Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants

[ag]

The test will be given in a European language and will be possible repeat any number of times.

Both, on the discretion of the immigration agent. Australia style.

[ag]

And of course, all of the answers on the test will be honest.

It does not matter what the answers are. It is all about who grades them.

[ag]

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.

It is blatantly constitutional under the Plenary Power Doctrine.

It is certainly not going to be a problem as far as the immigrants are concerned: they have no standing in court here to begin with. But it may be not constitutionally possible to have an American citizen administer this. At the very least, if an immigration officer refuses to do this, he would have a pretty decent defense in court against being fired or otherwise punished for not following instructions.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6397227172571401074&q=related:ckuYMDiEx1gJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2002

[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?

[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.

[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.

[ag]

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

I'm not.  You people are freaks.

I mean, we are not the ones having sex with goats

[ag]

As for the British application of religious law by general courts. The problem lies in the fact that Britain ENGLAND has no separation of Church and State. In fact, it has an officially established Church.

Point taken

Another reason for Scotland to resent the union with such a backward uncivilized country as England.

[ag]

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.

Why not halakha? What is the freaking difference?

And, BTW, do you acknowledge that you, gentiles, routinely have sex with goats?

[ag]

And, BTW, there is a reason Jews are not warming much to Trump. No matter what our political or religious persuasion, we all know far too well that once they start with an ideological test for Muslims, we aren't far behind. Some of my fellow tribesemen may, actually, hate Muslims, but few have enough faith in the newfound Judeo-Christian friendship to think of themselves as a permanent part of the "white" majority.

It is, actually, quite hilarious to observe conservative Russian Jews in the US this time. They hate Hillary. They hate Muslims. They hate blacks. They hate Mexicans. But Trump activates all the danger sensors they have grown over the centuries of surviving in Russia. They know the type - and they know how dangerous he is. Dangerous to them, personally to them. Their ideology tells them to adore Trump. Their heart and their brains combine to tell them to hate the guy. A lot of them have started sounding positively deranged recently.

[ag]

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.

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

Nothing whatsoever indeed. Foreigners have no standing here.

It might not be possible to order a US citizen to enforce such a system, though.

Or, as it says in the Olsen vs. Albright:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/990/31/1405494/

[ag]

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.

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

Nothing whatsoever indeed. Foreigners have no standing here.

As an aside, you shouldn't use legal terms like "standing" in a discussion like this unless you are absolutely sure that you're using it correctly. Foreigners absolutely can have standing in US courts. Stick to broader non-legal terms when trying to make a point like that.

I, actually, use the term advisedly. Though foreigners do have standing in US courts, they do not have standing in matters of admission to the US. This is, to the best of my understanding, a very well-established doctrine. An applicant for a visa may be able to demonstrate that decision to exclude him or her was legally flawed on whatever grounds - s/he cannot sue. This, BTW, was an issue that was discussed a lot when visas for brides/grooms were introduced. This, finally, created a non-immigrant visa category potentially subject to judicial review: though a foreign bride still cannot go to court, her fiance may. It is also a difference between US and Canadian law: there is some avenue for judicial appeal in Canada. In fact, Canadian consular employees are instructed to keep records of their decision process in case courts ask for those. American consuls are explicitly told to destroy any such records.

This is, actually, what makes the Olsen vs. Albright so unique. The US consulate in which he worked was blatantly discriminating on racial grounds and this was well-know, but no visa applicant could sue. But, of course, Olsen was a US citizen, and he objected to being punished for refusing to follow unconstitutional orders. He, most certainly, did have standing there. And that is the only reason we actually have a court ruling saying such discrmination in visa process is unconstitutional.

[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?

If folks, in a religious concept, go to a Rabbinical court to decide something, that's one thing.  But such a resolution should never be binding on any person as far as civil law goes.

And, literally, nobody in the US - Muslim, Jewish or Pastafarian - has ever suggested anything else. It is completely a non-issue, given the US constitutional system. It is, of course, quite another matter in Israel - there religious law is the law for communities in question.

There is no reason to believe that Muslims are any more perfidious in pushing for their law than Jews. Not even the practice in many Muslim-majority states - the one Jewish-majority state does the same.

[ag]

Hell, we have people here who dress like it's 1847.  I don't know why.  They drive horses pulling black buggies.  If you haven't been to southeastern Pennsylvania it'll startle you.  

Been there, been there We also have mennonite communities in Mexico - and all over Latin America, actually. And Russia has Old Believers, who would not eat potatos, because these were unknown in Russia in 1654. I know more about these kinds of communities than you suspect

[ag]

You need to put all that thousand-year-old hatred of the Eastern European aristocracy aside.  This is about economics.  

It is, and it is not. Xenophobia may be an expression of economic anxiety, but economic anxiety does not have to manifest itself in xenophobia.

[ag]

 There is enough to dislike about Trump without likening him to the cossacks.

He is not a Cossack. He is a pogromshchik. Urban-style. Like in Chisinau or Odessa.

[ag]

I think you're taking the thread a little off course with a discussion of the bizarre ethnoreligious customs of certain groups.  Who cares about that?

You missed my point Some people (not you) have built a straw man. I am burning him

[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