Is it legal for the administation to take ideology into assessing admissibillity?

[AmericanWannabe]

If Bush decides atheists should not become US citizens,
can he put that crtierion into practice?

Some crtierias there are already actually
ideology-based.

[Immg-Jck]

AmericanWannabe is a TROLL and seems to hate the President of United States. That explains his false and misleading post. No one is talking about throwing athiests out except AmericanWannabe.


--------------------------------------
A Great Nation chooses a Great Leader. Bush 51%. Kerry 48%.

[wik]

Originally Posted by Immg-Jck

AmericanWannabe is a TROLL and seems to hate the President of United States. That explains his false and misleading post. No one is talking about throwing athiests out except AmericanWannabe.

And judging by your posts and signature, you are a Bush-lover. So what's your point? The original question seems [somewhat] legitimate. We are already asked questions about political affiliations, which have underlying theological interpretations.

[GCLookup]

Originally Posted by AmericanWannabe

If Bush decides atheists should not become US citizens,
can he put that crtierion into practice?

Some crtierias there are already actually
ideology-based.

Can u put more light on "atheists"? Might be helpful to understands ur point of view.

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by wik

And judging by your posts and signature, you are a Bush-lover. So what's your point? The original question seems [somewhat] legitimate. We are already asked questions about political affiliations, which have underlying theological interpretations.

I heard a fervent Christian here said that in history one US
president once said he thought only Christians should be natualized

[Immg-Jck]

History also says that there was a President once who did not want morons to be naturalized. With AW being tagged as a certified moron, it only makes sense that he be de-naturalized.

--------------------------------------
A Great Nation chooses a Great Leader. Bush 51%. Kerry 48%.

[litmu]

Originally Posted by ****

The president does not decide such stuff.
Congress is the government institution that creates law. Article 1, section 1 of the constitution.
Discrimination against atheists would be unconstitutional (1st amendment.)

well said, the 1st amendment takes care of us, the future citizens. Halleluja for Thomas Jefferson and framers of constitution, the bill of rights ... the best piece of literature. we need more jeffersonians and naders.

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by litmu

well said, the 1st amendment takes care of us, the future citizens. Halleluja for Thomas Jefferson and framers of constitution, the bill of rights ... the best piece of literature. we need more jeffersonians and naders.

1st amendment can be interpreted as applicable to citizens
only, not to alients who want to immigrate or to be naturalize.

I suspect the original point of 1st amendment is to
make no one school of Chrisitanity dominate the other
christian denominations.

[Immg-Jck]

AW... What are you smoking?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by ****

The president does not decide such stuff.
Congress is the government institution that creates law. Article 1, section 1 of the constitution.
Discrimination against atheists would be unconstitutional (1st amendment.)

It's unlikely that atheist would be discriminated that way - but if govt decides to do that (basically govt goes insane), the law will come different way. Probably the law will never spell that "atheists are not eligible" - but some other way which make most of the atheists scapegoat - hence ineligible. But I don't it is possible in today. But it's possible. There are many things in history (though not related) where govt made mistakes - slavery, japanese concentration camp and so on.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by Immg-Jck

AmericanWannabe is a TROLL and seems to hate the President of United States. That explains his false and misleading post. No one is talking about throwing athiests out except AmericanWannabe.

Give me five reasons why he would not do that. In case you cannot count upto number five, here just fill up these bullet marks :

• Reason 1:
• Reason 2:
• Reason 3:
• Reason 4:
• Reason 5:

[pralay]

Originally Posted by ****

An episode from that time I read about: a group of students presented an exerpt from the declaration of independence to people on the street to sign, and the people got all upset and accused the students of spreading communist propaganda....

Even there were accusation that Martin Luther King Jr had communist connection and he wanted to breakdown American Govt using his black followers.

[AmericanWannabe]

Why was Charles Choplin deported? Ronald Reagan
said it was a right thing to deport him

[AmericanWannabe]

At that time (before 1924), was there such a concept
of distinction as permanent aliens, nonimmmigrant
aliens , and illegal aliens? Maybe there was were
just aliens. In "Titanic", you did not see foreigners
need a visa to come to USA. They only needed
a boat ticket.

[Immg-Jak]

It is important to take idealogy into account when allowing admission. If you declare that you are a Communist, you can betcha sweet *** that you will not allowed into the US.

--------------------------------------
A Great Nation chooses a Great Leader. Bush 51%. Kerry 48%.

[Immg-Jak]

****. Do you have something useful to post? Your last 5 posts are all about aggression on other members on this forum. In case you did not notice, this is immigration forum. Want that translated into a language you understand?

--------------------------------------
A Great Nation chooses a Great Leader. Bush 51%. Kerry 48%.

[Immg-Jak]

****,

The needle in your old vinyl record stuck on the same track today? Move along.

--------------------------------------
Life is Great, Bush is back.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by Immg-Jak

It is important to take idealogy into account when allowing admission. If you declare that you are a Communist, you can betcha sweet *** that you will not allowed into the US.

Friendly advise. Don't manifest your stupid thought. More you post, more you prove that you are a pure dumbhead. Learn from your own "leader" - who hardly give any interview to avoid revealing his dumbness. Remember that 9/11 commission deposition when he went with his "daddy" Dick. You should find a similar "daddy" too, before posting your messages.

[Immg-Jak]

Originally Posted by pralay

Friendly advise.

What happened pralay? Depressed because of the whooping your party took on November 2nd? Maybe the Democrats should have defined a clear message, selected an effective candidate and sidelined liars like Dan Rather and Michael Moore. But now you need to wait until 2008, when we will see another leader as great as W.... choose between McCain, Guliani and Jebby.

--------------------------------------
November 2nd 2004. A Great Leader of the Greatest Nation is re-elected for Four More Years.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by Immg-Jak

What happened pralay? Depressed because of the whooping your party took on November 2nd? Maybe the Democrats should have defined a clear message, selected an effective candidate and sidelined liars like Dan Rather and Michael Moore. But now you need to wait until 2008, when we will see another leader as great as W.... choose between McCain, Guliani and Jebby.

I am neither Democrat nor depressed. Therefore, I hardly care whether Democracts should define clear message or not. I consider politicians as my "workers" (better word "public servents") who get their salary and perks from my tax dollars. Unlike you, I don't follow blindly or get brainwashed by politicians. If you worship your "leader" blindly (which you do definitely), that's your choice.
I am neither a fan of Michael Moore and Dan Rathers nor a fanatic, bigot, dumb, brainwashed like you.

BTW, McCain is a true conservative and good politician - unlike your phony conservative "leader". So, next time in 2008, have something in your head and avoid choosing a goofy conservative leader (althought I doubt you will be able to vote in 2008 primary, considering the fact you are just another "phony citizen" ).

Lastly, as most of your brain-cells are dead, support for stem-cell research. That can help you grow some of your brain-cells before 2008 primary.

[Immg-Jak]

Jeb Bush as Prez in 2008, with McCain as the VP. That would be dynamic.

Who would the Dems nominate? Sharpton as Prez candidate and Dashcle as VP candidate? They would probably pick up the depressed Dems vote.

--------------------------------------
November 2nd 2004. A Great Leader of the Greatest Nation is re-elected for Four More Years.

[bb_5555]

the president does not decide anything

criteria for citizenship is spelled out in federal law

any changes must go through congress.

even if they were to create such a law of disallowing atheists it would immediately be struck down even by the current supreme court.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by bb_5555

even if they were to create such a law of disallowing atheists it would immediately be struck down even by the current supreme court.

As it discussed earlier, bad law always comes in sheep's clothing. In past even supreme court uphelded the law of slavery assuming slaves as "property".

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by pralay

As it discussed earlier, bad law always comes in sheep's clothing. In past even supreme court uphelded the law of slavery assuming slaves as "property".

When an atheist recite oath at natualization ceremony, if he
recite God's name, you can say he commits a fraud by lying.
if he does not recite God's name, you can nullify the ceremony
because it is not complete.

Newdow from California filed a lawsuit to remove
"under one God" from flag allegiance but he lost

[bb_5555]

Freedom of religion has been well established as something to be taken seriously.

People have the right to practice whatever religion they choose.

However I will have to admit that the right to not practice any religion at all is not clear at all. Currently the supreme court is side stepping the issue.

We pride ourselves on the freedom to express our religious beliefs freely and openly, but we are not very open to people who have no religious beliefs.

This truely flies in the face of the statue of liberty's creed to give us all the "huddled Masses yearning to breathe free"

certainly something to think about perhaps.

[Pork Chop]

Originally Posted by ****

He wasn't really deported, but was denied entry at some time.
This was in the late 40ies, during the McCarthy witchhunts. The so-called "House Un-American Activities Council", chaired by McCarthy, subpoenaed him at some point, and he refused to testify. See the biographical entries in IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000122/bio and other biographies, e.g., http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/soc/run.html
""With his image tarnished as a result of the negative publicity campaign, the political strategy for containing Chaplin became the reverse of what it earlier had been. Keeping Chaplin off the witness stand was now the single most effective way to further damage his reputation and to impugn his loyalties. He was, in effect, labeled a communist in a campaign of rumors and innuendoes. For as the House Un-American Activities Committee and FBI well knew (and the files of the latter indicate), he never had been a member of the Communist Party. Had he been allowed to testify under oath, he could have set the record straight. (Subpoenaed by HUAC in 1947, his hearing was postponed three times and finally canceled.)"

The McCarthy era is a big black spot on US history...

not to mention, of course, chaplin did have a few convictions relating to pedophilia (under the then applicable Mann Act) which was used by the immigration authorities to find him guilty of moral turpitude, hence inadmissable.

speaking of black spots, it seems we are not content with the same old ones. the internment of people, regardless of whether they are terrorists or not, in guantanamo bay, and even within the US, while being denied their due process rights, is a huge big stinkin' black mark. and it was the evil genius of ashcroft, who lined up all the loopholes in the law to make his own parallel system of justice, that made this possible. i cannot recall any other instance when the sitting attorney general, who is the chief law enforcement officer in the land, refused to comply with direct court orders asking the justice dept to release the names of prisoners within the US. ashcroft cited national security.

it seems that "national security" is the mantra of a new mccarthyism which is being engendered by g.w. bush and his ilk. i wouldn't be surprised if we discover that gays and lesbians and people who wish to exercise their right to choose also pose grave risks to national security.