Does the Left think Muslims have a Constitutional right....

[Skylar]

No, I cite actual history as proof that G5000 claims about our history are dead wrong. G5000 was the one trying to use history to justify allowing Muslim savages to immigrate to the U.S.

How could history be both proof....and irrelevant? Do you often cite sources you don't think have anything to do with the discussion?

 

[Conservative65]

to immigrate to this country?

Nope, but there's no reason to keep all but a few out.

Which we already TRY to do.

But there are thousands on the "no fly list'.

What the OP suggests and what others have said they are in favor of, is changing the First Amendment.

Isn't that no fly list based on actions not religion?

 

[bripat9643]

No, I cite actual history as proof that G5000 claims about our history are dead wrong. G5000 was the one trying to use history to justify allowing Muslim savages to immigrate to the U.S.

How could history be both proof....and irrelevant? Do you often cite sources you don't think have anything to do with the discussion?

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

No, I cite actual history as proof that G5000 claims about our history are dead wrong. G5000 was the one trying to use history to justify allowing Muslim savages to immigrate to the U.S.

How could history be both proof....and irrelevant? Do you often cite sources you don't think have anything to do with the discussion?

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

And what was his claim?

 

[bripat9643]

to immigrate to this country?

Nope, but there's no reason to keep all but a few out.

Which we already TRY to do.

But there are thousands on the "no fly list'.

What the OP suggests and what others have said they are in favor of, is changing the First Amendment.

Nope. The First Amendment doesn't apply to our immigration policy. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to foreigners living in foreign countries.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I cite actual history as proof that G5000 claims about our history are dead wrong. G5000 was the one trying to use history to justify allowing Muslim savages to immigrate to the U.S.

How could history be both proof....and irrelevant? Do you often cite sources you don't think have anything to do with the discussion?

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

And what was his claim?

That we have a history of not discriminating against immigrants.

 

[Skylar]

No, I cite actual history as proof that G5000 claims about our history are dead wrong. G5000 was the one trying to use history to justify allowing Muslim savages to immigrate to the U.S.

How could history be both proof....and irrelevant? Do you often cite sources you don't think have anything to do with the discussion?

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

And what was his claim?

That we have a history of not discriminating against immigrants.

How is that not relevant? Seems to me that our history with immigration would be pretty relevant to a discussion of immigration.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I cite actual history as proof that G5000 claims about our history are dead wrong. G5000 was the one trying to use history to justify allowing Muslim savages to immigrate to the U.S.

How could history be both proof....and irrelevant? Do you often cite sources you don't think have anything to do with the discussion?

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

And what was his claim?

That we have a history of not discriminating against immigrants.

How is that not relevant? Seems to me that our history with immigration would be pretty relevant to a discussion of immigration.

It's not relevant to the issue of whether we should allow Muslims to immigrate here. Who cares what we did in the past? The fact that we did something stupid in the past doesn't improve the "logic" for doing it today.

 

[Skylar]

How could history be both proof....and irrelevant? Do you often cite sources you don't think have anything to do with the discussion?

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

And what was his claim?

That we have a history of not discriminating against immigrants.

How is that not relevant? Seems to me that our history with immigration would be pretty relevant to a discussion of immigration.

It's not relevant to the issue of whether we should allow Muslims to immigrate here. Who cares what we did in the past? The fact that we did something stupid in the past doesn't improve the "logic" for doing it today.

It offers centuries of precedent that demonstrate that the US thrived under nondiscriminatory immigration. Is it possible that you're overstating the threat?

 

[bripat9643]

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

And what was his claim?

That we have a history of not discriminating against immigrants.

How is that not relevant? Seems to me that our history with immigration would be pretty relevant to a discussion of immigration.

It's not relevant to the issue of whether we should allow Muslims to immigrate here. Who cares what we did in the past? The fact that we did something stupid in the past doesn't improve the "logic" for doing it today.

It offers centuries of precedent that demonstrate that the US thrived under nondiscriminatory immigration. Is it possible that you're overstating the threat?

1. We didn't have a non-discriminatory immigration policy.
2. It proves nothing of the sort. The U.S would have thrived regardless because we had a policy of free enterprise.
3. Some immigrants in our past have done significant damage to our country.
   
4. Muslims are not like immigrants in the past. They are followers of a barbaric. bloodthirsty cult that would destroy our culture if they became too numerous.

 

[Skylar]

It proves nothing of the sort. The U.S would have thrived regardless because we had a policy of free enterprise.

Wouldn't the same be true today?

1. Some immigrants in our past have done significant damage to our country.

Like....?

1. Muslims are not like immigrants in the past. They are followers of a barbaric. bloodthirsty cult that would destroy our culture if they became too numerous.

Muslims are a very diverse lot. And the same thing was said of the Jews. And then the Irish. And then the Italians. Then the Hmong. Then the Russians. Notice a pattern?

 

[bripat9643]

It proves nothing of the sort. The U.S would have thrived regardless because we had a policy of free enterprise.

Wouldn't the same be true today?

It's always true. How does that support your case?

1. Some immigrants in our past have done significant damage to our country.

Like....?

Like Mexicans, for one. They come here, take jobs from Americans, lower wages, and consume hundreds of billions in social programs

1. Muslims are not like immigrants in the past. They are followers of a barbaric. bloodthirsty cult that would destroy our culture if they became too numerous.

Muslims are a very diverse lot. And the same thing was said of the Jews. And then the Irish. And then the Italians. Then the Hmong. Then the Russians. Notice a pattern?

NO, the same was not said of the Irish or Jew or Italians. The Irish were accused of being drunken brawlers, which was pretty much true. There were criticisms of other groups, but no one claimed they were bent on killing us if we didn't convert to their religion.

 

[ChrisL]

It's proof that G5000s claim was wrong. However his claim is irrelevant.

And what was his claim?

That we have a history of not discriminating against immigrants.

How is that not relevant? Seems to me that our history with immigration would be pretty relevant to a discussion of immigration.

It's not relevant to the issue of whether we should allow Muslims to immigrate here. Who cares what we did in the past? The fact that we did something stupid in the past doesn't improve the "logic" for doing it today.

It offers centuries of precedent that demonstrate that the US thrived under nondiscriminatory immigration. Is it possible that you're overstating the threat?

Times have changed a lot.

 

[Skylar]

It's always true. How does that support your case?

It demonstrates that we need not discriminate in our immigration in order to thrive.

Like Mexicans, for one. They come here, take jobs from Americans, lower wages, and consume hundreds of billions in social programs

Legal immigration from Mexico hurt us? Can you back those claims with evidence?

NO, the same was not said of the Irish or Jew or Italians. The Irish were accused of being drunken brawlers, which was pretty much true.

They were also accused of being Catholic. As were the Italians. Which was also often true. And Catholicism was viewed with steep suspicion by many US natives.

There were criticisms of other groups, but no one claimed they were bent on killing us if we didn't convert to their religion.

Actually, the accusations against the Jews were quite hysteric and elaborate. Hell, there are people on this board that will argue that it was the Jews that carried out 911. Idiots, true. But the accusations still exist. And while some Muslism are extremists, most are just folks. There are extremists in every group.

 

[ChrisL]

You know, there was definitely a time, when America was being built, that low skilled immigrants were of great value to the country, but that's really not so much the case anymore. You need to be able to offer something and show that you wouldn't be a burden on the economy or the taxpayer.

 

[Skylar]

You know, there was definitely a time, when America was being built, that low skilled immigrants were of great value to the country, but that's really not so much the case anymore. You need to be able to offer something and show that you wouldn't be a burden on the economy or the taxpayer.

I think there is an argument to be made on selective immigration based on say, skill set. As you're right.....there was a greater appetite for low skilled workers in the past than there are now. I'd be cool with limits on immigration based on what you can bring to the economy.

But religion? Ethnicity? Race? Definitely not.

 

[Contumacious]

The thread title was a rhetorical question. They're stupid enough to really believe that.

The only stupidity I am seeing is from you. You constructed a false premise to push for discrimination against a religion. That's about as un-American as it gets. No wonder people like you and bripat don't want to talk about our history and the reasons we do the things we do, such as NOT discriminate against religions or peoples.

It is not a coincidence that whenever there is a topic about discrimination against one group or another, it is always the same hateful characters who are found on the side of that discrimination. Gays, Muslims, Mexicans...there you are.

Our history is that we have always discriminated against group or another when it comes it immigration. Numskulls like you think the kind of people we allow to immigrate here doesn't matter. Importing a bunch of bloodthirsty Muslim savages into this country would change it's character for the worst forever.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
Hateful - Speaks the truth. Accepts reality.

The US Began a discriminatory immigration policy against the Chinese in the 1860's.


Immigration remains purely a state matter. NATURALIZATION is a federal matter.


The reason Muslims seek revenge is because they are dealing with a bunch of bloodthirsty savages who control the Judeo-American axis of evil.


.

Wrong. They are bloodthirsty savages because they follow a bloodthirsty cult that commands them to kill all infidels.

Bullshit

It surprises me that they have waited this long to RETALIATE. The zionuts invaded Palestine in 1925. In 1947 the US began subsiding their genocide.

The US invaded Iraq in 1990 and remained them for approximately 18 years..

The perpetrators of the above mentioned crimes are most definite criminals.

 

[Syriusly]

really? the OP:

So what if I were to suggest that the United States stop all immigration from Islamic nations and all immigration from Muslims.

Would that be....racist? Would I be violating their "civil rights"? Isn't the point of immigration policy for any nation to select only those immigrants that are believed to be a net benefit to the country?

We can choose our immigration policy based on anything we like, even religion and national origin. And many nations are now seeing the wisdom of discussion the sequestering of any more Muslims in their country. We should too.
​

please, ChrisL highlight where this is so

Yes, that's what I said. The OP asks if it is Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to America? I say no. Nobody has a constitutional right to immigrate to America.

That of course was the OP question- and you are absolutely correct.

Of course at the heart of the question is can we specifically exclude Muslims? I think that would be a grey area when it comes the Constitution

Of course enforcing such a law would mean either asking all immigrants to tell us their religion or asking all applicants to confirm that they are or are not Muslim- and then presuming that the person is telling the truth- or what?

Well, you have a point, in that there is no way of knowing what a person's motives are for wanting to immigrate to the country. I'm sure that there are some Muslims who want to come here for the right reasons, but given everything that's been happening in the world you never can tell.

I am sure that there are some Irish that who want to come here for the right reasons.....but you can never tell.

Think about this though- once we as a nation decide that it is okay to prevent people from coming to the United States based on their religion- we can do that to any religion that the majority is uncomfortable with.

It could be Jews next time. Or Hare Krishna.

Once you decide that religion is a valid reason to exclude entire groups of people on that basis alone- you can exclude any people of any religion that majority decides to in the future.

And yes- there is precedent

Foundations of Holocaust 1924 Congress decides No More Jews - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

Yeah, so?

What would be the dire consequence of that?

Oh I am sure it would make a bunch of anti-semites really happy.

They have always wanted to be able to keep the Jews out.

 

[ChrisL]

You know, there was definitely a time, when America was being built, that low skilled immigrants were of great value to the country, but that's really not so much the case anymore. You need to be able to offer something and show that you wouldn't be a burden on the economy or the taxpayer.

I think there is an argument to be made on selective immigration based on say, skill set. As you're right.....there was a greater appetite for low skilled workers in the past than there are now. I'd be cool with limits on immigration based on what you can bring to the economy.

But religion? Ethnicity? Race? Definitely not.

No, I don't think we should do that either.

The thread title was a rhetorical question. They're stupid enough to really believe that.

The only stupidity I am seeing is from you. You constructed a false premise to push for discrimination against a religion. That's about as un-American as it gets. No wonder people like you and bripat don't want to talk about our history and the reasons we do the things we do, such as NOT discriminate against religions or peoples.

It is not a coincidence that whenever there is a topic about discrimination against one group or another, it is always the same hateful characters who are found on the side of that discrimination. Gays, Muslims, Mexicans...there you are.

Our history is that we have always discriminated against group or another when it comes it immigration. Numskulls like you think the kind of people we allow to immigrate here doesn't matter. Importing a bunch of bloodthirsty Muslim savages into this country would change it's character for the worst forever.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
Hateful - Speaks the truth. Accepts reality.

The US Began a discriminatory immigration policy against the Chinese in the 1860's.


Immigration remains purely a state matter. NATURALIZATION is a federal matter.


The reason Muslims seek revenge is because they are dealing with a bunch of bloodthirsty savages who control the Judeo-American axis of evil.


.

Wrong. They are bloodthirsty savages because they follow a bloodthirsty cult that commands them to kill all infidels.

Bullshit

It surprises me that they have waited this long to RETALIATE. The zionuts invaded Palestine in 1925. In 1947 the US began subsiding their genocide.

The US invaded Iraq in 1990 and remained them for approximately 18 years..

The perpetrators of the above mentioned crimes are most definite criminals.

They aren't retaliating, they kill people indiscriminately, women, children, people who are totally innocent and have nothing to do with their problems. Why don't they attack their own leaders? Isn't THAT interesting? Their own leaders sell them out and keep them ignorant and in poverty.

 

[ChrisL]

The thread title was a rhetorical question. They're stupid enough to really believe that.

The only stupidity I am seeing is from you. You constructed a false premise to push for discrimination against a religion. That's about as un-American as it gets. No wonder people like you and bripat don't want to talk about our history and the reasons we do the things we do, such as NOT discriminate against religions or peoples.

It is not a coincidence that whenever there is a topic about discrimination against one group or another, it is always the same hateful characters who are found on the side of that discrimination. Gays, Muslims, Mexicans...there you are.

Our history is that we have always discriminated against group or another when it comes it immigration. Numskulls like you think the kind of people we allow to immigrate here doesn't matter. Importing a bunch of bloodthirsty Muslim savages into this country would change it's character for the worst forever.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
Hateful - Speaks the truth. Accepts reality.

The US Began a discriminatory immigration policy against the Chinese in the 1860's.


Immigration remains purely a state matter. NATURALIZATION is a federal matter.


The reason Muslims seek revenge is because they are dealing with a bunch of bloodthirsty savages who control the Judeo-American axis of evil.


.

Wrong. They are bloodthirsty savages because they follow a bloodthirsty cult that commands them to kill all infidels.

Bullshit

It surprises me that they have waited this long to RETALIATE. The zionuts invaded Palestine in 1925. In 1947 the US began subsiding their genocide.

The US invaded Iraq in 1990 and remained them for approximately 18 years..

The perpetrators of the above mentioned crimes are most definite criminals.

yes, this is the same propaganda that their leaders feed them to keep them angry at the "west" and "infidels" instead of the actual source of their problems, their leadership and their way of life.