Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S

[Crossbones]

Oh, I think most Americans like the British, but I don’t think they’ve ever cared what any foreign people think about America’s leader.

 

[Crossbones]

Kind of like Governor Romney when suggested that London wasn’t ready for the Olympics.

 

[stevegravy]

All you people having vapors over Trumps latest dust up, here are some reality tips for you, What he has roughly proposed is legal and constitutional at least when words meant something everybody could agree to

8 US Legal Code 1182 passed in 1952, : “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

As pointed out in Althous:
Supreme Court’s “extreme deference” to Congress and the President under what’s known as the “plenary power” doctrine:

It dates back to the 1889 decision in the Chinese Exclusion case, in which the court upheld the exclusion of Chinese laborers based on their nationality… More recent decisions have upheld discrimination against immigrants based on gender and illegitimacy that would never have survived equal protection scrutiny in the domestic context. Likewise, courts have rejected the assertion of First Amendment free speech protections by noncitizens. Nor has the Supreme Court ever struck down an immigration classification, even ones based on race. As late as 1965, a federal appeals court upheld a measure that counted a Brazilian citizen of Japanese descent as Asian for the purposes of immigration quotas. In the context of noncitizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don’t apply, either… something everybody could agree to,

So allowing Muslims into the country will inevitably lead to some terrorist getting in. They will periodically perpetrate mass killings , that is just reality based on statistics. How many American deaths are you OK with to keep your non-discrimination credentials all pure and bona fide?

Regarding refugees, send the Muslims to Muslim majority countries and Christians to nominally Christian countries.

 

[stevegravy]

Been trying for over 200 years to make them our _ itches!

 

[gracepoole]

So allowing Muslims into the country will inevitably lead to some terrorist getting in. They will periodically perpetrate mass killings , that is just reality based on statistics. How many American deaths are you OK with to keep your non-discrimination credentials all pure and bona fide?

Regarding refugees, send the Muslims to Muslim majority countries and Christians to nominally Christian countries.

How long are we going to keep pretending that the majority of terrorist attacks in the US are perpetrated by Muslims?

 

[stevegravy]

How long are we going to keep pretending that the majority of terrorist attacks in the US are perpetrated by Muslims?

Until somebody tells me how many Americans have to die before infiltration of jihadies is a problem.

 

[Murmurs]

Until somebody tells me how many Americans have to die before infiltration of jihadies is a problem.

The jihadiis are here already. One of them in California was a US citizen. God forbid any more attacks, but if it were tasteful to bet on something so awful, I would put good money on at least some of those perpetrators similarly being American citizens and very probably born in the country.

Banning Muslims from entering the country will do nothing at all but fuel further hatred for America abroad. Is that really what you want? If anything it makes the US MORE threatened. You are asking a totally pointless rhetorical question any answer to which has absolutely no value or meaning.

Now there is a grain of truth at the heat of Trump’s obscene suggestion - some (very very few) Muslims, some of whom want to come to the US, do want to hurt the country, its infrastructure, people, and way of life. How do you keep them out? Well it is already legal to bar entry to those who are members of proscribed “terrorist” groups (eg ISIS), and to an extent, countries as well. It is however to bar all Muslims on the possibility that they are terrorists, because they are Muslim. The long-established construction of the 1st Amendment representing a constitutional bar on such discrimination would overrule 18 USC 1182, as soon as it were challenged (which it would be). The only way round this is to ban all immigration. Which, clearly, is politically impossible (and economically stupid).

This means that instead of listening windbaggery from golden-retriever-haired buffoons, the nation needs to have a sensible and rational discussion about how to screen, detect, individuals abroad and at home in a way that sensibly balances the very important rights and liberties of citizens (and citizens of other countries), with the need to secure the general welfare.

 

[SHANTARAM]

It is completely constitutional for the President to stop immigration on a category of people if he deems it necessary. He is not infringing on any Americans rights. Someone earlier quoted the US statute.

 

[SHANTARAM]

The long-established construction of the 1st Amendment representing a constitutional bar on such discrimination would overrule 18 USC 1182, as soon as it were challenged (which it would be). The only way round this is to ban all immigration. Which, clearly, is politically impossible (and economically stupid).

This means that instead of listening windbaggery from golden-retriever-haired buffoons, the nation needs to have a sensible and rational discussion about how to screen, detect, individuals abroad and at home in a way that sensibly balances the very important rights and liberties of citizens (and citizens of other countries), with the need to secure the general welfare.

First off, it is the 14th amendment which addresses discrimination. 1st amendment keeps the US government from establishing a national religion and keeps them from infringing on American’s right to free exercise of religion.

And second, could you please give me examples of the economic impact this country will experience by keeping immigration to zero? What would happen to the pay of jobs on farms? I imagine with the glut of low wage accepting immigrants gone it would go up.

And let us not be uncharitable in our assessment of others! We are better than that!

 

[Murmurs]

First off, it is the 14th amendment which addresses discrimination. 1st amendment keeps the US government from establishing a national religion and keeps them from infringing on American’s right to free exercise of religion.

And second, could you please give me examples of the economic impact this country will experience by keeping immigration to zero? What would happen to the pay of jobs on farms? I imagine with the glut of low wage accepting immigrants gone it would go up.

And let us not be uncharitable in our assessment of others! We are better than that!

Well ok, 14th as well then, very true. Another reason for it being very silly.

My point about the 1st, is that, if the government prevents a select religious group (Muslims) from coming here, that is preventing their free exercise of religion in a circumstance when otherwise (their ban on the grounds of religion aside), they would be granted it. Discrimination, in the sense of preventing the exercise of religion, for one religious group is covered under the 1st (and the 14th). If all religiously-adhering people were banned (all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, etc), then it would probably be fine. At least as far as I can see.

Regards immigration, if Americans want to work farms or clean offices or whatever, they are very free to apply for the job as it stands. If they don’t like the pay, then they can take that up with some level of the government and ask for a better minimum wage. Farmers on the other hand, are (quite understandably I suppose), going to be less than thrilled at rising labor costs. Which means your produce becomes more expensive…you can see where this is going. Yes in some ways no immigration would be an economic boon to be sure, but the broader picture might not be so rosy.

As for the other thing, you’re right and I should be more charitable. I’m very sorry. There’s enough to dislike about policy (personally speaking) without bringing the man into it.

 

[TMC]

I think the constitutionality of Trump’s suggestion is an open question. Constitutional scholars have already come down on both sides of the issue. Personally, I think it is likely constitutional. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not limited to citizens, but I do not believe they inur to the benefit of non-residents. That is, for example, why we keep asylum seekers outside of US jurisdiction during processing.

What is not in question is that the proposal is both unwise and immoral. Not all reprehensible or misguided proposals are unconstitutional.

 

[SHANTARAM]

I have to ask, what does it mean to you when the political establishment (GOP & Dem.) come to the attack against an outsider? They have continually betrayed us. Has it occurred to you that the entire reason we have a national security state (which apparently is not Orwellian when Obama is running it) is that we insist on importing people who do not belong here?

It is blatantly obvious that Muslims are, as a group, incompatible with our society. Read up on Rotherham. Read up on the zones of sharia law that have cropped up in Western cities with high concentrations of Muslims. Read up on the rioting, the drugs, the prostitution. Learn something about the immigration crisis abroad. (It is not a “refugee” crisis, for starters–the immigrants are from all over, virtually all of them seeking Europe’s generous welfare state, not escape from hardship.)

This is no time to stay wed to ignorant leaders and failed policies. They will only produce an endless succession of crises.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t really care about DT’s latest foot-in-mouth symptom. It makes sense, really, because we are threatened, and there is no right for foreigners to travel here, nor are we a public space for everybody or every nationality, culture, or, yes, even religion.

However, if we believe in freedom, we have to act like it!

Not all issues have ambiguity or “nuance” in them, but this one does.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ringil]

Well, I do have to say that I am generally pleased with the results of this survey. CAF stats can run a bit odd on some issues but at least the majority of folks around here know that the idea of banning an entire religion entry into the US is deeply disturbing and morally reprehensible.

 

[Seamus_L]

That’ll change as we become the victim of more terror attacks.

 

[pnewton]

That’ll change as we become the victim of more terror attacks.

I cannot speak for all, but my moral convictions are not based on convenience, fear or expediency.

 

[ringil]

I cannot speak for all, but my moral convictions are not based on convenience, fear or expediency.

amen

 

[Path_Finder]

Washington Post:

Two Obama-supporting California cities approve of Donald Trump’s Muslim immigrant ban
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/09/two-cities-near-san-bernardino-support-donald-trumps-muslim-immigrant-ban/

Excerpt:

The automated polling firm SurveyUSA just completed two surveys in cities near San Bernardino, with a focus on Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States should block any Muslims from entering the country. SurveyUSA talked to people in San Diego, at the very bottom of the state, where voters in 2012 supported Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by more than seven points. They also polled people in Fresno and Visalia, up in the Central Valley, where Obama only barely won more votes than Romney. In California politics, these are relatively moderate and relatively conservative regions, respectively.

And in both places, the majority of adults polled supported Trump’s proposal.

In fact, more than a third of adults in both cities strongly agreed with the idea that Muslim should be barred from entering the country. In both places, more people strongly agreed with the idea than strongly disagreed. There was a partisan split, but even among Democrats, more than a quarter of those answering the poll strongly agreed with Trump’s idea.

 

[sarah_j]

Washington Post:
And in both places, the majority of adults polled supported Trump’s proposal.

In fact, more than a third of adults in both cities strongly agreed with the idea that Muslim should be barred from entering the country. In both places, more people strongly agreed with the idea than strongly disagreed. There was a partisan split, but even among Democrats, more than a quarter of those answering the poll strongly agreed with Trump’s idea

This just gets more and more interesting!

The ironic thing is that if the San Bernardino terrorists had just held off their attack
for another year, in that time Obama would have helped their cause by throwing open
the country’s immigration to large numbers of Muslim immigrants from Syria (and
untold numbers of terrorists posing as refugees).

The terrorists played their hand too early; it looks like the nation is waking up.
We can at least be thankful for that.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I agree with Trump that we should close the borders to Mohammedans. It is to protect the country from people that pose a legitimate threat. We shouldn’t wait until they are bombing every day to start closing the borders.