9 Horrifying Outcomes Of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban

No one is free to migrate anywhere! It's next to impossible for anyone to migrate to Australia and almost as hard to migrate to the US. All countries are free to control their immigration policy but to control it through religion is against everything that the US supposedly stands up for. But Trump has stated that he wants to ban Muslim tourists which is nothing to do with immigration.

Those Jews building in the West Bank are evicting the Palestinians who were living on the land that those Jews are building on so your point isn't one

 

The First Amendment doesn't apply beyond our shores.

Merely building new housing doesn't evict or displace West Bank Arabs.

 

I bet you will be happy if some Mexicans built a house in your garden, and then, build a wall between your house and their house!

And if that wall now stops you farming in your own land, then just too bad

 

More foolproof than, "You, you ain't a Muslim, ain'tsha? 'Cus obviously someone willing to blow us up wouldn't dare lie to us." "Foolproof" is a foolish, irrational standard that the opposition itself obviously can't match itself, much less logically demand.

 

Only point 1 and 5, are remotely accurate.

Point 2 and 5, is just retarded.

The rest are solely based on assumptions. I'm not in favor of any bans on people entering the country. If you're going to try and make a argument against Trump's rhetoric, don't use stupid drivel like what you posted.

 

The bacon eating contest is a pretty accurate gauge.

 

Or they will finally pull their heads out of their asses and admit they all want us dead, and we knock them back to the 3rd century where they so want to be, or they can come to their senses and realize it isn't in their best interest or the interest of the international community that they allow their lunatic fringe to continue with the barbaric inhumane insanity. Their call.

 

Sure, if you want to revive an old Spanish Inquisition test and keep out Jews, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, vegetarians (including many Buddhists, Jains and Hindus) etc. all in the hopes that no one wants to kill Americans badly enough to eat some bacon. I guess we are taking this irrationalism to a whole new level.

 

You can't trust anyone who won't eat bacon.

 

As humorous as the joke is, and as much as I love bacon myself, that is seriously the level of logic we are dealing with here.

 

In light of the obvious problems, it's difficult to understand the motivation behind your rigid stance.

 

State authoritarianism is what has been happening, with the greater introduction of a population that historically has no love for other religions and at times actively discriminates against and murders their followers.

 

I'm taking bets on romantic interest.

 

You don't know for certain yet the full consequences of that decision.

 

OK, so you're an all or nothing type.

Most of us are more moderate.

We don't want to risk the safety of an entire population to prove how enlightened, fair, and compassionate we are.

 

Most of them will secretly respect us for not wanting to become Dhimmis.

 

They don't convert; they threaten and punish nonbelievers.

- - - Updated - - -

It's about time someone let them know not all Americans have become pushovers.

 

In the abstract, of course--but it would be up to their own countries to guarantee this.

All the more reason for them to consider the dictates and current interpretations of Islam in their own countries, instead of counting on the US as a convenient retreat when their own citizenship- behavior- consequences become unbearable.

The only possible way your argument makes sense is if the US government somehow was ruling the entire globe--and, I can assure you, precious few Muslims would be in agreement with you on that.

 

The motivation behind my rigid stance is the same as my rigid stand on freedom of speech and the right to bear arms: I support individual rights limited only by the demonstration the the exercise of said rights by said individual constitute a specific threat to those around him or her.

Your "obvious problems" involve gross generalizations and a lack of respect for individuality that I do not support.

In other words, I'm do not support limiting the liberties of Muslims because of ISIS anymore than I support limiting the liberties of pro-lifers because of abortion clinic shooters and bombers.

- - - Updated - - -

You sound like you are equating all Muslim immigrants with such people. I do not agree with such intellectually irresponsible assumptions.

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm taking bets on a lack of concern for individualism.

- - - Updated - - -

An inability to distinguish our attackers from the rest of the Muslim population is nothing to be proud of, and it is no show of force. It's a show of ignorance.

 

And we should do nothing to impede that.

Individualism > nationalistic generalizations. I honestly can't understand why people have such a problem with this concept.

Funny. You speak of "their own" "behavior" as if you are considering them as individuals, when you are obviously not.

The only way for your objection to make sense is to ignore my own claim and substitute a straw man. I'm not talking about the US government ruling the entire globe. I'm talking about the US government not discriminating based on religion. I've correct this poor excuse for a distraction dozens of times at this point.

And I can assure you, few American Muslims and few Muslims attempting to immigrate to the US share your generalizations about Islam.

Their scriptures? I'll tell you what, I'll be ready to ban all Muslims who agree with the Quran the moment that you agree to ban all Christians who refuse to denounce Romans 13. Luckily, Christians and Muslims alike have been attracted to our Enlightement culture despite their scriptures.

 

However you try to get to zero risk of being murdered by Islamic terrorists, the first and best step is to bar entry into the country those who are most likely to be supporters of radical Islam. That would be Muslims. Whatever the probability is of any group of Muslims containing a radical Islamist terrorist in their midst it is far higher than any other group trying to come in. A terrorist who is not here can't kill us.

 

Even if this fringe theory were even remotely right, and it isn't, it would still require there to be a rational plan for barring Muslims . . . so far that has consisted of simply asking people "You ern't onadem Moslems, ernt'cha?" It's an intellectually bankrupt plan, and it would be an intellectually bankrupt plan even if the Muslims=terrorists "logic" behind it were correct.

You might as well try to bar all pro-lifers from entering the country.

 

Before fashioning implementation of anything, the question must be fully studied and the parameters of that refined; you of all people know that.

I personally do not want to see more than a small percentage of Muslims ever residing in this country because of the tendency of their adolescents to revert to the more primitive interpretation of jihad, and the inevitable cultural dominance of Islam that eventually accomplishes.

The rawest form of that religion operates like the Mafia, only worse--the Mafia only went after people that became involved with it in some way or other, whereas Islam wants to take control of every culture it is in and has worldwide domination as a stated goal.

If enough Muslims move into the US, I give your precious freedoms about another 150 to 200 years of existence, after which IMO the world will lose them, possibly forever. You need to read up on this issue. The religion is designed for just this. It is not just a religion; it is a war strategy and a governmental plan, and its effects develop over time in the same way that the ocean erodes a shoreline.

 

I've lived in 3 Muslim countries. No one has denied religious rights to Christians in those countries; there are churches and all rights to practice Christianity are allowed. In Turkey, there are also synagogues. There are no synagogues in the ME that I am aware of. But this has to do with the ongoing conflict with Israel, not with Judaism..

 

The ongoing conflict with Israel, IMO, is Muslim intolerance of Jews. They are OK perhaps as dhimmis but not as equals with their own country.