Orlando shooting gunman Omar Mateen father Seddique Mateen a Taliban supporter says G

Ok bro, the Taliban sprang from the earth. Believe whatever you want.

 

Now you're just being ignorant.

 

You are automatically denied citizenship if you were a member of the Nazis. I see no difference between Nazis and Muslims.

 

Ali was a member of the nation of Islam which is the largest hate group in the United States and is incompatible with western culture unfortunately most of its members are citizens and can not be deported.

 

He was. And then he left the Nation of Islam, and denounced their ways. Also, not to be nit picky, but the KKK is still, by all accounts, the largest hate group in the United States in terms of verifiable membership. That is assuming of course that we separate the Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists, and Racist Skinheads into different groups, as there tends to be a fair amount of overlap.

 

Stop what now, specifically?

So you refuse to discuss specifics when it comes to either man?

Do you want to do away with birthright citizenship for everyone? How about for yourself?

Seeing how that is not at all how our system even currently works, yes, that's something you could debate.

Well, for starters, I'd insist on national security background checks performed by the Department of Homeland security on those seeking citizenship or residency here. Which is what we do now. You are trying to use an example of someone immigrating here over 30 years ago to claim there is something wrong with our current immigration security measures. And you apparently don't see the flaw in that thinking.

 

Yes we've seen moderate islam in the form of the shooters wife. She's just as guilty as he is.

Someone who has no loyalty to this country does not belong here, no matter where they popped out. The shooter himself did it, in his own words, because HIS COUNTRY, AFGHANISTAN, was being bombed by the US.

They need to be rooted out and expelled, then we don't need to worry about them buying guns or anything else.

 

Nevermind the millions of actual moderate Muslims who live here.

Declaring loyalty is required for naturalization.

Taking away citizenship requires a trial and due process.

And again I ask for specifics.

 

Or the millions in Europe that hid the Paris attackers, or didn't turn in the Orlando shooter.

But not for being popped out. Children of naturalized citizens should also fall into the naturalized category. How does the shooters father, who is the in-exile leader of Afghanistan, have loyalty for the US?

Not if it's changed.

I don't care what the specifics are, there are people who get elected to figure that out. All I care is that we get rid of them.

Instead of crying about keeping terrorists from buying guns, put them out of the country. They certainly can't buy guns here then.

 

Everyone agrees on Gun Reform by keeping ppl on No-Fly lists and in terrorist registries away from buying guns and some Conservatives even support BG checks at gunshows.

Beyond that it'll take years, if ever for anything deeper.

 

Islam is a threat, there is nothing threatening about Judaism and atheists, they aren't intentionally mass murdering civilians in mass all across the globe.

Islam existed, he was a Muslim, he should not have been allowed to come here, Muslims have no place in the west, period.

Current ideological restrictions on naturalization

Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."[34] This is essentially a political test,[35] though it "should be construed ... in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience."[36] The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: "Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution."[37] Even still, the ideological requirement is "nebulous";[38] it begs the questions of what the "basic form of government of the United States" is and what the key "principles of the Constitution" are to which the applicant must subscribe.

In Schneiderman v. United States, the case to develop the attachment requirement in the most detail, the court evaluated the circumstances of a young man whose naturalization was allegedly fraudulent for his failure to satisfy the attachment requirement. The man had been a member of two communist organizations at the time of his naturalization.[39] Upon questioning, he stated that he "subscribed 'to the philosophy and principles of Socialism as manifested in the writings of Lenin'" but "denied that he ... advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force" and "considered membership in the Party compatible with the obligations of American citizenship, believing that "socialism could be achieved here by democratic processes."[40]

The court held that the government had not proved that the man failed to satisfy the attachment requirement. The opinion's broad language emphasized the compatibility of dissident political views with attachment to the constitution. "The constitutional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political strait-jacket for the generations to come", wrote Justice Frank Murphy.[41] The Court observed that Article V of the United States Constitution provides an amendment process without specifying a limit on the scope of amendments and that "the many important and far-reaching changes made in the Constitution since 1787 refute the idea that attachment to any particular provision or provisions is essential, or that one who advocates radical changes is necessarily not attached to the Constitution."[41] It further cautioned that "sincerity of desires to improve the constitution should not be judged by conformity to prevailing thought", because the freedom of thought is the utmost Constitutional value.[42]

Beyond the general attachment provision, there are several supplementary specific ideological bars.[43] These exclusions affect anarchists,[44] communists,[45] totalitarians,[45] and advocates of assassination,[46] government overthrow by force,[46] destruction of property,[46] and sabotage.[46] The bars apply only to applicants who espoused forbidden views or were members of forbidden groups in the 10 years prior to applying for naturalization; earlier beliefs or membership are not disqualifying.[47] Other exemptions from the bar include involuntary membership, membership without awareness of the group's aims, membership under the age of 16, and membership for the purpose of the obtaining food rations or other essentials of living.[48]

The nature of the conduct or belief that invokes the bar differs among these ideologies. For communists and totalitarians, the prohibited activities are membership and affiliation with relevant organizations,[49] the advocacy of relevant doctrines,[50] the publishing of relevant doctrines,[51] and the association with organizations that advocate or publish relevant doctrines.[52] The bar on communism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of communism in the United States, whereas the bar on totalitarianism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of totalitarianism anywhere in the world.[43][53] For advocates of assassination, government overthrow by force, destruction of property, and sabotage, the prohibited activities are advocacy,[54] writing and publishing materials that advocate,[55] and membership in an organization that publishes such materials.[56]

For any membership-related bar to come into operation, a court must find that the membership was a "meaningful association".[57][58][59][60] Simply putting one's name on party rolls is insufficient.[61] The individual must have affiliated with the party for primarily political reasons, and his activities in the party must evidence the individual's "awareness of the Party's political aspect".[58][61] Courts have found a lack of meaningful association in cases where members of trade unions or political movements are unaware the organizations are dominated by the communist party,[62][63] and even in cases where communist party members attended party meetings, paid dues, or ran the party's bookstore.[58][61]
Ideological requirements and the First Amendment
In other contexts, regulations of speech based on content or viewpoint are presumptively invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, being evaluated using the "most exacting scrutiny."[64] Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has explicitly upheld viewpoint-discriminatory statutes in the context of immigration law, though its statements about the free speech rights of aliens have been "various and contradictory."[65] The constitutionality of the 1903 Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams.[66] The court concluded that Congress "possesses the plenary power to exclude aliens on whatever ground [it] deems fit."[67] Similarly, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court cited Congress's plenary power over immigration laws as the basis for applying an extremely deferential standard of review to the statutory exclusion of communist aliens from the United States.[68] No ideological naturalization restriction has been overturned on First Amendment grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideol...nt_ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization

 

That's a violation of the 2nd Amendment, you can't just stick someone on a list and take away their Constitutional Rights without due process, they have to be tried and convicted of a crime in order for their rights to be restricted. However, deporting non-Citizen Muslims and refusing entry into the US for Muslims is perfectly Constitutional:

Current ideological restrictions on naturalization

Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."[34] This is essentially a political test,[35] though it "should be construed ... in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience."[36] The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: "Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution."[37] Even still, the ideological requirement is "nebulous";[38] it begs the questions of what the "basic form of government of the United States" is and what the key "principles of the Constitution" are to which the applicant must subscribe.

In Schneiderman v. United States, the case to develop the attachment requirement in the most detail, the court evaluated the circumstances of a young man whose naturalization was allegedly fraudulent for his failure to satisfy the attachment requirement. The man had been a member of two communist organizations at the time of his naturalization.[39] Upon questioning, he stated that he "subscribed 'to the philosophy and principles of Socialism as manifested in the writings of Lenin'" but "denied that he ... advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force" and "considered membership in the Party compatible with the obligations of American citizenship, believing that "socialism could be achieved here by democratic processes."[40]

The court held that the government had not proved that the man failed to satisfy the attachment requirement. The opinion's broad language emphasized the compatibility of dissident political views with attachment to the constitution. "The constitutional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political strait-jacket for the generations to come", wrote Justice Frank Murphy.[41] The Court observed that Article V of the United States Constitution provides an amendment process without specifying a limit on the scope of amendments and that "the many important and far-reaching changes made in the Constitution since 1787 refute the idea that attachment to any particular provision or provisions is essential, or that one who advocates radical changes is necessarily not attached to the Constitution."[41] It further cautioned that "sincerity of desires to improve the constitution should not be judged by conformity to prevailing thought", because the freedom of thought is the utmost Constitutional value.[42]

Beyond the general attachment provision, there are several supplementary specific ideological bars.[43] These exclusions affect anarchists,[44] communists,[45] totalitarians,[45] and advocates of assassination,[46] government overthrow by force,[46] destruction of property,[46] and sabotage.[46] The bars apply only to applicants who espoused forbidden views or were members of forbidden groups in the 10 years prior to applying for naturalization; earlier beliefs or membership are not disqualifying.[47] Other exemptions from the bar include involuntary membership, membership without awareness of the group's aims, membership under the age of 16, and membership for the purpose of the obtaining food rations or other essentials of living.[48]

The nature of the conduct or belief that invokes the bar differs among these ideologies. For communists and totalitarians, the prohibited activities are membership and affiliation with relevant organizations,[49] the advocacy of relevant doctrines,[50] the publishing of relevant doctrines,[51] and the association with organizations that advocate or publish relevant doctrines.[52] The bar on communism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of communism in the United States, whereas the bar on totalitarianism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of totalitarianism anywhere in the world.[43][53] For advocates of assassination, government overthrow by force, destruction of property, and sabotage, the prohibited activities are advocacy,[54] writing and publishing materials that advocate,[55] and membership in an organization that publishes such materials.[56]

For any membership-related bar to come into operation, a court must find that the membership was a "meaningful association".[57][58][59][60] Simply putting one's name on party rolls is insufficient.[61] The individual must have affiliated with the party for primarily political reasons, and his activities in the party must evidence the individual's "awareness of the Party's political aspect".[58][61] Courts have found a lack of meaningful association in cases where members of trade unions or political movements are unaware the organizations are dominated by the communist party,[62][63] and even in cases where communist party members attended party meetings, paid dues, or ran the party's bookstore.[58][61]

Ideological requirements and the First Amendment
In other contexts, regulations of speech based on content or viewpoint are presumptively invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, being evaluated using the "most exacting scrutiny."[64] Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has explicitly upheld viewpoint-discriminatory statutes in the context of immigration law, though its statements about the free speech rights of aliens have been "various and contradictory."[65] The constitutionality of the 1903 Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams.[66] The court concluded that Congress "possesses the plenary power to exclude aliens on whatever ground [it] deems fit."[67] Similarly, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court cited Congress's plenary power over immigration laws as the basis for applying an extremely deferential standard of review to the statutory exclusion of communist aliens from the United States.[68] No ideological naturalization restriction has been overturned on First Amendment grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideol...nt_ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization

 

A violation to add someone on a list of suspected Islamic terrorists or persons with terrorist connects that the FBI is watching?

???

But I believe and support the Constitutional bans. Other nations have changed by enemy spies and agents playing as immigrants. Look at Crimea...

 

They are secret lists which anyone can be put on at any time for any reason without any judicial oversight whatsoever, that is not due process by any stretch of the imagination.

 

In the 1980s the US armed and supported the Mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets, not the Taliban. There are rumours after the Soviet's defeat, some Mujahideen went off to fight in other hotspots involving Muslims. They returned after the US invaded Afghanistan and divided. One group became the Taliban and another the Northern Alliance.

This is the abridged version, but you get the idea.