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

[Contumacious]

to immigrate to this country?

No, they don't.

The ONLY ones with that right are the "chosen" ones........the zionuts.

Next question, please.

.

We should start exporting Nazis like you.

I will go just as soon as the Zionuts are being deported.


.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What don't I know about Islam that would change my mind?

Since you don't know anything the changes would be quite easy, for a rational person that is, but that's not you my little screaming infant, not even close.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

I don't care how hard they work or if they succeed, if they try to impose their Sharia crap here. The immigrants who came here previously all had an affect on the culture of this country, some for the better and some for the worse. Muslims will affect it only for the worse. Islam is a bloodthirsty cult with no redeeming social value. I don't see how this country gains by importing people who want to propagate this disease.

Muslims HAVE immigrated here and have been here for centuries. Your words are the same as those directed at the Irish, Italian, Polish etc.

Muslims have been America's friends since -- uhm -- err -- ahh -- it's inception:

US- Morocco Diplomatic Relationship During the American Revolution, so many American ships used to call at the port of Tangiers that the Continental Congress sought recognition from the “Emperor” of Morocco to establish good relations between the two countries.

This recognition was granted in 1777, making Morocco the first country to recognize the United States of America. Negotiations on a formal treaty to establish ties between the two countries began in 1783.

The Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1786. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both future U.S. Presidents were the signatories for the United States. Renegotiated in 1836, the treaty is still in force, constituting the longest unbroken treaty in U.S. history.

As testament to the special nature of the U.S.-Moroccan relationship, Tangier is home to the oldest U.S. diplomatic property in the world, and the only building on foreign soil that is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, the American Legation in Tangier (now a museum).

Embassy of the kingdom of morocco in the USA

​

That must be why we sent in the Marines a few years later.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ah...but I wasn't referring to civil rights - I was referring to immigration policy. I agree we can have any bias we want - that doesn't of course make it right (look back at some of the cruel and draconian anti-immigration laws we had against different groups, like the Chinese). To discrimminate against religion alone is bigotry.

And hi back at you sweetie!

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

Those people were allowed into this country legally, not like the Wetbacks who are jumping our border. Stop with the asymmetrical comparisons already.

And the Chinese were allowed as guest workers to build our railroads. When they applied for citizenship we said no. This is the point. It's up to us to decide.

and if people like you don't stfu, we'll ask more of them to come here

I'll bet you would put a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger if you thought it would piss off a right-winger.

He would only do it by accident. Darwin's law will get him sooner or later.

 

[bripat9643]

What don't I know about Islam that would change my mind?

Since you don't know anything the changes would be quite easy, for a rational person that is, but that's not you my little screaming infant, not even close.

In other words, you can't name anything.

What a shock!

 

[bripat9643]

So is it never right to discriminate based on ethnic culture, especially when that culture has proven destructive in their own nations?

You seem to be applying a principle that should have NOTHING to do with immigration. We shouldn't choose who comes here by political correctness, but by an impassioned evaluation of what benefit they'll bring to this country....like we did with the Russians, Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants.

And in that impassioned evaluation, we should take into account what's going on in Western countries where Muslims are attaining numerical significance and ask, "Do we want that in OUR country?"

It's a valid question to be asking.

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

I don't care how hard they work or if they succeed, if they try to impose their Sharia crap here. The immigrants who came here previously all had an affect on the culture of this country, some for the better and some for the worse. Muslims will affect it only for the worse. Islam is a bloodthirsty cult with no redeeming social value. I don't see how this country gains by importing people who want to propagate this disease.

It's shame you don't know Islam, but then again, your don't know Christianity or much of anything else either.

Huh?

Exactly.

You mean you meant to be incoherent?

 

[percysunshine]

to immigrate to this country?

No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.

Another stupid thread.

Oh, good. Then you agree we can exclude Muslims from immigration if we feel it's in our best interest. That's the concurrence I was looking for.

.

Article I, Section 8;

These things will be decided by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

Kind of scary if you think about it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What don't I know about Islam that would change my mind?

Since you don't know anything the changes would be quite easy, for a rational person that is, but that's not you my little screaming infant, not even close.

In other words, you can't name anything.

What a shock!

I could names things all day long, family, charity, faithfulness, fidelity, abstinence, honor, and the like, but it wouldn't change your tiny infantile mind since nothing rational will.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Russians, Italians, Irish, Polish, East Europeans came during immigrant waves that occurred prior to any real limits on immigration. The first laws prohibiting immigration were the Chinese Exclusion laws in the 1870's based not on "an imapssioned evaluation" but pure racism. The Irish, Italians, East Europeans immigrates were poor, desperate, impoverished and despised. They were considered dirty, diseased, subhuman, drunkard criminals (Irish), overly fertile, untrustworthy (Italians), bred children like litters of puppies (Catholics)..etc etc in fact you get the picture of how immigration was viewed then. And it's not much different than now (with Mexicans for example). There were no real quotes or restrictions beyond disease. We are a nation of many immigrant groups and all of them have managed to make a sucess of themselves: Irish, Russian, Italian, Palestinian, Lebonese, Polish, Cuban, Haitian....

If someone is willing to work hard, does not have a violent criminal record - then I don't care what their religion or ethnic background is - our success stories are not PHD's coming over here, they are the dirt poor people who worked hard and valued education and sent their children on to become PHD's. That's how I view it. Quotas? Sure, I can accept that - but not based on ethnicity or religion.

I don't care how hard they work or if they succeed, if they try to impose their Sharia crap here. The immigrants who came here previously all had an affect on the culture of this country, some for the better and some for the worse. Muslims will affect it only for the worse. Islam is a bloodthirsty cult with no redeeming social value. I don't see how this country gains by importing people who want to propagate this disease.

It's a shame you don't know Islam, but then again, your don't know Christianity or much of anything else either.

Huh?

Exactly.

You mean you meant to be incoherent?

It's entirely understandable, even without the a I just added. "It's a shame you don't know Islam, but then again, your don't know Christianity or much of anything else either."

 

[Syriusly]

to immigrate to this country?

No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.

Another stupid thread.

Oh, good. Then you agree we can exclude Muslims from immigration if we feel it's in our best interest. That's the concurrence I was looking for.

I'm waiting for him to retract those words.

to immigrate to this country?

No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.

Another stupid thread.

Oh, good. Then you agree we can exclude Muslims from immigration if we feel it's in our best interest. That's the concurrence I was looking for.

Oh I was fairly certain that was were you were going.

You are going to demand that Congress pass a law based entirely upon a persons religion.

Once again- no one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.
The United States Congress could pass a law tomorrow to outlaw any immigration to the United States.

But you want to have Congress pass a law to discriminate against people entirely based upon their religion.

And that doesn't surprise me in the least.

Will your next act be to advocate that Congress forbid mosques? Require the burning of Qurans?

You folks love slippery slopes.....there is your slippery slope.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

to immigrate to this country?

No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.

Another stupid thread.

Oh, good. Then you agree we can exclude Muslims from immigration if we feel it's in our best interest. That's the concurrence I was looking for.

I'm waiting for him to retract those words.

to immigrate to this country?

No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.

Another stupid thread.

Oh, good. Then you agree we can exclude Muslims from immigration if we feel it's in our best interest. That's the concurrence I was looking for.

Oh I was fairly certain that was were you were going.

You are going to demand that Congress pass a law based entirely upon a persons religion.

Once again- no one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States.
The United States Congress could pass a law tomorrow to outlaw any immigration to the United States.

But you want to have Congress pass a law to discriminate against people entirely based upon their religion.

And that doesn't surprise me in the least.

Will your next act be to advocate that Congress forbid mosques? Require the burning of Qurans?

You folks love slippery slopes.....there is your slippery slope.

So you agree we have that right.

Then we are cool!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Will your next act be to advocate that Congress forbid mosques? Require the burning of Qurans?

You folks love slippery slopes.....there is your slippery slope.

Must of them would support all of that, as well as deporting all of them.

 

[percysunshine]

What don't I know about Islam that would change my mind?

Since you don't know anything the changes would be quite easy, for a rational person that is, but that's not you my little screaming infant, not even close.

In other words, you can't name anything.

What a shock!

I could names things all day long, family, charity, faithfulness, fidelity, abstinence, honor, and the like, but it wouldn't change your tiny infantile mind since nothing rational will.

.

I always suspected you were a Baptist.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

What the OP suggests is ignorant, moronic idiocy, having nothing to do with 'the left.'

The OP's unwarranted fear and hatred of Muslims in no way justifies attempting to prohibit them from entering the country, based only on their religion.

 

[bripat9643]

What don't I know about Islam that would change my mind?

Since you don't know anything the changes would be quite easy, for a rational person that is, but that's not you my little screaming infant, not even close.

In other words, you can't name anything.

What a shock!

I could names things all day long, family, charity, faithfulness, fidelity, abstinence, honor, and the like, but it wouldn't change your tiny infantile mind since nothing rational will.

.

I always suspected you were a Baptist.

.

So donating to charity is enough to compensate for the fact that they want to kill us or impose their Feudal religion and laws on us?

NOT.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What don't I know about Islam that would change my mind?

Since you don't know anything the changes would be quite easy, for a rational person that is, but that's not you my little screaming infant, not even close.

In other words, you can't name anything.

What a shock!

I could names things all day long, family, charity, faithfulness, fidelity, abstinence, honor, and the like, but it wouldn't change your tiny infantile mind since nothing rational will.

I always suspected you were a Baptist.

Never baptized, thank God.

 

[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.

What the OP suggests is ignorant, moronic idiocy, having nothing to do with 'the left.'

The OP's unwarranted fear and hatred of Muslims in no way justifies attempting to prohibit them from entering the country, based only on their religion.

There's nothing "unwarranted" about fearing Muslims. There's also not a single credible justification for allowing them into the country.

 

[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.

What the OP suggests is ignorant, moronic idiocy, having nothing to do with 'the left.'

The OP's unwarranted fear and hatred of Muslims in no way justifies attempting to prohibit them from entering the country, based only on their religion.

I'm just trying to find any Leftwat who thinks that foreigners have constitutional rights. It would be one of those who proposed we read Miranda rights to enemies captured in battle. Clearly you aren't one of them, you enlightened Leftist you. So you join the chorus that we have the prerogative to keep out anyone who's Muslim. That's what I needed to know. Thanks.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There's nothing "unwarranted" about fearing Muslims. There's also not a single credible justification for allowing them into the country.

Not to you there isn't, but that's because you fear and hate Muslims, all of them The mentality of an infant, which is exactly what you are.

 

[percysunshine]

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.

What the OP suggests is ignorant, moronic idiocy, having nothing to do with 'the left.'

The OP's unwarranted fear and hatred of Muslims in no way justifies attempting to prohibit them from entering the country, based only on their religion.

.

I agree, that would be profiling.

It would be like profiling people who wear shoes who want to get on an airplane. They would all be immediate suspected terrorists and we would inspect their shoes ... or something silly like that...

wait a second....

.