Senate committee: Religion-based entry to U.S. is un-American

Potential immigrants are screened on a host of factors including race, ethnicity, country of origin, education, etc. Is that also a Civil Rights violation ? Does that violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution ? Nor really since as non citizens they are not subject to those protections.

The Constitution made a point of using "rights" in the Bill of Rights when addressing "persons", and reserved the term "privileges" to when discussing aspects only available to "citizens". (For example, the "privilege" of voting for the President is only granted to citizens.) Thus it is generally accepted that various parts of the Constitution apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. Therefore I would take exception to the statement that non-citizens are not subject to those protections.

Ran across this interesting quote today:

I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. ... However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. ... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation. Senator Pat McCarran (D) - Nevada

Yes, those were the words of a Democrat. His comments were in defense of the proposed McCarran - Walter Act which was subsequently passed, vetoed by President Truman, and the veto over-riden by Congress to become the Immigration Act of 1952. This was back when Congress was for the most part White and Male. This act is for the most part still in force.

Good on the Senate! Some pointed, er, points:

First, to the Republicans: Haaaaaa ha! Chew on that! You're loosing.

Second, to the inveterate anti-Americans: Things like this clearly demonstrate that the US is not the same as it was in past generations, and -- outside of the Republican party -- not the white supremacist Imperial power you think. Its the Republican party, that.

In short, the Republican party must be destroyed.

One final thing: those here on this forum who support Trump are specifically the problem. They only way to deal with people such as this is with scorn and mockery.

Soon, The Dem party will win every election as theyll have the immigrant/refugee turned citizen vote. Very smart plan. Keep promising freebees with peoples hard earned tax dollars. In time The US will be a Dictatorship/Socialist country.

Cool. I'd rather have a competent socialist dictator in charge than the kind of "democratically" elected clowns who are screwing everything up at the moment.

Potential immigrants are screened on a host of factors including race, ethnicity, country of origin, education, etc. Is that also a Civil Rights violation ? Does that violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution ? Nor really since as non citizens they are not subject to those protections.

As repugnant as it may be (including Trump), there IS legal and unrepidiated legal precedent, namely the Immigration Act of 1924 which was superceded by the Immigration Act of 1952 which is essentially in effect today with modifications after 911.

Sessions spoke for almost half an hour opposing the language, saying it was overly broad and could hamper immigration authorities’ ability to screen applicants on religious issues.

Sessions just doesn't get it... Immigration officials should NEVER be screening applicants based on their religion. Radical diatribes? Sure. But just what religion they are? NEVER! To do so would make a mockery of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I think they still haven't figured it out. Religious based entry is the wrong terminology for what's happening. It's more like harmful based ideology. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't allow people to support Nazism because it was proven to be a harmful ideology.

I think there should be a law that states that freedom of religion should be allowed unless said religious practices violate basic human rights and constitutional rights. Last I checked, murder, prosecution of those that don't share the same beliefs, subjugation of laws, coercion into religion, enslavement, and treating women with unequal status is not supported in the US democratic system, yet Islamic ideology promotes all of this.

Therefore anyone who does any of the above in the US should not be allowed to stay here, because their "practices" runs counter to the laws of the US.

And before some doofus states, "all religions" have this, get a brain. The majority of the worlds largest religions have evolved and improved much more than what we're seeing in Islamic governed countries. Many countries have practically gone secular because no one is forced to follow religious dictate except in Islamic countries just because one is "born into" a Muslim father/family.

Considering there were loads of pipe bombs, probably a lot of damage.

Makes one wonder then, why they didn't just drop the pipe bombs off, instead of using their legally-purchased firearms? As it was, they left all the bombs at home.

@Cleo,

Considering there were loads of pipe bombs, probably a lot of damage.

@Galapagos,

Cruz isn`t the front runner in Iowa.

Dems are throwing The US to the dogs. They want everyone coming in to the country to eventually favour their party and vote. Soon, The Dem party will win every election as theyll have the immigrant/refugee turned citizen vote. Very smart plan. Keep promising freebees with peoples hard earned tax dollars. In time The US will be a Dictatorship/Socialist country.

The four Republicans who opposed it included GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz of Texas

Let's see if Ted can pull this off. He wants to wink enough at Trump supporters to gain their trust but he doesn't actually want to come out and say the things they want to to hear because he knows everyone is listening. He wants to be "stealth" Trump.

It will be fun when Trump puts Cruz in his sights. Now that Ted is rising in the polls we'll see how long that takes.

So what happened last week in England when you had a Jihadist that stabbed a guy in the Tube only upon developing reports we found out that the perpetrator tried to saw off the victims head with a knife. Point is, either way, if they want to kill you, they will do it by any means.

What happened in London last week is that a guy with mental problems and a knife tried to kill someone, and wasn't able to do it. Obviously he didn't have the means, and just as well.

How much damage would the latest pair of nutters have done if all they'd had access to was a couple of 3-inch knives each? Certainly a lot less damage than they actually did do with their legally-purchased armoury.

liberals are trying to blame the 2nd amendment for the sole reason for what happened in San Bernado last week

I have zero recollection of reading anyone on this site or any other “trying to blame the 2nd amendment for the sole reason for what happened in San Bernado last week.” (sic) I have read people say that in the US guns are easy for just about anyone over 18 to obtain, including someone wanting to commit terroristic acts.

The reports I read said the guns used by the Islamic terrorists were legally purchased, thereby connecting the terroristic act with the freedom US citizens and others have to obtain guns. That sounds like a reasonable connection to me. The terrorists committed the atrocity. They were monsters.

What happened in San Bernardino was hideous. But given the US’s slack gun laws, given how easy it is to obtain semi-automatic weapons that can be altered (most likely illegally) to be fully automatic weapons, and given that a 50 calibre semi-automatic firearm can be purchased in most US states, I have to think that the US has laws that allow its citizens and visitors to be placed at risk. At great risk.

Now apply that logic to guns, and see how hypocritical you are.

Guns? Ohhhhh, I forget, liberals are trying to blame the 2nd amendment for the sole reason for what happened in San Bernado last week. So what happened last week in England when you had a Jihadist that stabbed a guy in the Tube only upon developing reports we found out that the perpetrator tried to saw off the victims head with a knife. Point is, either way, if they want to kill you, they will do it by any means. But if you have a gun, you take the person out. Pure and simple.

Senator Cruz is now regarded as the front-runner in Iowa and some political pundits are predicting he'll be the Republican nominee for next year's presidential election. His archconservative positions apparently outweigh other qualities, such as high principles and personal likeability, which is his case warrant negative figures.

. . .yeah, uh huh. Tashfeen Malik was a "peaceful" and "devout" muslim, who'd have thought she'd ditch her 6-mo old infant to commit terror, murder.

Now apply that logic to guns, and see how hypocritical you are.

“it is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

. . . yeah, uh huh, uh huh. Sounds good & looks nice on paper. But are they going to determine will actually pose a threat and "sould" be barred from entering the United States.

. . .yeah, uh huh. Tashfeen Malik was a "peaceful" and "devout" muslim, who'd have thought she'd ditch her 6-mo old infant to commit terror, murder.

the US is rapidly sliding towards a cheap parody of every supposed principal it was founded upon.... - comments

Perhaps more an unjustifiably expensive parody in blood and treasure led by the "Conservatives"?

the US is rapidly sliding towards a cheap parody of every supposed principal it was founded upon....

The amendment states that “it is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.” . . . The four Republicans who opposed it included GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz of Texas.

Nice to know Texas Senator Ted Cruz's position on the fundamental principles on which his adopted nation was founded.