Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KidCatholic1 said:
One of the very reasons our nation declared its independence from the British Empire was because the colonists believed that the UK was restricting immigration and naturalization far too much (it’s in the Declaration: Google it). Why is that any different now?

And from a faith standpoint, why should we deny peaceful peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Aren’t they God’s children, even if they don’t hold the same faith as us? This is an outrage.

:banghead:
Click to expand...
It’s not an outrage. Trump’s claim is merely a too-broad assertion of something he couldn’t really do anyway. But caution in immigration is not, in itself, immoral or foolish.

There have been times in America’s history when it was totally open to immigration except for those who were carrying diseases. There have been times when it was very restrictive. There was one time when it was made restrictive because there appeared to be an undue importation of violent anarchists from southern Europe. At one time, avowed communists were not allowed to immigrate.

One can say one favors immigration for “peaceful peoples”, but the problem is we often don’t know whether potential immigrants are “peaceful peoples” or not. Nor can we always be sure they will revere the constitution of the U.S. or think the rule of law is applicable to them.

Was it wrong to refuse admission to avowed Stalinists, or was it just prudent? True Stalinists had no regard whatever for the constitutional principles of this country. That was part of what it was to be a communist…to have a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (actually ruling elites) instead of the rule of law. And some among them were willing to be violent in pursuit of such a change.

To the extent, and among some, Islam is a political system which they believe should be imposed here in lieu of the one we have, should we really allow such persons in this country freely just because it has a religious aspect to it as well?
 
I’m voting no because it’s too sweeping and generalizing.
 
Voting no because I fear that it could alienate countries in the Middle East that are friendly to the U.S., and could be a help to us in the war against terror.
 
KidCatholic1 said:
One of the very reasons our nation declared its independence from the British Empire was because the colonists believed that the UK was restricting immigration and naturalization far too much (it’s in the Declaration: Google it). Why is that any different now?

And from a faith standpoint, why should we deny peaceful peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Aren’t they God’s children, even if they don’t hold the same faith as us? This is an outrage.

:banghead:
Click to expand...
False American “patriots” are silultaneously waging war against Democracy in Syria, while attacking immigrants here at home.

The Founding Fathers would without any doubt whatsoever be told to “love it or leave it,” were they alive today. It’s disgusting.
 
Ridgerunner said:
One additional word about Trump. He will no more be able to exclude Muslim immigration than he will be to convert all Muslims to Christianity. The Courts would never allow him to do it despite the fact that they have not disturbed consideration of religion as one of the immigration criteria for refugees.

But it would not be impossible for Trump or anyone else to insist that potential immigrants be genuinely and truly vetted. If one cannot persuasively demonstrate who and what one is, then he could be excluded, and should be. Nor would it be impossible for Congress to change immigration admission to favor people from those countries that are closely and clearly allied with the U.S. and are ready to accept American principles without reservation, or who are genuinely and indisputably refugees from religious persecution.

It wouldn’t be impossible to at least limit the potential immigration of radicals.
Click to expand...
We’ve done it before:

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States. Those on the West Coast were especially prone to attribute declining wages and economic ills on the despised Chinese workers. Although the Chinese composed only .002 percent of the nation’s population, Congress passed the exclusion act to placate worker demands and assuage prevalent concerns about maintaining white “racial purity.”
 
It is smart. We must protect the Americans here first before letting in anymore Muslims. Our leaders have no idea who is coming in, this is obvious after San Bernadino. It must get sorted out before letting in anymore.

We have “leaders” like Lindsey Graham stating, “He’s putting at risk the lives of interpreters, American supporters, diplomats, & the troops in the region by making these bigoted comments”

Which is equal to saying “We must let Muslims move into our country or they’ll kill us!” Absurd.
 
Good_Tidings said:
We’ve done it before:

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States. Those on the West Coast were especially prone to attribute declining wages and economic ills on the despised Chinese workers. Although the Chinese composed only .002 percent of the nation’s population, Congress passed the exclusion act to placate worker demands and assuage prevalent concerns about maintaining white “racial purity.”
Click to expand...
Muslims are not a “race”. The new immigration being proposed by Obama is of Syrians and perhaps assorted others from the Middle East whom we can’t identify.

If you know any Syrians, you know most of them are as “white” as any Frenchman. In this country’s (rather silly) “racial classifcation system” Arabs are considered “white”. This is not a racial thing, it’s a political thing.
 
Exiled_Child said:
False American “patriots” are silultaneously waging war against Democracy in Syria, while attacking immigrants here at home.

.
Click to expand...
“American patriots” are not waging war against Democracy in Syria. The Obama administration has supported some questionable fighters there, but those fighters are not fighting for or against Democracy. With the possible exception of the Kurds and some few Syrians, most of whom are probably already gone, all combatants are supporting dictators; just different dictators.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Muslims are not a “race”. The new immigration being proposed by Obama is of Syrians and perhaps assorted others from the Middle East whom we can’t identify.

If you know any Syrians, you know most of them are as “white” as any Frenchman. In this country’s (rather silly) “racial classifcation system” Arabs are considered “white”. This is not a racial thing, it’s a political thing.
Click to expand...
My point is that we have the capability of banning whomever we wish. Trump calls for banning all Muslims. That will go over well with the rest of the world, especially those Muslims willing to help. What’s the difference between a racial thing and a political thing?
 
Keep talking Donald!!! You are clearing the way for a HRC presidency!!!
 
Good_Tidings said:
My point is that we have the capability of banning whomever we wish. Trump calls for banning all Muslims. That will go over well with the rest of the world, especially those Muslims willing to help. What’s the difference between a racial thing and a political thing?
Click to expand...
There is a lot of difference. I don’t think even Trump would oppose immigration by Filipinos capable of supporting themselves or nurses from Africa. Nor would I. Still, there is a lot of difference between what Trump seems to be saying and what I am saying.

Many Muslims might resent it if this country attempts to exclude radical Islamists in a serious, even tedious manner. After all, if you are a Pole and want to live in the U.S. legally, it will take you years to get it done. It took my Canadian-born sister-in-law nearly that long to get a work permit here.

Why should Muslims claiming to be refugees be favored over a Pole or a Canadian, particularly when we know nothing about the ones Obama wants to admit here.

So, if a Muslim from some radical-infested land wants to live in the U.S., my position is that he should be able to prove who he is, what he is, and persuasively demonstrate that he truly is willing to accept that America is and ought to be under the rule of the constitution of the United States. To tell the truth about it, though, I think it would be a tall order inasmuch as he would have to be among those who clearly and demonstrably reject the Doctrine of Abrogation and the imposition of Islamic political systems. There are some Muslims who are identifiable as such, as the article I cited points out.
 
What are some positives that will come from allowing Muslims to immigrate to the United States? Do we have some sort of magic dirt here that isn’t present in the Middle East?
 
Ridgerunner said:
There is a lot of difference. I don’t think even Trump would oppose immigration by Filipinos capable of supporting themselves or nurses from Africa. Nor would I. Still, there is a lot of difference between what Trump seems to be saying and what I am saying.

Many Muslims might resent it if this country attempts to exclude radical Islamists in a serious, even tedious manner. After all, if you are a Pole and want to live in the U.S. legally, it will take you years to get it done. It took my Canadian-born sister-in-law nearly that long to get a work permit here.

Why should Muslims claiming to be refugees be favored over a Pole or a Canadian, particularly when we know nothing about the ones Obama wants to admit here.

So, if a Muslim from some radical-infested land wants to live in the U.S., my position is that he should be able to prove who he is, what he is, and persuasively demonstrate that he truly is willing to accept that America is and ought to be under the rule of the constitution of the United States. To tell the truth about it, though, I think it would be a tall order inasmuch as he would have to be among those who clearly and demonstrably reject the Doctrine of Abrogation and the imposition of Islamic political systems. There are some Muslims who are identifiable as such, as the article I cited points out.
Click to expand...
You do realize that he is talking about more than the refugee crisis, don’t you? He is talking about all Muslims from anywhere. Little broad. Wouldn’t you agree?
 
Ridgerunner said:
“American patriots” are not waging war against Democracy in Syria. The Obama administration has supported some questionable fighters there, but those fighters are not fighting for or against Democracy. With the possible exception of the Kurds and some few Syrians, most of whom are probably already gone, all combatants are supporting dictators; just different dictators.
Click to expand...
The United States is waging a proxy war against Assad, and it’s also bombing Syrian infrastructure under the guise of a war on ISIS. The Americans I described support this. That means that they are supporting a war whose sole aim is toppling a Democratic government. So what I said is entirely true and factual. It’s the same old story: the United States doesn’t like a popular, Democratically elected leader, so it uses various well-worn methods to topple that leader and install someone new. We have a history of doing this all over the globe.

If we actually wanted to destroy ISIS, we could definitely do it. The way that that would be accomplished is by supporting Assad. ISIS could be wiped out utterly. But we’re choosing to do precisely the opposite, which means things are not what they seem. Once we finally succeed in murdering Assad, the region will descend into permanent bloody chaos. The U.S. knows this and is intent on making it happen. The only way that scenario wouldn’t happen is if the United States stayed there forever. So we’re supporting terrorism and warring on Democracy - there’s really no other way to honestly analyze what’s happening. My point earlier was simply that patriotic Americans are those people who are thoroughly disgusted with American foreign policy because, among other reasons, ultimately this is as much a war on the American populace as it is on Syrians and other Middle Easterners. If Syrian terrorists are imported here, it’s purely deliberate and by design. With the money we’re wasting giving to Jihadists and warring on Assad, we could simply rebuild their country for them, so there wouldn’t even be any refugees.
 
I agree with Trump. We don’t need more people who are religiously and culturally incompatible moving to America. And I have no doubt the numbers agreeing will continue to rise each time we see another terror attack at home.
 
The thing is, quite honestly, is that Trump knows what his constituents want to hear. Whether it can actually be done is completely different, but to the people backing Trump, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that Trump has tapped into what they think is wrong with the country. This is shown by the fact that Trump’s numbers RISE every time he says something that is shown to be objectively false or impossible. On the other hand, it’s unknown how many of Trump’s supporters actually will come out for him in the primary and caucus season.

Regardless, as for banning Muslims from entering the US, it’s also quite an impossibility. And what about people who are US citizens that convert to Islam? Would they now be considered outlaws, too? The point is, where do we draw the line? The guy that committed the mass shooting at the PP in Colorodo Springs said many pro-life statements during the shooting. Does this mean that all pro-lifers are terrorists?

As for Syria… there are no good guys there. The closest we have to allies in Syria are the Kurds, and they have their own agenda (namely, independence). As such, Turkey - a NATO ally - refuses to work with them. The so-called “moderate” rebels that we support, well… they’re almost a non-factor right now.
 
This is a conflicting issue for me. As a charitable, forgiving, loving Catholic; all of God’s children are my brothers and sisters. I cannot deny my acceptance of a Muslim anymore than I can a Baptist, Lutheran, etc. However, the cautious side of me reminds myself that Lutherans and Baptists have not been associated with radical sects of their denomination beheading other Christians. I struggle with this and so far, I pray for answers.
I still do not think that hate and prejudice are the answer. Yet, I do not have a real solution either.
 
Wanting to keep the Middle East’s problems out of America has nothing to do with hate and prejudice but rather with prudence and common sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top