fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims all echo that original Abrahamic belief system. And those fundamentalists in all three cases end up clashing with modern society.

The majority of Muslims who have immigrated to the United States are not fundamentalists, and have adapted to modern society while retaining their religious beliefs. So Islam is not the problem. Religious fundamentalism is the problem.

Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-03-2013 at 06:14 PM.. Reason: deleted quoted post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top