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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

to immigrate to this country?

I'm just wondering since the idea of mirandizing enemy combatants on the battle field was the brain child of the idiot Left. They clearly think the whole world is a beneficiary of the American Constitution.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/02/01/first-norway-now-denmark-wants-to-stop-muslim-immigration/

Senior Dansk Folkeparti party leaders say, “No More Muslims!” There are enough Muslims in Denmark and border controls should be established to stop more from entering the country.



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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

to immigrate to this country?

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

 

[bripat9643]

to immigrate to this country?

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

Right. Keep them all out.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

to immigrate to this country?

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

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

to immigrate to this country?

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

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. It's history.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

to immigrate to this country?

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

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. It's history.

No, it's alive and well. Wrong then, wrong now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

to immigrate to this country?

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

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

But, is this the first time it has been said about a religion?

 

[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.

The First Amendment does not give foreigners the right to immigrate to the USA. You have to be a complete numskull to believe that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

to immigrate to this country?

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

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. It's history.

Derp.......derp.

 

[bripat9643]

to immigrate to this country?

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

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. It's history.

No, it's alive and well. Wrong then, wrong now.

It wasn't wrong then, and it's not wrong now.

Countries have a right to control their borders. Any claim to the contrary is shear idiocy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. It's history.

No, it's alive and well. Wrong then, wrong now.

It wasn't wrong then, and it's not wrong now.

Countries have a right to control their borders. Any claim to the contrary is shear idiocy.

Yes the do, and we don't, but you don't want to control the border in this case, you want to keep the Muslims out, and have all who are here go somewhere else.

 

[bripat9643]

Right. Keep them all out.

And that has been said many times, including about your group.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. It's history.

No, it's alive and well. Wrong then, wrong now.

It wasn't wrong then, and it's not wrong now.

Countries have a right to control their borders. Any claim to the contrary is shear idiocy.

Yes the do, and we don't, but you don't want to control the border in this case, you want to keep the Muslims out, and have all who are here go somewhere else.

Huh? I have no plans to have any citizen of the United States leave the country. All others can get the hell out.

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

 

[Votto]

I think the thing to do is what France has done. Just let as many Muslims is as want to live in the US, give them large pieces of land where no one enters other than other Muslims, and then do your best watching those who you conisder to be threats to the rest of the country. Then when they terrorize the country, hold parades where they celebrate multiculturalism.

It's really the only common sense thing to do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

No, it isn't. It is however Xenophobia. That's an infant thing as well.

 

[bripat9643]

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

No, it isn't. It is however Xenophobia. That's an infant thing as well.

Could you explain what you think "controlling the border" means? The rest of the forum is scratching their heads when they read your shit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

No, it isn't. It is however Xenophobia. That's an infant thing as well.

Could you explain what you think "controlling the border" means? The rest of the forum is scratching their heads when they read your shit.

That would be not being able to just walk right across it, which is very easy to do, obviously.

 

[bripat9643]

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

No, it isn't. It is however Xenophobia. That's an infant thing as well.

Could you explain what you think "controlling the border" means? The rest of the forum is scratching their heads when they read your shit.

That would be not being able to just walk right across it, which is very easy to do, obviously.

So what does that mean, giving tickets for jaywalking?

Controlling the border means controlling who comes in. Any claims to the contrary are PMH idiocy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Keeping Muslims out is controlling the border, numskull.

No, it isn't. It is however Xenophobia. That's an infant thing as well.

Could you explain what you think "controlling the border" means? The rest of the forum is scratching their heads when they read your shit.

That would be not being able to just walk right across it, which is very easy to do, obviously.

So what does that mean, giving tickets for jaywalking?

Controlling the border means controlling who comes in. Any claims to the contrary are PMH idiocy.

One is Immigration Policy, and one is Border Control. Related but hardly the same so don't mix them up.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The First Amendment does not give foreigners the right to immigrate to the USA. You have to be a complete numskull to believe that.

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