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.
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...
Exactly. I’m reminded of this quote from Benjamin Franklin: He who would trade his liberties for added security deserves neither.

Of course, no one ever says that they’re for losing their own liberties, just the liberties of others. But what happens when suddenly, after advocating or simply standing by while the liberties of others are taken away, your group is now the group that those in power are advocating the loss of liberty?

The NRA has it right, as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, but very few cry out when other rights are infringed. The ACLU is supposed to help people with their 1st and 5th amendment rights, but seem to care more about “protecting” abortion “rights”, same-sex “marriage” and the “right” to die.

Honestly, I don’t agree with Trump. He scares me, and the chances of me voting for him are the same as the chances of me voting for Hillary - not even if my life depended on it. On the other hand, he has every right to say what he wants as long as he doesn’t intentionally incite riotous behavior. It doesn’t mean, though, that the media has to feed into his statements. Trump is fueled by media attention - and to him, the only bad publicity is no publicity. Notice - his biggest lags in polls are right after debates, because the debates are the only places where Trump can’t suck all the oxygen out of the room.

Regardless, it’s getting more difficult to see where Trump actually is in IA polling right now. Why? Two recent polls in IA (both released yesterday) show completely divergent results. One, by Monmouth U (an IA university), shows Trump trailing Cruz by 5 points and just barely ahead of Rubio, with Carson trailing in 4th place. Another, by CNN, shows Trump leading Cruz by 13 points, followed by Carson, with Rubio in a distant 4th. So who’s right? A 14 percentage point difference in Trump’s standing (19% in Monmouth vs. 33% in CNN) is much more than simply margin of error
 
Ridgerunner said:
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?
Click to expand...
Democracy involves allowing opinion that you find personally distasteful
 
This whole thing is predicated on if it is true that Islam is homogeneous. Banning Muslims is like banning Christians in the basis that Wesboro Baptists and Catholics are the same. Is a Muslim in China the same as a Muslim in Bosnia. Is a Sunni the same as a Shia or or Sufi. Or are we banning Arab Muslims or people who ‘look like’ Muslims. Druze are a bit muslimish should they be banned. Will people need help differentiating between a Hindu a Sikh and a Muslim. it’s a badly thought out fascistic suggestion
 
JimmyG88 said:
This whole thing is predicated on if it is true that Islam is homogeneous. Banning Muslims is like banning Christians in the basis that Wesboro Baptists and Catholics are the same. Is a Muslim in China the same as a Muslim in Bosnia. Is a Sunni the same as a Shia or or Sufi. Or are we banning Arab Muslims or people who ‘look like’ Muslims. Druze are a bit muslimish should they be banned. Will people need help differentiating between a Hindu a Sikh and a Muslim. it’s a badly thought out fascistic suggestion
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the Baha’is bunch of troublemakers. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don’t think people want a blanket ban on muslims. They want the vetting process reviewed and tightened if required.
 
exnihilo said:
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.

I suppose one could just about argue perhaps that barring Muslims from entering the country prevents the free exercise of their religion here? Not that people have an automatic right to live in the US otherwise, of course, but if a would-be immigrant would be granted leave to enter the country and remain there, other than for his or her religion, then that represents the federal government interfering with the free exercise of religion, which would be unconstitutional. Discrimination in religion is prohibited, in spirit, generally, and in letter, where it prevents any and all religious adherents from receiving equal treatment. (Congress might for instance close all places of worship, but couldn’t just close down all mosques because they’re mosques, as far as I can see). If you want to ban Muslims from entering, you have to ban all immigration, period. That way you’re not favouring anyone over anyone else on the grounds of religion.

In any case, I have reasonable confidence in suggesting that were Trump to become president (heaven help us all), and managed to bizarrely convince Congress or found a way by executive order to do just what he wants to do in this case, he would be quickly laughed out of the Supreme Court building:

most people, including most Republicans and even some die-hard Trump fans, are suggesting that this might be a step too far for him, because even if there is a sensible motivation at the heart of it (ie ‘we know that a few Muslims do mean us harm, but we can’t tell the “bad” ones from the “good” ones, so let’s keep them all out until we do’), it comes across as so blatantly bigoted (whatever the true intention) that it is a total non-starter.

So I suggest that even if he mounted a plausible argument for it being constitutional, assuming one can be made - given how we have seen the supreme court rule on a range of issues in recent years, it’s not above putting its collective (or majority) ideology above a more-sound constitutional argument. I can’t imagine even the most conservative or right-wing justices (or anyone in the broader judiciary who might be elevated to it in any foreseeable future), having much truck with the plan. Whether or not it might be construed as being constitutional, I am very sure it would be found to be unconstitutional.

In any case, while some states (I know VA was one…until 1786) did have religious tests or an established church initially…I notice that today not one does. While it might be technically legal, it is clearly so contrary to the spirit of the United States’ founding principles, I’m not sure anyone could carry it into force today.

More than anything else, I foresee a practical problem. What if one doesn’t admit one is Muslim? On the visa-waiver form I have to fill in every time I fly to the US, I have to tick a box promising that I’m not trying to enter the country in order to overthrow the US Government. I have never done what the writer George Bernard Shaw allegedly once did (which was to write, “sole purpose of visit” next to the question), but I can’t help feeling that if I did have a desire to ferment insurrection, I wouldn’t tick the box to say that I was.

Given the two shooters in San Bernardino were largely ‘home grown’ for want of a better word, I don’t know if the proposal would help much anyway, when the threat is already inside the borders.

I think that this suggestion is more than illegal: it’s utterly impracticable.
Click to expand...
 
Good_Tidings said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are mistaken here. Along with the main stream media spin, you are attempting to villify the idea that we can have any system of vetting anyone who seems to be a threat to our national security. The US has always had an immigration policy and has, at times, restricted various groups from gaining entry here. I am in favor of suspending any refugee visas until proper vetting processes can be put in place. The fact that we do not currently have such a system is a travesty. We are a nation of laws and have a duty and a right to protect our own citizens. I agree the poll question seemed broad, however I understood the question in reference to Mr. Trumps comments which called for temporarily suspending visas for refugees from the war torn Middle East i.e. muslims. Political correctness aside, all of those committing terrorist acts in the US have historically been muslims.
 
Used2beSherryG said:
What does someone’s appearance have to do with the question at hand?
Click to expand...
It was a joke by Jimmyg88. I thought it was very funny. 😃 The fact that it has nothing to do with the question at hand makes it even funnier.

It’s the British sarcastic sense of humor. 😛
 
There was this episode of the Simpsons where Homer was cast as the voice of a cartoon dog names Poochie in Itchy & Scratchy. This addition proved wildly unpopular, so Homer came to the producers of the Itchy & Scratchy show with suggestions: "One, Poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine. Two, whenever Poochie’s not on screen, all the other characters should be asking “Where’s Poochie?”

Trump is the Poochie of the GOP. He’s louder and angrier than any Republican candidate. And–this is the most important thing–whenever he’s not in the news, people are asking: “Where’s Trump?” He’s effectively choked off the GOP the same way Poochie choked off Itchy & Scratchy. Worst. Primary. Ever.
 
if nothing else, The Donald is certainly make folks talk about things they were heretofore hesitant to. I suspect he knows its next to impossible to do what he speculated about, but it’s sure an attention grabber that the ignorant sound-biters will glom on to.
 
graciew said:
I was referring to common people and basically agree with you.
Click to expand...
Well I just read on the news this morning that the house passed a bill that tightens visa requirements and imposes.requirements.for.visa free countries. Basically they are placing visas for middle eastern countries and European countries will have tighten.controls. Any European that visited the middle east will be required for a visa and European countries.Will.have to.supply this info to.the US and if they don’t, they will be taken out of the visa free program.

Very interesting. It looks like they heard us.
 
Murmurs said:
I suppose one could just about argue perhaps that barring Muslims from entering the country prevents the free exercise of their religion here? Not that people have an automatic right to live in the US otherwise, of course, but if a would-be immigrant would be granted leave to enter the country and remain there, other than for his or her religion, then that represents the federal government interfering with the free exercise of religion, which would be unconstitutional. Discrimination in religion is prohibited, in spirit, generally, and in letter, where it prevents any and all religious adherents from receiving equal treatment. (Congress might for instance close all places of worship, but couldn’t just close down all mosques because they’re mosques, as far as I can see). If you want to ban Muslims from entering, you have to ban all immigration, period. That way you’re not favouring anyone over anyone else on the grounds of religion.
Click to expand...
The US courts were the inventors of microagression. So I’m sure they’d find that barring Muslims who are not citizens would be a violation of the free exercise of religion of those who are. It’s a bad argument but so is a tax that both is and isn’t a tax.
Murmurs said:
In any case, while some states (I know VA was one…until 1786) did have religious tests or an established church initially…I notice that today not one does. While it might be technically legal, it is clearly so contrary to the spirit of the United States’ founding principles, I’m not sure anyone could carry it into force today.
Click to expand...
The established law is that it is unconstitutional. But this is from a long line of bad rulings and federal usurpations. It is precisely not contrary to the founding spirit. The US was a confederation of sovereign states. Some of them had state churches and religious tests. That was the founding spirit. The citizens would have been surprised to know that their state when it joined the US was unconstitutional. Under the current constitution the US became an unitary state with administrative divisions.
 
exnihilo said:
The established law is that it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Quod erat demonstrandum.
But this is from a long line of bad rulings and federal usurpations. It is precisely not contrary to the founding spirit. The US was a confederation of sovereign states. Some of them had state churches and religious tests. That was the founding spirit. The citizens would have been surprised to know that their state when it joined the US was unconstitutional. Under the current constitution the US became an unitary state with administrative divisions.
Click to expand...
While everyone is entitled to an opinion, do many share in the one you’re articulating, that it’s derived from “bad” rulings and federal “usurpations”?

Until 1789, the United States was a confederation of sovereign states. It isn’t today; nor was it in 1790. The United States as a sovereign country didn’t (technically) exist at the time; it’s closest approximation as a political entity might be the Holy Roman Empire. The founding spirits of some of the individual states, certainly is to have an established religion. It’s also something that, on becoming together as one state the United States, was quite clearly and totally done away with, or had been beforehand.

It might be a founding fact for a handful of the states. It’s not a founding spirit. Honestly 🤷
 
Used2beSherryG said:
Political correctness aside, all of those committing terrorist acts in the US have historically been muslims.
Click to expand...
As was pointed out, this is not the case.

If you want to compare US terrorist attack deaths by non-Muslim perpetrators and those where the perpetrators were Muslim; it would depend on when you start the count. If you start the count with 9/11 then those perpetrated by Muslims have a higher death total. But starting there may be a bit arbitrary. We could just as easily start with the Oklahoma city bombing.
 
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...
First, you do not seem to be keeping up with recent developments regarding the constitution. It is at the point of being meaningless and this process has been going on since the 30’s.The words mean only what 5 *****es in black robes say they mean. Might as well let the twitterverse decide cases.

Secondly I approve your suggestion of halting all immigration.

Thirdly all this bawling about religious test is a straw man, State Dept. already does discriminate, It denies refugee status to Christians of Syrian persuasion and allows Muslims of same persuasion in. So much for you sacred religious testing being un-American.

Finally I think we already have decided the cost in lives lost to preserve 2nd amendment rights. You are not serious because you won’t give a number of acceptable deaths to sustain Muslim immigration
 
sarah_j said:
I don’t see anything wrong with TEMPORARILY banning possible terrrorists
from entering the country.
Under the current circumstances, I think it’s pure insanity to allow masses of people
who may have terrorist ties to have entry to the country.
Trump isn’t talking about a permanent ban on Muslims. He’s talking about
temporarily stopping immigration until the Feds can get a handle on the situation.
It’s crazy to keep letting more and more people into the country without properly
vetting them. Give the Feds a breather for goodness sake. We’ve seen in San
Bernardino the damage caused when ONE person slips through the cracks
in the vetting process.

And if it’s illegal to stop only Muslims from entering the country, let the Feds
stop issuing ALL visas.
I heard on the radio that we issue over 150,000 student visas to Saudi Arabians.
Some of the 911 terrorists came here on student visas, didn’t they?

Trump isn’t my favorite candidate, but I will say that he does appear to have as
his number 1 interest the protection of the U.S. I think that’s what people
respond to. We have had a president for the past 7 years who is more interested
in apologizing for America instead of protecting it.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more! Our current president (imho) does not have America in his best interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top