As we know...because every attempt to determine such verifies it...this is a very common attitude among the muslim population, particularly those of the Middle East (don't know if, say, Bosnians are this extreme). It is absurd to suggest that it is "racist" or some such to assume any muslim we meet is of this type rather than welcome them as if they couldn't possibly be. I don't want them here unless they at the very least, swear off this position completely and work to eradicate it from their midst. And how do we know that's sincere? No. Best to deny them entry and "love them at a distance", as my mother used to say of me during my rebellious youth.
While I'm not going to say that every single Muslim agrees with this, I will say that the idiots who support Hamas and Hezbollah and cry about Israel are batshit crazy if they think this isn't serious. Even more so if they ignore the fact that dudes like this are all over and have millions of followers.
Oh, and the lowered the age of consent in Afghanistan to 9. Yet people like Dan continue to make excuses for barbarism.
Well, I don't say every muslim agrees with it. But as you know, we can't read minds and hearts, so as concerns anyone of that religion, how can we be sure and why should we take any chances given their history and the degree of barbarity when those who do act on it? I say we don't have to. After 1400 years, I say it's up to them to prove themselves to be opposed to the hate their religion preaches.
You're right, that whole 1st amendment freedom of religion thing is outdated. We need to revamp our immigration and justice system to deal with people based on what they (or others who share some/all of their beliefs) think or say, rather than on what their individual actions.
I'm not sure suspending the constitution is a great idea, nor am I sure that criminalizing thought/belief/speech is a good idea. Despite the fact that the left is pushing for those things.
I do agree that we need to be more selective in who we allow to immigrate, I'm not sure that excluding people based exclusively on their religion is a good criteria.
The point remains, that those white liberals who pretend that Islam is the Religion of Peace and the the elimination/eradication of Israel and the Jews is not their goal are simply idiots with their collective heads up their collective asses.
Just like every Christian is supposed to follow the teachings of the Bible, every Muslim is supposed to follow the teachings of the Quran and Hadiths. Which means every Muslim is supposed to want to eradicate the Jews, and they are not keen on Christians either. And this is precisely why no sane country should let them in. What we stopped with the Crusades is now an invasion being allowed all over Europe and the USA. When you don't learn from history.....
I personally struggle with the issue of automatically excluding people based on religion. As we find with most religions, not everyone is as devoted as they could be. Much like Dan would identify as a christian, he's clearly not going to follow every jot and tittle of scripture, many Muslims are likely less devout than those running rampant in Europe right now.
As long as the 1st amendment protects freedom of religion, there would seem to be a problem with excluding people based solely on religion.
Islam isn't just a religion the way Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism, etc. It's a political ideology which specifically teaches the conquering of all nations. Ergo, no Muslim should be allowed to enter any no-Muslim nation. History, lad, history! Islam considers themselves in a state of war with all nations and we don't allow enemy combatants to invade.
Again it's an interesting take. The notion that people, who otherwise would qualify for entry, should be prevented entry because of actions they might possibly engage in at some unknown point in the future.
As I understand it, US criminal code is written to punish actions taken by individuals, not thought, belief, or possible future action.
The notion that every single Muslim is by definition an "enemy combatant" seems like a bit of a leap. Maybe you could argue that they are potential, future, enemy combatants...
I get it, I'm crazy. That I think that people should be punished for what they actually do, not for what they might do, is absolutely at odds with US legal theory and practice. Yet, I also opposed "hate crime" statutes because it's problematic to punish thought. I have problems with "red flag" laws for the same reason. But, free speech is the norm here and I'm open to pretty much anything.
As I pointed out, every real Muslim obeys the Quran. By doing so they declare themselves the enemy of every country. And you see that with all the Pro-"Palestinian" protests.
Well, we have people in the country, Muslims and Chinese, and gangs, who sole goal is the underming of the USA and working toward it's destruction. Just like the underground in WWII who fought against the Nazis--except that underground were the good guys. But the Nazis said they were bad guys looking to cause harm to the Nazis so they punished them even if people in the group didn't have a chance to cause trouble yet. Military aged Chinese and Muslims are invading in the same manner--establishing underground groups. Before we know it, every big city will be like Dearborn--Virtually owned by Muslims. But hey, let's ignore them until they actually something. By then it will be too late.
To the extent that there are Chinese and Muslims who have entered the country illegally, they have already committed a crime by entering, and have likely committed other crimes. Hence, they should be deported or imprisoned. Of course, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about choosing to exclude Musllims from legally immigrating or seeking asylum solely because they are Muslim, not because of anything they have specifically done. Even if they believe the Quran until they engage in specific acts, they are (under US law) innocent of any crime.
It's interesting that you use the examples of the Underground in WW2 to justify your attempt to ban all Muslims from legally immigrating. The Underground was literally taking actions that violated the laws imposed by the NAZIs simply by organizing and gathering weapons, intelligence, and sending that information to the Allies.
If/when these groups of military aged men who are entering the country illegally are discovered, they should be deported. As should any legal immigrant who enters into a conspiracy against the US. But that's entirely different than refusing entry to all people of a particular religious group based solely on their religion, at least as long as current US code is valid.
As far as Dearborn, I was under the impression that the current leadership was elected by the citizens of the city. I am unaware of any provision of US code that allows the removal of duly elected officials because some people don't like them or disagree with what they are doing. IF they engage in illegal actions, they can/should be dealt with, likewise if they engage in actions that violate the ethical standards or the oath of office, there are means in place to deal with that. If electing incompetent, stupid, people who givern badly was a crime then we should deport the elected officials of MSP, LA, SF, DC, StL,Baltimore, ATL, NYC,CHI, and a few others.
A few years ago we found my grandfather's immigration paperwork, as part of his immigration he had to swear a few things.
1. He had to renounce any other prior citizenship or loyalty to the country he came from. 2. He had to swear that he was not a part of a group that practiced plural marriage. 3. He had to swear that he was not a part of a group that advocated for anarchy or the violent overthrow of the US government.
This seems like a pretty good, easy, solution to the problem. Make legal immigrants sign something similar, updated to fit the times, and make breaking the conditions punishable by deportation. You now have a legal means to deport those who've come through the legal process to immigrate, then have chosen to do what they swore they would not do after they got here.
All I can say is that people with your beliefs are the reason we needed the Crusades back then. NO Muslim is to be trusted to not be a practicing Muslim because one of their tenets is to pretend to be friends until in a position of power. And we just keep allowing them in.
I figured that out. Yeah, that pesky first amendment thing is so difficult.
If they choose to they will. Hell, Chicago voted in multiple idiot mayors. Votes have consequences, how many non Muslims left Dearborn who could have prevented the election of a Muslim mayor? Unfortunately, is a country with the amount of freedom we are constitutionally guaranteed, the likelihood of some people making choices you don't like is fairly high. I fail to see a constitutional mechanism that allows you to dictate the choices of others, nor do I see how the first amendment allows discrimination solely on the basis of religion.
As I said, we absolutely need to deport those who are here illegally and those who are actively engaged in illegal activities. Beyond that, I'm not sure what legal structure condones the sort of discrimination you seem to be calling for.
"3. He had to swear that he was not a part of a group that advocated for anarchy or the violent overthrow of the US government. "
Given the history of islam over the last 1400 years or so, it is not contradictory to our Constitution or American principles to regard islam as just such a group. From there, it's then a matter of figuring out how to determine the sincerity of someone of that group swearing no allegiance or that they truly renounce it. So, to deny entry from any nation where the "religion" is so dominant that they embrace the very culture which has resulted in migrants acting out their hateful beliefs seems rather a duty of our government. It's very much a defensive measure, and when you're dealing with a vicious dog, you don't let your toddler play with it.
I could be wrong, but I believe that members of terrorist groups are already not allowed to immigrate to the US. But if you want to equate discrimination against people based solely on religion and being a member of Hamas, go right ahead.
Interesting take. By that measure, persecuted adherents of other religions felling from a Muslim majority country could be excluded as well. Hell, by that definition the Iranian woman who was arrested for not wearing a burkah would be excluded.
It's fascinating that one of the biggest problems with the APL is their obsession with classifying and defining everyone by the group that they are a part of. Yet, here y'all are doing exactly that. Prejudging individuals based on the group they are associated with.
Again, as Islam is a religion and the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of religion, I fail to see how discrimination based solely on religion is anything but contradictory to our constitution.
Your assumption that every Muslim is a "vicious dog", based on the fact that they are (however loosely) associated with a group is frankly bizarre.
But the difference is that this particular "religion" is responsible for so much suffering and have been since their prophet walked the earth. As much as we promote the concept of innocent until proven guilty, the idea that profiling is counter to that principle ignores the reality of what profiling is and intends. I'm not assuming every muslim is a vicious dog, but given the breed, it's most wise to presume the probability is significantly higher with this breed than any other and we must act accordingly for the benefit and welfare of our own people.
If we continue with a Dan-like posture of assuming innocence where this group is concerned, we put ourselves at far greater risk than when we abide that principle with regard to any other group. That's not on us. That's on them, and thus it is incumbent upon a member of that group to disabuse us of any concerns regarding that particular individual prior to our allowing them entry.
Here's another possibility. We can alter our standards for such migrants in that they are obliged to be "more perfect" in obeying our laws and customs, in a manner which suggests a kind of "not one mistake"...the severity of such to be determined.
There's nothing bizarre about acknowledging reality.
Strangely enough, the 1st Amendment doesn't seem to have this exception, nor does any current anti discrimination law.
My position on many things, including immigration, is that this tendency we have to make assumptions about people and how we should treat them based on perceived membership in a group as opposed to individual behavior and character is problematic to say the least. The concept that an individual is responsible for or should be judged by the actions of others in the same group, sounds a little too much like the rhetoric we hear from the APL and folx like Dan.
Whatever standards there are should not be based on the beliefs of behavior of anyone except the individual going through the immigration process.
No, what's bizarre is the willingness to suspend 1st amendment protections and the presumption of innocence based solely on religion.
To every rule there is an exception. Just was we presume innocence on the part of an individual muslim, to suggest that we must means we can't deviate from the "rule" of "innocence until proven guilty" when the unique nature of a group demands exception. To deny entry to a person on the basis of religion is not to insist that person is guilty due to his association or membership of the religion. It's the acknowledgement that from that religious population has come...for around 1400 years...all manner of human suffering and destruction. It's practical and pragmatic, with regard the safety of our people, to refuse entry to anyone a member of a group known for such suffering. I don't care what anyone thinks about it. I care that my fellow Americans aren't at risk.
What's bizarre is the willingness to put one's fellow citizens at risk on a principle far from respected by those from this particular group. It's not a suspension of 1st amendment protections for those not yet citizens. They're free to speak and worship elsewhere.
And if we're going to take that chance, the history of their people justifies greater scrutiny and stricter enforcement of criteria resulting in deportation. Rather than insisting it is I who sounds more like Dan and the Dems, it is you who does by suggesting there is no difference among the various cultures which influence behaviors and ideologies of people seeking entry, such that one is no better or worse than any other. That's absurd, and history has demonstrated that over the last 1400 years.
And this attitude isn't a matter of "fear of the other". It's an acknowledgement of their ways, which are known to us and has unjustly indicted them all, regardless of the sentiments and feelings of any individual from among them.
Please cite the legal precedent for this religion based exception to the freedom of religion protection in the 1st amendment.
"Just was we presume innocence on the part of an individual muslim, to suggest that we must means we can't deviate from the "rule" of "innocence until proven guilty" when the unique nature of a group demands exception. "
If you are suggesting that we should implement an exception to the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments by characterize one religion (violating the 1st amendment) by suggesting that Muslims must prove their innocence in order to legally enter the US for any reason, you'd be fighting an uphill battle to say the least. You are free to think that decreeing that Muslims must prove their innocence, without charging them with a specific crime, is a wonderful idea. Yet, to pretend that there are not significant constitutional issues involved or that a left wing administration down the road isn't going to use this exception in ways that you don't like, is simply beyond belief.
"I don't care what anyone thinks about it."
That much is abundantly clear.
The very notion of "innocent until proven guilty" combined with the notion that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man, and the underlying bedrock of our legal system that prosecutes individual actions not thoughts or the actions of others, guarantees that the system puts citizens at risk by guaranteeing the constitutional rights of other citizens.
Strangely enough, these constitutional protections you seem willing to discard do apply to non citizens.
Yet, when you make shit up about what I've been "suggesting", you do sound like Dan who does that regularly.
You bitch about my referring to you applying a "broad brush", yet you are clearly suggesting that we "broad brush" every single Muslim in existence by attribution that words and actions of others to them as if they had said and done those things.
Call me crazy, but I take seriously the protections afforded by our constitution. I've watched the APL/DFL use this tactic of trying to change the rules to benefit their short term goals (pack SCOTUS, the filibuster, etc) with no thought to how their rules changes will be used against them at some point. Once you make these sorts of legal changes, the Law of Unintended Consequences usually rears it's ugly head down the road.
So, yes. I will argue for the 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments, innocent until proven guilty, and the notion of prosecuting individuals for the crimes they've actually individually committed. Because, the constitution.
Islam isn't a religion and should not have the protection of religion. It is a political organization built around a religious idea--it is primarily a political position with their religious-political documents (Quran and Hadiths) calling for the destruction of Jews (primarily) and Christians and the subjugation of the world. Their teaching explicitly says to pretend friendliness until in a position of power. This is why they invaded Europe and took command over most of the continent before the Crusades pushed them back. We now have an invasion by invitation--inviting them into the same areas (western hemisphere) they conquered before and will now conquer from within because of the stupid idea for approaching them of "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom of religion" when they specifically state in their teaching to conquer the entire world. If someone says they will assassinate the President they are immediately arrested before they haven't had the chance to do the deed, yet Islam says they will assassinate the entire world and we do nothing about it. Study history, Craig. Study Islam. They are NOT friendly nor will they ever be.
As you've noted before, Islam IS a religion that also wants to govern using it's religious rules/laws as a theocracy. It's definitely both.
I have studied both, as well as spent time with plenty of Muslims.
1. It's a mistake to presume that all those who identify with a particular religion are equally devoted to every one of it's tenets. 2. Unfortunately, as I noted, to exclude an entire religion of people (which presumably means deporting those already here) raises significant constitutional questions. 3. I'd argue that the US is under just as much of an existential threat from the melange of extreme leftists and progressive christians as from Muslims. 4. Call me crazy, but the historic commitment to innocent until proven guilty, due process, and punishing individual people for their individual actions, is my default position.
The problem I have in this conversation is you and Art insisting that you are capable of perfectly predicting the future, your willingness to abandon the constitution, and your unwillingness to acknowledge (while predicting the future) that any law restricting Muslims will at some point be used against Jews or Christians.
Islam has PROFESSED to be an enemy of the USA. Did we allow Nazis into the USA during WWII? Darn, we violated the Constitution by not allowing Nazis to invade.
Glenn, you can continue to make this forest/trees argument as long as you want. The reality is that banning entry to the US based solely on religion, raises multiple constitutional questions that must be dealt with.
Not only did we "allow" NAZIs in the country during and immediately to WW2, we sought some of them out and wink wink nudge nudged them past the denazification boards because they were useful or to keep them out of Russian hands.
Strangely enough, even the members of the German American bund were not deported during WW2.
Given that the constitution is specific about the government having the responsibility to protect the US from invasion, and that the NAZIs were never even close to being in a position to invade the US, your "point" seems kind fo ridiculous.
If Iran was trying to invade the US, of course they should be prevented from doing so. But a blanket ban on individuals legally immigrating to or visiting the US isn't stopping an invasion. Unless you choose to define invasion in a way it's rarely/never been defined before. If individual Muslims who profess to be enemies of the US try to legally immigrate, they should be prevented from doing so because of their actions.
I'm well aware of what's going on in Europe. I'm not sure it's an invasion. It's also a failure on the part of European countries to fail to enforce laws that are being broken wholesale by individual Muslims, not by "Islam" as an entity.
Same here, deal with individual actions by individual people, not to simply make assumptions.
The UK has suffered an invasion, and this is what the USA is coming to: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/the_most_popular_boys_name_in_england_and_wales_sounds_the_uk_s_death_knell.html
The UK and the most of the rest of Europe wouldn't be in this predicament if they'd have been enforcing their laws on these immigrants and deporting those who've engaged in criminal acts.
The problem you still have in your insistence on judging individuals based on their affiliation with a group, no matter how strong that affiliation is or what their individual actions are.
That your position has constitutional problems is just a bonus. That you automatically choose the most extreme possible course of action is interesting. That you ignore the potential for this kind of discrimination against Christians in the future seems short sighted.
Just like UK and Europe, we are not enforcing our laws on these immigrants and deporting those who've engaged in criminal acts. One of the MAIN laws which allowed a huge invasion is not punishing those who crossed the border illegally. Huge numbers of Muslims have been found to be among the migrants crossing the border. Anti-Semitic crimes in the USA are on the rise with no punishment. You want to deny the invasion but that's what they've done in Europe.
Thank you for making my point. Until we start enforcing existing laws on all immigrants, taking the extreme step of banning any immigration or visitation by one religious group doesn't seem like the best option.
I'm not sure what it is about me saying that we should enforce existing laws against those who violate them as our primary response is so confusing to you. My suggesting that a blanket ban on those of one religious group, in no way suggests that that group be exempt from entry. I've repeatedly stated that entry to the US should be based on individual actions, not group affiliation.
Priority 1. Control entry to the country and prevent entry by anyone who refuses to go through the legal process.
Priority 2. Deport those who have engaged in criminal actions after entering or in their country of origin. Safety of US citizens and legal residents is important.
Priority 3. Deport those who's only crime is entering the US illegally, but who have otherwise been law abiding.
Again, if antisemitic crimes are rising punish/deport those who commit the crimes. This might come as a shock to you, but it's not just Muslims who commit antisemitic crimes. But, to be clear I am NOT suggesting that criminals NOT be punished or that illegal immigration should not be stopped. I AM suggesting that denying access to LEGAL immigration/entry to the US based solely on religion seems problematic on multiple levels.
You see, when you make shit up and attribute it to me, your credibility drops to levels similar to Dan. I deny nothing, although I don't necessarily agree that the term invasion is either accurate or helpful. If you're pissed about that semantic distinction, I can't help.
FYI, I've been consistent on my priorities for years. Until we stop massive illegal immigration, and deport those who are actively engaged in criminal activity in the US, we can't accurately asses how best to deal with the rest.
To be clear, closing the border is first. Mass deportations with an open border just result in the same people coming right back across.
I don't know what you think I've made up and attributed to you. There is an invasion of Islam and none are innocent. I said you denied that there is an invasion, which you do. I say none are innocent until proven to be because their ideology is to conquer us.
Those are quite audacious claims. I appreciate you being so forthright about your position. The notion that someone is guilty, regardless of individual action or proof is quite a position to take. To even suggest that it should be US law is contrary to the constitution and centuries of legal precedent.
So, you can acknowledge that your hunches about condemning Muslims simply because they are Muslim is unconstitutional, illegal, and unlikely to be passed as a constitutional amendment, and focus on options that are allowed by US law or you can keep repeating yourself. By all means keep complaining about your semantic predilections.
I wanted to be done with this, but I had one more thought.
Muslims make up 6.7% of the population of England, and England is having significant problems.
Muslims make up 18.1% of the population of Israel and Israel doesn't seem to have the sorts of problems that England is having. Israel has problems with non-Israeli Muslims who are trying to attack them militarily against which Israel defends themselves, yet somehow Muslims in Israel aren't quite as much of a problem despite being more than 3x larger % of the population.
Again, thank you for making my point. The problem isn't having a significant percentage of one's population be Muslim as much as it is failing to enforce the laws when Muslims break them out of fear of protests. Your acknowledgement that it IS possible to have a significant percentage of a nations population be Muslim, and to NOT have the problems we see in Europe is welcome. Your acknowledgement is even more impressive considering that Israel is the country most hated by Muslims, yet they have a significant, peaceful, Muslim minority. Strangely enough, the US has the same percentage of Muslims as Israel and nowhere near the problems. Maybe it really is less about banning all Muslims from setting foot in a country, and more about punishing the individuals who actually cause the problems.
I'm not going to bother you with this anymore. Israel DOES have problems with them when their ilk attacks Israel and those inside often assist the warriors and even join them. History has proven. Have a nice life loving Islam.
I guess supporting my point is a bridge too far. Israel's primary problem is with Terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah based outside of Israel. Hence the news coverage of the IDF engaging in strikes against Hamas and Hezbollah on Gaza and Lebanon, not in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Again with the bullshit claims. I have no love for Islam. I do (as Christ suggested) love people who might be considered my enemies and am not willing to ignore the constitution in order to discriminate based on religion.
You're free to keep beating this dead horse as long as you want. I let Dan run free, why not you?
It seems strange that people who agree on many/most things can get so doctrinaire and almost pedantic when someone slightly disagrees on some facet of an issue. The notion that anything less than 100% agreement is some sore of personal attack or something strikes me as strange.
Isn't that the point, that we asses people's individual actions and deal with them based on those actions? That we don't deal with people based on the actions of others?
50 comments:
As we know...because every attempt to determine such verifies it...this is a very common attitude among the muslim population, particularly those of the Middle East (don't know if, say, Bosnians are this extreme). It is absurd to suggest that it is "racist" or some such to assume any muslim we meet is of this type rather than welcome them as if they couldn't possibly be. I don't want them here unless they at the very least, swear off this position completely and work to eradicate it from their midst. And how do we know that's sincere? No. Best to deny them entry and "love them at a distance", as my mother used to say of me during my rebellious youth.
While I'm not going to say that every single Muslim agrees with this, I will say that the idiots who support Hamas and Hezbollah and cry about Israel are batshit crazy if they think this isn't serious. Even more so if they ignore the fact that dudes like this are all over and have millions of followers.
Oh, and the lowered the age of consent in Afghanistan to 9. Yet people like Dan continue to make excuses for barbarism.
Well, I don't say every muslim agrees with it. But as you know, we can't read minds and hearts, so as concerns anyone of that religion, how can we be sure and why should we take any chances given their history and the degree of barbarity when those who do act on it? I say we don't have to. After 1400 years, I say it's up to them to prove themselves to be opposed to the hate their religion preaches.
You're right, that whole 1st amendment freedom of religion thing is outdated. We need to revamp our immigration and justice system to deal with people based on what they (or others who share some/all of their beliefs) think or say, rather than on what their individual actions.
I'm not sure suspending the constitution is a great idea, nor am I sure that criminalizing thought/belief/speech is a good idea. Despite the fact that the left is pushing for those things.
I do agree that we need to be more selective in who we allow to immigrate, I'm not sure that excluding people based exclusively on their religion is a good criteria.
The point remains, that those white liberals who pretend that Islam is the Religion of Peace and the the elimination/eradication of Israel and the Jews is not their goal are simply idiots with their collective heads up their collective asses.
Just like every Christian is supposed to follow the teachings of the Bible, every Muslim is supposed to follow the teachings of the Quran and Hadiths. Which means every Muslim is supposed to want to eradicate the Jews, and they are not keen on Christians either. And this is precisely why no sane country should let them in. What we stopped with the Crusades is now an invasion being allowed all over Europe and the USA. When you don't learn from history.....
I personally struggle with the issue of automatically excluding people based on religion. As we find with most religions, not everyone is as devoted as they could be. Much like Dan would identify as a christian, he's clearly not going to follow every jot and tittle of scripture, many Muslims are likely less devout than those running rampant in Europe right now.
As long as the 1st amendment protects freedom of religion, there would seem to be a problem with excluding people based solely on religion.
Islam isn't just a religion the way Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism, etc. It's a political ideology which specifically teaches the conquering of all nations. Ergo, no Muslim should be allowed to enter any no-Muslim nation. History, lad, history! Islam considers themselves in a state of war with all nations and we don't allow enemy combatants to invade.
Again it's an interesting take. The notion that people, who otherwise would qualify for entry, should be prevented entry because of actions they might possibly engage in at some unknown point in the future.
As I understand it, US criminal code is written to punish actions taken by individuals, not thought, belief, or possible future action.
The notion that every single Muslim is by definition an "enemy combatant" seems like a bit of a leap. Maybe you could argue that they are potential, future, enemy combatants...
I get it, I'm crazy. That I think that people should be punished for what they actually do, not for what they might do, is absolutely at odds with US legal theory and practice. Yet, I also opposed "hate crime" statutes because it's problematic to punish thought. I have problems with "red flag" laws for the same reason. But, free speech is the norm here and I'm open to pretty much anything.
As I pointed out, every real Muslim obeys the Quran. By doing so they declare themselves the enemy of every country. And you see that with all the Pro-"Palestinian" protests.
Well, we have people in the country, Muslims and Chinese, and gangs, who sole goal is the underming of the USA and working toward it's destruction. Just like the underground in WWII who fought against the Nazis--except that underground were the good guys. But the Nazis said they were bad guys looking to cause harm to the Nazis so they punished them even if people in the group didn't have a chance to cause trouble yet. Military aged Chinese and Muslims are invading in the same manner--establishing underground groups. Before we know it, every big city will be like Dearborn--Virtually owned by Muslims. But hey, let's ignore them until they actually something. By then it will be too late.
To the extent that there are Chinese and Muslims who have entered the country illegally, they have already committed a crime by entering, and have likely committed other crimes. Hence, they should be deported or imprisoned. Of course, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about choosing to exclude Musllims from legally immigrating or seeking asylum solely because they are Muslim, not because of anything they have specifically done. Even if they believe the Quran until they engage in specific acts, they are (under US law) innocent of any crime.
It's interesting that you use the examples of the Underground in WW2 to justify your attempt to ban all Muslims from legally immigrating. The Underground was literally taking actions that violated the laws imposed by the NAZIs simply by organizing and gathering weapons, intelligence, and sending that information to the Allies.
If/when these groups of military aged men who are entering the country illegally are discovered, they should be deported. As should any legal immigrant who enters into a conspiracy against the US. But that's entirely different than refusing entry to all people of a particular religious group based solely on their religion, at least as long as current US code is valid.
As far as Dearborn, I was under the impression that the current leadership was elected by the citizens of the city. I am unaware of any provision of US code that allows the removal of duly elected officials because some people don't like them or disagree with what they are doing. IF they engage in illegal actions, they can/should be dealt with, likewise if they engage in actions that violate the ethical standards or the oath of office, there are means in place to deal with that. If electing incompetent, stupid, people who givern badly was a crime then we should deport the elected officials of MSP, LA, SF, DC, StL,Baltimore, ATL, NYC,CHI, and a few others.
A few years ago we found my grandfather's immigration paperwork, as part of his immigration he had to swear a few things.
1. He had to renounce any other prior citizenship or loyalty to the country he came from.
2. He had to swear that he was not a part of a group that practiced plural marriage.
3. He had to swear that he was not a part of a group that advocated for anarchy or the violent overthrow of the US government.
This seems like a pretty good, easy, solution to the problem. Make legal immigrants sign something similar, updated to fit the times, and make breaking the conditions punishable by deportation. You now have a legal means to deport those who've come through the legal process to immigrate, then have chosen to do what they swore they would not do after they got here.
In case you haven't figured, Piper's wife is me not noticing she was still signed in to blogger.
All I can say is that people with your beliefs are the reason we needed the Crusades back then. NO Muslim is to be trusted to not be a practicing Muslim because one of their tenets is to pretend to be friends until in a position of power. And we just keep allowing them in.
Oh, and when the major portion of a city is Muslim they are going to vote in a Muslim Mayor.
I figured that out. Yeah, that pesky first amendment thing is so difficult.
If they choose to they will. Hell, Chicago voted in multiple idiot mayors. Votes have consequences, how many non Muslims left Dearborn who could have prevented the election of a Muslim mayor? Unfortunately, is a country with the amount of freedom we are constitutionally guaranteed, the likelihood of some people making choices you don't like is fairly high. I fail to see a constitutional mechanism that allows you to dictate the choices of others, nor do I see how the first amendment allows discrimination solely on the basis of religion.
As I said, we absolutely need to deport those who are here illegally and those who are actively engaged in illegal activities. Beyond that, I'm not sure what legal structure condones the sort of discrimination you seem to be calling for.
So when Hamas members want to enter the USA, hey they haven't done anything to us yet, just let them in.
"3. He had to swear that he was not a part of a group that advocated for anarchy or the violent overthrow of the US government. "
Given the history of islam over the last 1400 years or so, it is not contradictory to our Constitution or American principles to regard islam as just such a group. From there, it's then a matter of figuring out how to determine the sincerity of someone of that group swearing no allegiance or that they truly renounce it. So, to deny entry from any nation where the "religion" is so dominant that they embrace the very culture which has resulted in migrants acting out their hateful beliefs seems rather a duty of our government. It's very much a defensive measure, and when you're dealing with a vicious dog, you don't let your toddler play with it.
I could be wrong, but I believe that members of terrorist groups are already not allowed to immigrate to the US. But if you want to equate discrimination against people based solely on religion and being a member of Hamas, go right ahead.
Art,
Interesting take. By that measure, persecuted adherents of other religions felling from a Muslim majority country could be excluded as well. Hell, by that definition the Iranian woman who was arrested for not wearing a burkah would be excluded.
It's fascinating that one of the biggest problems with the APL is their obsession with classifying and defining everyone by the group that they are a part of. Yet, here y'all are doing exactly that. Prejudging individuals based on the group they are associated with.
Again, as Islam is a religion and the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of religion, I fail to see how discrimination based solely on religion is anything but contradictory to our constitution.
Your assumption that every Muslim is a "vicious dog", based on the fact that they are (however loosely) associated with a group is frankly bizarre.
But the difference is that this particular "religion" is responsible for so much suffering and have been since their prophet walked the earth. As much as we promote the concept of innocent until proven guilty, the idea that profiling is counter to that principle ignores the reality of what profiling is and intends. I'm not assuming every muslim is a vicious dog, but given the breed, it's most wise to presume the probability is significantly higher with this breed than any other and we must act accordingly for the benefit and welfare of our own people.
If we continue with a Dan-like posture of assuming innocence where this group is concerned, we put ourselves at far greater risk than when we abide that principle with regard to any other group. That's not on us. That's on them, and thus it is incumbent upon a member of that group to disabuse us of any concerns regarding that particular individual prior to our allowing them entry.
Here's another possibility. We can alter our standards for such migrants in that they are obliged to be "more perfect" in obeying our laws and customs, in a manner which suggests a kind of "not one mistake"...the severity of such to be determined.
There's nothing bizarre about acknowledging reality.
Strangely enough, the 1st Amendment doesn't seem to have this exception, nor does any current anti discrimination law.
My position on many things, including immigration, is that this tendency we have to make assumptions about people and how we should treat them based on perceived membership in a group as opposed to individual behavior and character is problematic to say the least. The concept that an individual is responsible for or should be judged by the actions of others in the same group, sounds a little too much like the rhetoric we hear from the APL and folx like Dan.
Whatever standards there are should not be based on the beliefs of behavior of anyone except the individual going through the immigration process.
No, what's bizarre is the willingness to suspend 1st amendment protections and the presumption of innocence based solely on religion.
To every rule there is an exception. Just was we presume innocence on the part of an individual muslim, to suggest that we must means we can't deviate from the "rule" of "innocence until proven guilty" when the unique nature of a group demands exception. To deny entry to a person on the basis of religion is not to insist that person is guilty due to his association or membership of the religion. It's the acknowledgement that from that religious population has come...for around 1400 years...all manner of human suffering and destruction. It's practical and pragmatic, with regard the safety of our people, to refuse entry to anyone a member of a group known for such suffering. I don't care what anyone thinks about it. I care that my fellow Americans aren't at risk.
What's bizarre is the willingness to put one's fellow citizens at risk on a principle far from respected by those from this particular group. It's not a suspension of 1st amendment protections for those not yet citizens. They're free to speak and worship elsewhere.
And if we're going to take that chance, the history of their people justifies greater scrutiny and stricter enforcement of criteria resulting in deportation. Rather than insisting it is I who sounds more like Dan and the Dems, it is you who does by suggesting there is no difference among the various cultures which influence behaviors and ideologies of people seeking entry, such that one is no better or worse than any other. That's absurd, and history has demonstrated that over the last 1400 years.
And this attitude isn't a matter of "fear of the other". It's an acknowledgement of their ways, which are known to us and has unjustly indicted them all, regardless of the sentiments and feelings of any individual from among them.
"To every rule there is an exception."
Please cite the legal precedent for this religion based exception to the freedom of religion protection in the 1st amendment.
"Just was we presume innocence on the part of an individual muslim, to suggest that we must means we can't deviate from the "rule" of "innocence until proven guilty" when the unique nature of a group demands exception. "
If you are suggesting that we should implement an exception to the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments by characterize one religion (violating the 1st amendment) by suggesting that Muslims must prove their innocence in order to legally enter the US for any reason, you'd be fighting an uphill battle to say the least. You are free to think that decreeing that Muslims must prove their innocence, without charging them with a specific crime, is a wonderful idea. Yet, to pretend that there are not significant constitutional issues involved or that a left wing administration down the road isn't going to use this exception in ways that you don't like, is simply beyond belief.
"I don't care what anyone thinks about it."
That much is abundantly clear.
The very notion of "innocent until proven guilty" combined with the notion that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man, and the underlying bedrock of our legal system that prosecutes individual actions not thoughts or the actions of others, guarantees that the system puts citizens at risk by guaranteeing the constitutional rights of other citizens.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%2520Immigrants%2520Covered%2520By%2520the%2520US%2520Const%2520PPT%25201-12-2017.pptx&ved=2ahUKEwjMyZKyhoqKAxVHrokEHS2HLRoQFnoECBQQAw&usg=AOvVaw3IWnV22866mG3QWKR3Roy7
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
Strangely enough, these constitutional protections you seem willing to discard do apply to non citizens.
Yet, when you make shit up about what I've been "suggesting", you do sound like Dan who does that regularly.
You bitch about my referring to you applying a "broad brush", yet you are clearly suggesting that we "broad brush" every single Muslim in existence by attribution that words and actions of others to them as if they had said and done those things.
Call me crazy, but I take seriously the protections afforded by our constitution. I've watched the APL/DFL use this tactic of trying to change the rules to benefit their short term goals (pack SCOTUS, the filibuster, etc) with no thought to how their rules changes will be used against them at some point. Once you make these sorts of legal changes, the Law of Unintended Consequences usually rears it's ugly head down the road.
So, yes. I will argue for the 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments, innocent until proven guilty, and the notion of prosecuting individuals for the crimes they've actually individually committed. Because, the constitution.
Islam isn't a religion and should not have the protection of religion. It is a political organization built around a religious idea--it is primarily a political position with their religious-political documents (Quran and Hadiths) calling for the destruction of Jews (primarily) and Christians and the subjugation of the world. Their teaching explicitly says to pretend friendliness until in a position of power. This is why they invaded Europe and took command over most of the continent before the Crusades pushed them back. We now have an invasion by invitation--inviting them into the same areas (western hemisphere) they conquered before and will now conquer from within because of the stupid idea for approaching them of "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom of religion" when they specifically state in their teaching to conquer the entire world. If someone says they will assassinate the President they are immediately arrested before they haven't had the chance to do the deed, yet Islam says they will assassinate the entire world and we do nothing about it.
Study history, Craig. Study Islam. They are NOT friendly nor will they ever be.
Glenn,
As you've noted before, Islam IS a religion that also wants to govern using it's religious rules/laws as a theocracy. It's definitely both.
I have studied both, as well as spent time with plenty of Muslims.
1. It's a mistake to presume that all those who identify with a particular religion are equally devoted to every one of it's tenets.
2. Unfortunately, as I noted, to exclude an entire religion of people (which presumably means deporting those already here) raises significant constitutional questions.
3. I'd argue that the US is under just as much of an existential threat from the melange of extreme leftists and progressive christians as from Muslims.
4. Call me crazy, but the historic commitment to innocent until proven guilty, due process, and punishing individual people for their individual actions, is my default position.
The problem I have in this conversation is you and Art insisting that you are capable of perfectly predicting the future, your willingness to abandon the constitution, and your unwillingness to acknowledge (while predicting the future) that any law restricting Muslims will at some point be used against Jews or Christians.
Islam has PROFESSED to be an enemy of the USA. Did we allow Nazis into the USA during WWII? Darn, we violated the Constitution by not allowing Nazis to invade.
Glenn, you can continue to make this forest/trees argument as long as you want. The reality is that banning entry to the US based solely on religion, raises multiple constitutional questions that must be dealt with.
Not only did we "allow" NAZIs in the country during and immediately to WW2, we sought some of them out and wink wink nudge nudged them past the denazification boards because they were useful or to keep them out of Russian hands.
Strangely enough, even the members of the German American bund were not deported during WW2.
Given that the constitution is specific about the government having the responsibility to protect the US from invasion, and that the NAZIs were never even close to being in a position to invade the US, your "point" seems kind fo ridiculous.
If Iran was trying to invade the US, of course they should be prevented from doing so. But a blanket ban on individuals legally immigrating to or visiting the US isn't stopping an invasion. Unless you choose to define invasion in a way it's rarely/never been defined before. If individual Muslims who profess to be enemies of the US try to legally immigrate, they should be prevented from doing so because of their actions.
Have you even notice the invasion of Europe by Muslims?!?!?! You. are so naive.
I'm well aware of what's going on in Europe. I'm not sure it's an invasion. It's also a failure on the part of European countries to fail to enforce laws that are being broken wholesale by individual Muslims, not by "Islam" as an entity.
Same here, deal with individual actions by individual people, not to simply make assumptions.
The UK has suffered an invasion, and this is what the USA is coming to:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/the_most_popular_boys_name_in_england_and_wales_sounds_the_uk_s_death_knell.html
The UK and the most of the rest of Europe wouldn't be in this predicament if they'd have been enforcing their laws on these immigrants and deporting those who've engaged in criminal acts.
The problem you still have in your insistence on judging individuals based on their affiliation with a group, no matter how strong that affiliation is or what their individual actions are.
That your position has constitutional problems is just a bonus. That you automatically choose the most extreme possible course of action is interesting. That you ignore the potential for this kind of discrimination against Christians in the future seems short sighted.
Just like UK and Europe, we are not enforcing our laws on these immigrants and deporting those who've engaged in criminal acts. One of the MAIN laws which allowed a huge invasion is not punishing those who crossed the border illegally. Huge numbers of Muslims have been found to be among the migrants crossing the border. Anti-Semitic crimes in the USA are on the rise with no punishment. You want to deny the invasion but that's what they've done in Europe.
Thank you for making my point. Until we start enforcing existing laws on all immigrants, taking the extreme step of banning any immigration or visitation by one religious group doesn't seem like the best option.
I'm not sure what it is about me saying that we should enforce existing laws against those who violate them as our primary response is so confusing to you. My suggesting that a blanket ban on those of one religious group, in no way suggests that that group be exempt from entry. I've repeatedly stated that entry to the US should be based on individual actions, not group affiliation.
Priority 1. Control entry to the country and prevent entry by anyone who refuses to go through the legal process.
Priority 2. Deport those who have engaged in criminal actions after entering or in their country of origin. Safety of US citizens and legal residents is important.
Priority 3. Deport those who's only crime is entering the US illegally, but who have otherwise been law abiding.
Again, if antisemitic crimes are rising punish/deport those who commit the crimes. This might come as a shock to you, but it's not just Muslims who commit antisemitic crimes. But, to be clear I am NOT suggesting that criminals NOT be punished or that illegal immigration should not be stopped. I AM suggesting that denying access to LEGAL immigration/entry to the US based solely on religion seems problematic on multiple levels.
You see, when you make shit up and attribute it to me, your credibility drops to levels similar to Dan. I deny nothing, although I don't necessarily agree that the term invasion is either accurate or helpful. If you're pissed about that semantic distinction, I can't help.
FYI, I've been consistent on my priorities for years. Until we stop massive illegal immigration, and deport those who are actively engaged in criminal activity in the US, we can't accurately asses how best to deal with the rest.
To be clear, closing the border is first. Mass deportations with an open border just result in the same people coming right back across.
I don't know what you think I've made up and attributed to you. There is an invasion of Islam and none are innocent. I said you denied that there is an invasion, which you do. I say none are innocent until proven to be because their ideology is to conquer us.
"You want to deny the invasion"
That I disagree with the term invasion, doesn't mean that I "deny" anything.
Those are quite audacious claims. I appreciate you being so forthright about your position. The notion that someone is guilty, regardless of individual action or proof is quite a position to take. To even suggest that it should be US law is contrary to the constitution and centuries of legal precedent.
So, you can acknowledge that your hunches about condemning Muslims simply because they are Muslim is unconstitutional, illegal, and unlikely to be passed as a constitutional amendment, and focus on options that are allowed by US law or you can keep repeating yourself. By all means keep complaining about your semantic predilections.
I wanted to be done with this, but I had one more thought.
Muslims make up 6.7% of the population of England, and England is having significant problems.
Muslims make up 18.1% of the population of Israel and Israel doesn't seem to have the sorts of problems that England is having. Israel has problems with non-Israeli Muslims who are trying to attack them militarily against which Israel defends themselves, yet somehow Muslims in Israel aren't quite as much of a problem despite being more than 3x larger % of the population.
Israel closely watches them unlike in the USA, and they punish quickly, unlike in the USA and Europe.
Again, thank you for making my point. The problem isn't having a significant percentage of one's population be Muslim as much as it is failing to enforce the laws when Muslims break them out of fear of protests. Your acknowledgement that it IS possible to have a significant percentage of a nations population be Muslim, and to NOT have the problems we see in Europe is welcome. Your acknowledgement is even more impressive considering that Israel is the country most hated by Muslims, yet they have a significant, peaceful, Muslim minority. Strangely enough, the US has the same percentage of Muslims as Israel and nowhere near the problems. Maybe it really is less about banning all Muslims from setting foot in a country, and more about punishing the individuals who actually cause the problems.
I'm not going to bother you with this anymore. Israel DOES have problems with them when their ilk attacks Israel and those inside often assist the warriors and even join them. History has proven. Have a nice life loving Islam.
I guess supporting my point is a bridge too far. Israel's primary problem is with Terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah based outside of Israel. Hence the news coverage of the IDF engaging in strikes against Hamas and Hezbollah on Gaza and Lebanon, not in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Again with the bullshit claims. I have no love for Islam. I do (as Christ suggested) love people who might be considered my enemies and am not willing to ignore the constitution in order to discriminate based on religion.
You're free to keep beating this dead horse as long as you want. I let Dan run free, why not you?
It seems strange that people who agree on many/most things can get so doctrinaire and almost pedantic when someone slightly disagrees on some facet of an issue. The notion that anything less than 100% agreement is some sore of personal attack or something strikes me as strange.
When you compare me with Dan, THAT is a personal attack.
When your actions are similar to Dan's actions, I notice and comment when appropriate. Which is far different from comparing you to Dan.
Not even close to Dan.
No you're not, yet occasionally you do things that remind me of Dan. I'm sure we all do at some point.
Isn't that the point, that we asses people's individual actions and deal with them based on those actions? That we don't deal with people based on the actions of others?
Post a Comment