3 ms·

He also proposed banning all Muslims from entering the US, and tagging and tracking all curent Muslim residents.

by tamana 10y ago

refurb 10y ago
These political arguments never seem to go well, but anyways... I'd love to see a source/quote on that. From the news that I saw (actually digging into the details), Trump said something like "Until we have the proper means to screen Muslims for security risk, I propose we put a (temporary) halt to letting them immigrate." This was in direct response to the attacks in France. Now, for a lot of people, that's still an offensive proposal, but it's not the same as "lets ban all Muslims (forever)". What I think is interesting about Trump's appeal is that he doesn't filter what he says. A seasoned politician would say "I'm committed to securing this country against terrorist threats", then they put a ton of Muslims on no-fly lists and you kind of get the same thing. But it doesn't look as bad. I get the sense a lot of people, when they listen to Trump, think "At least he doesn't offer watered down drivel like most politicians".
- foldr 10y ago
  First of all, the whole idea of some kind of special screening process for Muslims is already discriminatory, and quite possibly unconstitutional in itself. Second, it's patently obvious that no brilliant new techniques for screening out terrorists are magically going to materialize all of a sudden, so that the "temporary" ban would become effectively permanent.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    The US government has essentially zero legal obligation to admit non-residents into the country. The law can and does discriminate against travelers and prospective immigrants based on country of origin, for example. Entry into the United States for foreigners is a privilege, not a right. That said, a blanket ban on Muslims entering is a brain-dead idea. But I see no good reason why the United States shouldn't consider all information when deciding how to allocate its limited resources for additional screening.
    - foldr 10y ago
      As to your first point, the US government is bound by the constition, and legal opinion is split as to the constitutionality of a ban on all Muslims. http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-52706 http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-52706 As to the second point, whether or not someone is a Muslim gives you essentially zero information as to whether or not they are a terrorist. (Trivially, it makes them more likely to be an Islamic terrorist, just as Hindus are more likely than non-Hindus to be Hindu terrorists. But since such a miniscule fraction of Muslims are terrorists, applying additional screening to Muslims would make no difference.)

He also proposed banning all Muslims from entering the US, and tagging and tracking all curent Muslim residents.

by tamana 10y ago

He also proposed banning all Muslims from entering the US, and tagging and tracking all curent Muslim residents.

These political arguments never seem to go well, but anyways... I'd love to see a source/quote on that. From the news that I saw (actually digging into the details), Trump said something like "Until we have the proper means to screen Muslims for security risk, I propose we put a (temporary) halt to letting them immigrate." This was in direct response to the attacks in France. Now, for a lot of people, that's still an offensive proposal, but it's not the same as "lets ban all Muslims (forever)". What I think is interesting about Trump's appeal is that he doesn't filter what he says. A seasoned politician would say "I'm committed to securing this country against terrorist threats", then they put a ton of Muslims on no-fly lists and you kind of get the same thing. But it doesn't look as bad. I get the sense a lot of people, when they listen to Trump, think "At least he doesn't offer watered down drivel like most politicians".

foldr 10y ago
First of all, the whole idea of some kind of special screening process for Muslims is already discriminatory, and quite possibly unconstitutional in itself. Second, it's patently obvious that no brilliant new techniques for screening out terrorists are magically going to materialize all of a sudden, so that the "temporary" ban would become effectively permanent.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  The US government has essentially zero legal obligation to admit non-residents into the country. The law can and does discriminate against travelers and prospective immigrants based on country of origin, for example. Entry into the United States for foreigners is a privilege, not a right. That said, a blanket ban on Muslims entering is a brain-dead idea. But I see no good reason why the United States shouldn't consider all information when deciding how to allocate its limited resources for additional screening.
  - foldr 10y ago
    As to your first point, the US government is bound by the constition, and legal opinion is split as to the constitutionality of a ban on all Muslims. http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-52706 http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-52706 As to the second point, whether or not someone is a Muslim gives you essentially zero information as to whether or not they are a terrorist. (Trivially, it makes them more likely to be an Islamic terrorist, just as Hindus are more likely than non-Hindus to be Hindu terrorists. But since such a miniscule fraction of Muslims are terrorists, applying additional screening to Muslims would make no difference.)