Trump’s Muslim ban

[Adam56]

Yes, who were you thinking made laws about immigration when that’s part of federal powers?

Congress is just a single part of government.

 

[Desk trauma]

Congress is just a single part of government.

It’s the part that makes immigration law and all levels of government are bound by the first amendment.

 

[Pommer]

So the option is to let Muslims overrun the country, and begin the stabbings and rapes that have taken hold across Europe? How long before women are raped because they down have the heads covered (ocurred last week in Germany). How long before someone in the crowd yells 'Allah Akbar" and starts stabbing infedils? Well, at least we're upholding the Constitution, until there are 5 of 9 Mulims on the Court.

Should (in the far future) the USA become a majority Muslim country…would that be a “bad thing”?
Why?

 

[Robban]

Why do you presume the second generation to be more fanatical when the trend is to be less so and generally less religious overall in freer countries that are more liberal?

There is a tendence for some second generation to assimilate much to the dissapointment of the parents.

Not only in Islam,

when there came a stream of Jews from ex- Sovjet and east states the then Rebbe of righteous memory warned them,

"America is no different" he told them, referring to assimilation.

Looking up assimilation I found this:

While primarily assimilation leads to a loss of culteral identity.

It can also have severe phychological effects on the immigrant.

 

[Lukaris]

It is probably a wise thing to do a quick but substantive study of what motivates revolutionary Islam. A primary thinker & influencer is the late Seyyid Qutb and his book: Milestones is seminal. He seems to advocate political control as a greater necessity for jihad than even popular theocracy. So I guess, for ex., in Iran, where religious observance is decreasing, Qutb ( & his ilk) are ok as long as sharia controls society.
The book: Milestones by the late Seyyid Qutb ( name spellings vary) is instructive on this. At the end of chapter 4: Jihad in the cause of God, quote:


“These research scholars ( Moslems who want to get along with others), with their defeated mentality, have adopted the western concept of ‘religion’ which is merely a name for ‘belief’ in the heart, having no relation to the practical affairs of life, and therefore they conceive of religious war as a way to impose belief on peoples’ hearts.

But this is not the case with Islam, as Islam is the way of life ordained by God for all mankind, and this way establishes the Lordship of God alone, that is, the sovereignty of God, and orders practical life in all its daily details. Jihad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world. As far as belief is concerned, it clearly depends on personal opinion, under the protection of a general system in which all obstacles to personal belief have been removed. Clearly this is an entirely different matter and throws a completely new light on the Islamic Jihad.

Thus, wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the divinely ordained system of life, it has a God given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.”

Milestones (book) - Wikipedia​

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sayyid Qutb - Wikipedia​

en.m.wikipedia.org



Decline of religion in Iran.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/iran-secular-shift-gamaan.html

 

[Adam56]

It’s the part that makes immigration law and all levels of government are bound by the first amendment.

Trump was was responsible for Islam ban, he wasn’t congress.

 

[rturner76]

I personally believe it is. Immigration is a privilege not a right.

I think it was a right when it was English, French, German, and Scandinavians immigrating. However, when brown people started to immigrate it became a privilege and a burden on society. Not only that but it became a "crisis." There was no "crises" when it was Europeans immigrating.

 

[Adam56]

I think it was a right when it was English, French, German, and Scandinavians immigrating.

It wasn’t.

However, when brown people started to immigrate it became a privilege and a burden on society.

You’re just salty because you are black and feel insulted about how people have treated you because of your race.

Not only that but it became a "crisis." There was no "crises" when it was Europeans immigrating.

Doesn’t matter.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Trump was was responsible for Islam ban, he wasn’t congress.

He did an emergency executive order because of terrorism, the left argued against it in court but lost because of the situation and it was not a "Muslim ban" but rather a ban on 5 countries that were sponsoring terror if memory serves.

However if the situation had been different they may have won. You have to figure out how to get a better system of vetting that upholds both national security, our culture, and our constitution .. otherwise we will eventually be at war with Muslims here on American soil.

Clearly however, the cartels are first.

 

[rturner76]

It wasn’t.

Nobody was rejected from Ellis Islandwherethe Europeans landed but the "crisis is on the southern border where brown people seek a new life like the Europeans did on Ellis Island

You’re just salty because you are black and feel insulted about how people have treated you because of your race.

Not only that. Blacks were not coming to America out of choice but as chained-up slaves for sale. I would not call that immigration but forced chattel slavery. At the same time, Europeans were given free passage through Ellis Island.

Doesn’t matter.

It matters to those seeking a new life, just like it matters to the Europeans at Ellis Island. However, I am glad that you admit that the lives of people of color don't matter. At least you are being honest. If more people would admit that the desire for a brown person who wants a new life doesn't matter, we could see who are white supremacists and who aren't. Do the lives of for example Polish people matter? According to your previous post they would matter much more than anyone with melonin in their skin.

 

[stevil]

Is it moral for the USA to ban countries from immigrating because the underlying motive is to keep Muslim numbers very low in order, to be quite Frank, make their political opinions meaningless.

I personally believe it is. Immigration is a privilege not a right.

I don't know much about some sort of definitive or authoratative reference as to what is Moral, Immoral or neutral, but...


According to the UN's Universal declaration of human rights.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Article 1​

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2​

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7​

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 14​

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Article 21​

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Many of these articles seem to be compatible with the Democratic party and contradictory to the MAGA movement with the Republican party.

Banning people because they are Muslim or because they come from a Muslim country seems to contradict the UN's Universal declaration of Human Rights.


Of course USA isn't goverened by the UN. USA can choose to carry themselves in the view of the world, however USA pleases.

All countries have the right to protect their borders and to protect their citizenry.
All countries ought to carry out Due Dilligence with regards to letting foreigners into their country. Those checks should include criminal records, history of violence etc. But should not include discriminatory practices such as vetting based on religion. (IMO)

But really, it just depends on who is in power and what they value. If they don't care about the UN's Universal Declaration of human rights, and if they don't care about discrimination. Then it is upto them.

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

However, I am glad that you admit that the lives of people of color don't matter.

Of course they matter.

 

[stevil]

He did an emergency executive order because of terrorism, the left argued against it in court but lost because of the situation and it was not a "Muslim ban" but rather a ban on 5 countries that were sponsoring terror if memory serves.

Let's hear what Trump actually campaigned on.

"Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..."

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't know much about some sort of definitive or authoratative reference as to what is Moral, Immoral or neutral, but...


According to the UN's Universal declaration of human rights.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Article 1​

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2​

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7​

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 14​

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Article 21​

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Many of these articles seem to be compatible with the Democratic party and contradictory to the MAGA movement with the Republican party.

Banning people because they are Muslim or because they come from a Muslim country seems to contradict the UN's Universal declaration of Human Rights.


Of course USA isn't goverened by the UN. USA can choose to carry themselves in the view of the world, however USA pleases.

All countries have the right to protect their borders and to protect their citizenry.
All countries ought to carry out Due Dilligence with regards to letting foreigners into their country. Those checks should include criminal records, history of violence etc. But should not include discriminatory practices such as vetting based on religion. (IMO)

But really, it just depends on who is in power and what they value. If they don't care about the UN's Universal Declaration of human rights, and if they don't care about discrimination. Then it is upto them.

With some countries you can't get a proper vetting at all... With them it's just cross your fingers and hope they won't be violent.

Those countries I think across the board should be removed from acceptable immigration lists... If you can't properly vet their citizens then I have no idea how you could accept anyone from their countries....

I'm thinking in that list are some South American countries too, or used to be anyway though some are cleaning up quite nicely as their criminals come here. ..

 

[stevil]

I'm thinking in that list are some South American countries too, or used to be anyway though some are cleaning up quite nicely as their criminals come here. ..

On your list of unacceptable countries, are their any predominantly white countries?
From what I've read, undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than USA citizens

 

[Hazelelponi]

On your list of unacceptable countries, are their any predominantly white countries?
From what I've read, undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than USA citizens

The drug cartel countries are who I'm thinking of but off the top of my head I can't think of any particular country since so much has changed.. I would certainly need to revisit the details currently to take a position on any particular country at this moment.

I don't know what kind of white or tan you're looking for here... Why does skin matter?

You can consider me either white or brown, I don't do identity politics outside of telling people I was Muslim before I was saved. I find identity politics sickening...

 

[stevil]

I don't know what kind of white or tan you're looking for here... Why does skin matter?

When looking at USA, there is this perception that racism is well and truly alive, particularly within the Republican party and within the USA right wing as a whole. That's not to say that all USA right wingers are racist, I'm sure some aren't.

But USA has an attrocious history of how non whites have been treated over there.
When the right wing worry about border control, they don't seem bothered by the northern border, when they are looking to do wholesale immigration bans they aren't looking to block people from predominantly white countries.

Trump himself was quoted with his "$h_thole countries" remark and was quoted as pondering why USA don't get more people in from Norway instead.

You can consider me either white or brown, I don't do identity politics outside of telling people I was Muslim before I was saved. I find identity politics sickening...

OK, so why were you not upset by Trump saying he would ban all people identified as Muslim from entering the country? Or were you upset by that?

 

[Hazelelponi]

When looking at USA, there is this perception that racism is well and truly alive, particularly within the Republican party and within the USA right wing as a whole. That's not to say that all USA right wingers are racist, I'm sure some aren't.

But USA has an attrocious history of how non whites have been treated over there.
When the right wing worry about border control, they don't seem bothered by the northern border, when they are looking to do wholesale immigration bans they aren't looking to block people from predominantly white countries.

Trump himself was quoted with his "$h_thole countries" remark and was quoted as pondering why USA don't get more people in from Norway instead.

OK, so why were you not upset by Trump saying he would ban all people identified as Muslim from entering the country? Or were you upset by that?

I married a hillbilly 12 years ago and moved to the deepest recesses in America of "backwards white people" and there's no racism. I experience nothing but Christian love surrounded by 75 miles of armed hillbillies any of which would defend my life...

Yes, some racism exists I'm sure and the current culture doesn't help - in fact I think has actually created racism or bigotry that hadn't previously existed, but in person, I see none.

Racist white people is more a trope than a reality. It's why they are angry...

 

[Always in His Presence]

I have inquired about this before on this forum, and two users quickly fled. Sadly I can’t call them out (forum rules), but I feel I need to ask here.

Is it moral for the USA to ban countries from immigrating because the underlying motive is to keep Muslim numbers very low in order, to be quite Frank, make their political opinions meaningless.

I personally believe it is. Immigration is a privilege not a right.

Here is the reality that flies in the face of the thread title

Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’ Doesn’t Affect All Muslims​

Fact check - fail

SEAN SPICER: “Well, first of all, it’s not a travel ban,” the White House spokesman said during his daily briefing Tuesday when asked about Trump’s executive order halting travel to the U.S. for people from seven majority Muslim countries.

JOHN KELLY: “This is not a travel ban; this is a temporary pause that allows us to better review the existing refugee and visa-vetting system,” the Homeland Security secretary told reporters Tuesday.

TRUMP, also in Sunday’s statement: “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”

THE FACTS: Trump is right that there are many majority-Muslim countries that have not been included in the travel ban.

 

[Always in His Presence]

OK, so why were you not upset by Trump saying he would ban all people identified as Muslim from entering the country? Or were you upset by that?

He never said that.