One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Law forbidding "Muslims" from holding Office in Congress
Page <<first <prev 3 of 14 next> last>>
Apr 20, 2019 15:31:35   #
bahmer
 
badbobby wrote:
Sadly
Did the 101st Congress on November 18, 1990 quietly repeal the "McCarran Warner Act of 1952" forbidding muslims from holding office? No, that's not true for the simple reason that there never was such an act. Also, forbidding muslims from holding office would go against Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution which reads (in part): "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"


This is the closest that I could find on that bill badbobby hope the heips some.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Policypedia Imigration Final.png
Immigration in the U.S.
DACA and DAPA
Admission of refugees
Birthright citizenship
Public Policy Logo-one line.png
The Immigration and Nationality Act is a comprehensive federal immigration law adopted in 1952. Also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 modified the national origins quota system, which had been established under the Immigration Act of 1924. The national origins quota system set limits on the numbers of individuals from any given nation who could immigrate to the United States. The law also codified and compiled existing laws from a variety of sources into a single text. Although the national origins quota system was eliminated by legislation adopted in 1965, the remainder of the law comprises the foundation of Title 8 of the United States Code, the canon of federal law relating to immigration policy.[1]
Background
Immigration Act of 1924
According to the United States Department of State Office of the Historian, "the Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota." The act provided for the granting of immigration visas to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States, calculated as of the 1890 census. Immigrants from Asia were barred under this system. Quotas were not applied to immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. The Immigration Act of 1924 was also known as the Johnson-Reed Act.[2]

Legislative history
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 9, 1951, as HR 5678. The House approved the bill on April 25, 1952. The United States Senate approved its version of the bill on May 22, 1952. A joint conference committee was convened to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill. The conference committee version of the bill was adopted by the House on June 10, 1952, and by the Senate on June 11, 1952.

Senator Pat McCarran (D), one of the bill's primary sponsors, argued that the law's provisions were necessary in order to preserve national security:[3]

“ I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission, and those gates are cracking under the strain.[4] ”
—Senator Pat McCarran
President Harry Truman (D) vetoed the legislation on June 25, 1952. In his veto statement, Truman said the following:[5]

“ [HR 5678] would not provide us with an immigration policy adequate for the present world situation. Indeed, the bill, taking all its provisions together, would be a step backward and not a step forward. In view of the crying need for reform in the field of immigration, I deeply regret that I am unable to approve HR 5678. ... The bill would continue, practically without change, the national origins quota system, which was enacted, into law in 1924, and put into effect in 1929. This quota system–always based upon assumptions at variance with our American ideals–is long since out of date and more than ever unrealistic in the face of present world conditions.[4] ”
—President Harry Truman
On June 26, 1952, the House voted 278-113 to override Truman's veto. The Senate followed suit on June 27, 1952, voting 57-26.[6][7]

Provisions
National origins quota system
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 modified the national origins quota system introduced by the Immigration Act of 1924, rescinding the earlier law's prohibition on Asian immigration. Under the 1952 law, national origins quotas were set at one-sixth of 1 percent of each nationality's population the United States as of the 1920 census. At the time of enactment, the law provided for the issuance of 154,277 visas under the quota system. Immigrants from the Western Hemisphere continued to be excluded from the quota system, as were the non-citizen husbands of American citizens (non-citizen wives of American citizens had been exempted from the quota system earlier). The national origins quota system was eliminated in 1965 with the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.[8][9]

Section 212
Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 granted the President of the United States the following authority:[1][10]

“ Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.[4] ”
—Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Section 212
Other provisions
The act established preferences for certain visa applicants, including those with specialized skills and those who families already resided in the United States.[1][8]

The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 1968 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act "to provide for the naturalization of persons who have served in active-duty services in the Armed Forces of the United States."[11]

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 15:52:47   #
woodguru
 
Ray Smith wrote:
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly repealed the McCarran Warner Act of 1952 forbidding Muslims from holding office; members of that congress were Dick Cheney, John McCain, Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, Nancy Pelosi..... see the Agenda! Did this rule get swept under the rug in the last election?

Why did we allow the last "Muslim" to get voted into office? Something is rotten in Denmark, which has allowed the event to occur! Or did they reverse the McCarran Warner Act of 1952? If the 101st congress committed and acted to the reversal of this Act, why isn't the news talking about this, particularly In good old Joe Biden who will announce soon he is running for president, I believe Americans would like to know the answer to this question,I for one, would like to know?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr.
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly re... (show quote)


Why do we allow christians with a hard agenda into office? It's because the government is supposed to protect us from religious agendas being brought into law, just like it would protect us from Sharia law.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 16:55:06   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
Kevyn wrote:
The law you state in NO WAY mentions Muslims or precludes them from serving in office. You are either lying about its content or have been tricked into forwarding an erroneous summary of immigration law without actually reading the law. Which is it?


It doesn't have to mention any religion, race, or ethnic background, Kevyn, it simply gives the president the power to restrict the immigration of ANY alien/aliens into the country as he sees fit. An American citizen CAN be a Muslim and hold any office, but NO alien can challenge the president's right to refuse admission into the country under this act.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 18:35:27   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
redpill wrote:
I've just spent about 3 hours trying to find out about this repeal. I could not. Can you give references please.

It appears that the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 is alive and well.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=1994&req=granuleid%3AUSC-1994-title8-front&num=0&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy0xOTk0LXRpdGxlOC1zZWN0aW9uMTQyNA%3D%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7C1994

I could not find any reference to Muslims in it. There are direct bans on Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos. There are direct references to Cuba, Hawaii, Alaska, etc. And there is plenty of anti-Communism and anti-authoritarian verbiage. This could be construed to include Islamic ideologies to some degree.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/islam-banned-u-s-1952/

The Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 amended the 1952 act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

Again no reference to "Muslims" being banned in any fashion until Trump's Executive Order 13769. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769


However, I totally agree that voting in a Muslim is a highly risky business for the country. We have no idea what her allegiances are. But if she is of one of the sects that use lying to obtain their goal of world domination, then she is very dangerous and a traitor.
I've just spent about 3 hours trying to find out a... (show quote)

One problem. Trump's ban said nothing about Muslims. It banned everyone from some Muslim majority countries. Some 90% of the World's Muslims were perfectly free to come here if they wished. Kind of like Jimmuh Cahtuh banned Iranians.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 19:10:06   #
Carlos
 
I just read that there is or was a law forbidding Muslims from an elected post in the USA. It also was a
Little vague if it had been disregarded or done away with. Maybe one of you guys who have a little more on the ball than I, can find it. I read it not too long ago but at my age things can slip your mind now and then.
I also just read that the Govenor of North Carolina just vetoed a bill that would have prevented killing of
Babies after a botched abortion even if the baby was alive. There were six democrats voting for the
Bill that the Govenor vetoed and they were all African Americans who live in rural areas of North Carolina.
This may turn them off enough to switch sides, who knows. Now guess which party the Govenor belongs to.
He's the one who got in after they "found" some votes over in Durham some years ago. North Carolina
Is known for many dead people voting in elections. It makes you want to swear and use nasty words but
I remember what Pa said to me many years ago,


"The stronger the words,the weaker the argument."

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 19:17:48   #
Carlos
 
This is the information I was looking for. Thanks for the heads-up. I rather doubt that this law will ever be renewed. I doubt there's anyone who would dare to bring it forward. Too bad though, this is how they
Slowly take over, one slice at a time and eventually you'll have the whole loaf.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 19:25:31   #
Carlos
 
The stronger the words the weaker the argument.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 20:10:05   #
johnsorrell7
 
Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
As was said, welcome Ray. The media tell us if McCarran WarnerAct was repealed or anything putting them in a bad light? Hang on, it only gets worse. They never told you about most of Trump's successes either. Yes something is rotten, the whole party. Perhaps we should start a petition since I don't think McCarran Walter was repealed or replaced to get the muzzies out. According to the koran, they can't have an allegiance to anyone but Islam and must hate America. The constitution says just the opposite for politicians.
As was said, welcome Ray. The media tell us if McC... (show quote)


How do we make the noise required to get something started on this? Is there an email, 800 number, how can we do it???

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 20:47:33   #
Carol Kelly
 
eden wrote:
On that basis you could say that Catholics have no business in this country much less in our government because of the worldwide epidemic of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic clergy. Clearly these people (Catholics) can’t be trusted and are all closet pedophiles.


Catholics have not chopped off any heads because Protestants didn’t worship Mary.
There’s a huuuuuge difference. AND very few Catholics are pedophiles. And they are sworn into office on the Holy Bible and follow the Constitution, not Sharia Law! More huuuuge difference. Rethink that ridiculous statement. And I’m not Catholic.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 20:49:38   #
Carol Kelly
 
woodguru wrote:
Why do we allow christians with a hard agenda into office? It's because the government is supposed to protect us from religious agendas being brought into law, just like it would protect us from Sharia law.


We hope, don’t we?

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 21:39:18   #
JoyV
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
One problem. Trump's ban said nothing about Muslims. It banned everyone from some Muslim majority countries. Some 90% of the World's Muslims were perfectly free to come here if they wished. Kind of like Jimmuh Cahtuh banned Iranians.


Actually it didn't even ban Muslims from any country. It put a 90 day delay to give a chance to verify identities. The countries where the 90 day restrictions were imposed, did not have internationally recognized ID systems. Anyone could claim an identity which wasn't readily verifiable. Hence the delay. If the identity could not be verified, the person would not be admitted.

And North Korea is not a Muslim majority country, yet was on the list.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 22:03:55   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
JoyV wrote:
Actually it didn't even ban Muslims from any country. It put a 90 day delay to give a chance to verify identities. The countries where the 90 day restrictions were imposed, did not have internationally recognized ID systems. Anyone could claim an identity which wasn't readily verifiable. Hence the delay. If the identity could not be verified, the person would not be admitted.

And North Korea is not a Muslim majority country, yet was on the list.


My point was that it was not a Muslim ban, since 90% of the world's Muslims were not affected.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 22:10:27   #
Radiance3
 
eden wrote:
On that basis you could say that Catholics have no business in this country much less in our government because of the worldwide epidemic of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic clergy. Clearly these people (Catholics) can’t be trusted and are all closet pedophiles.


===================
You are obviously so ignorant of the history and founding of America. Perhaps you came from a 3rd world country, or from a Muslim land.

Catholics discovered America. Christopher Columbus was a Catholic aided by Spain to come to the New World in 1492. Then in 1496, he was succeeded by Americus Vespucci, another Catholic. Both of them were aided by the King and Queen of Spain who were Catholics.

Saint Agustin Church was built in Florida in Aug 28, 1565.
Many Christian settlers followed from Europe. Many built Churches and Catholic schools.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/history/the-catholic-church-in-the-united-states-of-america.html

https://www.stmarymagdalen.org/ParishInfo/documents/50AnnivHistoryProject.pdf

The pedophile case you have accused the church been contained mostly. The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has the highest morals, and has contributed to alleviate million of poorest people of the world. You don't know that because your hatred towards God and the Church is so overwhelming. But your love to the violent Islam is overwhelming. Muslims kill female kids and enslave women. They rape Christians. For 1400 years your Muslim friends have killed 292 million Christians and Jews.

All church denominations have similar sexual abuse problems, and you single out the Catholic Church due to your ignorance, and hatred of God. Sexual abuses are abundant in schools, government offices, Hollywood, other Christian denominations, and all social organizations.

Because you are so ignorant of the US history, I am certain you came as illegal alien. Now, go back where you came from.

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 22:15:53   #
America 1 Loc: South Miami
 
eden wrote:
On that basis you could say that Catholics have no business in this country much less in our government because of the worldwide epidemic of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic clergy. Clearly these people (Catholics) can’t be trusted and are all closet pedophiles.


In California, Students are Taught that Pedophilia is a ‘Sexual Orientation’
http://punchingbagpost.com/2019/04/18/in-california-students-are-taught-that-pedophilia-is-a-sexual-orientation/

Reply
Apr 20, 2019 22:50:00   #
Radiance3
 
America 1 wrote:
In California, Students are Taught that Pedophilia is a ‘Sexual Orientation’
http://punchingbagpost.com/2019/04/18/in-california-students-are-taught-that-pedophilia-is-a-sexual-orientation/


================
Millennials in schools are now mostly socialist, dependent like drug addicts, and believe that pedophilia is a normal behavior. Public school labor union teachers teach the kids immoralities. That is why they rank number 35 in academics worldwide. Third world countries have better performance than they have.

Our property taxes go up higher and higher every year to accommodate the costs. That include illegal aliens too. $16,000 per year average cost to support each kid.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.