Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S

[Brendan_64]

obviously permanently barring people from entering our country based on a large religious category is stupid and really wouldn’t work.

Even temporarily it wouldn’t work. How can you ban people of a certain religion if you have no way of identifying their religion? How can you tell what religion a person is? Muslims come in all nationalities and from all ethnicities. The notion that you can ban Muslims, even temporarily, from entering the USA is completely ludicrous, it’s nonsense.

Will there be a big notice at passport control saying, “Muslims are not permitted entry to the USA, therefore we would be grateful if all Muslims would identify themselves so that they can be processed for prompt deportation”? That should stop the terrorists in their tracks.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Even temporarily it wouldn’t work. How can you ban people of a certain religion

so what you are saying is we should allow even the most violent fundamentalist forms of islam into our country no questions asked? we don’t do that. maybe trump wants to strengthen our immigration policy.

 

[Brendan_64]

so what you are saying is we should allow even the most violent fundamentalist forms of islam into our country no questions asked? we don’t do that. maybe trump wants to strengthen our immigration policy.

I’m saying that you cannot ban Muslims from entering your country. How can you ban Muslims if you have no way of knowing who is and who is not a Muslim?

It’s all very well to say, “We shouldn’t let these people in” etc. but if you have no way of knowing who they are then you cannot ban Muslims from entering your country. It’s just empty rhetoric and pie in the sky. You cannot protect yourself by proposing measures that are impossible to enforce, even if you wanted to. Tough sounding rhetoric will do nothing to protect you if what is being proposed is impossible to implement.

There is simply no way of identifying a person’s religion if he applies for a visa, or presents himself at passport control, unless he willingly provides you with this information. There are Muslims of all nationalities and ethnicities, how can you identify a Muslim in order to deny him entry to the USA?

All the tough rhetoric about not letting Muslims into your country, and that we have the right to determine who we let in, we need to protect the USA from radical Islam, etc. etc. means absolutely nothing and will not protect you if it is proposing something that is impossible to implement.

So how do you suggest Muslims can be identified in order to prevent them from entering the USA?

 

[Tony_Micelli]

I’m saying that you cannot ban Muslims from entering your country. How can you ban Muslims if you have no way of knowing who is and who is not a Muslim?

we can ban whomever we want, doesnt mean it will work 100% of the time, or that it’s an ethical policy, but allowing all muslims into our country no questions asked is immoral because ISIS is an islamic muslim religion.

are you saying ISIS isn’t an apocalyptic fundamentalist islamic religion?

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

If you are accusing someone of bigotry, look in the mirror, the woman who helped kill Americans in San Bernadino was not properly vetted. I take that back, what is being proposed is not being a mere bigot but being an accessory to these kinds of murders when one is saying foreigners should not be vetted.

My remarks are hardly bigotry since I oppose an individual idea and not the person per se.

So, you don’t care if immigrants are not vetted and then, if they kill someone, then what? We don’t care? I think people who think this way are accessories to murder.

No one said that, and neither did your boy Trump. He simply states that he wants all Muslims banned from entering the country indefinitely.

If he is willing to do this to one religious community, then how long before he feels comfortable taking punitive action against us American Catholics who so often oppose various actions and policies of our own American government.

You don’t seem to have thought all this through…

 

[St_Francis]

My remarks are hardly bigotry since I oppose an individual idea and not the person per se.
No one said that, and neither did your boy Trump. He simply states that he wants all Muslims banned from entering the country indefinitely.
Do you have a source for Trump’s saying he wanted all Moslems to be barred “indefinitely”? Because that is not my understanding of what he said.

ETA: Given how others have responded throughout this thread, it seems that what you say he said is not what others think he said.

If he is willing to do this to one religious community, then how long before he feels comfortable taking punitive action against us American Catholics who so often oppose various actions and policies of our own American government.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Do you have a source for Trump’s saying he wanted all Moslems to be barred “indefinitely”? Because that is not my understanding of what he said.

ETA: Given how others have responded throughout this thread, it seems that what you say he said is not what others think he said.

Understood.

In a written statement late Monday afternoon, the Trump campaign said the Republican frontrunner wanted a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Donald Trump Calls for Banning Muslim Immigrants

That would mean that the ban would remain in effect indefinitely so long as someone had reservations about them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thats called the war of terror where no-one knows who the terrorists are. Its under critical review at the pub these days.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As long as the attendees are not wound too tight. The “who are the terrorists” question comes with a vast array of responses and emotions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So the “War on Terror”, apparently not long ago there were “Islamic Terrorists”

After the Cold War came the “war on terror.” Islamist terrorists tried to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993 and bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. In response, the United States attacked Afghanistan and routed the Taliban. Then, in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and establish democracy there.

foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2007-01-01/united-states-iraq-and-war-terror

However, shortly later came this…

In 2013, President Barack Obama announced that the United States was no longer pursuing a War on Terror, as the military focus should be on specific enemies rather than a tactic. He stated, “We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘Global War on Terror’, but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Rather odd situation for the American public since “Islamic terrorists” certainly existed in the publics mind as the government needed their emotional support to go to war.

However the government now has another view and denies the premise it went to war on in the first place.

Further let alone “who are terrorists and what is their idleology” should be defined “before” we go to war. So why anyone is going to war to begin with is rather odd.

Second assuming this terrorist and ideology are defined, then we actually need a plan to GO to war?

So far I see no answers to question one and two but apparently everyone still wants to go to war against the terrorists.

It could be me but I think we need a little honesty these days and less emotion.

 

[Brendan_64]

we can ban whomever we want, doesnt mean it will work 100% of the time, or that it’s an ethical policy, but allowing all muslims into our country no questions asked is immoral because ISIS is an islamic muslim religion.

are you saying ISIS isn’t an apocalyptic fundamentalist islamic religion?

But what is the point of a policy that can’t be implemented?

You still haven’t answered how it is possible to identify who is and who is not a Muslim in order to deny them entry. Because without being able to do that then such a policy is absolutely pointless, let alone do anything to protect you.

A policy that cannot be implemented is a complete waste of time, and would be nothing more than empty rhetoric that will not protect you one little bit.

So please tell me how it would be possible to identify Muslims in order to deny them entry?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Understood.
Donald Trump Calls for Banning Muslim Immigrants

That would mean that the ban would remain in effect indefinitely so long as someone had reservations about them.

total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States** until **our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

He’s not calling for a permanent ban, but a temporary halt to allowing Muslims coming in until the vetting process can be reviewed to see where its flawed, and it is flawed.

Even President Obama is calling for a review of the process, but the problem is, Muslims including members if ISIS and sympathizers will come into the country unchecked.

Jim

 

[meltzerboy]

He’s not calling for a permanent ban, but a temporary halt to allowing Muslims coming in until the vetting process can be reviewed to see where its flawed, and it is flawed.

Even President Obama is calling for a review of the process, but the problem is, Muslims including members if ISIS and sympathizers will come into the country unchecked.

Jim

So-called temporary, short-term policies, whether foreign or domestic, have a tendency to be renewed and become permanent.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So-called temporary, short-term policies, whether foreign or domestic, have a tendency to be renewed and become permanent.

Well, permanent doesn’t mean bad.

Trump isn’t looking for a permanent ban on Muslims immigrating into the US,

At least I don’t think he is ?

I’m not a Trump supporter so I can’t argue his case well.

Jim

 

[randomuser]

But what is the point of a policy that can’t be implemented?

You still haven’t answered how it is possible to identify who is and who is not a Muslim in order to deny them entry. Because without being able to do that then such a policy is absolutely pointless, let alone do anything to protect you.

A policy that cannot be implemented is a complete waste of time, and would be nothing more than empty rhetoric that will not protect you one little bit.

So please tell me how it would be possible to identify Muslims in order to deny them entry?

How do you prove someone’s a Muslim? There are white Muslims all over Europe, and there are dark-skinned Christians all over Middle Eastern countries. What’s to prevent the policy from blocking dark-skinned Christians (escaping persecution) entry into the U.S. because they “look” Muslim?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

How do you prove someone’s a Muslim? There are white Muslims all over Europe, and there are dark-skinned Christians all over Middle Eastern countries. What’s to prevent the policy from blocking dark-skinned Christians (escaping persecution) entry into the U.S. because they “look” Muslim?

Can a Muslim falsely identify him/herself as a Christian ?

I believe to do so would be apostasy in Islam, even when lying

Jim

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

He’s not calling for a permanent ban, but a temporary halt to allowing Muslims coming in until the vetting process can be reviewed to see where its flawed, and it is flawed.

Even President Obama is calling for a review of the process, but the problem is, Muslims including members if ISIS and sympathizers will come into the country unchecked.

Jim

But that indefinite status is clearly implied by his language. Does Trump give the impression that .he and a government under him would be able to “figure things out”? I don’t think so…

So-called temporary, short-term policies, whether foreign or domestic, have a tendency to be renewed and become permanent.

Exactly! Just look at income taxes…

Well, permanent doesn’t mean bad.

Trump isn’t looking for a permanent ban on Muslims immigrating into the US,

At least I don’t think he is ?

I’m not a Trump supporter so I can’t argue his case well.

Jim

When he uses ambiguous language like that then there’s a problem. This from the guy who says he has “better judgement” than his opponents.
Trump: ‘I have far better judgment’ than Cruz

I understand you’re not one of his supporters. Neither am I. In fact I’d support a “None of the above” option on all ballots.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How do you prove someone’s a Muslim? There are white Muslims all over Europe, and there are dark-skinned Christians all over Middle Eastern countries. What’s to prevent the policy from blocking dark-skinned Christians (escaping persecution) entry into the U.S. because they “look” Muslim?

Thats the point how do allow anyone in without proper vetting knowing who they are? And clearly the entire process is suspect at best and a complete failure at worst.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

How do you prove someone’s a Muslim? There are white Muslims all over Europe, and there are dark-skinned Christians all over Middle Eastern countries. What’s to prevent the policy from blocking dark-skinned Christians (escaping persecution) entry into the U.S. because they “look” Muslim?

A very good point. It can and likely would lead to a very old and regrettable policy.

Spoken in the year 1209 by Arnaud-Amaury, the Legate of Pope "Innocent” III, as the Papal Forces were about to storm the town of Beziers in Occitania [Provence].

The Commander of the Papal forces, Simon de Montfort, pointed out that within the walls were both Catholic Christians and Cathar Christians “heretics” to the Pope, who had ordered the Cathars exterminated].

De Montfort asked how the inhabitants should be treated, in view of the impossibility of distinguishing the members of the two Christian groups from one another.
Arnaud-Amaury, the Papal Legate, responded with the quotation written below:
NECA EOS OMNES! DEUS SUOS AGNOSCET.
KILL THEM ALL! GOD WILL KNOW HIS OWN.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Thats the point how do allow anyone in without proper vetting knowing who they are? And clearly the entire process is suspect at best and a complete failure at worst.

A valid point. It won’t be easy…or even always successful.