They do. There is no way for the U.S., short of having a Muslim database, to keep Muslim’s out. You simply can not go by their name or color or whatever. It’s not like they’ve got a big ol M on their forehead.
I’ve never heard of this. Regardless, if the U.S. closed the border to everyone for national security reasons I think that’s arguably fine. More than likely overkill, but not wrong in any sense of the word.
They aren’t the same thing.
You talking about this:
Doesn’t it? One is an evolved, legitimate form of government. The other is a relic of a bygone age underpinned by the Athenian’s logic in the Melian dialogue: “The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.” I’m not quite following what you’re trying to convey regarding morality and governance. Care to clarify?
Let’s set aside the fact that a ban on Muslim travel to the United States is antithetical to core American values: it wouldn’t solve the problem of religious terrorism. In fact, it would serve to exacerbate it. ISIL’s propaganda arm has already used Trump’s primary statements in recruitment efforts.
We were discussing whether it’s right or wrong for the US to ban muslims.
I then asked you if you hold Israel to the same standards as you do the US.
I then said if you believe in Universal moralism what is moral for one nation to do (Israel) would also by extension be moral for another (USA). Universal morality is applied equally to everyone.
You then asked me if the style of governance effects whether something is moral or immoral (at least that’s how I understood your question) with the example of a liberal democracy vs a theocracy.
The answer is it does not. Let’s say you believe enslaving another human being is universally immoral. Whether you’re looking at a theocratic society that condones slavery or a liberal democracy that does not, nothing changes because enslaving a human being is universally immoral. Again moral universalism applies to everyone equally.
I hope that makes sense.
Don’t you worry: you aren’t right.
But I suspect that you meant to insert a comma between “be” and “right,” in which case the answer is this: you pretty much seem to be. There may be a few other lowest-of-the-low posters who are at least flirting with the idea of endorsing Trump’s “Muslim ban” – I don’t know because I haven’t been following this website lately, though I just did some skimming and was unsurprised to find that Donald Trump’s final descent to the Republican throne has brought a hitherto-unprecedented amount of sheer stupidity to the surface of this subforum, much of it in the reliable form of standard-issue ZEB hackery, though I suspect that even ZEB, or at least some small part of him, is beginning to fear the spiritual and intellectual consequences of gazing too long into the abyss: it’s one thing to be a partisan monkey footsoldier in the effort to get a generally smart and competent and morally upstanding person like Mitt Romney elected to the White House; it must be quite another to shill for a candidate as unprecedentedly stupid and ludicrously classless and obviously dangerous and femininely histrionic as is Donald Trump. Wait, am I not supposed to make explicit mention of the basic arithmetic by which a thinking, adult human being comes inexorably to the conclusion that Donald Trump, who literally cannot create and speak multiple coherent sentences in the English language, would (note the implicit counterfactual conditional: Madam President will be the fact, of that you can be sure) amount to a historically unique catastrophe of a President? Oh well.
Anyway, it’s safe to say that you are part of a tiny, tiny minority, especially vis-a-vis regular PWI posters. This is natural, because such posters are generally sharp and aware of the basic shit one ought to be aware of if one is going to care at all about politics and policy in the United States of America. Thus, they have probably observed that religious conviction is not a verifiable quality in the way that, say, Indian citizenship is. Much more importantly, they are probably aware of the fact that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (I know, I know: Trump and his fans don’t give a shit about the Constitution) prohibits government from enacting and enforcing policy that favors or disfavors a particular religion or religious denomination. Note here that the Establishment Clause does not constrain government vis-a-vis the rights of some affected citizen (potential immigrants and visitors, of course, could not be such), but rather constrains the fundamental nature of government policy itself. Note further that, given the last few decades of SCOTUS trends, the Plenary Powers Doctrine would assuredly be found not to sanction a religious test built into immigration policy. For one, it itself, like everything else in the Constitution, was amended by the Bill of Rights.
So, not only is a “Muslim ban,” temporary or permanent, stupid from a practical standpoint, un-American from an ideological standpoint, and entirely unnecessary from a non-histrionic read of the simple facts of contemporary geopolitics, but it would also be struck down by the Supreme Court.
They weren’t recruiting before Trump ?
Oh sure they were. They constantly recruit. On the other hand Trump’s genius plan handed them aome ammo that doesn’t require a whole lot of manipulation to persuade potential radicals to join.
Liberal’s Thermal Exhaust port status: Hit
So there’s finally an argument in this word salad of yours.
2)see section 1182 Section F
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”
There are laws to prevent restricting people on the basis of religion, but as I said before Islam is NOT a religion, it’s a political system based on religious tenets such as Sharia Law and the subjugation of non-muslims. By the way see how non-muslims in muslims are treated, they love hitting them with extra taxes and restricting their rights
You know what is unconstitutional? Sharia Law!
You honestly believe a guy who builds commercial real estate would not have consulted a legal expert such as a constitutional lawyer before saying something like that? Oh right no of course not, the guy setting voting records is simply a ‘buffoon’
Chinese Exclusion Act:
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. It was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in US history, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the US-China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the US to suspend Chinese immigration.
This act added to the number of undesirables banned from entering the country, including “homosexuals”, “idiots”, “feeble-minded persons”, “criminals”, “epileptics”, “insane persons”, alcoholics, “professional beggars”, all persons “mentally or physically defective”, polygamists, and anarchists.
This is a good question, therajraj…
And when it comes to the scrutiny of the people moving in and out of their Country…I absolutely do NOT expect Israel to be as porous and as laxed as the U.S. often is (and can afford) to be.
SMH
And it is quite another thing to shill for a dishonest, unscrupulous individual who has gone from scandal to scandal for her entire public career which might be ending with a federal indictment. Oh yes you must be very proud to back Hillary Clinton…
Fool.
It’s clear you’re far out of your depth, and I’m not even entirely sure whether you meant for this non-sequitur horseshit to be taken seriously. If so, you ought to have taken the time to read and understand the words I wrote. I won’t be sticking around to teach you the fine points of what follows, but I do want to respond to each of your numbered arguments, mostly because I wouldn’t want you to go getting confused and thinking you’ve successfully defended your adolescent policy preferences here.
There are dead letters, legally null and void and unenforceable, that provide for as much. They were made dead by a unanimous 1961 SCOTUS ruling against religious tests. Swing and a miss.
Guess which of the following has mechanical legal supremacy in the event that they conflict in either letter or practice: the United States Code or the First Amendment. Hint: It’s not the United States Code. Hint # 2: It’s the First Amendment. Swing and a miss.
Islam is a religion according to the Supreme Court of the United States. Nobody gives a shit whether or not you agree. Swing and a miss.
You know what goes well with lamb? Mint! But that doesn’t fuckin’ bear on the specific disagreement we’re having, does it? Swing and a miss.
Yes, he is simply a buffoon. We know this to a mathematical certainty. See USMC’s recent post about the nuclear triad. As I said much earlier in this thread: not only did Trump, when he was preparing to prove himself worthy of the presidency (those words are tough even to type in this context) on a debate stage, not consult even the most rudimentary beginner’s guide to the most powerful weapon of which he’d be in charge if he were to win the general, but he was also too fucking unbelievably stupid to figure the gist out from Hewitt’s hint-laden question. Because, yep, he’s a fucking buffoon who literally cannot convey lucid information in the English language. Swing and a miss.
This would be a great point were it not utterly inconsequential. There is no Constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from building tests of nationality/ethnicity into its law and policy. You’re trying to compare unlike objects: Swing and a miss.
See [6], mutatis mutandis. The Bill of Rights doesn’t say, “respecting an establishment of sexuality/intelligence/non-epilepsy/etc.” Swing and a miss.
Alrighty.
I can’t let this go:
Candidly, only a buffoon would ask this question. You actually think Trump roundtabled with constitutional lawyers on this question before sputtering out his sentence fragments about banning Muslims?
Between you and Zeb, satire is becoming obsolete - it can’t compete with the absurdity of reality here in PWI.
Isn’t it interesting how you didn’t provide me any links to evidence to rebut my arguments just your personal feelings on the matter. Am I supposed to take this post seriously?
Also it’s not like the President has ever circumvented the constitution right… Oh wait George Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without congressional declarations of war.
You’ve done a good job studying up on Trumps persuasion skills. This is called a “reframe”
Yes, of course anyone who disagrees TB is living in an alternate universe. Therajraj, myself and the 11 million people who have voted for him in the primaries to date.
Could be we are voting for an inexperienced real estate tycoon over a lying, dishonest old hag.
But…you keep thinking what you need to keep your self esteem up it has been taking a beating lately.
Funny stuff I just saw a guy on the news with some sort of weird headdress on ranting about how Trump is going to blow up the world if elected. This guy was red faced and practically foaming at the mouth. All I could think of was “hey is that Thunderbolt?”
Seriously man your head is going to explode when Trump wins in November. Get ready…
No, it isn’t a reframe - I asked you a question, then expecting I knew the answer, expressed my incredulity at the stupidity of your claim.
Now, do you want to answer the question? Do you actually think Trump consulted “constitutional lawyers” prior to saying we should ban Muslims?
I didn’t say he is calling for a permanent ban. He’s calling for a travel ban on all Muslims. My statement’s accurate.