There has been some controversy over Trump’s call for enhanced screening of potential immigrants. The law and history are on his side. The Chinese Exclusion Act was approved on May 6, 1882, it banned Chinese laborers. At the turn of the twentieth century, the U.S. and Japan entered into a gentleman’s agreement, limiting Japanese immigration. Who can forget FDR’s time as President when 6 million jews went to Hitler’s ovens. Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees. The bottom line, any reason and no reason will do to limit who gets into the United States.
Now we are faced with an implacable enemy that follows a system of political thought, masquerading as a religion, that brooks no compromise or disagreement. There is no such thing as a “good” Muslim the goal of all Muslims is outlined in Sharia Law and calls for the destruction of the west and all that it stands for. In the short term that is not likely, but Muslims are used to playing a long game. I am convinced that liberals cannot perceive the threat Muslims pose because of their contempt for religion and all that profess to believe.
I can understand their contempt. My suspicion is that Teddy was afraid of being usurped for the title of Penultimate Scum Bag by Bill Clinton. So, he went to the Catholic Church and had his marriage to his first wife annulled. Teddy Kennedy, noted alcoholic, murderer, would be rapist, and US Senator and the Catholic Church were made for one another.
Back to visa’s and naturalization. If a potential visitor wants to come to this country for purposes of immigration, then there are qualifications that must be met. Did you know that the practice of polygamy is a disqualifier? Yup, not of “good moral character.” I suspect that only applies if your name is Brigham Young and not Achmed the Terrorist.
People wanting to be naturalized Americans must submit an application take an oath in order to fulfill the requirements of citizenship. They have to swear to protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and bear arms in defense of the United States. The One has tried to water down the obligation to bear arms in defense to the United States, by changing the language to provide alternatives to conscientious objectors on religious grounds. Here is the enabling statute followed by the oath: Nationalization Oath Enabling Statute uscis.gov/ilink/doc, Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America Oath
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.
People in certain quarters are upset in the recent change of the language of the oath. They fear that it given Muslims an out in that they can claim conscientious objector status and use it to obscure their intent in a defense against false swearing. I don’t see that any Muslim anywhere would ever be able claim noncombatant status. Their religion calls for good Muslims to kill unbelievers anytime, any place.
There is a provision in Federal Law, uscode/text/18/1425 for criminal charges to be brought should an applicant lie on the application or in taking of the oath. If an individual does not qualify for citizenship, why given them a visa leading to citizenship in the first place. Part of the oath requires that applicants forgo any honorifics, indicative of foreign royalty, such as Prince, King, Sheik (you get the idea). Although in recent practice religious figures have been called Sheikh, its accepted meaning is an indication of royalty. Wikipedia, the lazy man’s resource has this to say about sheikhs: Kurdish sheikhs, 1895.
The word in Arabic stems from a triliteral root connected with age and aging: ش-ي-خ, shīn-yā’-khā’. The term literally means a man of vast power, and nobility, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the Middle East. The title carries the meaning leader, elder, or noble, especially in the Arabian Peninsula within the Tribes of Arabia, where shaikh became a traditional title of a Bedouin tribal leader in recent centuries. Due to the cultural impact of Arab civilization, and especially through the spread of Islam, the word has gained currency as a religious term or general honorific in many other parts of the world as well, notably in Muslim cultures in Africa and Asia.
While the title can be used religiously by Muslims to designate a learned person, as an Arabic word it is essentially independent of religion. It is notably used by Druze for their religious men, but also by Arab Christians for elder men of stature. Its usage and meaning is similar to the Latin senex meaning “old [man]”, from which the Latin (and English) “senator” is derived. Accordingly, the Arabic term for most legislative bodies termed Senate (e.g. the United States Senate) is majlis al-shuyūkh, literally meaning “Council of Senators.”
So we learn Sheikh – man, bad. Sheikh – condom, good.
I am not a lawyer, so I’m not going to address Sharia Law other than to say the laws of the United States are made by elected representatives of the States and the Federal Government and not a bunch of goat herders looking out over the flock for their next date. This does not confer any nobility on elected US officials, it’s just that they don’t have a goat herd.