The first town in America with a Muslim Majority city council is now making it’s first laws, and it seems residents’ fears of Sharia Law may be merited after all.
While the members of the Hamtramck, Michigan city council have denied that they would put religion into politics, their actions show otherwise. They’ve already banned alcohol sales within 500 feet of local mosques, and allowed daily calls to prayer to reverberate through town as early as 6am.
As both measures are intrinsically related to Islam, its hard to see how they’ve come to the conclusion that their actions are somehow non-religious in nature.
Rather, it seems as if they simply don’t care. As the town’s Polish population shrinks, the Muslim majority seems more than willing to institutionalize their religious beliefs in order to push the rest out.
See the town’s Polish mayor’s comments on the state of her town, continue reading on the next page:
Wait till they’re in it and then blow it up
Stop this now.
Sherri Goff Goodale , First there was this one !!!——————>>Pres. Theodore Roosevelt Non-Islam Immigration Law –1907
Immigration Act of 1907
The Law: Federal legislation regulating immigration
Date: Signed into law on February 20, 1907
Significance: This law created the Dillingham Commission to collect data used in future immigration laws, further narrowed Asian immigration, limited Muslim immigration, and expanded the definition of undesirable women immigrants.
In 1905, amid continuing concerns over increased immigration, President Theodore Roosevelt called upon the U.S. Congress to increase protection from unwanted immigration, especially in the nation’s largest cities, and to codify earlier legislation. Roosevelt and Congress sought to exclude immigrants who would not make good citizens. In February, 1907, Congress passed a new immigration act that expanded previous immigration restrictions by prohibiting Asians from entering the United States through the territory of Hawaii, doubled the immigration head tax to four dollars per person, broadened the excludable classes of immigrants to include contract labor and subversive and presumably immoral groups, and required ships to allow minimum amounts of deck space for each passenger and to provide manifests of their departing aliens.
Section 39 of the new law created the U.S. Immigration Commission—better known as the Dillingham Commission—to investigate immigration problems and their impact on the nation. The commission provided detailed reports to future Congresses regarding the need for refining immigration laws. The commission called on Congress to put the economic well-being of U.S. citizens above the needs of corporations that relied heavily on uneducated immigrants for cheap labor. The commission also favored further limiting immigration, implementing an alien literacy test, and continuing the Chinese exclusion policy and restricting Japanese and Korean immigration. The commissioners argued that Congress should limit the admission of unskilled aliens and implement a quota system.
The Immigration Act of 1907 was notable for several key innovations regarding immigration policy. Section 12 required ships with alien passengers departing the United States to provide complete lists of their passengers by name, age, sex, nationality, occupation, and place of residence in the United States. The information gathered through this law provided the first statistical documentation on alien departures. To combat the practice of polygamy and the keeping of concubines, the act expanded on the Immigration Act of 1891, which denied entry to polygamists, to include any persons who espoused these practices. The Ottoman Empire viewed these provisions as an attack on Islamic religious practices.
Women were a particular target of the 1907 law, which broadened the definition of prostitutes to include women arriving in the United States for any immoral purposes. The vague language of the law was used to exclude women in arranged marriages, especially those of Asian origin, and allowed for their deportation. Responding to concerns of progressive reformers, the act tightened laws targeting immigrant women suspected of being recruited to work as prostitutes. It also permitted the deportation of women who lived in known houses of prostitution or who had practiced prostitution within three years of their entering the United States. This was the first statutory provision authorizing deportation based on criminal conduct within the United States.
Linda Upham-Bornstein
Cannot implement Sharia law in America, it is unconstitutional!
Sherri , Then 50 years later , this one !!—–look who broke it first !!————————–>Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration
It is illegal that Obama is bringing Syrian Muslim refugees here at all. !!————————————————–>>Islam non-immigration law——————————————>>4 oval office sitters have ignored this…..starting G.H.W.Bush( he started this with his ” 7 year free tax investment bill ” on gas station investments for foriegn Muslim investers .This was when the faces you used to see in Tampa totally changed to these guys ! 1990/1992 & then NAFTA -Clinton was worst ) to the present of course go figure that one..He is one of them ————>>>Islam non-immigration law
Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unlawful means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House.Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited
CHAPTER 2-QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION OF ALIENS; TRAVEL CONTROL OF CITIZENS AND ALIENS
212 GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY
(3) SECURITY AND RELATED GROUNDS.-
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible.
You can read it in it’s entirety at:
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_2.html
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TITLE II
IMMIGRATION-USA.COM|BY WILLIAM C. BIRKETT
Obama’s lack of action to PROTECT AMERICA & AMERICANS FIRST is a complete dereliction to OATH & DUTY of AMERICA’S PRESIDENCY. Before he entered on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 8
Obama is committing TREASON against the Presidency, it’s people, our allies and our Constitution and NO POTUS is above the Supreme Law of the land aka our Constitution, PERIOD.I believe he should be held responsible for his actions even after he leaves office and PROSECUTED to the FULLEST for TREASON…
Sherri , Any more doubt !————————————————>>Obama & Islam
Quote:….Pres.Barack Hussein Obama
” The Future must not belong to those
who slander the Prophet of Islam ” !!
Quote:…Pres. Barack Hussein Obama
” I stand with the Muslim & will never go
against Islam ” !!
Sherri , 100 plus years & have not learned a damn thing !!—————–>Theodore Roosevelt has the perfect answer for today’s Muslim Migrant immigration crisis !
Theodore Roosevelt has the perfect answer for today’s Muslim Migrant immigration crisis !
“We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
by Geoffrey Grider
THERE CAN BE NO DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE HERE. ANY MAN WHO SAYS HE IS AN AMERICAN, BUT SOMETHING ELSE ALSO, ISN’T AN AMERICAN AT ALL
America, a nation built on immigrants, has before been faced with a migrant crisis a time or two. But unlike how our leaders chose to handle it in 2015, our leaders a century ago had a much different perspective on things. Immigration is good for any nation, but multiculturalism is always the kiss of death. Listen to the words of the great American president, Teddy Roosevelt, and what his thoughts were on immigrants from any culture entering our borders, it’s quite enlightening.
“IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE SHOULD INSIST THAT IF THE IMMIGRANT WHO COMES HERE IN GOOD FAITH BECOMES AN AMERICAN AND ASSIMILATES HIMSELF TO US, HE SHALL BE TREATED ON AN EXACT EQUALITY WITH EVERYONE ELSE, FOR IT IS AN OUTRAGE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY SUCH MAN BECAUSE OF CREED, OR BIRTHPLACE, OR ORIGIN. BUT THIS IS PREDICATED UPON THE PERSON’S BECOMING IN EVERY FACET AN AMERICAN, AND NOTHING BUT AN AMERICAN … THERE CAN BE NO DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE HERE. ANY MAN WHO SAYS HE IS AN AMERICAN, BUT SOMETHING ELSE ALSO, ISN’T AN AMERICAN AT ALL. WE HAVE ROOM FOR BUT ONE FLAG, THE AMERICAN FLAG … WE HAVE ROOM FOR BUT ONE LANGUAGE HERE, AND THAT IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE … AND WE HAVE ROOM FOR BUT ONE SOLE LOYALTY AND THAT IS A LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.” – TEDDY ROOSEVELT, 1907
In other words, what Roosevelt was saying as it is applied to today’s America, is that Muslims or any other vettedpeople group are welcome, but only as it relates to them becoming American citizens.
Make allowances for Sharia Law? NO. Change our customs to suit Muslim customs? NO. Ban pork from any restaurant? NO. Tell women to dress more modestly because it offends Muslims? NO. Make newspapers and magazines stop publishing things offensive to Muslims? NO. Change anything at all because Muslims don’t like it? NO. I could go on but you get the idea.
My own grandfather came to Ellis Island in 1923, from Scotland, and he came with an accent so thick you could barely understand him, beautiful as it was. But he became an American with Scottish roots, and not a Scottish-America. Makes a big difference where you place the word, doesn’t it? Teddy Roosevelt also had this to say about “hyphenated” Americans:
“THERE IS NO ROOM IN THIS COUNTRY FOR HYPHENATED AMERICANISM. WHEN I REFER TO HYPHENATED AMERICANS, I DO NOT REFER TO NATURALIZED AMERICANS. SOME OF THE VERY BEST AMERICANS I HAVE EVER KNOWN WERE NATURALIZED AMERICANS, AMERICANS BORN ABROAD. BUT A HYPHENATED AMERICAN IS NOT AN AMERICAN AT ALL. THIS IS JUST AS TRUE OF THE MAN WHO PUTS “NATIVE” BEFORE THE HYPHEN AS OF THE MAN WHO PUTS GERMAN OR IRISH OR ENGLISH OR FRENCH BEFORE THE HYPHEN. AMERICANISM IS A MATTER OF THE SPIRIT AND OF THE SOUL. OUR ALLEGIANCE MUST BE PURELY TO THE UNITED STATES. WE MUST UNSPARINGLY CONDEMN ANY MAN WHO HOLDS ANY OTHER ALLEGIANCE.” – TEDDY ROOSEVELT, NEW YORK CITY, 1912
Once you allow for multiculturalism, like England has done, the death of your own culture is sure to follow. Mass immigration has left Britain an “unrecognisable” country that many people would not want to leave to their children and grandchildren, Nigel Farage has said. In one of his strongest attacks on immigration policy, he said the arrival of migrants has some British people feeling that parts of the country are now alien to them.
Teddy Roosevelt has the answer as to how we handle today’s Muslim immigration problem, if only we would heed his words. But I wonder what he would say about having a Muslim in the White House?
Sherri , T. Roosevelt had it right on Muslim Immigration
Mediates and politicians have tried to label Donald Trump a bigoted, xenophobic racist since announcing in June he was running for president. At Trump Tower, the Republican front runner vowed to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. In December, shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States.
The press, most of his chief rivals, and even the president predictably went bizerk. President Obama said it was “totally contrary to our values as Americans,” values which he insists are “universal.” But the data, as I’ve explained repeatedly here and here, shows the truth.
American values are not universal. In fact, before the American Left adopted the failed theory of multiculturalism out of the soon-to-be lost European nations, even their own progressive heroes understood the basic need to demand assimilation.
While “it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin,” as President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907, “this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.”
Teddy-Roosevelt-immigration-1907
And there you have it. Roosevelt, the progressive hero who broke up the big monopolies, was a closet xenophobe.
While his critique could apply to other demographic groups, the problem of Muslim assimilation is particularly difficult because Islam is neither only a religion and definitely is not a race. Islam is a political, judicial, civil and spiritual way of life that not only insists upon “divided allegiance” but also holds geo-political aspirations.
In a majority of Muslim-dominated Middle East countries, large pluralities–and, in many countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan–majorities support making Sharia law the official law of the land. Worth noting, recent polls show 54% of Muslim Americans living right here is the U.S, right now, agree.
Now, as someone who has researched extensively and help define it, perhaps with and in more detail than any other before me, I can say with confidence that the American national identity is antithetical to the “values” forced upon subjects under Sharia, or Islamic law. They are not “universal values” and, subjugating the sovereign authority of the U.S. Constitution, at its core, violates a basic principle captured in Roosevelt’s words.
“We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people,” the former president said in 1907.
That’s exactly the point, which everyone wants to avoid. The Constitution places national loyalty to and sovereignty with the American people, an idea that is completely foreign to practicers of Islam.
Obama also pointed out the “extraordinary contributions” Muslim Americans have made to the U.S., including those serving in the military. About those contributions, while I certainly applaud any American’s service, the overall numbers are actually quite concerning.
Military enlistment, as we study the political maturation of other migrant groups in the 19th and 20th century, can serve as a fairly good indicator of assimilation. There are few equal or greater acts to demonstrate patriotism than military service. Unfortunately, the numbers for Muslims indicate there is a major assimilation problem juxtaposed to other migrant groups. That is, if you agree with President Roosevelt and Mr. Benedict Anderson, the latter being the man who literally wrote the book on the very real concept of nation.
According to the Pentagon, there are roughly 5,896 Muslims serving on either active duty or guard in the U.S. military. We heard this number cited repeatedly following Trump’s proposal, including from an outraged former Marine-turned-talk show host Montel Williams. But that represents just 0.00027550809655493385 percent of the roughly 2.2 million Americans currently serving their country, and 0.32755555555555554 percent of their share of the U.S. population. That’s far below the proportional 18,000 that would put them in line proportionately with the enlistment rates for the rest of the country.
Going back to World War II, when Italian-Americans were targets of ethic discrimination and struggling to assimilate, more than 500,000 served on behalf of the U.S., making their enlistment and service rates the highest among any minority ethnic group. The roughly 0.8333333333333334 percent of the 6 million Italian Americans serving in the U.S. military is despite the fact that they were fighting on the opposite side as their home country.
For those who want to blame a non-existent, widespread anti-Muslim environment, I’d just point out that 200,000 Jews served in World War I at a time when anti-Semitic sentiment in America was far worse. In fact, according to the latest statistics from the FBI, there are still far more and worse crimes driven by anti-Semitic than anti.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is that politicians, pundits and just everyday Americans concerned about the future of our nation, should be able to point out these disturbing facts without being labeled xenophobic. A recent Pew Research study of demographic projections estimated that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing Americans who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country.
Considering the disturbing truth about Muslims’ views, which were revealed in a serious video produced by The Clarion Project in December, it’s not xenophobic to question the impact these demographic changes might have on American citizens. Public policy should hold the preservation of our values and our way of life above all, and the threat to that preservation would’ve concerned President Roosevelt just as much as it does Trump and his supporters.
Sherri , 2 post !—–>Why & How & When Teddy Roosevelt Banned Muslims from America
When Teddy Roosevelt Banned Muslims from America
Author: Daniel Greenfield Frontpage Mag
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.
The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”
This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.
And indeed it would.
The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”
It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.
The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.
The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.
These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.
Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.
And Muslims would not.
In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”
Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization”, praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the “Moslem conquerors” whose depredations had caused Christianity to have “practically vanished from the two continents.”
While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the “mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian.”
In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.
Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.
The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.
Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.
Sherri , # 2 post —>Hows/Whys/Teddy on Muslim Immigration—->Though the law today is seldom enforced.
American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.
It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.
A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”
To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.
In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.
The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.
“You believe in the Koran?” asked President Stump.
“Thank Allah, yes,” responded the men in chorus.
“The Koran teaches polygamy?” continued the Inspector through an interpreter.
“Blessed be Allah, it does!”
“Then you believe in polygamy?” asked Captain George Ellis.
“We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do,” chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.
“That settles it,” said President Stump. “You won’t do.”
President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.
None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.
Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.
Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.
A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.
Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.
American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.
Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.