Posted on 07/31/2016 7:51:28 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
You are correct. I was wrong.
I'd say that's good enough for the next 50 years or so...
Great post!
Shows just how insane our leaders and news media have become in defense of Islam.
Article 1, section 8, clause 4:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,...”
Immigration is inherent to Naturalization. I think that’s within the auspices of Congress.
Wow! You don't see that very often here.
True. But that’s why I love this place. I *learn* from other Freppers. And to learn, one has to be open to the idea that one doesn’t know everything. Actually fairly common here, most people just don’t come out and say it.
A visa may be revoked at any time for any reason by a host country. The visa may be denied when the person tries to enter, and may be revoked without warning and with no reason, and the holder must comply. That is the way visas work everywhere around the world, including the United States.
I am of the belief we should be able to deny entry to the USA for any reason we wish, including the color of someone’s hair or the tone of their voice, as unreasonable as that sounds.
However, I am also of the belief that a religious test for immigration or refugees is a useless tool, depending on the “test”. If someone professes to be a muslim, I believe we should reject their immigration/visa/refugee status.
But what if they say they aren’t a muslim?
The concept of taqiya in Islam makes this a trickier proposition. Anyone can lie. But the concept of taqiya makes it not only forgivable for a muslim to denounce Islam, it is encouraged or even mandatory if the end result is that the deception advances the cause of Islam.
I have said in the past if it were in my power, I would deny entry to the US for people who are muslim or come from muslim countries, but...what if they are a coptic from Egypt, or even if they SAY they are a coptic from Egypt? Kind of like post WWII Germany, where a Nazi simply couldn’t be found anywhere.
Just because I think it might be difficult is no reason we shouldn’t try. Liberals will say we can’t do it, so we should just open the doors and let them in, which is pretty much the approach they take to everything, including sin and morality.
Kudos to you, though. Were that more of us followed that example here.
Perhaps in some degree, but the former implies the latter. Unless all candidates for naturalization are so selected while in their native countries and can only travel to their new country after the naturalization process. We’d have some really busy foreign embassies in that case, and a very stilted tourism industry possibly.
TR’s love of “progressive” politics aside, his point about having no “hyphenated Americans” is still the abandoned standard that we continue to re-establish.
And interestingly enough, the Declaration of Independence listed King George III “endeavo(ring) to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither” as one of the listed grievances.
But for a man named Trump this would not be an issue.
Remarkable that McCarthy still can not bring himself to defend Trump by name, but instead lays attribution to his point only to Jeff Sessions, who enthusiastically raced to support TRUMP.
McCarthy RULES
Bttt
“Prove me wrong. Cite a specific clause in the Constitution which grants anyone the power to control immigration.”
“The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention , “naturalization, “ are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.”
“[I]f, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional “no religious test” rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board. The United States government’s first obligation is to shield the American people from foreign threats, not to shield foreign threats and render the American people defenseless.”
100% correct. Kudos to McCarthy for stating this publicly.
14th Amendment is the source for the left. The 14th very clearly and explicitly applies only to citizens, and not to non-citizens. That is precisely why it defines birthright citizenship...to explicitly exclude non-citizens.
The left tries to re-interpret the 14th to apply to non-citizens. Many conservatives seem oblivious to what the left is doing.
Jimmy Carter didn’t ignore it. He tossed every Iranian here on a visa out of the country and stopped all immigration of Iranians. Trump has since fine tuned his TEMPORARY Muslim moratorium to include those emigrating from terror sponsoring countries.
thanks...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.