REJECT MOSLEM IMMIGRATION ?

I think we both should be doing so now.

0 Replies

Seems a large number of Muslims in England are not very keen on criticizing the acts of the Muslim suicide bombers. I don't recollect the leaders in their religion overly preaching against it... Seems they all agree that the only good Christian-westerner- non muslim is a dead one.

0 Replies

I suppose, you'd have to change your constitution (or constitutions, re Wilso's response) then. In most country's, there is a freedom of religion ...

On the other hand, the USA even now wants to know from any (European) tourist the personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning the health or sex life of individuals ...

(See report in today's The Observer)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I suppose, you'd have to change your constitution (or constitutions, re Wilso's response) then. In most country's, there is a freedom of religion ...

On the other hand, the USA even now wants to know from any (European) tourist the personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning the health or sex life of individuals ...

(See report in today's The Observer)

Actually, in Australia now, the immigration minister has almost blanket power to refuse or cancel any visa for just about any reason. And he/she is not obligated to share said reason/s with any group or body.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Actually, in Australia now, the immigration minister has almost blanket power to refuse or cancel any visa for just about any reason. And he/she is not obligated to share said reason/s with any group or body.

That's astonishing. And contradictionary to your government's official website. (And nowhere there is religion mentioned to be reason to deny entry.)

But who knows better if not an Australian.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I suppose, you'd have to change your constitution (or constitutions, re Wilso's response) then. In most country's, there is a freedom of religion ...

On the other hand, the USA even now wants to know from any (European) tourist the personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning the health or sex life of individuals ...

(See report in today's The Observer)

No.
Our Constitution does not protect aliens,
unless thay r already on American soil.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Wilso wrote:
Actually, in Australia now, the immigration minister has almost blanket power to refuse or cancel any visa for just about any reason. And he/she is not obligated to share said reason/s with any group or body.

That's astonishing. And contradictionary to your government's official website.

(And nowhere there is religion mentioned to be reason to deny entry.)

In fairness, World War 4 has only recently started
( if u begin counting from 9/11/1 ), which is a war based on the Moslem religion.
If this war continues, then I suppose the necessary adjustments must be effected.

0 Replies

Well, so you prefer to get a new amendment, demolishing the feedom of religion.

Fine for those who like to loose one freedom after the other.

I don't.

0 Replies

Seems to me that I remember that it is (was?) illegal to belong to any group that advocates the overthrow of the United States Government by force.

This unfortunetly was seriously abused by Sen.Joseph Mcarthy and the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities in 1954.

I suspect that most governing bodies have similar laws. Self preserving instincts would assure that.

Since I suspect that the laws are already in place then the question remains; Why don't our elected officials use them

Frankly I think all mosques and madras's that don't publicly and loudly disavow jihad should be closed. Any other course of action is tantamount to capitulation of the various elected governments.

In the U.S. and Australia it has been shown to be possible to censure the Roman Catholic Church (recent $600,000,000 fine) for harboring child molesters. Should be equally possible to censure mosques for harboring jihadists.

Let them put their money where their mouth is Exclamation

0 Replies

So now you own imaginary lines too? Whose line is it, that you say "our"?

If you really want to get those moslems, just bring a couple 2-4s of Budlite to greet them with. Tip back a few before going.

They might go running of their own accord.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
Well, so you prefer to get a new amendment,
demolishing the feedom of religion.

No, Walter.

No amendment is necessary.
As I said above,
our Constitution does not protect aliens
( unless thay have already successfully crossed the border and are on American soil ).

In JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER (195O) 339 US 763,
the US Supreme Court held that the US Bill of Rights
did not protect German enemy aliens.

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
the US Supreme Court held the same thing again, as to Mexicans.

Therefore, we have no need to amend anything.
We can turn aliens back at the border
for any reason; thay have no constitutional rights.

Clearly, those Moslems who are already IN
America DO have the full right to freedom of religion.
IF thay decide that killing us is necessary to their religion
( as thay did around 1000 years ago ),
then we may need to take another look
at that situation.

Quote:
Fine for those who like to loose one freedom after the other.

I don't.

U r absolutely right, Walter.
I agree with u 100%
David

P.S.:
Walter, I hope that my spelling is not too troublesome for u.
It has been my practice to show my countrymen
that there are easier ways to spell, as the words are actually pronounced.

0 Replies

mushypancakes wrote:

So now you own imaginary lines too? Whose line is it, that you say "our"?

If you really want to get those moslems, just bring a couple 2-4s of Budlite to greet them with.
Tip back a few before going.

They might go running of their own accord.

WHAT ??????

0 Replies

Well, David, I've different thoughts abut that.

But these are certainly fixed by the fact that such would be impossible for any European country since all have signed the European Convention of Human Rights.

I do think, however, that some countries might abandon this convention - the UK seems to be the first andidate (though of different reasons, here: to keep people longer in prison without any juridical order).

Generally, I don't like it when people aren't allowed to enter one country just because they have .g. the wrong nationality (or religion, which happened in recent history only to Jews).

I don't like neither that a country wants to know more about me when I come there as tourist as the GDR-henchmen. But since the border isn't different to theirs as well - well, I accepted in East Berlin and at the border controlls and now in the USA.

I do think that someting like you asked for might easily happen.
I hope, I'm so old at that time that it doesn't bother me anymore.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Quote:
Seems to me that I remember that it is (was?)
illegal to belong to any group that advocates the overthrow of the United States Government by force.

This unfortunetly was seriously abused by Sen.Joseph Mcarthy and the
Senate Committee on Un-American Activities in 1954.

Are u thinking of the House Committee on un-American Activities ?
I used to work for them, as an Anti-communist spy, years ago.

Quote:

Frankly I think all mosques and madras's that don't publicly and loudly disavow jihad should be closed.
Any other course of action is tantamount to capitulation of the various elected governments.

I don 't believe that government was ever granted jurisdiction
to make anyone disavow anything; neither loudly, nor in whispers.

I doubt that government has any jurisdiction
to close any church ( mosque ).
However, if its members are plotting treason,
then thay can be dealt with individually in criminal prosecutions.
This has already been done and some of them are in prison.

Quote:
In the U.S. and Australia it has been shown to be possible to censure
the Roman Catholic Church (recent $600,000,000 fine) for harboring child molesters.
Should be equally possible to censure mosques for harboring jihadists.

I have no information about Austrailia.

I thought that I heard that the Catholic Church
had settled some litigation around that amount,
for its representative molesting children in various ways.

( not for harboring them )

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
Well, David, I've different thoughts abut that.

Was my analysis incorrect ?

Quote:
Generally, I don't like it when people aren't allowed to enter one country
just because they have .g. the wrong nationality
(or religion, which happened in recent history only to Jews).

Well, this issue did not arise before 9/11.
In other words,
thay brought it on themselves.
Remember the adage that :
" self preservation is the first law of Nature. "

Quote:

I don't like neither that a country wants to know more about me when I
come there as tourist as the GDR-henchmen. But since the border isn't
different to theirs as well - well, I accepted in East Berlin and at the
border controlls and now in the USA.

I do think that someting like you asked for might easily happen.
I hope, I'm so old at that time that it doesn't bother me anymore.

Think of it this way:
if your guests have a history of becoming violent
within your home, will u, or shud u, let them back in again, knowing of the danger ?

Is that logical ?
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Think of it this way:
if your guests have a history of becoming violent
within your home, will u, or shud u, let them back in again, knowing of the danger ?

Is that logical ?
David

It certainly is a king of logic behind it.

In my opinion a very similar which convinced a lot of Germans (and others) to follow some "weird" ideas (or "logics") more than 70 years ago.

I don't deny that some or perhaps many followers of a certain religion or members with a certain ethnic background or .... are behving criminal, but ...

You certainly know that of all criminals up to 80+% are male. Perhaps better only females should be allowed to enter the USA? :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Think of it this way:
if your guests have a history of becoming violent
within your home, will u, or shud u, let them back in again, knowing of the danger ?

Is that logical ?
David

It certainly is a king of logic behind it.

In my opinion a very similar which convinced a lot of Germans (and others) to follow some "weird" ideas (or "logics") more than 70 years ago.

I don't deny that some or perhaps many followers of a certain religion or members with a certain ethnic background or .... are behving criminal, but ...

You certainly know that of all criminals up to 80+% are male.

Perhaps better only females should be allowed to enter the USA? :wink:

Sounds like a very fine idea, there, Walter.

I 'll see if I can convince my Congressman.
David

0 Replies

Am I wrong, or is there already a home grown Muslim population in the U.S. referred to as Black Muslims? I believe they have a sizable community in some NYC outer borough neighborhoods. They are a positive force for these inner-city neighborhoods, I've read.
So, in my mind, it's not Allah versus Jesus or Moses. It seems that the non-U.S. version of Islam has a radical fringe that might just be alienated from a portion of the rest of the world.
What is likely exacerbating, or causing, some of this alienation overseas might be that Moslems in Europe may tend to be in a lower socio-economic class than the U.S. Moslems that emigrated here. In the U.S., Moslems from other countries tend to be entrepreneurial, even if it's a taxicab. I see that they own many Discount Variety stores and serve an economic function in many neighborhoods.
Being an optimist on this topic, I could envision that in two generations (or less) their children and/or grandchildren are well educated, and are contributing to America continuing to be a prosperous country. I really don't care if they pray "X" number of times per day, or have certain holidays where they "fast" all day, or women wear some sort of head covering.
Needless to say, the U.S. should be vigilant against terrorism, but we should also not underestimate how "seductive" our American culture is to youth of a different cultural background. The adults (and possibly children) may dress differently, but the children are already off to the playground with a basketball.

0 Replies

David,
Not being an attorney-- but it seems that I as read the story that it was the RC Church that paid the fine as the church had been simply transferring the priests around when their stink got too bad.

The $600 million fine was determined in in California a week or two ago.

I'd (see attorney disclaimer) call that harboring although that's not a legal term Exclamation

Perhaps aiding and abetting is more of a legalese term?

There was a similar (on the face of it) deal with the Ku Klux Klan several years ago. United Klans of America were fined quite heavily.

Nicely said Foofie Smile

All that is necessary is to live through their
acculturization.

If modern Christians simply remember the"Inquisition" in Spain, or the "witch trials" in Salem Mass they would realize that religious hysteria is not confined to any particular God or absence thereof.

David. u mst driv ur spl czker crazi altho ther is som cents to wat u sa:D

Maks u a tad hard to read tho Exclamation

0 Replies

REJECT MOSLEM IMMIGRATION ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know