If you're gonna ban these three, might as well ban them all and become a god-less nation. While we're at it, go full on Commie status, too.

We have Freedom of Religion for a reason. I just wish the Founding Fathers had realized the truth about Islam after we fought the Barbary Pirates, instead of passing the buck on this like they did with slavery. Seems like they maybe weren't as strong minded as we once thought.

Christianity and Judaism isn't the problem. If all Islamists could agree to co-exist, it would've already. But, rounding up and deporting millions of adherents to the most violent religion man had ever devised is such a monumental and dangerous task that I'm unsure we could pull it off without widespread violence throughout our country. The best I think we could hope for is to be so violent and unforgiving in our dealings with them that they never rise up to try to take over.

However, the world isn't ready for a war like that.

Not all catholics have allegiance to the pope, where do you get this warped view from?

Ireland a majority catholic country has functioned as a secular state since its inception (let’s ignore the treasonous behaviour of recent public servants for now).

Christianity is interwoven into our culture, despite efforts to remove it. Mostly by Godless people like you.

Poland, Portugal, Spain, even Italy are the same.

What religion is acceptable to you? Another one of your nonsensical rants about catholics, this time lumping us in with the satanic Stone Age people.

You sound like you worship the state and not God.

Yes. Superstitious fanatics with a superiority complex.

Lots of papists 'round these parts tho, prepare to be downvoted.

Legal US immigrant here

White guy from England. I'm also Catholic

I don't give a rats arse about The Pope

Christ is my only king

Its real simple.

We dont need any immigration.

That's fair to everyone.

To become and be a legal immigrant or even a legal resident is based on a contract. Even a simple vacation in the US requires a contract, called visum.

In that contract are certain stipulation that require a signature of the one vacationing or immigrating.

Violating the provisions of this contract leads to perjury immediately. And, it is not considered moral to break a contract. So .... there is ample reason to be strict in its enforcement.

So, how does vetting goes when confronted with people who lie because it is the faithful thing to do?

Can such vetting even be done?

When I compare George Washington's Farewell Address to the immigration question at hand, I would say, there is ample reason to be very reluctant to accept every Achmed and Fatima, Pajeet and Noor.

Then we come to the matter of: What constitutes a free people? What is a free man?

Put simply: if you need a cleric to tell you you are worthy, you have your work cut out for you. A free man is not a diminutive man, beholding to another, a dhimmie, or goyin. And I dare say: most religions are meant to keep you right there in such a state..

So, yes, pray to whomever, but if you really want to build a society of freemen and women, where children can grow up comprehending and understanding that it takes virtue to be free, self knowledge and validation, then those masses who have not yet even begun to pronounce the word free, have no business in a free society.

Those people are subversive to the constitution, and the founding principles of the USA.

interesting constitutional question! a MAGA compatible test would be nice, which could mean some groups excluded…

re: Constitution & religious test, it would be constitutional, we would just need MAGA judges who understand that when the 1st Amend. set forth that Congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise we still had some States that had tax-supported religion with the people table to designate their church of choice ____ online exhibit Library of Congression: Religion in America https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html Massachusetts would never have gone for the 1st. A. if it had meant that they had to give up their right as a state to support religion as they saw. fit.

I’m not saying we should do tax-supported religion at the federal or State levels, just saying that the 1st Amendment historically interpreted would not prevent Congress from limiting who could come into America based on religion

So our present day first amendment just prudence is not a lion with the original meaning

thinking outside the box. i like it. high energy.

**Extract from Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia ** ....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- [Query XVII, “Religion”]

While the First Amendment forbids the establishment of a state religion, I would say that any religion that is truly a religion -- belief in some God or god, and moral strictures to go along with it -- would find a home here.

But on the other hand, Islam, it could be argued, is not a true religion at all, but a military/cultural army that merely cloaks itself in the appearances of religion. Islam is a pseudo-religion. Its chief aim is to spread itself, much like cancer does, throughout the globe and the nations of non-Muslims.

Of the three groups you mentioned (Catholics, Jews, and Muslims), only Muslims and their pseudo-religion of Islam, is completely incompatible with living under our Constitution and within our American way of life.

Ban all Muslims.