I don't recall anyone is saying that the qualification for being a Muslim is a yes or no answer.  It would have to come through intelligence.  Like I was saying, banning immigrants from a Muslim country is essentially the same as banning Muslims.  I would think the first qualification of Trump's plan would be determination of origin and past residency.  Certain countries are on the list and intelligence would have to prove they are not Muslim to let them in.  Otherwise, they do not come in.  It won't be easy or fair and will lead to much less immigrants from the middle East but it is what it is until our heads of security are comfortable they have the terrorist thing under control.  If their intelligence can't do that, then why accept immigrants who are vetted with garbage intelligence?

Game over man...the libtards say there is no way to tell who is a Muslim, we have to let everyone in anyway...lets all hold hands and sing we like to give the world a Coke

It was just reported this morning that one of the Paris suicide bombers was a French citizen.   This reinforces the reality that Muslim ideology fosters such killers and keeping those who adhere to the Muslim ideology is in the best interest of a Western country.

Now there are hints that the San Bernadino killer (also muslim) Farook could have been planning this attack or others as long as four years ago.  Reportedly Farook had the Enrique guy buy the two AR15s so Farook's name would not be associated with the purchase.  This is preliminary info that may change but Farook was also born in the USA but his muslim ideology still overcame any national allegiance and led him to killing many US citizens.

I am surprised that so many people can't see the problem and that is muslim ideology.  The more people you let into a country who believe in that ideology, the greater the risk to your Western country

That's ridiculous.  There is no existing intelligence apparatus that could effectively identify the religion of every tourist and visitor that comes to the United States.  We're talking about whether or not people adhere to a certain set of beliefs.  There will not be trained interrogators at every consulate who are grilling EVERY person who wants to go to Disney, and tapping into databases and Intel resources to check their veracity.  We can look to see if they are associated with a bad guy, but we can't tell if they ever went to the mosque in a village in Sweden. That information isn't there.

Not, it's not.   You can swiftly and effectively ban folks from a certain country.  But banning ALL Muslims from all country, could only be done is you banned ALL people from all countries.   And we aren't going to do that.   You would devote limited intelligence resources to proving that tourists are NOT a Muslim?  That is ridiculous.

Immigrants are a different story.  IF we want more of them, THEY should have to prove that they are of value to the US, and that they would be loyal.  But if part of that proof requires proving that they are not Muslim, what proof could be offered that an ISIS operative would not be able to easily fake?

Prove to me that YOU aren't an undercover Muslim.  Ready....go!

What do you recommend we do with the millions that are already here?

Havn't you been reading? We just lock them up in concentration camps. You know, until we can figure this all out.

I agree with Trump in that muslim immigration needs to be put on hold until we figure out how to selective allow muslim immigration of the truly peaceful and tolerant ones that are willing to assimilate into the local culture.

As others said in this thread... immigration is not a right, but a privilege.  Time is overdue to treat as a privilege again.

Just give then the option of getting back on the plane or eating a Jimmy Dean pure pork susage.

My theory on all of Trump's Muslim immigration positions he's taken is this:

He's assuming he will win the GOP nomination and he's preparing for the general election.  He knows that Republicans have a bit of a structural disadvantage in the presidential elections because of the demographics of the electoral college so he will need to either siphon votes away from Democrats or scoop up the bulk of the easily influenced "general public."

Thus, his position on prohibiting Muslim immigration is a hedge that the major Islamic terror attack he's predicting will happen before the 2016 election (hell, for all we know he's seen an intel report we haven't).  He's betting that if there's another Paris or 9/11 style massive Muslim terrorist attack the general public will be in such fear they will flock to the candidate that promises to stop the Muslims.  Trump is setting himself up as the "stop the Muslims" candidate.  And he's betting the White House on it, good or bad.

OK.  Drama aside and letting the butt-hurt have their rant, lets lock ourselves in a room and start planning how you are going to implement this proposal.

Now you need to consider the logistics and parameters of doing what you suggest.

Questions you need to ask are:

How will this programme of regulation and enforcement be implemented legally and under what powers, by which Agency/Agencies, and using which legislative framework?   This is fundamental to actually knowing whether the legal framework is in place to be able to implement this action in the first place.  It is also important to understand the legislation and other case law which might undermine it's implementation when it is challenged.

What is the objective?  That is to say, what is the intended benefit of the proposal and how can it be measured and demonstrated?....in other words how do you measure the success?

What are the unforeseen consequences?  How does it play into the hands of the opposition? Are you succumbing to manipulation?  What divisions might you be at risk of creating and are they acceptable in terms of a sustainable society?

What happens if you don't implement it?  What are the risks and their likelihood of occurring?

Can those risks be tackled and mitigated by using existing systems and enhancing them accordingly, rather than taking a draconian step which may be much more costly?

How are you going to physically implement it?  By this I mean the physical logistics, staffing, training, intelligence, infrastructure, enforcement, repatriation, handling the legal challenges, etc.

Is it cost-effective? What benefits/problems does this strategy have and how much is each one worth in a cost benefit analysis?

Who is it going apply to?  How are you going to distinguish those who are Muslims from other people? What happens it that Muslims an American citizen?  This is critical if it is to be enforced as you will need evidence to demonstrate that someone is a Muslim, or some form of test by which someone can prove they are not a Muslim.   Sticking a beer and bacon Sammich down in front of them ain't going to cut it.

How long are you going to implement this ban for?  How often will you review its effectiveness?  What kind of budget are you going to free up to ensure it is effective and how long are you going to commit that resource to it?


Those are just some of the preliminary questions that will need to be answered in the most basic of scoping exercises to be in a position to start considering the viability of the proposal.

Anyone who has a passport from:



Syria

Iran

Iraq

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Libya

Turkey

Afghanistan

Indonesia



and/or any other number of countries that are majority islamic are refused entry into this country indefinitely.  Will that prevent terrorists from getting in?  No, hell they can just walk across from Mexico if they're that determined, but it WILL stop the majority of them from an easy entrance into this country.  Heck they may even have Swiss passports, who knows.  But it's a good place to start.



 

What Trump really said was that until we get our processing system under control, we need to stand down on importing Muslims.  How do we get this many pages complaining about 1/2 of his statement without regard for the other half. He didn't say no Muslims forever.

You mean the same two countries that fondled Obama's balls when he was running for the office? Those countries?

You can post this over and over again. It won't matter. People will hear what they want to hear.

GOP establishment is so out of touch, it's to the left of MSNBC viewers.

What about all the other questions you summed up with ".....words"?

Those are all questions that will need to be answered.

The point is that Trump is making soundbites.  The reality of implementing something like that is a very different prospect.

If all he is doing is making soundbites, and there hasn't even ben a scoping exercise to check the viability, let alone a detailed plan for implementation, then it is just a hollow bunch of words that have no value.

While it certainly keeps the loons occupied with their petitions and social media outrage, the whole thing is unlikely to come to fruition without the detail and it therefore has little value as anything more than trolling for amusement.

It's fun to watch, but if you are planning on voting on the basis of these promises, regardless of candidate, then the viability of what they are proclaiming really needs to be considered.

When is until?

 

These are the same motherfuckers claiming that we can accept Syrians without fear because of their "thorough vetting process."


So which is it, you contradictory hypocritical fuckwits?

Immigration delayed is immigration denied.

Everyone will have a different attitude when more people are killed here.

What he advocated was a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the heck is going on."

What is the metric for that?  Have our representatives EVER figured out what the heck is going on, with ANY issue?  When will we say they've figured THIS one out?  Will they issue a "We Finally Know What the Heck is Going On Report"?

I know what the heck is going on, don't you?

Well I guess it would be a de facto ban on Muslims entering the country right?

 


Why do you like letting terrorists in the country?

What balls?

No, it would not.  It would establish an easy path for terrorists to enter the country.  All they would need to do is lie.   There is no way to check someone's religion, other than to ask.  And we aren't going to set up a massive and elaborate investigation agency to determine if every visiting tourist on their way to Disney is  Muslim.  

They would not need to acquire false documents or move to another country.  They would just have to say that they weren't Muslim.  It would make the job of a terrorist MUCH easier.



Why do you like fondling small children?

It's Trump.  

...you shouldn't think so much.    

Well, that was uncalled for. in answer to your post, make them lie. Then when we discover the lie deport them. What has happened to your reasoning?

Wow classy response. Sad to see how low the TDS has brought you.

 

Been happening for decades.

Japan refuses to accept Muslim immigrants.

I've sacrificed far more than most to fight terrorists, so I take accusations that I "like" letting them into the country personally.


My reasoning is sound.  Terrorists lie.  They are trained to lie.  Once the millions of people who come to this country each year as visitors make it past the "are you a Muslim" portal, we won't continue to track them to see if they told the truth.  It isn't going to happen.

Just as classy as your question.  

This..... but he won't.

I think his intent was to give an absurd response to an equally absurd question.

This is at least the second time I've seen someone in this discussion accuse anyone opposed to Trumps proposal as being pro-terrorist.

You sacrifice is duly noted. I too have been in combat. Doesn't excuse post like that. Nobody has answered my question yet. That question is how does Obama stop the Christian Syrians? He is doing it. let's start there. I have to say that I have admired your thoughtful posts for a long time but it seems you have bumped your head or something.

Incorrect.  Japan does accept Muslim immigrants.

In other words it will be permanent which I am fine with!  There is absolutely NO way to "vette" these 3rd world scumbags that will lie about anything in the name of Allah.

Most have already forgotten they killed 3000 a few years ago, or the first World Trade Center bombing, or countless other attacks here that have been swept under the rug as something else

He bumped it on Ron Paul in 12, has not been the same since....

 

Well, they do on a very strict basis. Very small number. While officially, they do, the reality is that they have a very high screening standard that effectively shuts them out.

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/04/13/islamic-terrorism-japan/

i can see no benefit to additional immigration at all aside from highly educated westerners.

so either back up your bs or it stays that way.

how is not importing people from the third world counterproductive.

The big difference in how these discussions go, is in who initially makes it personal.

I have no idea who you are.  I am discussing the issue, not the poster.  YOU guys almost ALWAYS focus on the poster.  It is what drags things down.

If someone makes a shoddy argument, rebut it with facts or ignore it.

Look at who does that and look at who goes after the posters in this and many (Trump, Paul, etc) discussions.  It's quite telling.

THAT is true.

How do you think the Saudis, the Egyptians, both "major non-NATO allies," and the Turks, a NATO ally will respond?

You could have 10 San Bernadinos and it would not compare to the havoc that would leave.

Either work it out for yourself, or continue in ignorant bliss and make a twat of yourself.

I don't care either way.

This is why Trump is probably the next president.  If he can just get the Hispanics behind him I believe he has it.

He is just saying what real people already think but has the balls to say it.   People are sick and tired of the same old lines from both parties.

The MSM hates it because they will be out of a job or have to submit to his media will.  

The MSM is scared they won't be able to make and drive the news the way they want any longer.

so you got nothing. Which is what I thought.  gee, it sounded so, serious, when you typed it out.

So than is it just ignorance to think that immigration is just asking people if they are a certain something and not doing any other investigation?

 

Do you think Customs is so bad at their job, they can't determine the probability of some one possibly being Muslim?  Or reducing the statistical likelihood and refusing to accept travelers who are coming from Muslim countries and have never been to the US before?


I feel like you're way more interested in just being against whatever Trump is for.   Trump wants to keep out terrorists...



Do YOU want to keep out terrorists?  If you do, you and Trumps goals are aligned. You might not like the path, but that is the desired end state.

Glassing the MIddle East and any city with a known Muslim population greater than "1" might meet the desired end state too but I'm not going to line up behind the initiative.

Article is manipulating stats to suit a narrative.

Lots of muslim transient workers from Indonesia, Malaysia and other eastern countries which are predominantly Muslim.

Japan doesn't have much time for most religion other than Shinto, so Muslims are not singled out in any particular way.

Japan does have an immigration policy based on what you can bring to the country in terms of skills and assets, not dissimilar to the principles behind the the Australian immigration system, and it is well policed.

Article is manipulating stats to support a particular narrative and claiming it is because of religion, when religion is not even a question on the Japanese Visa application form, as far as I'm aware.  The only document that does require religion to be declared is the Religious Activities Visa which applies to missionaries, monks and representatives of religion who are there to further the cause of their religion and undertake religious work. This does not apply to students of faith who will be studying in Japan.

The factors contributing to a relatively low muslim population are more to do with universally applied immigration policy than a direct targeting of Muslim migrants.

Which candidate is pushing for that?