Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you really think that every time people enter into binding arbitration it's due to a completely symmetric and voluntary agreement on both sides? Come on now.

People enter binding arbitration because their lawyers tell them to.  Not every party in a civil matter has equal leverage, and people decide to go to binding arbitration for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to go through a protracted legal struggle and dealing with the costs of such a thing.

Sharia Courts, however, in family matters offer arbitration that is hardly secular and objective.  Women, vulnerable to coercion, will be pressured and intimidated to take family law disputes to Sharia Courts, and not the civil courts, and this would extend to non-Muslims who marry Muslims. 

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/damning-report-slams-misogyny-uk-sharia-courts

Women in America have fought long and hard to be free from abuse and coercion within their homes.  My mother sought a divorce from my stepfather in 1974 and got it, but Judicial Selection was a huge issue.  It was possible that her case was going to be handled by an older Catholic male Judge (in NY State) with doctrinaire Catholic views on the subject for the time.  Her lawyer told her that this Judge, in denying a woman who had been abused cruelly be her husband a divorce, told the woman in Open Court, "If you can stand this man for twenty (20) years, you can stand him for the rest of your life."  Allowing Sharia Courts to get the smallest toehold in America allow at least some women to be subject to coercion by their male partners and to be subject to misogyny by the Sharia Judge(s).  Sharia Courts are a blight on the UK and represent a repudiation of American concepts of individual rights. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

Do you really think that every time people enter into binding arbitration it's due to a completely symmetric and voluntary agreement on both sides? Come on now.

People enter binding arbitration because their lawyers tell them to.  Not every party in a civil matter has equal leverage, and people decide to go to binding arbitration for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to go through a protracted legal struggle and dealing with the costs of such a thing.

Sharia Courts, however, in family matters offer arbitration that is hardly secular and objective.  Women, vulnerable to coercion, will be pressured and intimidated to take family law disputes to Sharia Courts, and not the civil courts, and this would extend to non-Muslims who marry Muslims. 

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/damning-report-slams-misogyny-uk-sharia-courts

Women in America have fought long and hard to be free from abuse and coercion within their homes.  My mother sought a divorce from my stepfather in 1974 and got it, but Judicial Selection was a huge issue.  It was possible that her case was going to be handled by an older Catholic male Judge (in NY State) with doctrinaire Catholic views on the subject for the time.  Her lawyer told her that this Judge, in denying a woman who had been abused cruelly be her husband a divorce, told the woman in Open Court, "If you can stand this man for twenty (20) years, you can stand him for the rest of your life."  Allowing Sharia Courts to get the smallest toehold in America allow at least some women to be subject to coercion by their male partners and to be subject to misogyny by the Sharia Judge(s).  Sharia Courts are a blight on the UK and represent a repudiation of American concepts of individual rights. 

I don't think there's really good evidence that private arbitrators are inherently and largely objective, especially if they're appointed through a corporate agreement.

My point wasn't to argue the finer points of Sharia law. My point was simply that there are plenty of avenues in life through which people voluntarily choose avenues other than judicial ones for dispute resolution.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you really think that every time people enter into binding arbitration it's due to a completely symmetric and voluntary agreement on both sides? Come on now.

People enter binding arbitration because their lawyers tell them to.  Not every party in a civil matter has equal leverage, and people decide to go to binding arbitration for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to go through a protracted legal struggle and dealing with the costs of such a thing.

Sharia Courts, however, in family matters offer arbitration that is hardly secular and objective.  Women, vulnerable to coercion, will be pressured and intimidated to take family law disputes to Sharia Courts, and not the civil courts, and this would extend to non-Muslims who marry Muslims. 

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/damning-report-slams-misogyny-uk-sharia-courts

Women in America have fought long and hard to be free from abuse and coercion within their homes.  My mother sought a divorce from my stepfather in 1974 and got it, but Judicial Selection was a huge issue.  It was possible that her case was going to be handled by an older Catholic male Judge (in NY State) with doctrinaire Catholic views on the subject for the time.  Her lawyer told her that this Judge, in denying a woman who had been abused cruelly be her husband a divorce, told the woman in Open Court, "If you can stand this man for twenty (20) years, you can stand him for the rest of your life."  Allowing Sharia Courts to get the smallest toehold in America allow at least some women to be subject to coercion by their male partners and to be subject to misogyny by the Sharia Judge(s).  Sharia Courts are a blight on the UK and represent a repudiation of American concepts of individual rights. 

I don't think there's really good evidence that private arbitrators are inherently and largely objective, especially if they're appointed through a corporate agreement.

My point wasn't to argue the finer points of Sharia law. My point was simply that there are plenty of avenues in life through which people voluntarily choose avenues other than judicial ones for dispute resolution.

Jim Bob Duggar chose a "faith based" path to resolve his son's child molestation.  He counseled with the church, then sent the boy to a "work program" of a sort.  His actions were questionable, possibly illegal at the time, and both Duggar parents would be hit with 3rd degree felonies (Failure to Report Abuse) if this happened today.

Sharia Law in Britain would handle such matters.  There is an underlying presumption that the Sharia Courts are the best aribiters of the rights of the persons involved in such matters.

I beg to differ.  This is what Sharia Law opens the door to; victimized and vulnerable folks pressured to give up their rights so others can save face.  Sanctioned by the government, no less.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Doesn't binding arbitration pressure consumers to give up their rights to corporate interests?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

https://morningconsult.com/2016/08/18/american-immigrants-back-trump-ideological-test-poll-shows/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Junk poll!!!111

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's an online poll, so yes.

[pikachu]

l'm not sure why I'm looking for sense in this, but I'm very confused how this is supposed to work. The average Muslim immigrant to this country is educated, and even sure if they don't believe in whatever requirements Trump wants, they're likely smart enough to know what they're supposed to answer...

[ag]

l'm not sure why I'm looking for sense in this, but I'm very confused how this is supposed to work. The average Muslim immigrant to this country is educated, and even sure if they don't believe in whatever requirements Trump wants, they're likely smart enough to know what they're supposed to answer...

But not if the questions are going to posed to them in Scottish Gaelic. Though, of course, that one is not a European language for such purposes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_exclusion_of_Egon_Kisch_from_Australia

[Erich Maria Remarque]

l'm not sure why I'm looking for sense in this, but I'm very confused how this is supposed to work. The average Muslim immigrant to this country is educated, and even sure if they don't believe in whatever requirements Trump wants, they're likely smart enough to know what they're supposed to answer...

There is a highly unlikely explanation. They just really support it.

Note, not just immigrants supports Trump's call. Majority of Americans do as well.

↓↓↓↓ Among all Americans

Giving a test to immigrants applying for visas to make sure they share American values:
Strongly support     38%
Somewhat support 24%
Somewhat oppose  12%
Strongly oppose    11%

Working closely with Russia to defeat ISIS:
Total support 64%
Total oppose  19%

Halting immigration from all countries with a history of terrorism until the vetting process can be fixed:
Total support 59%
Total oppose 27%

Building a wall on the border between the US and Mexico:
Total support 43%
Total oppose  43%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?
Approve      49%
Disapprove  46%

Support Clinton 44%
Support Trump 38%