Tancredo vs Sharia law

[Rockstar]

Go Tom!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76026

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced a bill to the House of Representatives that seeks to prevent Islamic law from gaining a foothold in the U.S. legal system, as it has in other countries.
Tancredo introduced HR 6975, the Jihad Prevention Act, last week. If made into law, the bill would allow American authorities to prevent advocates of Islamic law, or Shariah, from entering the country, revoke the visa of any foreigners that champion it and revoke naturalization for citizens that seek to implement it in the U.S.
The radical form of Shariah includes several statutes objectionable to Western minds, including stoning for adulterous women, amputation for thieves and the death sentence for converting from Islam ...

------------------------------------------------------------

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6975:

HR 6975 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6975
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 18, 2008


Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the `Jihad Prevention Act'.SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION FOR ALIENS FAILING TO MAKE ATTESTATION.


Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:


`(G) SHARIA LAW SYSTEM- Any alien who fails to attest, in accordance with procedures specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the alien will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States is inadmissible.'.
SEC. 3. REVOCATION OF VISAS.


Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The visa of any alien advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall be revoked.'.SEC. 4. REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION.


Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(a)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall constitute a ground for revocation of a person's naturalization under this subsection.'.

[Skybird]

Good luck, and my best wishes to see that through..

[DeepIron]

I admire Tancredo... he's got balls and he's not afraid to "use 'em". I wish he'd had more exposure during the primary run-offs... I'd support him. :up:

"We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives," he concluded. "If you aren't comfortable with that concept, you aren't welcome in the United States.":up:

[Platapus]

Let's hope that congress will kill this stupid bill in committee.

Have we sunk so low that we have to prevent legal aliens from being able to advocate.

Advocate: To support or defend by argument; to recommend publicly. An individual who presents or argues another's case; one who gives legal advice and pleads the cause of another before a court or tribunal; a counselor. A person admitted to the practice of law who advises clients of their legal rights and argues their cases in court.

This is what we are afraid of these days? To support or defend by argument?

Are the big bad Muslims going to come to our country and start ADVOCATING (oh noes!!!)

Is our government, culture, and society so insecure that we have to prohibit legal aliens from being able to to even argue on behalf of their beliefs?

And why limit to Sharia?

Why are Mediation Law Group and P'SHARA Jewish Dispute Resolution, Inc. allowed to advocate? Because they are not Muslims? It is OK for christian groups and jewish groups to advocate for

This bill ranks up there with Freedom Fries in the area of stupid crap to waste time on. :nope:

[DeepIron]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=22027

Don't think for a moment it won't happen here. :shifty:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Rep. Undersealcpl motions for the following amendments to the bill........


HR 6975 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6975
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 18, 2008


Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Jihad Prevention Act'.SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION FOR ALIENS FAILING TO MAKE ATTESTATION.

Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:


`(G) SHARIA LAW SYSTEM- Any alien who fails to attest, in accordance with procedures specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the alien will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States is inadmissible.'.
SEC. 3. REVOCATION OF VISAS.

Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The visa of any alien advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall be revoked.'.SEC. 4. REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION.

Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(a)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall constitute a ground for revocation of a person's naturalization under this subsection.'.

I. All of the above shall be declared null and void, but state-sanctioned or recognized religious courts-of-law shall be banned. Forever. Any legislation that ever conflicts with this law is also null and void.

[Platapus]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=22027

Don't think for a moment it won't happen here. :shifty:


We already have this here in the United States. Just this week we had a thread discussing arbitration laws in the US.

Nothing to get worried about. Really. Arbitration is voluntary.

[DeepIron]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=22027

Don't think for a moment it won't happen here. :shifty:

We already have this here in the United States. Just this week we had a thread discussing arbitration laws in the US.

Nothing to get worried about. Really. Arbitration is voluntary.

I'll remain skeptical... Arbitration is voluntary under normal circumstances (been through it a few times) but this situation promises to be "not normal". We'll wait and see... ;)

[Platapus]

I'll remain skeptical... Arbitration is voluntary under normal circumstances (been through it a few times) but this situation promises to be "not normal". We'll wait and see... ;)


Why would you feel that this situation promises to be "not normal"?

Is it because it involves them evil Muslims???

[Skybird]

There can, must and shall be only one legal authority: the state's, basing on it's laws and constitution. Period. Also, wether people like to hear that or not, Islam is an expansionistic aggressive ideology violating basic principles of the basics of our Wetsern constitutions and declaring them invalid, and it uses every opportunity wherever possible to spread it's case and drive its hooks deeper into hostile societies. And hostile is evertyhing that is not islamic. I know that people do not like to hear that, but that is what Muhammad was about: taking over, no matter how, nom matter the cost, no matter how long it takes. Allowing islamic arbitration courts simply is another opportunity where we fall back, and Islamic values get declared superior in valdiity to western culture in the West, in it's own home and cradle.

Like we always do in order not to offend Islam - anything, just not that!

Foreoigners must not brign their own laws and rules with them and install them in our homes and societies. If they do not wish to live by our own lgislation and rules, I wonder why they ever come here. they should stay away then. adapting to the legal system of a new place one is voluntarily going to is part of what is called integration.

The willingness to integrate must be declared mandatory for every immigrant anywhere. It is an effort the newcomer has to take - not the native population.

[DeepIron]

I'll remain skeptical... Arbitration is voluntary under normal circumstances (been through it a few times) but this situation promises to be "not normal". We'll wait and see... ;)

Why would you feel that this situation promises to be "not normal"?

Is it because it involves them evil Muslims???

C'mon P, please don't assume I consider Muslims to be evil. I don't... What I have an objection to, is yet another "dilution" of the law. The court system is overloaded and inefficient as it is without adding yet another layer of abstraction... Sharia Law.

Kinda kicks the "division of church and state" in the ass don't you think? And while we're at it, let's examine the rest of the religious frameworks too. There are certainly aspects of both Christian and Jewish religions that might take some exception to our current legal system. Would you like to apply Old Testament or New? Perhaps the Talmud?

IMO... if you're in this country, legally or otherwise, or regardless of your religious conviction, everyone get tried by the same set of laws. Simple.

[Platapus]

the United States has recognized arbiration courts since 1925.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

This really is nothing to get your undies in a twist about. Arbitration is a valid way of handling disagreements.

No conspiracy. A voluntary arbitration tribunal is being considered to arbitrate according to religious teachings. This is hardly a unique organization.

Here is a christian arbitration group

http://www.bluestratus.net/servlets/...%20Clauses.pdf

This organization advises people on how to put religious conditions on contracts. Don't hear anyone screaming about this one though.

P'SHARA Jewish Dispute Resolution, Inc. is a jewish arbitration organization. Anyone complaining about that one? Did not think so.

But at the mention of Islam, people get suddenly so concerned. I wonder why?

[Skybird]

Oh this kindness, oh this innocence... and even if the gentle heart has lived for just one day and not more, it still has lived then...

[SS107.9MHz]

First of all, why not call it Sharia Prevention Act, instead of the alarmistic and skewed jihad, wich has nothing to do with Sharia? Sharia is a court of law for muslims, Jihad is a supposed holy war ahainst non muslims, nothing to do with each other,

Second, doesn't the American law prevent any ruling from a sharia court that could go against the US judicial system? If so I can't quite grasp the need for this bill, isn't it sort of redundant?

Third, I have to agree with Skybird as for aplication of the country Law should be general to any citizen of that country... There shouldn't be any difference, citizens should be equal under the eyes of the law (unfortunately has we all know, it doesn't seem to be the case with some persons, namely some politicians...):damn: