Expelling Sharia-Adherent Muslims is Not Unconstitutional

[Wilson23]

Show us the published "theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States#19th_century

 

[Rightguide]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States#19th_century

"Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, led by the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion."

The Democrats' secret police, the KKK, seems to be behind a lot of it.

 

[Wilson23]

"Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, led by the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion."

The Democrats' secret police, the KKK, seems to be behind a lot of it.

Only an idiot EVER brings up the Dems' racist past as reflecting on the party's present character.

 

[Rightguide]

The Amish regularly call the "non Amish" English merely because those so designated do not comport with Amish ideology. Should they ever come to be in charge all who are not Amish would be deported. There is no difference between that example and your Christian values being at odds with Sharia beliefs.

I do agree that those who do not belong here because they are here unlawfully, should be removed. However, we do not remove people from our land merely because we do not agree with them or their religious beliefs.

There is also the check built into our society that those who do not obey the law are subject to punishment by the law. Thus, adherents of Sharia law who violate our laws in favor of their own ideology can be held responsible regardless of their religious beliefs. We saw this happen in Texas where a segment of immigrants attempted to create a city/county which would operate under laws other than those of the nation and the State of Texas. They attempted several transparent maneuvers to avoid the truth from being exposed but it didn't last long before Texas told them to knock it off and they acquiesced.

In NYC hey use white Ford Taurus vehicles that closely resemble NYPD cruisers, featuring similar blue stripes and decals, though they are clearly labeled "Muslim Community Patrol. These are unarmed civilians who act as "eyes and ears" for the local police. They claim to provide services like neighborhood watch, translation, and safety escorts near mosques. Critics and online rumors have characterized them as "Sharia police," alleging they harass people for activities like drinking alcohol. The organization denies these claims, stating they have no legal authority to enforce laws. Just like in Minnesota, where thousands of Muslim Somalis claimed they were engaged in legal childcare activities and business ventures that have illegally ripped off 9 billion Dollars in federal tax money. I wonder if Rep. Omar took this oath seriously:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

 

[Wilson23]

In NYC hey use white Ford Taurus vehicles that closely resemble NYPD cruisers, featuring similar blue stripes and decals, though they are clearly labeled "Muslim Community Patrol. These are unarmed civilians who act as "eyes and ears" for the local police. They claim to provide services like neighborhood watch, translation, and safety escorts near mosques. Critics and online rumors have characterized them as "Sharia police," alleging they harass people for activities like drinking alcohol. The organization denies these claims, stating they have no legal authority to enforce laws.

So what? Neighborhood watch organizations are nothing new and Sharia organizations are nothing different.

 

[Rightguide]

So what? Neighborhood watch organizations are nothing new.

If that is what they are really doing. Most neighborhood watch orgainzations in the country don't have squad cars with labeling and colors imitating the local police.

 

[Rebel5soul]

We, the US, reserves the right to deport ANY non-citizen at any time for virtually any reason.

Naturalized citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and deported for any number of reasons.

No nation can tolerate a dual path legal system.

 

[Wilson23]

No nation can tolerate a dual path legal system.

The presence of conservative Muslims does not threaten that.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Only an idiot EVER brings up the Dems' racist past as reflecting on the party's present character.

Have you not met reichguide before?

 

[Rightguide]

The presence of conservative Muslims does not threaten that.

Some people speak in absolutes as if facts are optional accessories to their ego. Asking you for evidence and watching you vanish faster than your credibility. It’s impressive, really, turning ignorance into performance art while the rest of us dutifully clean up the mess.

 

[Wilson23]

Some people speak in absolutes as if facts are optional accessories to their ego. Asking you for evidence and watching you vanish faster than your credibility. It’s impressive, really, turning ignorance into performance art while the rest of us dutifully clean up the mess.

There are no dual-path legal systems in Europe. There are Sharia courts the public courts have authorized to hear community disputes -- it's harmless.

 

[ll74]

HR 5722, introduced by Chip Roy of Texas, does not even mention Islam. Rather, it says that any alien who advocates for Sharia is inadmissible to the US. If they are already here, they are removable. This does not depend on worship of Allah, regular prayers, or attendance at a mosque. It simply states that advocacy of a legal structure that is contrary to our American history and law is sufficient for the Secretary of State to revoke permission to be present in the US (see 8 U.S.C. § 1104 and 1201(i)). If one is a natural born US citizen, the Act does not apply. The question of denaturalization remains open.

At this point, we must look at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). This part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was passed by Congress over Harry Truman’s veto. It tells us that Congress had a very strong will to grant the Secretary of State full authority over which foreign nationals are allowed into the US. All such decisions are “discretionary” by the Secretary, and Courts do not have jurisdiction to review them (Xia v. Bondi).

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...adherent_muslims_is_not_unconstitutional.html

Sharia law has never been Constitutional.

 

[ishtat]

Sharia Law is not the monolithic entity the media portrays it to be. 'Fiqh,' Islamic jurisprudence, is far more impactful in most societies. The application of Sharia in Arabia is particularly unpleasant, marginally less so in Iran and much less in Indonesia or Pakistan. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia has financed the development of Madrassas (religious schools) throughout moderate Islamic societies. Those schools preach radical Sunni ideas and are far more dangerous than Sharia. 20 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Nationals 'educated' at Saudi financed Madrrassas.

Interestingly, original Sharia drew a lot of its principles from primitive Judaism and was in social terms well in advance of Christian Law for more than a thousand years . There is a fairly decent wiki article on the subject

 

[ll74]

Sharia Law is not the monolithic entity the media portrays it to be. 'Fiqh,' Islamic jurisprudence, is far more impactful in most societies. The application of Sharia in Arabia is particularly unpleasant, marginally less so in Iran and much less in Indonesia or Pakistan. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia has financed the development of Madrassas (religious schools) throughout moderate Islamic societies. Those schools preach radical Sunni ideas and are far more dangerous than Sharia. 20 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Nationals 'educated' at Saudi financed Madrrassas.

Interestingly, original Sharia drew a lot of its principles from primitive Judaism and was in social terms well in advance of Christian Law for more than a thousand years . There is a fairly decent wiki article on the subject

Theocracy is already against the Constitution.

Pretending that religious rule is what you're fighting for is not. Which is why Chip Roy is a Congressman and not clergy.

 

[ll74]

Expelling Sharia-Adherent Muslims is Not Unconstitutional​

As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and there are several Supreme Court decisions and statutes protecting America from Sharia law.

Ted Noel | February 13, 2026

eorge Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin has posted a missive declaring that the “Preserving a Sharia-free America Act” is “manifestly unconstitutional.” We all need a deep breath after that last sentence. It was a mouthful. And Professor Somin is dead wrong.

As Justice Jackson noted in 1949, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” His key point in Terminiello v. Chicago was that the Supreme Court had gone too far in removing restraints on rioters who attacked policemen. It was essential to “temper [the Court’s] doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom.” “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either.”

Justice Jackson was prescient. And he wasn’t just a prophet of the current riots over law enforcement. The presence of doctrinaire Muslims in the US is a direct threat to our existence as a nation of laws. Sharia is the “legal” manifestation of that threat. Students of Islam will point out that “Sharia is not Sharia,” by which they mean there’s not a single, fixed monolithic code of laws—but that’s part of the problem, because it means that Sharia is a theocratic system of laws that depends on the interpretation of the Imam in a specific neighborhood.

We see this sort of divergence simply by looking at the news. The Kingdom of Jordan is Islamic, but it is restrained in enforcing religious laws. At the opposite end of the spectrum is Iran, where, at last count, nearly 40,000 people have been executed for the “crime” of protesting against the Islamic tribal barbarians that rule what could be a wealthy and free country. However, once we get past AI’s reticence to list key issues common to all core Sharia interpretations, a few stand out, and they are completely at odds with American law and values.

More here: https://www.americanthinker.com/art...adherent_muslims_is_not_unconstitutional.html

Let's get on with it.

Btw - expelling someone based on their religion is against the Constitution.

 

[Wilson23]

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...adherent_muslims_is_not_unconstitutional.html

See, that's how we can tell you're an idiot.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Sharia Law is not the monolithic entity the media portrays it to be. 'Fiqh,' Islamic jurisprudence, is far more impactful in most societies. The application of Sharia in Arabia is particularly unpleasant, marginally less so in Iran and much less in Indonesia or Pakistan. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia has financed the development of Madrassas (religious schools) throughout moderate Islamic societies. Those schools preach radical Sunni ideas and are far more dangerous than Sharia. 20 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Nationals 'educated' at Saudi financed Madrrassas.

Interestingly, original Sharia drew a lot of its principles from primitive Judaism and was in social terms well in advance of Christian Law for more than a thousand years . There is a fairly decent wiki article on the subject

And that all ended in the 13th century. Islamic 'attorneys' do not study law, they study the Quran. And therein lies the problem, a great deal of the Quran is subjective and often contradicts itself.

You're comments re. Judaism is spot on, and even some elements of early Christianity are incorporated. Both of the predominant schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider 'reason' (logic) to be insufficient grounds for a final decision.

 

[glamorilla]

The Amish regularly call the "non Amish" English merely because those so designated do not comport with Amish ideology. Should they ever come to be in charge all who are not Amish would be deported. There is no difference between that example and your Christian values being at odds with Sharia beliefs.

I do agree that those who do not belong here because they are here unlawfully, should be removed. However, we do not remove people from our land merely because we do not agree with them or their religious beliefs.

There is also the check built into our society that those who do not obey the law are subject to punishment by the law. Thus, adherents of Sharia law who violate our laws in favor of their own ideology can be held responsible regardless of their religious beliefs. We saw this happen in Texas where a segment of immigrants attempted to create a city/county which would operate under laws other than those of the nation and the State of Texas. They attempted several transparent maneuvers to avoid the truth from being exposed but it didn't last long before Texas told them to knock it off and they acquiesced.

This all depends on the people we voted to take care of these things to take care of these things. I'm seeing a pattern emerging where those who violate our laws in favor of their own ideology are not being held responsible. They seem to be getting away with it leaving a mess of bodies in their wake while stealing a lot of money.

 

[Rebel5soul]

This all depends on the people we voted to take care of these things to take care of these things. I'm seeing a pattern emerging where those who violate our laws in favor of their own ideology are not being held responsible. They seem to be getting away with it leaving a mess of bodies in their wake while stealing a lot of money.

^^^This.