9 Horrifying Outcomes Of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban

1. We're not denying religious rights at all.
2. We're not denying equitable treatment under law.


Each country has the right to let in who they want....that is not up for discussion.

If you have a problem with a country banning immigrants from certain countries, or of certain religions, so that their citizens can be safe and feel safe, then it's you that has the problem.

 

No, I don't. Anyone who truly believes that abortion is murder could easily argue for such actions.

And the people who want to crash jumbo jets into skyscrapers are no comparison to 99% of Muslims in this country.

Really? 1 in 5 Muslims in the US are either terrorists or support terrorists actions? You have the numbers to back that up?

That's because the comparison is ridiculous to begin with.

Already trying to change the subject from American Muslims to Muslims outside the US? Shall we talk about Ugandan Christians next?

Do you have any example of a Christian country promoting such values without the a secular government taking the lead?

- - - Updated - - -

"Or of certain religions" is a huge violation of religions rights and equitable treatment under the law.

 

Most everything here is an opinion at best, and complete and total bull (*)(*)(*)(*) at worst.

#9 is the biggest joke of all. A country choosing to protect it's citizens is no longer the same....riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

Not in matters of national security.

But then again, national security is an issue too complicated for the left to understand or even value.

 

According to the Pew research, there are about 350 million active terrorists, or supporters of terrorists. Works out to about 1 in 5, so yeah.

Where did all the Muslims in america come from? They haven't been here since 1776 thats for sure.

Since the discussion is largely about letting them into the country FROM other countries, I'd say the question you so carefully avoided "Name a Muslim country that compares in any way to the US", is extremely valid.

 

Take it up with the left if you have such a problem with them. And no, I don't by the argument that we need to sacrifice inalienable rights for national security.

 

Is the Pew research all about American terrorists, and are those Muslim terrorists? If not, your numbers are broken. And Muslim immigrants have been in this country for centuries. Even a few minutes of homework would have told you they were on this continent before we were even a country. And since this thread is about Muslims IN this country, both from here and from abroad, it is certainly relevant, much more so than conflating violence overseas with domestic risks.

 

Muslims are muslims first and foremost. Then they identify to whatever sect they are. Then maybe third comes national identity.

They will always put their religion above the interests of their country.

They will never be able to separate church and state. Their religion forbids it. They are their religion.

The Paris attackers were not Parisians, even though they were born and raised there. The San B. male attacker was not American, even though he was born and raised here.

His first and only loyalty is to Islam. It doesn't matter how long they live here.

Let's go for a third try: Name a single muslim majority country who's views, beliefs, and way of life resembles that of the US in any way.

 

It just boggles my mind what lengths liberals will go to defend muslims!

 

Wasn't to long ago, people were screaming to not let anyone in from a country that had Ebola. National security reasons. There are a bunch of lunatics that want to give up American rights and freedoms because their shadow frightens them.

 

Ah scotus claim on residency restrictions not being what congress says. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddd go. You make the claim you back it up.

 

lol....whatever.

W/O national security, you have no rights.

With national security, we are PROTECTING those inalienable rights for the citizens of the country.

Your thinking is anything but logical.

 

And those people were right.

You think because nothing came of it that makes them wrong?

The entire purpose of stuff like this is so that NOTHING happens.

It's like you're ok with a few terrorists acts killing however many americans just so you can tow the party line.

I guess I'm different, I actually care about the people of this country and think we ought to take every precaution in protecting them.

 

No, this thread is about Muslims OUTSIDE this country, and whether or not we should let them in. Violence overseas is very much about domestic risks in this context.

 

They weren't right. Time proved them wrong. All of America didn't get ebola.
Giving up rights and freedoms because you're scared is giving up rights and freedoms you'll never get back.
Then we will no longer be America.
I guess I'm different. I believe in America and it's people and want the freedoms and rights granted by our constitution, taking every precaution to protecting them.

 

Yeah they have a term for that. It's called "quarantine".

Should they sell beef from a plant where only one cow had mad cow disease?

- - - Updated - - -

Is that an argument to allow people with deadly, highly contagious diseases to come and go via air travel?

 

No, it's an argument to allow people who don't have the disease to come and go via air travel.
And those that had the disease to 'quarantine' them.
Be safe without resorting to extreme lunacy.

 

And if they have the disease but aren't yet showing symptoms? You realize that's how SARS got started right?

 

A quarantine period.
But many just bluntly blurted out NO travel by anyone from those countries. Period.
Just like folks are bluntly blurting out, ALL muslims must be banned from entering. Period.
Foolish knee jerk reactions is what I'm arguing against.

 

Would you stop and think for a second...please.

The fact that nothing happened DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE WRONG. Wanting to take precaution is not wrong.

You buckle your seat belt IN CASE something happens. When nothing happens that day, you don't say 'oh well, I didn't need to wear it today'. That's stupid, you take that precaution every single time because something MIGHT happen.

You didn't know ebola wouldn't spread, nobody did and those who wanted to take extra precautions WERE NOT WRONG.

And how on earth am I giving up ANY of my freedoms by not allowing potentially dangerous people in this country? Please enlighten me as to what I'd lose by not letting in Syrian refugees because I'm really curious to know what freedoms I'd lose if they're not allowed in....i'll wait.

 

And your thanking isn't national security, it is anti freedom of religion paranoia.

- - - Updated - - -

Go back. Read the actual claim again.

 

I give up. You insist of looking only at a caricature of Muslims and then bring up straw men instead of even acknowledging even the possibilty that non terrorist sympathizing Muslims exist, despite them being the obvious majority in this country.

 

`
The list on the OP is weak, if not silly. I personally support a temporary ban on all ME groups, specifically those from Muslim countries.

 

Im so relieved to hear American rights extend to people world wide, please inform the Aussie govt id like to buy guns, lots of guns for when collectivists or jihadis threaten.

 

When does temporary become permanent?

In what circumstances do you see the ban being lifted?

Longest ceasefire (temporary) = 63 years and counting for North & South Korea.

Why is Trump scared to say that the ban will be permanent?