Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

How is this substantially different from voluntarily submitting to binding arbitration?

Submitting to binding arbitration is part of the civil legal process that one would do with the advice of an attorney.  Submitting to Sharia Law to resolve a dispute is a process that opens itself up to people who are part of the process using emotional coercion to get an aggrieved party to forsake civil justice and go the religious route.  Given the treatment of Muslim women in many nations, it is not unreasonable to believe that such an option, when formalized, would open up Muslim women in America to be coerced out of their valuable legal rights.  To say nothing of the degree to which this actually makes a church a de facto part of the state if submitting the matter to a Sharia court was an action that couldn't be taken back. 

I believe that most of the red avatars here were very much in favor of the removal of the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.  If so, how can one entertain this idea for five measly seconds? 

[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. 

[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.