History repeatingitself!!!???

[ERLover]

http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigra ... y_act.html

Constitutional?



Wouldn't it be interesting if, at some point during his Presidential campaign Donald Trump asked, Oh, by the way has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?



I did not know of this Act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.



Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do NOT have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.



After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our illustrious President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

As Gomer Pyle would say, “Well, Surprise, Surprise!” It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.



Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."



And who do you suppose last utilized this process? Why it was Democrat President Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.



But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?



Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an“applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”



Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslins to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslins should be refused immigration to OUR country.



Authenticated at:
http://library.uwb.edu/static/ USimmigration/1952_ immigration_and_nationality_ act.html

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

library.uwb.edu

US immigration legislation online : 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act (An act to revise the laws relating to immigration ...

[jsburger]

I couldn't agree with you more. Not withstanding Jimmy Carter the liberal left has created the notion that anyone who wants to come here is welcome because we are a nation of emigrants. We used to be a nation of LEGAL emigrants. The people that came through Ellis Island in New York harbor in the late 1800's and early 1900' were vetted. Back then no one wanted to take down the US.

Now it is a free for all. As you point out, if we just enforce the laws on the books things would be better.

I could go on for ever but enough. Admin will delete this thread (that is OK) so I will not comment again.

[ERLover]

I couldn't agree with you more. Not withstanding Jimmy Carter the liberal left has created the notion that anyone who wants to come here is welcome because we are a nation of emigrants. We used to be a nation of LEGAL emigrants. The people that came through Ellis Island in New York harbor in the late 1800's and early 1900' were vetted. Back then no one wanted to take down the US.

Now it is a free for all. As you point out, if we just enforce the laws on the books things would be better.

I could go on for ever but enough. Admin will delete this thread (that is OK) so I will not comment again.

Ya John, but b4 it is gone hopefully enough will read it. If no real wide opinions posted maybe they will let it stand, since it is fact.

[davebodner]

Here I am taking the bait.

Carter's ban on Iranian entry visas isn't a good analogy for attempts to ban Muslim immigrants today. Remember, back then the Iranian government was holding hostages in our embassy in Teheran. In response, we imposed a number of sanctions against the government of Iran, including a visa ban. That was a government-to-government action, not a US government-to-religion action. We banned Iranians from entering the US not because we feared them, and not because of their religion, but because we wanted to punish the Iranian government for holding our hostages.

There is no precedent for a broad-based ban on immigration based on religion. And be careful when citing McCarran-Walter. US immigration law has changed greatly since 1952. I'm no expert, but I daresay the particular provision you're referencing is no longer part of the US Code. I think it was intended to keep communists out during the Cold War and was repealed sometime around 1970. I couldn't find similar language in my admittedly inept search of the US Code. I couldn't make your link work, so I don't know what it says.

Here's a pretty good discussion on the matter that goes into more detail: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/ar ... me-jimmy-/

[dusty]

I am not going to get into a debate but I do have one thing to say.

I don't believe the people or the Government intends restrictive action based on religion. It is not because the terrorists are Muslim that they are to be banned, it is because the terrorists are terrorists. The terrorists are the "bad guys". The intent is to separate the good from the bad an expel the bad.

We could have this same discussion while speaking about the southern border of the US. Just exchange the terminology. Drug traffickers and criminals instead of terrorists.

[Gene Howe]

I know what "terrorist" has come to mean.
Drug traffickers, rapists and murderers, though their motives may vary, still fit today's meaning. Home grown, or from any other country. They all are criminals. And, where possible, should be identified and removed from society. Incarceration or deportation works.
Our borders should be tightly secured and those seeking entry should be vigorously vetted. We could learn a lot from the Israelis.

[everettdavis]

Israel has the military conscription service mandate wherein many, certainly not all citizens are compelled to serve about 3 years in military service. We are volunteer service.

If more US citizens served in the military, the general knowledge of the needs of military personnel and the services they provide to the nation and the world, should be more robust.

Growing up, some of the more unruly kids who had run afoul of the law enforcement folks were given the opportunity to serve a sentence in a penal institution of some nature, or to enlist for military service.

My observation then was that those young kids, now in a very disciplined structured daily order, were allowed to grow and mature, developing responsibilities and careers in trades or other disciplines that enabled them to carve a meaningful and beneficial life for themselves.

I know it ceased years ago, yet I often wonder if many of those kids who never had that option aren't now part of the revolving door of the criminal justice system, that might have never been, had they had the opportunity to serve in the military.

I believe the political will to fix what troubles the veterans administration and v.a. hospitals today might be far stronger with that base of reference in a wider section of the population.

We certainly would have a better prepared base to draw upon should we need to defend our nation, as the structure and discipline of that service would have millions of folks prepared to serve again.

I know times are different, temptations are different today, but I cannot help but wonder if we had continued the service option, our prisons would not be as full today, and respect for one another might be far more prevalent.

Those are just my thoughts and observations, and may or may not be relevant in that manner.

Everett

[charlese]

Great find, EL! I knew there was some legislation, but couldn't find it. I remember Carter putting the nix on Iranian students.

I can usually remember stuff from decades ago, but have trouble remembering recent things.

[dusty]

Israel has the military conscription service mandate wherein many, certainly not all citizens are compelled to serve about 3 years in military service. We are volunteer service.

If more US citizens served in the military, the general knowledge of the needs of military personnel and the services they provide to the nation and the world, should be more robust.

Growing up, some of the more unruly kids who had run afoul of the law enforcement folks were given the opportunity to serve a sentence in a penal institution of some nature, or to enlist for military service.

My observation then was that those young kids, now in a very disciplined structured daily order, were allowed to grow and mature, developing responsibilities and careers in trades or other disciplines that enabled them to carve a meaningful and beneficial life for themselves.

I know it ceased years ago, yet I often wonder if many of those kids who never had that option aren't now part of the revolving door of the criminal justice system, that might have never been, had they had the opportunity to serve in the military.

I believe the political will to fix what troubles the veterans administration and v.a. hospitals today might be far stronger with that base of reference in a wider section of the population.

We certainly would have a better prepared base to draw upon should we need to defend our nation, as the structure and discipline of that service would have millions of folks prepared to serve again.

I know times are different, temptations are different today, but I cannot help but wonder if we had continued the service option, our prisons would not be as full today, and respect for one another might be far more prevalent.

Those are just my thoughts and observations, and may or may not be relevant in that manner.

Everett

You are spot on Everett. Those are my thoughts and feelings as well. I just wish that those had been my words.

When I was in my late teens, I hung out in a bowling alley. This was back in the days of manual pin spotters. Many of the 'pin setters' were guys off of the street looking for a little money to buys booze and smokes. It dawned on me one day that that could be my future. I graduated from high school, not exactly with honors, and college was out of the question. My military service guided me out of that path and on to two college degrees and a few years (twenty eight after the twenty two in the Air Force) of gainful employment.

[ERLover]

Everett,
you are spot on in your appraisal and I totally agree. My 2 brothers are 5 and 6 years older then me, and I saw some of there delinquent teenage friends end up going the jail or military route. Totally different person when they got out of the military from what they were b4. They had high school math and reading skills and at a far higher standard then what is set now going in.
Sad to say now, if we still had a program like that for are young hoodlums,
they dont even have basic math and reading skill at a elementary school level, and the military has its standards, and would not want them.
If they did, sad to say, we would be Dumming Down our military also.