9 Horrifying Outcomes Of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban

we aren't stopping them from being muslim.... nowhere does the FF's say that immigration is a right.

 

1st bars ESTABLISHMENT of religion. This is not establishment we are not mandating they follow a certain state religion. Nor are they halted from practice. They are halted from immigration which they do not have a right to.
UDHR does not supercede our laws.

 

What he has not said is that all Muslims are accomplices by default because of their duty to maintain their religion. He knows the PC implications of labeling all muslims as accomplices, and realizes that stealth jihad has been installed so deeply into America that even his own base of people have been infected by it. The safest proposal that he can get away with is imposing a temporary ban on muslims until we can come up with a reasonable way to ensure that we do not import violent jihadists. Even this is controversial, since stealth jihadists (liberals) see it as a potential roadblock to maintaining the muslim "religion". Remember that all roads lead to having Islam conquer the world, so anything that gets in the way of this goal will be fought either by violent jihadists, our very own liberal base stealth jihadists, non violent jihadists, or active stealth jihadists from the middle east. While Trump did not use the exact word "accomplices, the words that he did say and get away with clearly include the accomplices. It is not PC to call all muslims accomplices, but Trump figured out a way to get away with it.

 

I'm way too tired of correcting this complete micharacterization. This has nothing to do with "immigration is a right." Discriminating against someone based on their religion is a violation of their freedom of religion. No amount of desperate Sophistry can change that.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, you've never met an American Muslim. I have no interest in these kinds of conspiracy theories. Sorry, but you are gravely mischaracterizing most of the Muslims in this country.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't PC to call all Muslims accomplices. Which doesn't matter. It isn't TRUE to call all Muslims accomplices. Which should matter.

 

If I had a nickel for every time a liberal said "that's what ISIS wants"----

What ISIS wants is to kill every non-Sunni that stands in their way. They want a global caliphate. They want to destroy the West wherever they can. They want slavery. They want women treated like dogs. They want to live as savages under their savage religion. They are Sunni-Islamic Supremacists.

They also love all the tolerance that liberal fools in the West give them to expand their empire.

 

But that condition does not mean anything as it is subjective

These potential visitors live in a different country. Are you suggesting that the US will send staff to investigate every person who wish to visit the US? They would have had to check 75 million tourists in 2014.

Homeland security can only investigate people living in the US

It will be prohibitively expensive to investigate every application for a tourist visa

 

libs actually believe that

1. we can reason with these guys to get them to stop by appeasement

or

2. that they will be spared the fate of the conservatives and Christians because "we fought for your rights when conservatives wanted to ban you"

when muslims have Americans dig a pit, and are forced to kneel in front of that pit right before they are shot in the head.... that pit will be filled with just as many liberals as there are conservatives.

 

Would you stop and think for a second.
There were folks screaming to never let anyone come into the country that was in an infected country. No matter if they were near to an infected site.
So they were putting on their seat belt, putting on a helmet, strapping themselves with rope to their seat, and laying down on the seat in order to avoid the possibility that maybe someday they could get into an accident.

No one is wrong to take precautions. But being scared of one's own shadow for every single event that happens is ludicrous.
You personally may not give up anything. But there are plenty who will.
As others have said, what of those who convert? Those in country are to be restricted as well.
Just because it has no impact on your individual life, doesn't mean it won't have impacts on others.
And if you give up religious freedom so easily, what scare will make you give up other freedoms.
The PA took away many freedoms.
Fences on the borders keep people in as well as keep people out.
Where is the line drawn between safety and freedom?

 

I'll bite.

How is an "American" muslim different? I'm guessing you won't be using the San B. guy as your example, or any of the other 200+ known American muslims who have attempted to travel to the ME to join ISIS.

 

Because it's a question with no objective answer.
Values and beliefs are purely subjective.
We hate their values and beliefs, they hate our values and beliefs.
In some minds, God takes precedent over all rights. That is a religious freedom we grant. However, if in the USA, USA laws take precedent. Thank goodness.

 

Wrong, I'm not preventing a single freedom for a single citizen of this country or any other by not letting people in for purposes of national security.

It's funny how you try to pin anti-freedom on me when it's well known it's the left that likes to take away people's freedoms and tell them how to live their lives.

 

Do you have a link to that last part? And be sure it specifically says ISIS and not just Muslims going to Syria to be involved in the conflict in some way . . . since that would include the Muslims fighting against ISIS and the Muslims trying to join non-ISIS groups that are fighting Assad's regime.

But even if you are right, yes, I'm willing to count them. The problem is that you are only counting those 200 or so and ignore the other 8 million or so. Over 8 million supposed extremists, and they've only managed to crank out, at most, about 200 militants. They seriously have to be the least successful radical group our nation has ever encountered.

 

Nobody is afraid of every event or one's own shadow, you're over dramatizing to make a point which shows how weak your point is. This is about 1 thing and 1 thing only, keeping a group (not a small group either) of people out of this country that want to kill as many of us as they can....that's all it is and you're arguing that those who feel that way are being irrational...you have no argument.

I can't help that wanting to keep the people of this country safe has an affect on a few others around the world, it's not my job nor is it this countries job to insure the well being of the other 6.7 billion people on this planet. It's not possible nor is it reasonable.

Yet again, not a single freedom has been given up. If you think one has, name it and how it's been lost. Nobody is being denied religious freedom.

If a wall was built and people were clamoring to get out, we'll deal with that. That is a non issue right now, too many that we can't support want in, that's the issue. That you bring this up as part of your argument, yet again, shows how weak it is.

W/O safety you have no freedoms. It's not a difficult line to draw.

 

What is weak is saying we'll deal with it if it happens. It will be too late then.
I agree, w/o safety we have no freedoms, but with every safety measure install, 1 more freedom is taken.
And no, I am not over dramatizing, I read the threads during the ebola scare.

 

Discriminating against someone based on their religion is not respecting their freedom of religion, regardless of their citizenship and residency status.

It's even more funny that you think I'm a member of the left . . . since I've already corrected that deflection more than once during this thread . . . and how you think that the right is any less eager than the left to take away people's freedoms.

 

What I find very entertaining is those who are most outraged by Trump are responsible for making his campaign possible to begin with. Man that makes me laugh.

 

`
`
`
"First of all, it’s important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, “Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” -- http://www.nationalreview.com/donald-trump-muslim-immigration

 

People wanting out is not even remotely a concern. There's nothing to suggest that it'll ever be a concern. But it's good to know that you'll forgo national security now on the off chance that there will be a mass exodus from this country even though there's nothing to suggest that will happen.

They are free to practice their religion, we are not taking that away. Not letting someone in because we don't know if they are a terrorist or not is reasonable, stop trying to argue otherwise. Also, we have freedom of religion in THIS country, we don't promise to protect people freedom of religion in other countries.

You can say you aren't a lefty all you want, but when virtually every post says otherwise, it doesn't matter what you say.

You've made your stance clear, the security of the people of this country is not high on your priority list, we get it, we can move on now.

 

Well at least I still have teeth to bite back.

 

That's like saying, "I'm denying you a home loan because you are Christian, but that doesn't violate your freedom of religion, because I'm not taking your Christianity away.

Not letting someone in because they are a Muslim is religious discrimination. Stop trying to argue otherwise.

But we do promise to respect it (see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and we do promise to provide everyone under our jurisdiction (you have to go through our jurisdiction to immigrate here) equal protection under the law, regardless of religion.

It isn't my fault if you've never heard of a libertarian, or that you think only leftys care about inalienable rights.

You've made your stance clear. You are willing to ignore inalienable rights, and you are 100% positive that people who would be willing to kill us wouldn't be willing to lie about their religion, if it saves a dozen or so lives. That's even worse than the gun grabbers.

- - - Updated - - -

That's like saying, "I'm denying you a home loan because you are Christian, but that doesn't violate your freedom of religion, because I'm not taking your Christianity away.

Not letting someone in because they are a Muslim is religious discrimination. Stop trying to argue otherwise.

But we do promise to respect it (see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and we do promise to provide everyone under our jurisdiction (you have to go through our jurisdiction to immigrate here) equal protection under the law, regardless of religion.

It isn't my fault if you've never heard of a libertarian.

You've made your stance clear. You are willing to ignore inalienable rights, and you are 100% positive that people who would be willing to kill us wouldn't be willing to lie about their religion, if it saves a dozen or so lives. That's even worse than the gun grabbers.

 

No, in your scenario they are a citizen of this country which makes your scenario irrelevant to our discussion. Nobody has the right to come to this country unless we allow them, you can't get around this.

Once again, they don't have a right to come to this country unless we allow them. If we can't be sure they're not a terrorist, we can't let them in. It's the responsibility of our government to do that.

Again, say whatever you want, your posts tell the truth.

I never said any of that.

'if it saves a dozen or so lives'.....(*)(*)(*)(*)ING hilarious seeing how 2 people just took out 14 and injured 17 and a few people took out around 3000 on 9/11....but, sure, we're only talking about a dozen or so.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...00-americans-tried-to-fight-for-isis-fbi-says

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-dozens-americans-reentered-u-s-joining-isis/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/us/isis-us-arrests/

And these are just the ones we know of. Since DHS makes it a point to make "muslim profiling" as difficult as possible, who knows how many there are, or how many are in neighborhoods like San Bernadino just waiting for their opportunity.

Islam is the antithesis of our Constitution.

 

I am glad to see that you agree that PC is why we don't call Muslims accomplices. This is how stealth jihad works. Stealth jihad in force on this forum is why I can't blurt out that all muslims are accomplices myself. It is also why I am not able to accuse you of being a stealth jihadist. If I were to call you a stealth jihadist, my post would be removed by other stealth jihadists. I had to word that all really carefully so that it is clear that I did not just call you a jihadist or all muslims accomplices, because my 1st amendment rights in this environment are limited by stealth jihad.

 

The point being, once a freedom is given up, there is near zero chance of getting it back.

 

Any ideology which presupposes violence as a primary tenet of it's core beliefs, should be viewed as highly suspect.

Trust, but verify.