After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to ‘test’ every Muslim in the U.S. and deport sharia believers

[erowe1]

You still have not explained why if you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support importing people that oppose individual liberty?

Probably because he doesn't support importing anyone.

Why do anti-immigration people insist on misusing that word?

 

[LibertyEagle]

You still have not explained why if you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support importing people that oppose individual liberty?

I am going to go out on a limb here and believe we have a group of RPFers that are Muslim and are opposed to individual liberty. It totally defies logic that there is a group of RPF posters that supposedly believe in individual liberty yet are loudly demanding that as a country we import people that oppose individual liberty, that oppose the bill of rights, the constitution, believe Sharia should be the law of the land and in some cases wishes to kill us as infidels if they achieved power if we do not convert.

You have to remember that there are some here who WANT the country to fall and have said so.

 

[Smitty]

Oh hell yeah,...we need to import millions of people from a culture that forces their women to dress in big black bags and walks 5 steps behind their husbands whenever they're strolling down the sidewalk.

They'll bring some problems, but it won't be long before all of that feminist nonsense get's shut down.

 

[kahless]

Probably because he doesn't support importing anyone.

Why do anti-immigration people insist on misusing that word?

If he is like you and supports open borders then there is not much of a difference. If you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support open borders that will increase the number of people that oppose individual liberty and eventually curtail your own individual liberty?

 

[erowe1]

If he is like you and supports open borders then there is not much of a difference.

There's a huge difference.

 

[erowe1]

You have to remember that there are some here who WANT the country to fall and have said so.

Who? Please provide the quotes.

 

[69360]

How is having an immigration policy that stops people from coming here that want to undermine our laws and kill us institutionalized racism and religious persecution?

Do I seriously have to explain this to you?

Every muslim isn't a terrorist and every muslim doesn't want sharia.

I won't deny that I personally think that muslims are more predisposed to terrorism than christians based on their religous principals. Doesn't mean that every single one is.

You can't ban a religion or it's adherents in a free country and a free society.

Catholics are not hell bent on coming here to overturn the bill of rights to be replaced with Sharia nor demand we convert or die. I also do not see Catholics getting in trucks mowing down children and babies or torturing and murdering people at rock concerts and dance clubs or blowing up buildings with 3000 people in them.

Like I said earlier there is a typical set of RPFers that will always deny the ramifications of Muslim immigration and give propaganda cover to murderers after a terrorist attack.

Ever hear of the IRA?

 

[phill4paul]

[MENTION=3352]kahless[/MENTION], if you believe as Newt Gingrich does then you are "...totally divorced to what civil liberties are all about and what our Bill of Rights are all about."

5:28 mark....

 

[Smitty]

One example of the diversity that Muslims have brought to America.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/22/how-academia-whitewashes-muslim-honor-killings/

 

[Suzanimal]

Since you will never live in some libertarian paradise if you are determined to support the policy of importing people that believe in the opposite of individual liberty.

Ironically, you're supporting policies that will destroy the very thing you preport you're trying to save.

We must destroy religious liberty to save.....liberty?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ironically, you're supporting policies that will destroy the very thing you preport you're trying to save.

We must destroy religious liberty to save.....liberty?

No foreigner has any right to cross our borders, if we do not want them to. Nada.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here's some liberty [sic] for you.
http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/

Sorry, but I'd prefer not to import that to our own country.

 

[Suzanimal]

No foreigner has any right to cross our borders, if we do not want them to. Nada.

Who is "we"? You? Or are you going to leave that up to our betters to decide for you?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Who is "we"? You? Or are you going to leave that up to our betters to decide for you?

What I stated was a fact. No foreigner has any inherent RIGHT to cross our borders. Period.

 

[kahless]

You can't ban a religion or it's adherents in a free country and a free society.

We can and we have. The US also has a long Constitutional history of restricting immigration based on race. Here are again is some notable legislation.

The Immigration Act of 1924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

..it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity

Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917

This act added to the number of undesirables banned from entering the country, including “homosexuals”, “idiots”, “feeble-minded persons”, "criminals", “epileptics”, “insane persons”, alcoholics, “professional beggars”, all persons “mentally or physically defective”, polygamists, and anarchists. Furthermore, it barred all immigrants over the age of sixteen who were illiterate. The most controversial part of the law was the section that designated an "Asiatic Barred Zone", a region that included much of Asia and the Pacific Islands from which people could not immigrate.

Immigration Act of 1903 - Anarchist Exclusion Act

Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote the Court's decision holding that the Bill of Rights does not apply to aliens and that Congress had the right to deny entry to anyone they deemed a threat to the country..

Geary Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Act

Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. Prohibited Chinese naturalization. Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.

Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as "undesirable". The law classified as "undesirable" any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer strengthen the ban against "coolie" laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States "without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service"

Every muslim isn't a terrorist and every muslim doesn't want sharia.

A little over 50% of US Muslims believe are laws should be based on Sharia or a combination of Sharia and US law. The range varies from 50-97% of immigrants depending on nation.

Ever hear of the IRA?

They did not wish to impose Sharia or convert or die.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Is this one of your betters, Suz?

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”


What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

 

[Smitty]

Looks like it's really starting to gain some traction,..23-27 a year.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/12/how-many-honor-killings-unfold-in-america-each-year/

A report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice and released earlier this year found that there are an estimated 23-27 honor killings annually in America, though the numbers are not “completely reliable” due to a variety of challenges, according to a Fox News report.

The document, titled, “Report on Exploratory Study into Honor Violence Measurement Methods,” was commissioned by Westat, a research group.

It found that there are essentially four types of honor violence that are frequently discussed and perpetuated: “forced marriage, honor-based domestic violence, honor killing, and female genital mutilation.”

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[Krugminator2]

You can't deport people who are here obviously.

That said, Islam is inherently anti-freedom and anti-progress. The majority of Muslims are anti-reason. Most Muslim countries are very socialistic. They produce nothing but drilling oil. There is no innovation in Muslim countries. Muslim religion and culture does not promote science and Western values. There are only three Muslims who have ever win a Nobel Prize in the sciences.

Muslim immigrants should be questioned about their beliefs in the First Amendment. I don't see a reason to allow a person to immigrate to the United States if they do not hold basic values related to freedom. For example, if you believe Sharia Law should be the law of the land, you shouldn't be allowed to come here.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, please do [MENTION=660]LibertyEagle[/MENTION] Just because someone doesn't share your anti-liberty/xenophobic position on issues doesn't mean they want this country to fail. I await your response to @erowe1 -- evidence to that claim you keep making, or stop spreading that lie.

Quite disingenuous of you. You've been around here long enough to see the posts about it. More than a couple of anarchists have straight out admitted it. One, not too long ago. Others, are a bit more coy, but support the very activities that the globalists are using to finish destroying our country. I'll spend a couple of minutes to see if I can find one, or you might just want to start a poll and ask the forum straight out.