9 Horrifying Outcomes Of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban

Not if they are not in America. You may have forgotten the Constitution applies to America, not the rest of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Without bloody revolution.

 

Why did scientists change global warming to climate change, when temps go up is the fear? It's because the term climate change can mean anything. They didn't want to back themselves into a corner and actually be decisive.

Trump said exactly what he meant. He didn't say permanent because it's not permanent. But it could be if terrorism escalates. A country has ZERO obligation to allow someone into the country. NONE. As the law states, we can deny for any reason deemed acceptable, to protect citizens.

Do you wear a seatbelt everyday? If you do you're a hypocrite because the odds of you dying in a car accident is pretty slim. Why take such a ridiculous precaution?

 

You may have forgotten that our dedication to freedom of religion applies to more than just our First Amendment. We have also committed ourselves to the concept that this is an inalienable right, and we have committed ourselves to its global application in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the Constitution guides how our government should behave itself, not just how it should behave itself domestically. As desperately as the anti-immigration crowd tries to escape this fact, the immigration process is part of our jurisdiction, not the jurisdiction of any other country, and as such, we all owe persons within that jurisdiction equal protection, regardless of religion.

 

I don't give a flying f about the UN Human Rights which are not natural rights but the Constitution applies to the US and nowhere else. The government has a constitutional duty to protect it's citizens and if that means changing the quotas for certain immigrants, which has always been done, then it should be done. When Obama's adviser's state publicly that they cannot separate the wheat from the chaff then the Administration should be held accountable for ignoring that advice.

 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does, indeed, describe natural rights. You apparently don't believe in the UDHR, or even the very concept of inalienable and natural rights. Our country's government believes in both, so whether or not you give a flying f doesn't matter.

Yes, it applies to the US government. I'm talking about applying it to the US government and not to anyone else's government.

The idea that the US owes a respect towards human rights to its citizens and to no one else is rejected by our Constitution, by our commitment to inalienable rights and by our commitments abroad. Your own wishes don't trump our laws.

- - - Updated - - -

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does, indeed, describe natural rights. You apparently don't believe in the UDHR, or even the very concept of inalienable and natural rights. Our country's government believes in both, so whether or not you give a flying f doesn't matter.

Yes, it applies to the US government. I'm talking about applying it to the US government and not to anyone else's government.

The idea that the US owes a respect towards human rights to its citizens and to no one else is rejected by our Constitution, by our commitment to inalienable rights and by our commitments abroad. Your own wishes don't trump our laws.

 

Not so, Human Rights are non existent rights created by bureaucracies that violate natural rights. For instance, there is no natural right for affordable housing. The only way you can get that is by taking something from someone under force of government violating their natural rights.

 

If you would like to return to the topic, I'll be here. Is there or is there not a natural, inalienable right to freedom of religion, and to not be discriminated against for your religion by government? If you say no, then you can take a stand with State authoritarianism and I'll take my stand with individual liberty. If you say yes . . .

 

Any order written would have far more detail than I care to give to a post on a political forum to an anonymous person. Try to think generally.

We have 75 million muslim tourists or tourists from nations with on going islamic jihads in them? Do tell.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/chapter-1

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/chapter-1/subchapter-IV


http://www.dhs.gov/who-joined-dhs

Gosh I guess not. Homeland is the umbrella which many fed agencies now exist under. You manage the agencies through homeland.

Most will have electronic records from their own nations that are perfectly acceptable. These refugees from war torn 3rd worlds not so much. But then they don't do a lot of tourism they immigrate.

 

Your lack of response to me cutting apart your arguments is noted, as is your last resort of ad hom. No cases support your claim, the constitution does not support your claim. Kick rocks.

 

Without investigating everyone of the 75 million tourists your Homeland Security will have no idea if they are Muslim or not. Trump stated that no Muslims will be allowed to visit the US including Muslims from countries such as in Europe. AFAIK, no country holds records of which religion their citizens are. So how will that vetting take place? I very much doubt that a terrorist will tick a box on a form stating religion = Muslim! Will security look at names which can be legally changed for equivalent of $20.

Which electronic records are they? You seem to be going towards banning travel from particular countries now which is much more reasonable than banning one particular group.

 

They changed it because too many people did not understand the concept of the word "global". So many people deny that global warming is taking place because it's snowing in their garden!

Ar, so terrorism could escalate with his proposal in place which means that the ban will last longer and would mean that the ban did not work?
At what point would the ban be removed? Surely if the ban was working, no president would remove the ban else he would be lynched if an attack happened.

Wearing a seat belt cost me zero and does not impact on my driving in any way and does not effect anyone else. Now, if I had to take my car to a garage every time I want to drive and pay for the seat belt to be checked to see that if worked correctly before I am allowed to use it then you would have a point.

 

It's an easy thing to figure out.

Hand out ham sandwiches in the waiting room.

 

Lots of tourism visas from syria et alia are there? Lots of tourism from nations that are 3rd world (*)(*)(*)(*) holes without much in the way of records on their people to share? Sure sparky tell me more.

As stated above that is my idea but not the only way to do it. I think my idea is better personally. Maybe I'm biased..
I'm simply pointing out that the problem for which leg work is mostly going to be necessary is those immigrating from nations with little to nothing in the way of reliable records. Listen to FBI director comey's speech which is where these ideas stem from. Listen to what he says is missing.
Seems like it wouldn't be out of bounds to require authorization to search social media, including private messages if one fails checks, as a sort of last ditch measure.

 

1 Horrifying Outcome Of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban if not Implemented

the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans at the hands or radical Muslim terrorist we allowed into the country

and that right there trumps all of the so called 9 reasons we should allow them in
my safety, my families safety, my countries safety is more important then some poor Muslims feelings

 

Your first paragraph does not make sense, but I suspect that it was a poorly constructed grammatically incoherent attempt of an insult but I digress.

You seem to be avoiding the obvious. This thread is not about anyone else's idea but the statement by Trump that he will stop all Muslims from entering the US whether they are from third world countries or any other country in the world. You keep side stepping the issue by debating third world countries which have few visitors to US. How would you know who are Muslim out of the total 75 million visitors without investigating everyone of them? There are no electronic records of the religion of people in, for example, England, other than ticked forms.

 

So give us the foolproof method for sorting out the murderers from the murderer sympathizers from the ordinary folks who just want to come here for the welfare benefits, free education and housing.

 

That doesn't exist.

 

Like 9/11 didn't hurt relations with Muslim countries? Like dancing in the streets
celebrating the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent American civilians didn't hurt
relations with Muslim countries? Frankly, I couldn't care less about what the
7th Century throwbacks think of us. Bomb them back to the 1st Century for
all I care.

Sure, like Muslims in this country helped the economy when the World Trade
Center came crashing to the ground? Every cent that Muslims ever contributed
to the economy was undone in one day. More immigrants on welfare won't
help the economy.

Good. That's is a good reason to keep them out. If America is such a
racist bigoted country, then let's keep those Muslims in a Muslim country
where they won't be discriminated against because they believe women
should be covered from head to toe and homosexuals should be thrown
from rooftops. Let's put them in a country they don't hate.

If only. I wish they would travel outside the country and then get locked out.
If they are joining the fight with ISIS, or al Qeada, they should be locked out
and have their citizenship key thrown away. Maybe 14 people in San Bernardino
would be alive today if we locked that little bastard American Jihadi out of the
country.

I don't know half those people, but I would gladly trade them for the 14 dead
Americans from San Bernardino. What have any of them lifted a finger to
condemn Islamic extremism? Nothing. They are part of the problem.

Chris Christie called President Barack Hussein Obama, if that is his name, a
"feckless weakling" in the last debate and guess what? There was no outcry
from the liberal media! Why? Because it's no longer debatable. If liberals
are worried about American leadership, they should vote for a republican who
is not afraid to take on Muslim terrorism or say the words "Islamic terrorism".

That's a given. There are way too many Muslims in this country who hate
America and American values. The whole point of stopping Muslims from
coming to this country is to stop facilitating Muslim terrorists by giving them
a ticket to the site of the next terrorist attack on our homeland. Keeping them
out just means less Muslim terrorist attacks here.

And Unicorns will stop farting rainbows. Perhaps if you are worried about
how strong ISIS is, maybe we should send a couple of cruise missiles up their
butts. Or perhaps moderate Muslims, if there is such a thing, will get serious
and do something about radical Muslim extremism themselves. I don't see
them doing a damn thing to actually stop them. Even Muslims in our own
military have turned on their fellow soldiers. They would rather kill American
soldiers than radical Islamic terrorists.

Tell that to Europeans who are now feeling like strangers in their own nations
that are being overrun by radical Islamists imposing Sharia laws in their countries.
Soon, the Muslim population will exceed that of their own in France, Germany,
England and many other European countries. They are undergoing an invasion
that is being permitted by liberals against the will of the people.

Here's on horrifying outcome of allowing Muslims to immigrate to the United
States, we will become overrun like Europe is and we will become just another
Islamic country where there is no freedom of religion and women are subjugated
and treated like property. The head choppers will have been invited in to chop
off our heads by liberal Utopianism.

 

Pretty much the only reason it isn't zero. Or a severe threat of one.

 

More than anything muslims need to understand that yes these people are affecting how the world views then and that they can no longer sit on the sidelines. How easy would it have been to get bin laden if the moderate muslims in saudi arabia and the other countries gave him up after being horrified as they claim after 9/11 ?

 

Why is it that democrats take this stand when it comes to Muslims immigrating to the United States,
but are against Jews moving into the West Bank? Why aren't the bigots in the Muslim community
who don't want Jews in their neighborhoods not chastise for their bigotry?

 

If racism were not a myth this would be racism.

 

Nice straw man. The author of this article apparently doesn't understand what the word immigration means. If you're already an American citizen, you're not immigrating, are you?

Sounds like you might need to watch this.

[video=youtube;sukLbPDUAUY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sukLbPDUAUY[/video]

 

I'm not a Democrat and I'm Jewish.

 

I guess I'm not talking about you specifically then am I?

I'm talking about the hypocrites who want Muslims to freely migrate to the US and
anyone who opposes that is a bigot, yet will also object to Jews building new housing
in the West Bank.