9 Horrifying Outcomes Of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban

Excuse me, I can't believe you wrote that!! I must lay down for a spell.

 

`
Present company excluded, but unlike certain members here, I'm not going to read into something that does not exist. I dislike trump and his appeal to the lowest common denominator of Americans. However, in my book, American lives take precedent over ideology and in the narrowest possible way, agree with trump in regards to a ban. I have read more than a preponderance of evidence and logical argument to ascertain that the probability is very high that the ME immigrants will contain planted terrorists. Our vetting system is useless.

Obama and his Democratic supporters are gambling with with American lives here. One lost is already, one too many. I'm not going to concern myself with hypothetical future situations, my concern is NOW. I'm liberal/progressive but I'm also pragmatic but even before that, I am an American and as such, will err on the side of caution and the protection of American lives.

 

When people overseas apply for American gun ownership, you might have a point. Until then, it is a terrible misrepresentation. But I am relieved to hear that you have a problem with collectivists . . . can't wait to hear you join me in condemning the collectivist basis of the "no Muslim immigration" philosophy.

 

It is reassuring to see that, when a crackpot idea that constitutes an assault upon American values is attempted, most Americans do not surrender:

 

No, I look at the research that's been done, and proven.

You choose not to look at the american and european born muslims that are being successfully recruited to help destroy their own countries.

Hell, you can't even answer a question that would give us a shining example of a Muslim majority country that has a value and belief system anywhere near to that of the US. I gave you a chance, multiple times, to show us an example of somewhere in the world where muslims have a society based on human rights and freedom.

 

No research supports the claim that all or most Muslims behave in such a way. None. Not even Trump's fake poll goes that far.

That is a blatant lie. I'll ask you not to mischaracterize my claims any further. These people do exist, and I have looked at them. What I'm denying is that they are representative of the millions of other American and European Muslims.

And not only did you fail to answer my counter-question, but you seem to be under the impression that the Muslims living here or who are trying to immigrate here are running a country somewhere. They aren't.

 

The Trump proposal was to temporarily ban the importation of Muslims who are foreign nationals. No mention was made of American citizens or legal residents. On the other hand, it would be prudent to expel Muslims who are illegal aliens.

Again, exactly what American values are violated by keeping foreign nationals who may be terrorists out of the country?

 

Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding. - raas al ghul

 

From your post.
"
The Supreme Court has already ruled, and rightly so, that some Constitutional apply to non-citizens. The Constitution is clear a handful of rights are for "citizens" (such as the right to vote), but that other rights belong to "people," not just citizens.
"

You then go on to lay out analogies to what you believe extend to non-citizens based on these rulings. You've made a claim. Back it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't listen to the possum. You have to live here. Come on over, we've got some room.

- - - Updated - - -

If NK would stop being such (*)(*)(*)(*)heads and stop threatening people with nuclear annihilation we'd sign a treaty tomorrow.
NK is the reason there is no permanent peace, not us.

 

He thinks it either violates establishment (because reasons) or that the civil rights act and associated titles are somehow binding on our immigration policies. He refuses to cite the cases he calls on for his "reasoning" so who the hell knows?

 

Much better. I'll get back with some links some time after lunch.

I'm assuming by "the possum" you mean me, but then you imply that I've told him that he isn't welcome here. Is it too much to ask you stop lying about my comments?

 

Trump is doing what ISIL wants, painting all Muslims as terrorists thus falling into their narrative of its a war on Islam.

The same with terrorist attacks, whip the base up out of proportion while ignoring our home grown religious terrorists

 

yardmeat with the possum profile pic? Yeah that's a pretty sharp mind you've got there. SO sharp you've cut yourself with it. His post was in response to your idea that the constitution somehow applies outside our borders to foreign nationals, specifically since he's an Aussie he wants our constitution to grant him gun rights. He was being flippant, because of course that's not how it works. I was likewise being flippant by saying "don't listen to the possum" IE what the possum is saying about foreign nationals in other countries having american constitutional rights is not true. You have to LIVE here to get the constitution. Then I said "Come on over, we've got some room" inviting someone who WANTS american constitutional rights to go through the immigration process and naturalize because someone who WANTS american constitutional rights is a GOOD candidate for immigration vs someone who wants to immigrate here and then (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about how it aint like the (*)(*)(*)(*)hole they left, and as far as I am aware Australia does not have a large radical islamic populace, or even much of a normal islamic one or other similar groups (like say white supremacists terrorist orgs since that's the classic response. Of course we didn't let the Nazis immigrate either.), nor are we at war with them. As stated he'll still need to be vetted and jump through the hoops.

If you feel so offended as to refuse to believe my logical, reasonable, explanation of my own statement please see the little triangle with the exclamation point to report these alleged salacious lies and slander against your truly upright character to the proper authorities.

 

You are jumping back and forth between "have to be a citizen" and "have to live here." The former is much more wrong than the later, but the later is still wrong. Anyone under our jurisdiction has the right to basic Constitutional rights. You don't have to live here to be under our jurisdiction. Someone in Australia trying to get a gun doesn't have anything to do with our jurisdiction. If that Australian manages to legally obtain a gun somehow, and then applies for residency in the US, that application now involves our federal jurisdiction. We shouldn't be able to say, "Nah, you can't move here because you've owned a legal firearmm before." How is this difficult to process?

The 14th Amendment guarantees all people, not just citizens, equal protection under all instances of federal jurisdiction. Just read the 14th Amendment itself, and/or check out Boumediene v. Bush.

 

I do understand the concerns but Trump's statement is purely divisive and impractical and is used to stir. It will never be implemented.

 

As I understand it, Trump wants to refuse entry not just to murderers, but their accomplices as well.

 

The point I was making are that a ceasefire is defined as being "A temporary suspension of fighting"; the cease fire between North Korea and South Korea has been going on for 63 years.

And back to my questions:
When does temporary become permanent?

How will the ban be implemented?
Who is going to pay for the checking of passengers religion and see if they are telling the truth?

In what circumstances do you see the ban being lifted?

Why won't Trump say that the ban will be permanent?; especially that many maintain that the ultimate goal of Islam is to convert everyone in the world.

 

Trump wants to refuse entry for ALL Muslims, not just murderers and their accomplices. He also wants to kill the family members of terrorists, regardless of their own personal innocence or guilt. If he's serious about these positions, he's a madman.

 

Here is the meaning of Jihad from wiki:

Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ jihād [dʒiˈhæːd]) is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion

This makes all muslims jihadists. Not all jihadist need to be muslim, since one of the biggest groups of jihadists are not consciously muslim. Americans who have liberal, progressive, and PC values installed in them have been infected by the most common form of jihad practiced in the USA, "Stealth jihad." Part of being a liberal is protecting jihadists and helping to maintain their religion, and to hide the meaning of "stealth jihad" by not acknowledging it or learning what it is.

 

Temporary becomes permanent when there is no condition that ends the measure. The stated condition for the proposed ban is "until our intelligence apparatus can properly vet these people"

How? They have forms. You fill out the forms. Then they SHOULD be investigating you in some fashion even if its just to check that the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing address you put down is a real place (San Bernardino shooter). You also look at the people applying. Don't be obtuse: There are tells.
Me personally? I'd moratorium areas where there are established islamic terrorist groups in that country attack the gov and civilians (syria, iraq, afghan, ETC) Places that get attacked across their borders or from random violence don't count. But that's neither here nor there.

Homeland security is ALREADY paid to check. They haven't been. Honestly I think beating some of them with a hose as an example to others would do alot to get them to spend the money correctly. That having been straightened out do an audit and sadly increase the budget. Say pay for it by legalizing drugs and taxing them. That's a huge economic boom, less money leaving the nation in the black market, AND tax revenue direct and indirect (income increases all over from not just the new industries but housing, service etc ). Think that would cover it and more myself. Would need a CBO or like report over the audit (which hasn't been done) to get more specific.

When our intelligence community certifies that they can now vet these people. That is the stated condition.

Because why would he? It's not intended to be permanent. See above. Convert? Freedom of speech. Convert or die? Not so much. People can come to preach once the condition is satisfied.

 

1st amendment rights don't apply to non-citizens

 

Sorry, but I agree with the opinion of our FFs that this right is inalienable, not a gift created by big government. And why does it say "people" and not "citizens." But if you can find a single lawyer or judge echoing that view, I'm all ears. And you are forgetting about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 1st Amendment is not the only place where freedom of religion is found.

 

Sigh> Art 1 sec8 clause 4: congress sets the rules on immigration as it wills.
No where is there a right to immigrate. We would actually be able to do that if it applied under the portion of US code delegating the authority to the president and in his opinion they were of a class of persons meeting the code. (there are no qualifications )

I've read Boumediene v Bush. Passed 3 different sections of Con Law, twice in under grad, once in law school and I'll be taking another next year in the fall. These were PRISONERS taken onto gitmo a base we've had exclusive control over for 100 years. READ the damn case not the wiki.
As to the 14th here's the relevant portion: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No sTATE. Little S. 14th is about the STATES genius. Not the feds. 5th is the feds. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
B v Bush is about denial of habeas to people we brought to a place we have had ultimate control over for 100 years IE they LIVE here for purposes of here.
That has exactly NOTHING to do with allowing someone to immigrate.

 

You are still making this about a mythical "right to immigrate," which I have corrected multiple times at this point. If you have no interest in addressing my actual claims and positions, then you have no interest in a real discussion. The federal government has no right to discriminate based on religion. Period. Damn, I sure miss small government conservatives that prioritized individual liberties over federal authoritarianism. They seem to have gone into hiding during this most recent election cycle.

 

Muslims are here to spread Islam. They are not here to become americans.

Our society runs counter to every Muslim country in the world, and the entire population of muslims on the planet.

The muslims in this country are representative of their religion, and their religion runs counter to everything the US stands for.

What you are doing is advancing the argument that "we should give all people access to our country", even when the objective of those people is to convert us, or kill us.

So unless you're one of those kind of people that would turn your home into a halfway house for former supermax prisoners, you're not thinking clearly. You don't see that what they are doing is using our love of freedom against us.

There is no advantage to have a religion that wants to destroy western culture in our country. Period.