Maybe those who identify as Christian should marry more then? And have loads of babies 0 like the Muslims do in the USA "according to PEW"
As for your earlier question asking me to provide evidence:
III. Protecting the National Security of the United States
By now it should be clear that because the United States cannot constitutionally favor one religion over another and because its international obligations and domestic policy require it to provide refuge for those fleeing political persecution, a general ban against Muslim emigrants fleeing persecution is not legally tenable. This does not, however, mean that appropriate procedures cannot be put in place to ensure the security and safety of those living in the United States. The problem that arises here, as with most areas where different legal (including, in this case, constitutional) obligations intersect, is knowing exactly where to draw this line.
As a general constitutional matter, the state cannot establish religion. But what if religion is itself an indicator of a potential threat to the homeland? Can the federal government then potentially refuse to grant refugee status to Muslims outside the United States fleeing persecution in order to safeguard the homeland? In other words, even though most Muslims are not terrorists, can refugee status be refused to all Muslims if a significant number of terrorists are Muslim? On the one hand, the First Amendment does not permit states to favor one religion over another, and refusing entry to Muslims would in fact be favoring non-Muslim refugees over Muslim refugees. Of course, the alleged reason for the United States restricting entry for Muslim refugees would not be because they are Muslim per se, but because the government views being Muslim as an indicator that the refugee is a terrorist. The problem is not avoided by claiming that non-nationals do not have a constitutional right to emigrate; the issue here is a structural limitation on the power of the U.S. government to establish religion—not to whom the right is being denied. While non-national refugees of any faith have a right to the possibility of asylum under the UDHR, their claim must be juxtaposed with the U.S. government’s constitutional obligation and sovereign authority to protect its own national security interests. I would present this latter obligation as the focus when deciding whether any group can be excluded from entry into the United States based on the compelling interests of national security and protection that every government shares and has a right to pursue.
The Constitution acknowledges this compelling interest when it states: “We the People of the United States . . . [are empowered to] provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity . . . .” 35 In so doing, it affords to Congress the specific power to raise an army and a navy, 36 and says that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual service of the United States . . . .” 37But does the Constitution’s acknowledgement of these specific security interests automatically legitimize excluding any Muslim non-nationals from emigrating into the country, even if statistical support suggests that the exclusion of Muslims is likely to advance security? If it does, then this would seem to be a far greater extension of the federal government’s reach of power than the framers of the Bill of Rights intended when they adopted the Establishment Clause as a structural limitation on the scope of government power.
IV. Evaluating Muslim Refugees Entering the United States
It has been suggested that the Muslim refugee issue might bring about a rerun of the situation in
Korematsu v. United States, 38 only now applied to Muslim non-nationals rather than Japanese-American citizens. In
Korematsu, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive Order after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
designed to safeguard “against espionage [and] against sabotage,” and providing that certain military commanders might designate “military areas” in the United States “from which any and all persons may be excluded, and with which right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions” the “Military Commander may impose in his discretion.” The West Coast program established for persons of Japanese ancestry included curfews, detention in relocation centers, and exclusion from the West Coast area. 39
In 1943, following a unanimous upholding of the curfew orders in
Hirabayashi v. United States, the Court upheld the exclusion order by majority vote in
Korematsu. 40 That decision has since been deeply regretted by subsequent members of the Supreme Court, most recently by Justice Stephen Breyer in his 2015 book, in which he points out that there was not a shred of evidence to support the government’s alleged need to exclude American citizens of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and to intern them in detention camps. 41 The case was decided based on a perceived but unsubstantiated notion of military necessity. 42 It was a racial classification, but the Court was willing to accept the government’s interest as a sufficiently compelling justification, regardless of whether it applied strict scrutiny.
The present situation involving Muslim refugees does not exactly mirror
Korematsu because the Muslims in question are not American citizens with the full range of constitutional rights that American citizens possess. However, once we move beyond this difference, the motivation for banning Muslim refugees from entering the United States parallels the motiviations in
Korematsu: they are based on fear following armed attacks by a particular group. In
Korematsu, the government reacted to the widespread fear in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Now, it wants to react to the widespread fear following the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernadino by radical Muslims.
The problem with fear is that it can lead to poor assessments of the real dangers Americans and the world face. Are not most of the refugees that a blanket ban on entry into the country would exclude themselves fleeing the same destabilized dangerous conditions that Americans are now so concerned about? Could not a terrorist just as easily enter the country posing as a non-Muslim European or even an American returning home to engage in a terrorist act? Indeed, while the husband in the San Bernardino attacks was a Muslim, he was also an American citizen, whom one would not normally exclude. 43 It would seem like the idea that religion should be the single factor deciding who enters and who is kept out of the United States would actually decrease the real level of security that the ban is supposed to create. Without denying that there is a real compelling interest for security and protection, all this goes to say that the measure being focused upon, namely being a member of the Islamic faith, is both over- and under-exclusive as a matter of law. It is over-exclusive in that it keeps out potentially thousands of non-terrorists fleeing persecution, and in that sense puts the country in the position of not living up to its own values and international legal commitments. At the same time, it is also under-inclusive in allowing those who too easily present themselves as non-Muslims or with some other seemingly legitimate connection to potentially slide under the vetting radar. A far better alternative would be to reform the measure by basing the determination on how likely the person is to actually present a threat to national security.
Such an alternative would not merely focus on any single measure, especially one as elusive as religion, but would consider a spectrum of activities and behaviors, such as past and present associations, as well as serious psychological assessments, 44 including the person’s commitment to finding a job and making a life for themselves and their family and living in a diverse community. It would also look at present behavior and ask immigrants to report what could be considered suspicious or potentially harmful criminal activity, regardless of where it occurs or by whom. Granted, this is not a full-proof way to ensure safety and security. There is no such thing as a full-proof guarantee of safety and security any more than employees going to work or teachers going to school can be absolutely certain that a threat will not make its way into their lives. But this is certainly a far more effective way of ensuring security than bringing into what is already a dangerous situation widespread fear, which would not only put the United States in the untenable position of violating its own values and legal commitments but encourage a general distrust of Muslims. Such a distrust would only serve to engender reciprocal fear and distrust from Muslim immigrants. At a time when the United States and its allies need to work together with both Muslims living in the U.S., as well as the nations of the Middle East, especially the Muslim nations, the focus must be to bring people together under the values and ideals established by our constitutional order and international commitments. We must not squander these opportunities by giving into irrational fears that will not provide us real security and, in the long run, will probably do more harm than good by making us complacent in the belief we have solved the security problem.
Conclusion
In this short Essay, I have tried to show—by pointing out how one misguided suggestion that would ban a whole group of people from entering the country based on their religious belief—that the challenges posed by global terrorism will not be resolved by breaking faith with those constitutional principles and international human rights values that have allowed us to develop as a nation and to protect the human dignity and freedom that we have all come to cherish. I have further tried to demonstrate that only by continuing on this path of developing those principles and values along with the institutions that can sustain them will we be able to ensure the future and avoid the darkness of fear that might otherwise inhibit our development as a free people. We stand at an epic crossroads with the other nations of the world over what kind of future we shall impart to the next generation. Hopefully, it will be one where the dignity of the individual matters constitutionally across the globe, so that people are judged by how they act, and not by what they believe.
Source:
http://law.emory.edu/eilr/recent-dev...ed-states.html
It seems that this is a hot topic in the USA at the moment... what's your angle? You claim that the Muslim category doesn't exist. I ask you is this how ignorant your border control is?
The Immigration and Nationality Act that 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 unconstitutional means." This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States.
I ask, does this "alien group which belongs to an org seeking to over throw the USA" include anyone who is Muslim despite the fact that the terrorists only make up a very tiny fraction of all Muslims on the planet?
Scimi