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.
Songcatcher said:
You said the talk radio show was talking about Trump’s plan. Trump’s plan has nothing to do with immigration.
Click to expand...
Trumps plan proposes banning all Muslims from entering the country.The alternative plan was to place a temporary ban on anyone who is not a citizen from entering,immigrants included
 
gilliam said:
The Republican Party (well Whigs actually) has see all this before and an off-shoot called the Know Nothing Party was created.

The Know-Nothing Party, also known as the American Party, was a prominent United States political party during the late 1840s and the early 1850s.

The American Party originated in 1849. Its members strongly opposed immigrants and followers of the Catholic Church. The majority of white Americans followed Protestant faiths. Many of these people feared Catholics because members of this faith followed the teachings of the Pope. The Know-Nothings feared that the Catholics were more loyal to the Pope than to the United States. More radical members of the Know-Nothing Party believed that the Catholics intended to take over the United States of America. The Catholics would then place the nation under the Pope’s rule. The Know-Nothing Party intended to prevent Catholics and immigrants from being elected to political offices. Its members also hoped to deny these people jobs in the private sector, arguing that the nation’s business owners needed to employ true Americans.

The majority of Know-Nothings came from middle and working-class backgrounds. These people feared competition for jobs from immigrants coming to the United States. Critics of this party named it the Know-Nothing Party because it was a secret organization. Its members would not reveal the party’s doctrines to non-members. Know-Nothings were to respond to questions about their beliefs with, “I know nothing.” The Know-Nothing Party adopted the American Party as its official name in 1854. The Know-Nothing Party quickly grew in popularity in the North, where most recent immigrants to the United States resided. In 1854, Know-Nothing candidates even won control of the Massachusetts legislature.

Know-Nothings also wielded some power in Ohio. Several cities, including Youngstown and Cleveland, had newspapers that touted Know-Nothing beliefs. Many white Protestants in the state disliked the Catholic Church for opposing taxation to finance public schools. Catholic parents preferred enrolling their sons and daughters in Catholic schools and did not feel that they should financially support schools that their children did not attend. Ohio’s Know-Nothings formed an alliance in the early 1850s with the Fusionist Party, a precursor of the Republican Party. The Know-Nothings campaigned for Fusionist Salmon Chase in the gubernatorial election of 1855. Their support helped Chase win the election.

Nationally, in 1856, the American Party ran Millard Fillmore as its candidate for President of the United States. While Fillmore finished last, he still received almost 900,000 votes out of the approximately four million votes cast in the election. Although many Americans, including some Ohioans, opposed the Catholic faith and lived in fear of immigrants, slavery and its expansion was a more important issue to them. The Know-Nothing Party refused to take a stand on slavery. As a result of the party’s refusal to take a position on slavery, the Know-Nothing Party was declined by the presidential election of 1860. The party did not run a candidate for president in this election, as many of its followers had joined the Republican Party.

ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Know-Nothing_Party?rec=911
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Apt nickname for the American Party. Thank you for posting. I wonder if this indoctrination of hate and ignorance fed onto future generations where we see JFK publicly vilified for being Catholic and some of his opponents encouraging the public not to vote for him based solely on his being a Catholic and will implement only policies that are approved by the Pope.
 
I think he’s probably the best thing the Democrats have going for them. Do you suppose he’ll run as an Independent if the GOP fails to support him?

I think that what he’s said is one of the worst things that could be said. He is plainly feeding off the fears and prejudices of some people and it concerns me that his poll numbers are so high. Are we really dumb enough to support someone who behaves like he does and to even seriously consider him a viable (and good?!?) candidate for president?

If, (God forbid) he does get elected I suspect we will lose allies all over the world because he cannot control his mouth and we might well be in a very serious shooting war in very short order.

Does anyone really think that he will not immediately ruin all and any chances of diplomacy with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and Turkey?

This latest outburst, along with his mockery of a disabled reported, and his clear misstatement about alleged “Muslim celebrations” in Jersey on 911 should be glaring people in the face. It’s a huge http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/RedFlag.jpg

If he makes misstatements and lies like this now, what will he be like in the White House?

If he is willing to oppress a religious community because of the misconduct of a few then what will be our own fate as Catholics with him in office since he does not respect the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of religion?

I think everyone needs to go to the polls next November!
 
2Rollin_Stoned said:
I think he’s probably the best thing the Democrats have going for them. Do you suppose he’ll run as an Independent if the GOP fails to support him?

I think that what he’s said is one of the worst things that could be said. He is plainly feeding off the fears and prejudices of some people and it concerns me that his poll numbers are so high. Are we really dumb enough to support someone who behaves like he does and to even seriously consider him a viable (and good?!?) candidate for president?

If, (God forbid) he does get elected I suspect we will lose allies all over the world because he cannot control his mouth and we might well be in a very serious shooting war in very short order.

Does anyone really think that he will not immediately ruin all and any chances of diplomacy with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and Turkey?

This latest outburst, along with his mockery of a disabled reported, and his clear misstatement about alleged “Muslim celebrations” in Jersey on 911 should be glaring people in the face. It’s a huge http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/RedFlag.jpg

If he makes misstatements and lies like this now, what will he be like in the White House?

If he is willing to oppress a religious community because of the misconduct of a few then what will be our own fate as Catholics with him in office since he does not respect the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of religion?

I think everyone needs to go to the polls next November!
Click to expand...
First and foremost,Islam is every bit as much an idology as it is a religion.It is the idiolgy that is driving extremists toward acting outthink violent and barbaric attacks in the name of religion. As far as Trump alienating our allies,Obama is doing a pretty good job of that on his own.😦
 
This is what I said in a post above a few pages back, that it would offend some of our allies that would join us in the fight against ISIS.
Too broad. The reason he is so high in the polls is that people have felt that the insiders aren’t listening.
They elected Republicans mid term as a rejection of Obama and nothing changed. Same old same old. They are frustrated and that is why Trump is so high.
But I do not support him, no.
Immigration policies have been a joke since this inept administration and since before Obama and this is why Trump has such currency now.
 
Trump speaks and all the good people are screeching in panic and clutching their pearls at such obscene talk. So, all you compassionate believers in absolute religious tolerance tell me, quantify for me your beliefs. How many dead Americans is acceptable to you?

Because I claim the government is inept at sorting out terrorist and it is only too obvious some will get in. What percentage will be mass murders? There will be additional Muslim propagated terrorist attacks. How many dead are you willing to accept to maintain your purity for a non-religious test? Is 1000 a year too high maybe 1000 in 10 years OK?

Killers are going to come in, they are already here. How many more are OK to let in to prove your compassion?
 
stevegravy said:
Trump speaks and all the good people are screeching in panic and clutching their pearls at such obscene talk. So, all you compassionate believers in absolute religious tolerance tell me, quantify for me your beliefs. How many dead Americans is acceptable to you?

Because I claim the government is inept at sorting out terrorist and it is only too obvious some will get in. What percentage will be mass murders? There will be additional Muslim propagated terrorist attacks. How many dead are you willing to accept to maintain your purity for a non-religious test? Is 1000 a year too high maybe 1000 in 10 years OK?

Killers are going to come in, they are already here. How many more are OK to let in to prove your compassion?
Click to expand...
Apart from anything else, for someone standing on behalf of a party that trumpets its adherence to the constitution in contrast to its opponents, it’s absurd to make such a suggestion though because it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion. Either you let immigrants in whatever their religion or let no one in, as far as I can see. The US isn’t at war with any particular country nor with Islam itself, so it would I think be illegal anyway. Given Trump or a spokesman hasn’t actually addressed this issue (maybe it’s a non-issue, but if it’s a serious suggestion he has to address it), it raises the additional question of his constitutional judgement. I.e. that he’s unfit for the office he seeks.

No one measures freedom by the lives lost in allowing that freedom to be exercised. If one did, then what of the 2nd Amendment?
 
Murmurs said:
Apart from anything else, for someone standing on behalf of a party that trumpets its adherence to the constitution in contrast to its opponents, it’s absurd to make such a suggestion though because** it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion**. Either you let immigrants in whatever their religion or let no one in, as far as I can see. The US isn’t at war with any particular country nor with Islam itself, so it would I think be illegal anyway. Given Trump or a spokesman hasn’t actually addressed this issue (maybe it’s a non-issue, but if it’s a serious suggestion he has to address it), it raises the additional question of his constitutional judgement. I.e. that he’s unfit for the office he seeks.

No one measures freedom by the lives lost in allowing that freedom to be exercised. If one did, then what of the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...
👍
 
Murmurs said:
Apart from anything else, for someone standing on behalf of a party that trumpets its adherence to the constitution in contrast to its opponents, it’s absurd to make such a suggestion though because it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion. Either you let immigrants in whatever their religion or let no one in, as far as I can see. The US isn’t at war with any particular country nor with Islam itself, so it would I think be illegal anyway. Given Trump or a spokesman hasn’t actually addressed this issue (maybe it’s a non-issue, but if it’s a serious suggestion he has to address it), it raises the additional question of his constitutional judgement. I.e. that he’s unfit for the office he seeks.

No one measures freedom by the lives lost in allowing that freedom to be exercised. If one did, then what of the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...
Very perceptive and insightful post!
 
meltzerboy said:
What kind of lifelong Democrats would vote for Trump? His views are totally opposite of virtually everything the Democratic Party has ever stood for. I still have to wonder, however, whether he really believes much of what he proposes or whether he is motivated primarily by a drive toward competition in an uphill race, coming out ahead in the end, and being the focus of attention in the process.
Click to expand...
I know some Democrats who are hoping he’ll be the GOP’s candidate but I know none who would even flirt with voting for him themselves. The progressives in my life are absolutely terrified of his rhetoric. I’ve often wondered if he’s all show and doesn’t actually believe what he says. Unfortunately, he’s now gone so far to feed xenophobic attitudes that I’m not sure it matters.
 
Ideally one would want to see 100% say no, we dont want to ban Muslims. But it appears 25% of the participants have voted yes.

IMO no we should not ban Muslims from entering the U.S. As a Catholic, I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church(based on the teachings of Jesus Christ)

*“Therefore, the Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion. Accordingly, following the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the sacred Council earnestly begs the Christian faithful to ‘conduct themselves well among the Gentiles’ (1P 2:12) and if possible, as far as depends on them, to be at peace with all men (cf. Rm 12:18), and in that way to be true sons of the Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 5:45).” *

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm

The brotherhood of Islam and Christianity has existed since the beginning of Islam. It was after all, a righteous Christian King who gave refugee to a group of early Muslims. The Christian Negus of Abyssinia said I would not give up you Muslims for a mountain of gold. I think we can all remember the Bible stories we learned as Kids. Well our Muslim friends are brought up on Quran stories, the stories of the early Muslims which are told in a variety of ways such as the following,

youtube.com/watch?v=tiozExuqYDA

All Muslims should condemn bigotry against non Muslims. All Christians should condemn bigotry against non Christians.
 
marymary1975 said:
What do you mean by expatriats? Americans living in other countries that are radicals?

Yes.there is reciprocity (though not always, there are several countries that the US requires visa and on the other end Americans are not required visa, that happens when you are the most powerful country in the world) and that would affect bilateral relations with Europe, thatis why iI say that I don’t.see it happening, but there are no controls and it may be dangerous.
Click to expand...
I was referring to common people and basically agree with you.
 
Murmurs said:
Apart from anything else, for someone standing on behalf of a party that trumpets its adherence to the constitution in contrast to its opponents, it’s absurd to make such a suggestion though because it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion. Either you let immigrants in whatever their religion or let no one in, as far as I can see. The US isn’t at war with any particular country nor with Islam itself, so it would I think be illegal anyway. Given Trump or a spokesman hasn’t actually addressed this issue (maybe it’s a non-issue, but if it’s a serious suggestion he has to address it), it raises the additional question of his constitutional judgement. I.e. that he’s unfit for the office he seeks.

No one measures freedom by the lives lost in allowing that freedom to be exercised. If one did, then what of the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...
Since when did our constitution apply to foreigners in other countries?
 
Murmurs said:
Apart from anything else, for someone standing on behalf of a party that trumpets its adherence to the constitution in contrast to its opponents, it’s absurd to make such a suggestion though because it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion. Either you let immigrants in whatever their religion or let no one in, as far as I can see. The US isn’t at war with any particular country nor with Islam itself, so it would I think be illegal anyway. Given Trump or a spokesman hasn’t actually addressed this issue (maybe it’s a non-issue, but if it’s a serious suggestion he has to address it), it raises the additional question of his constitutional judgement. I.e. that he’s unfit for the office he seeks.

No one measures freedom by the lives lost in allowing that freedom to be exercised. If one did, then what of the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what they are saying then when claiming that not allowing in Muslims is unconstitutional? Because that seems clearly the point. And then they question Trump’s “constitutional judgement” – I have to ask, when did our constitution begin to apply to foreigners?
 
I find it ironic that many of the same people who contend that temporarily limiting Muslim travel and immigration to the US as basically barbaric. However, they have no problem with bombing a sovereign country 5000 mile away where we don’t actually have permission to be present is perfectly ok. Temporarily limiting Muslim immigration result in the loss of no lives. The bombing in the Middle East of course results in the death ISIS terrorists but no doubt includes the death of a number of innocent individuals also.

The proposal to limit immigration is regarded as a temporary measure and seemingly more humane measure until a better system of screening an be implemented. Perhaps then immigration can be reopened at least to some individuals from the war torn area who are truly seeking to assimilate into our society. Any system has got to be better than our invisible borders we have now.

There is no proposal for internment and the limitations are deemed as temporary. Prospective immigrants do not have a constitutional right to enter this country at will. America should be able to say who enters and who doesn’t. It is not a restriction on a person’s racial background it is a measure to protect us from a known threat in our country.

If America is worried about freedom, they would be much wiser to fight the reintroduction of the Patriot Act which some politicians are proposing to do. It is pretty much free to dive in to their private lives and rights. They should also be very concerned about the establishment of stricter gun laws which appears to be headed in the directions of actually taking guns from lawful American citizens. This would be much more in resemblance of Germany in the late 1930s than a temporary restriction of immigration.
 
Murmurs said:
Apart from anything else, for someone standing on behalf of a party that trumpets its adherence to the constitution in contrast to its opponents, it’s absurd to make such a suggestion though because it’s unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion. Either you let immigrants in whatever their religion or let no one in, as far as I can see. The US isn’t at war with any particular country nor with Islam itself, so it would I think be illegal anyway. Given Trump or a spokesman hasn’t actually addressed this issue (maybe it’s a non-issue, but if it’s a serious suggestion he has to address it), it raises the additional question of his constitutional judgement. I.e. that he’s unfit for the office he seeks.

No one measures freedom by the lives lost in allowing that freedom to be exercised. If one did, then what of the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...
The unconstitutionality is premised on a incorrect interpretation of the first amendment. The amendment does not prohibit religious discrimination, which is a very broad concept. It prohibits congress from establishing a state church, which is necessarily Christian. And it prohibits interfering with the exercise of religion. Religious tests were a part of the early US and very much in the spirit of our country.
SHANTARAM said:
Since when did our constitution apply to foreigners in other countries?
Click to expand...
This is a interesting point. The claim that the constitution does not apply to foreigners was necessary to allow the indefinite detention of so called enemy combatants. Obama, the constitutional scholar, stands by this argument.
 
gilliam said:
Well this is interesting:

Rupert Murdoch:
Has Trump gone too far? Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.

twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/674325164163772417
Click to expand...
It is a Murdoch cough cough wink wink to the GOP establishment, telling them to take this point Trump is making off the table with some sort of refugee pause via Congress till it blows over and the elections are done. Make no mistake, Murdoch is a huge proponent of immigration, but he can see the writing on the wall.
 
The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train.
-CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top