Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants

[Beet]

Immigrants are already more liberal on social issues than native Americans, if how we vote is any indication. If we really wanted them to assimilate, we should test them for social conservatism. The problem with this test is that, any opinion will be suspect. I'm glad I immigrated here when there was no such test, so I can say my socially liberal views are as genuine and unselfish as those of any native born American.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

So on the issue of trump's ideological test on gay rights ...
It is OK for many of his supporters, and ultra-conservatives, to be against the expansion of rights for the LGTB community, but not the immigrants ?
How is this an acceptable position ?

Have Trump said it it OK?

[Seriously?]

So on the issue of trump's ideological test on gay rights ...
It is OK for many of his supporters, and ultra-conservatives, to be against the expansion of rights for the LGTB community, but not the immigrants ?
How is this an acceptable position ?

Have Trump said it it OK?

There's a huge difference between a philosophical discussion on whether gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right and whether gays should be jailed or killed because of their sexual orientation.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Immigrants are already more liberal on social issues than native Americans, if how we vote is any indication. If we really wanted them to assimilate, we should test them for social conservatism. The problem with this test is that, any opinion will be suspect. I'm glad I immigrated here when there was no such test, so I can say my socially liberal views are as genuine and unselfish as those of any native born American.

You don't understand what immigrants will be targeted by such test, do you?
Hint: not blue-eyed Swedes

[Likely Voter]

Would it be a 'gotcha' question to ask the candidates questions that are on the current US Naturalization test?  There are 100 possible questions and they ask 10 and you have to get 6 right.  How would both Clinton and Trump fare with these 10 (real) questions...

How many changes or amendments are there to the Constitution?
How many representatives are there in Congress?
For how long do we elect the representatives?
Can you name the thirteen original states?
Who said, "Give me liberty or give me death"?
Who was the main writer of the Declaration of Independence?
Who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner"?
Who has the power to declare war?
In what year was the Constitution written?
What are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution called?

[GMantis]

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the US constitution that would contravene this or any other limitation of immigration.

[Wisconsin+17]

GM Mantis is correct. There's also no reason why the US shouldn't be checking up on those wanting to immigrate into the country.

I say that as an immigrant myself.

[tallguy23]

This is unbelievably stupid. If an immigrant is coming here to commit a terrorist attack they'll just lie about during questioning.

Idiot.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.

It is blatantly constitutional under the Plenary Power Doctrine.

Just a quick heads up...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-communist-totalitarian-party-membership-affects-eligibility-naturalized-us-citizenshi

[Devout Centrist]

Presumably if you say you support religious freedom, gender equality, and gays rights you fail.

You presume wrong.

If this is targeting muslims, the correct answer would be yes to religious freedom (which the crazies are against), pro-gender equality (forced burkas and killing women that learn is not cool) and gay rights (they kill homosexuals for being homosexual in Islamic countries).

But don't let your ideology to get in the way of how the opposition actually thinks.

Large parts of his own constituency would fail.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.

It's perfectly constitutional.  It's also nothing new. 

We do not let anarchists into the US.  We did not let Bolsheviks and avowed Communists emigrate to America.  We didn't because their ideology ran counter to our principles of government that undergird what we are; a republic with democratic features.

Do we have the right to deny folks entry into the US that devoutly believe in the establishment of Sharia Law (the current bone of contention) as part of our statutes?  Of course we do.  Sharia Law is something that runs counter to our Bill of Rights; the two cannot exist together.

This is not a question of which God you believe in.  This is a question of what your ideology leads you to advance.  What is the effect on a nation which is an open nation, protective of minority rights, when you welcome in Sharia Law advocates who wish to make this part of US law and the laws of the states?

This is Constitutional because no foreigner has the right to enter the US.  The US has complete discretion over who we do and don't let in, and who we allow to be citizens.  Constitutional Rights apply to persons residing in the US, but not to folks who aren't here that want to come.  Nor do people here have a right to have their family members emigrate to America "just 'cause".

Trump is right about this.  Trump may not realize that he's right, but he's right.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Immigrants are already more liberal on social issues than native Americans, if how we vote is any indication. If we really wanted them to assimilate, we should test them for social conservatism. The problem with this test is that, any opinion will be suspect. I'm glad I immigrated here when there was no such test, so I can say my socially liberal views are as genuine and unselfish as those of any native born American.

You don't understand what immigrants will be targeted by such test, do you?
Hint: not blue-eyed Swedes

Not African Christians from the Sudan, either.

Not Mexicans who support democratic ideals, either.

There are folks of all races, however, that subscribe to Sharia Law.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

This then practically bans the entire Muslim community as usual, "shariah" is also a life principle Muslims abide by, and even a liberal one such as myself follows it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This then practically bans the entire Muslim community as usual, "shariah" is also a life principle Muslims abide by, and even a liberal one such as myself follows it.

The principles individuals practice is their concern.  Sharia Law, however, is more than personal principles; it is a philosophy and it is a code which many countries have as their statutes.

It is also a set of principles that at least SOME Muslims with to subjugate others to, including non-Muslims.  They're on their way in Britain, in that Sharia Courts actually have jurisdiction over Muslim Brits in many "family court" matters in Sharia Courts.  The rights of British Muslim women are arbitrated by Sharia Courts and Sharia Judges.  (This in the nation that gave us English Common Law.)  Is THIS consistent with Constitutional Liberties?  If not, what would it take for America to actually codify Sharia Law to a similar place in our statutes that it enjoys in Britain?

Do we have the right, as a nation, to look at the condition of other countries and say, "No, we don't want that ideology here!" when such an ideology trashes Constitutional Liberties?  It's not our diversity that makes America special; it's our Constitutional government, with enumerated powers and the rule of secular law, together with the guaranty of specified, enumerated liberties.  Sadly, folks have placed other values over "liberty" and "freedom".  We'll miss those things once they're gone.

[ag]

This then practically bans the entire Muslim community as usual, "shariah" is also a life principle Muslims abide by, and even a liberal one such as myself follows it.

I am still find out what is the distinction that certain individuals make between the sharia and the halakha. For all practical purposes, in their relationship to the modernity, the two are pretty much the same. Of course, there are many detailed distinctions, but none of those should matter to anyone who is neither Muslim, nor Jewish. So, why is sharia objectionable, and halakha is not?

[Fuzzy Bear]

This then practically bans the entire Muslim community as usual, "shariah" is also a life principle Muslims abide by, and even a liberal one such as myself follows it.

I am still find out what is the distinction that certain individuals make between the sharia and the halakha. For all practical purposes, in their relationship to the modernity, the two are pretty much the same. Of course, there are many detailed distinctions, but none of those should matter to anyone who is neither Muslim, nor Jewish. So, why is sharia objectionable, and halakha is not?

At least some Muslims actively seek codification of Sharia Law, to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.  As Britain has formally sanctioned Sharia Courts within Britain, this is not just some wild fantasy that will come true in the great somewhere.

[ag]

Immigrants are already more liberal on social issues than native Americans, if how we vote is any indication. If we really wanted them to assimilate, we should test them for social conservatism. The problem with this test is that, any opinion will be suspect. I'm glad I immigrated here when there was no such test, so I can say my socially liberal views are as genuine and unselfish as those of any native born American.

You don't understand what immigrants will be targeted by such test, do you?
Hint: not blue-eyed Swedes

Not African Christians from the Sudan, either.

Not Mexicans who support democratic ideals, either.

There are folks of all races, however, that subscribe to Sharia Law.

What exactly that you dislike about sharia and like about halakha? Please get beyond generalities, and let me know exactly, what would make a Jew acceptable?

[ag]

 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

[Fuzzy Bear]

 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided. 

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

[ag]

 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided.  

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

How is that different from submiting matters of family law to the rabbinical courts? Remember, Israel does not even have secular family law for Jews (recently they made up something for the mixed couples - until then such couples had to get married outside of Israel):  for a Jew there are only Halakhic courts, and nothing else (same for others, BTW: they use sharia for Muslims and churches deal with Christians). Within Judaism secular family law is an impossibility - it directly contradicts the most fundamental aspects of the Jewish faith.  In this respect there is exactly no difference between Judaism and Islam. Zilch. Nada.

Nor is the Jewish law particularly pleasant as far as gender equality is concerned. I mean, as a wise Jewish lawyer said: a Jew should avoid passing between a woman and an ass - for neither studies the Torah. For instance, a man can divorce his wife at will, simply by announcing his intention (following certain religiously-specified formalities, the infamous get) - a woman cannot be divroced from her husband without his explicit agreement. This is the Law that any religious (ok, Orthodox) Jew belives is given by God and no human can change it. BTW, it has been forced on millions of US citizens inside the US: no religious Jewish woman can re-marry without getting the get, no matter what the civil law (which from Jewish standpoint has no validity here) says. Orthodox rabbis inside the US follow this law - you will not be able to persuade one to officiate a marraige that is perfectly legal by US law. And were such a woman to remarry outside the rabbinical legal system, her child would be legally a momser - a bastard. A bastard cannot legally get married at all - his or her children are momsers no matter what. BTW, Israeli goverment maintains lists of bastards to make sure these cannot get married in Israel. Some families have been on the lists (which Israel has adopted from the pre-Israeli rabbinical courts) for hundreds of years.  

And rabbinical courts have real power in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. As you, probably, do not know, a married Jewish woman must shave her head and wear a wig. Some of the best wigs (and these costs thousands of dollars) are made in India, from the hair Indian women cut in Hindu ceremonies. Some years ago a rabbinical court ruled that such pagan wigs cannot be used by Jewish women. Many hundreds, if not thousands, women in NYC had to stay home for weeks, while their husbands were searching for the proper Jewish wigs. For those people a rabbinical ruling is far more important than anything SCOTUS may say.

And it goes beyond the family law. An authoritative legal commentary, which many rabbinical courts still find valid, states that a Jew should not sell his goat to a gentile. This is so for a rather delicate reason. It is well-known (among the good Jews) that gentiles practice zoophilia. So a Jew, selling a goat to you, would be guilty of aiding and abetting a very perverse sexual practice.

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

[ag]

So, for all those saying there is major difference in acceptability between halakha and sharia. This is an old NYTimes article about an Israeli curiosity. This is what the Jewish law is. And Orthodox Judaism knows no other law. And no properly Orthodox Jew will follow any other law - in Israel, or in the US. No matter what the local law says.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/23/world/rabbis-decide-some-israelis-cannot-marry.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BTW, hope some of those wonderful sharia-hating people would try to enquire what is the Jewish legal view of the age of permissible marriage.

[ag]

Let me make it clear. I am not saying that Jews should be deported from the US. I am just making the point that any argument based on the content of religious faith would have to apply equally to Judaism and Islam.

[ag]

As for the British application of religious law by general courts. The problem lies in the fact that Britain has no separation of Church and State. In fact, it has an officially established Church. Which also means that the state funds and regulates, for instance, schools belonging to that Church. Naturally, in the modern world the state cannot discriminate against minority faiths - so it funds activities of other faiths as well: such as, though not limited to, schools. Of course, since it funds religious schools, it winds up regulating them. But those schools are still religious. The outcome, of course, is that the courts wind up making rulings on what ammounts to be religious matters. Thus, for instance, some years ago a British court had to rule on who is and who is not a Jew (in a dispute over admission into a state-funded Jewish school). It would be hard to make religious rulings in complete ignorance of religious law. Hence, occasionally, religious laws get interwoven with general court rulings.

Of course, the solution to this is straighforward: separation of Church and State. US has been successfully doing it for ages - there is no difference in acommodating Muslims, Jews or whoever else here. Of course, in practice that means that those who want to state part of the traditional community would go on ignoring the elements of the general law inconsistent with their faith and traditions - and those who want to abandon it and use the general civila law will have an open door to do so.  This is what members of all sorts of religious groups have been doing for the last 200+years, and there is no reason why that would change.

[angus]

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

I'm not.  You people are freaks.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don't you ask Hirsi Ali that same question? I have no problem with denying citizenship to anyone who states that they believe that Sharia should be law in the United States.