No, it is through a deep knowledge of their processes and abilities that allows me to arrive at that conclusion.  We're aren't just talking about immigration, Trump is calling for this restriction to apply to ALL visitors; tourists, business visas, etc.  There is no investigatory arm that would allow for such investigations at every consulate.  Nor is there info available that could answer the question at hand.

If we ARE talking about immigration, then it is USCIS conducting that "investigation" and I am 100% confident that they are not equipped or capable to make a determination that someone is Muslim, if that person is intent upon obfuscating that fact.  Again, I base this on first hand experience.   How about you?
The probability?  Sure.  Anyone with an Arabic name is probably Muslim.  Even though Christians from Arab countries have Arabic names, and anyone who decides they are not Muslim will probably keep their name.  

But that's a different criteria.  
No he doesn't.  Trump just wants to say stuff to make the crowd cheer.  If he actually wanted to keep out terrorists, he wouldn't have come up with an idea that is so crappy, and is guaranteed to destroy our relationship with our allies that HE knows we need in this fight.  
Trump's plan runs counter to the desired end-state of keeping terrorists out.  

YOU know that the "path" he suggested is stupid.  But you give him credit for his intentions and feelings.

Why are you defending terrorists?

Maybe you can answer the questions I posted above:


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.

They do say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You've been paving the trump hate road for what, 30, 40, 50 threads now?

All great questions.

 
Ill have to take a look at how the British handled Irish terrorism, and terrorism in other colonies they oppressed and compare that to legal frameworks we have in the states.

It should be pretty simple to find the failure points, compare them to our own and bridge the gaps.



You guys were always pretty good and using out of state (country) local law enforcement as enforcers to beat and coerce populations, so there might be something to that, you know oppress people there so we don't have to oppress them here.



I think you're on to something.

People keep equating Trump's proposal to the American Japanese camps of WWII.  What is that about?  Did he propose something like internment camps?

Why does anyone need passports? Do you hate minimum government maximum freedom and the Constitution?


We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.
https://www.lp.org/issues/privacy

From the looks of it, perhaps Britons should be actively reviewing their own immigration laws instead of worrying about ours?

You never answered my question.  

Use whatever you need if you feel that it will give you the answers to the questions above posed in relation to the proposal made by Trump.

However you need to answer the questions above as just a small part of a scoping exercise to asses viability of the proposals before you can commit to devising a plan for implementation.

When you have considered whatever it is you want to consider you can then answer the questions.

Try not to be a smart-arse as it will only demonstrate that you don't have a fucking clue how to handle the reality of what you are proposing.

Hey dude, I'm just here to help you get what you want and ask you the questions that some hot shot liberal will use to tear you apart when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of implementing this proposal.

You really want to take those answers to Congress and try and pass them off as a scoping exercise for a genuine proposal?

I think you might want to reconsider it and come up with something more viable.

Don't take it as a negative......I'll give you a 2 out of 10 for attempting to answer the questions, so a big pat on the back there. But unfortunately I will then have to ask you to sit in the corner facing the wall and think about how you are going to answer them effectively so that you don't have some 16 year old lefty high-schooler rip you a new arsehole on Facebook

He won't.  He's out of his depth and too stupid to know when to give up.

His only way of responding is to ask questions and try to turn the tables in an effort to disguise his lack of understanding, knowledge and emotional intelligence.  Unfortunately, he's rather poor at that as well.

You can call yourself anything you want on the internet. Free speech ...I guess.

In Vt, 72% of self identified "centrists or Independents" vote for Bernard Sanders. Do you find that odd? Are they still "centrists" since they endorse socialism.

Do you find it odd that Trump supporters call everyone else RINO establishment when Trump is the biggest RINO of the Democrat Establishment? They're a lot like self identified "centrists or Independents" that vote for Sanders. But they aren't conservative voters.

Read this and say Trump isn't correct to want a complete review and halt to immigration from the ME.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/11/22/nunes-what-the-obama-administrations-says-about-isis-just-doesnt-jive-with-what-we-see-on-the-ground/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork

Plus just look at what France and Belgium are doing....and probably a bunch of other countries.  Europe is a SHTF situation already due to refugees and immigration out of control.

No, Clockmed can't come back, especially if he wants to sue.

Well since I don't work in a field anywhere near the folks who do this daily, I'll take your compliment. However a 16 year old on facebook can read the plain text of the referenced US code and realize he is arguing from an indefensible position. Constitutionally a president has the right to do this. And I'm sure the good folks who work at the DHS can come up with a plan that adequately addresses the issue of this particular immigration problem.

Remember that non US citizens (or residents of the US or it's territories) have no US constitutional rights

Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban

Pollster for bloomberg then calls them bigots

LOL, they just can't understand they have no basis in understanding the population of this country.  Its fucking awesome to watch!

 

Fools!

15 pages...


Trump is playing to his base.  They love this kind of rhetoric.  But that's all it is, rhetoric.  First, we have to get past the idea of barring people, based solely on religion, from entering the country.  Considering America's history, and principles, that is a HUGE hurdle.  I'm not sure I'm ready to surrender my principles to terrorist.  

After we get past this, and accept the nastiness of it, then we run into all sorts of practical problems.

Cincinnatus and others have asked some very good questions, and I can't find any good answers.

1.  How are you going to screen for religion?  What's the process, how many resources and how much money will be dedicated to the process?
2.  How are you going to explain this to your Muslim allies, diplomats, business and trading partners, ...the 1.5 billion or so Muslims who aren't radical terrorist.


Trump is a showman, and a pretty slick salesman.  He's playing to the lowest common denominator of his angry base, and they seem to be eating it up.  But at the end of the day, this kind of rhetoric doesn't win general elections.  This kind of comment will eventually bite him.  

Expect to get called out on that.

...now he wants to shut down parts of the internet.

 ----  Link to Thread


Trump is a dangerous loon.  

The resources do not exist to successfully vet everyone coming to this country.   Heck, the resources don't exist to successfully vet the current crop of "refugees."

The comments by various media, groups, or individual people are making clearly show they are quite upset; many are saying that it is un-constitutional, un-presidential, un-American, etc.  They are uneducated about the laws within United States, or our history.

My personal view on Trump's statement is that he is simply speaking from the heart, and how it is phrased isn't the full technical mannerism of implementation.  Yet, I would clearly state that his comments are not any of the "un's" above that I have mentioned.  Trump's emotional call was clearly indicated to be aimed at immigration and entry for non-US based citizens.  While the statement is quite radical (one that I agree with emotionally, and support, but do not believe it will ever be enacted without rewording and specifics applied).  

Since it is intended for citizenship, the Constitution does not come into play (as the 14th amendment specifies the clause that grants citizenship).  If this had any chance in hell (which it doesn't - UNTIL Trump becomes president), it would have to be phrased differently to be based on country of origin.  Further, Trump was also very clear that this was intended to be temporary until, "...the government figures out how to vet them."  Remember, we don't have any legal or moral obligation to let anyone into our country.

To beat a dead horse; if this ban was intended to be for everyone, then it would become unconstitutional due to the first amendment which governs United States citizens. Yet, as previously mentioned - it isn't intended for everyone.

I did a quick google search on Immigration bans within the United States since the 1800's.  Here are a few examples that previous and current presidents have enacted, based on the best interests of our country (deemed at that time):

1) 1875, 1885, 1917, statute to bar immigration of persons who were Homosexuals, sexual deviants, and moral perverts.  Ultimately, if an immigrant was identified as homosexual they would be barred entry into the United States.

2) 1918, Sedition Act of 1918.  President Woodrow Wilson and Congress passed a law that deported "putatively undesirable political people".  These individuals were deported based on their public or private speech, associations to people, or based upon their ideological beliefs.  

3) 1924, Immigration Act of 1924 or known as Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act.  These laws put severe limitations on African, Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, and Asians.  Specifically, it outright banned Arabs and Asians.  These acts were implemented to "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity"

4) 1942 - 1946, the Japanese, German, and Italians were put under Internment.  WRA banned all immigrants of Japanese, German, and Italian origin.  Enacted by Franklin D. Roosevelt.  This was applied to both citizen and non US citizens.  Everyone should be aware of the incarceration that US Citizens went through during that time, based on their race.

5) 1980, Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from entering the United States.  This was also applied to all Iranians already within the United States under approved status; more than 15,000 of them were deported.

6) 1993, HIV Immigration Ban.  HIV was considered a ground of inadmissibility, meaning that HIV-positive foreign nationals could be denied short-term visas or applications for lawful permanent residence simply because of their HIV status.

7) 2014, EBOLA Travel Ban.  The Obama administration put out a travel ban, preventing any US or NON-US citizen to enter the United States of America if they have visited a country exposed to the Ebola outbreak.

Those are just a few examples that I researched within 10 minutes.  I am sure there are a lot more, like the "Operation Wetback" by  Dwight D. Eisenhower.  I would also like to remind everyone about a law currently on the books; Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.  To quote this law:



As you can see here, the United States has already discriminated entry based on race, national origin, speech, ideology, sexual preference, and health.  This was done within accordance to United States law.  Nothing illegal!

In closing, I would say that this is a difficult issue within difficult times.  Our country is founded on civil liberties and freedoms from tyranny.  While the call to action from Trump is quite radical for some to accept, I believe a radical change is required to the status quo.  The concept that Trump suggested definitely needs to be refined, reworded, set time tables, and have added specifics.  

What I find to be ridiculous is that some people are comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, because of this proposal.  Those people need to also be prepared to publicly denounce Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, Grover Cleveland, Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and Abraham Lincoln.  Each of these presidents had immigration bans based on discriminated topics, enacted for our country's best interests. While some presidents on that list are not very popular, others were outstanding and did great things for our nation.  Yet, each of them participated in some form or another with immigration bans.

John Adams had a great quote regarding out constitution.  Where Islam becomes different shades of gray within this Religious basis of conversation (and to this quote) is the belief of Sharia Law, and the conflict it creates while integrating with the laws of the United States.  This is another conversation topic that is directly related to this one, but should be had in a different thread.  Anyhow, here is the quote:

"This constitution was made only for a moral and religious people it is wholly unsuited to govern any other."-- John Adams.

For the TLDR crowd: "US. Customs: Welcome to the United States. Do you have anything to declare? Here try some pork."

Thanks,
Mike

Now  just like others on this forum, how about qouting exactly what Trump said, so members can see it doesnt quite support your loon comment....but actually makes sense.. Trumps full comment as reported by Drudge........

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he wants to talk to Bill Gates about "closing that Internet up in some way" in order to prevent Islamic terrorist group ISIS from recruiting kids. "We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people ... we've got to maybe do something with the Internet because they are recruiting by the thousands, they are leaving our country and then when they come back, we take them back."


Cite...


http://www.drudge.com/news/193890/trump-fight-terrorism-close-internet

You're going to have to point out where what you posted differs, in some way that makes it not a stupid thought, from what was quoted.

The level of appeal populist mouthbreathers enjoy during this election cycle says a lot about the mental state of the country, though...

I honestly think Trump is surprised at his popularity.  I don't think he really wants to be President, and I think as we get closer to the convention he'll ramp up his radical rhetoric.  IF by some chance he wins the nomination, he will have won it on perhaps one of the most "unAmerican strongman platforms" in our nations history.  It's disconcerting that he has gotten this far, and in my opinion doesn't bode well for the nation.

But I don't think he  has a snowballs chance in hell of winning a general election.  I don't think he wants it.  I think IF he wins the party nomination, he'll simply ramp up his rhetoric until he eliminates himself from the running.   Then he'll be able to go back to being who and what he is, a slick, narcissistic salesman, and showman building a "brand".

Except that there are other countries in the world.  They require a passport to enter.

Of course you liberaltarians just care about sitting around and smoking dope, so I can see why you don't want any of that ID stuff.

It doesn't.  

He criticized the quote I posted, with the quote I posted...

In fairness, you left off the "for the children" portion of the article.

Ok, lets go about it another way...your way of saying it is crappy ...hows that..what Trump is saying is we need to stop terrorist from openly communicating /recruiting american kids over the internet from the ME..and yes if its possible to do that with the with technology we should be doing that.. no different then trying to stop pedophiles...the way you phrase it makes it sound like instead he just wants to completely shutdown the internet.. but of course you knew that...and thats why you did it that way...

No he left off the cut off the terrorist access to the kids part..but hey we all knew that right?

It's not.

China can't do it with their Great Firewall.

Trump can't do it with his Great Whatever.

At work so keeping it short and sweet.  I will provide references from 10 individuals outside of my family stating my nationality, my religion, my relationship with them and a statement from each of them that I am not a Muslim.  You can do a check on the references.

Taquitos.

I didn't suggest anything.  All I did was quote Trump.  You confirmed his quote, so let's talk about that.  Trump suggests the government censor the internet, and you seem to support that idea because you like what he wants to censor.  So, after we censor the things you want, what prevents the government from one day censoring the things you don't want censored?  

Freedom of speech is the first amendment to our constitution, for a reason.

In this context, references are worthless, unless they are official documents that come from a foreign government that meet our established criteria.


You hand me papers with stories on them?  Do these so-called "references" live in a foreign country?  How do I know they are who they claim?  How much is the US government expected to spend on investigating your claim that you aren't a Muslim?

If we are to do this in keeping with Trump's stated plan, this would be for EVERY person who seeks to come to the US; every tourist, every businessman, every visiting scholar, etc.  Handing over pieces of paper with foreign words from a foreign land proves nothing.  They would just be a starting point for an investigation that would have to be done for every single person.  That is, IF we were to ban all Muslims from every/any country.


And remember, 50,000,000 people visit the US every year.

If you're going to edit the 1st, why not the 2nd (especially since he has been against ownership of "assault weapons" in the past)?

Oh really? I suppose your correct, if I havn't learned anything about Cincy's motivation in the last 20-30 Trump threads he's posted in, I doubt there is much left to learn.

 



Guess I'll just stay out of my depth and stupid. If that's your bias as is, then I have no reason to respond to your other post as well, since you're already assuming things.






No reason to jump through your hoops when you've already shown what is on the other side.








 Cheerio!













 

That is apparent.  People ask serious questions and provide substantive criticism of the viability and logistical reality Trump's "plan" and he takes it personal, as though HE is being criticized.  

If someone criticizes a Trump policy, it simply MUST be because of hate.   Just as all criticism of Obama is racist.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter

https://twitter.com/voxday

Not disagreeing.  Most countries have the capability to do this.

The issue comes in actually achieving it.  To do this there will be a cost, there has to be targeted approach, and you have to be able to identify those who you wish to prevent entry and for that identification process to be effective, or it won't be worth doing.

In addition there will be unforeseen consequences.  Economic impacts of cost and lost revenue.  There will also be legal challenges and other issues of possible economic sanction.  There will also be social impacts that will cause divisions.

In addition you need to how the strategic objectives of your enemy.  such proposals will bring about the alienation of people already in the US and could cause long term damage.   Not to mention that you will gain a reputation of being scared of muzzies, see them as the enemy and play directly into the hands of the extremists who are desperate to paint a picture of Islam vs the World to justify their fucked up death cults. They want maximum disruption, maximum cost, maximum fear and mistrust, and ideally they want the basis to be able to claim that a war is being waged on Islam to bolster their ranks.

There also has to be a timeframe for implementation, operation and closure.  It cannot be sustained indefinitely.  At the end of the action you need to know that you have achieved something, otherwise all you have done is delay the inevitable and found yourself back at square one, pissed off a lot of people in the process, spent a lot of money and achieved nothing.

While you are at it you may want to consider where this intervention is going to take place.  If it is on US borders alone  then you will have the cost of repatriation and welfare while people are awaiting assessment.  If it is done in foreign Ports of Origin then you are going to need a huge workforce, a widespread and secure infrastructure for assessments and intelligence sharing, and a means of rejecting people.  

This doesn't take into account the illegal routes, of course. That is another issue entirely.  You will of course make it far more profitable for people smugglers to make money and they will be offering their services.  In order to shut that down you will have to then build a wall.  Now, walls have a habit of failing.  Hadrian, Berlin, China, and just about every fortress or castle ever built have been breached or circumvented in some way.

Whatever you do, you need some measure by which to determine the effectiveness of what you are proposing. To know what those objectives are you need to know the scale of the problem you are facing and how to target it appropriately.  If you don't target it as effectively as you can the costs can and will exponentially rise.  This is why an intelligence led approach to the problem is preferable to a scatter gun approach of wide stretching bans over large fronts which are all but impossible to police effectively asa targeted intelligence led approach allows resources to be channeled effectively rather than spread thinly and with limited effect, and to target the key players with limited disruption to the wider principles of liberty and freedom.

So.....while the soundbite from Trump may sound appealing, the reality of implementing something like this is quite different, will have limited effect and be very costly.

Bill Gates and the Democrat Establishment. They'll call it Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality, The People's Internet


Bill Gates Backs Washington Initiative That Would End Private Property Rights Gun Ownership
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/11/15/bill-gates-backing-initiative-to-eliminate-private-gun-sales-in-washington-state/

Breitbart is speaking realtalk again.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/09/why-trumps-winning-9-things-the-dc-media-wont-tell-you-about-islam/

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Trump is the harbinger of the Zombie Apocalypse.  I friggin' knew it.

Haven't seen mdk89 post in awhile.


Maybe the rapture happened and he was the only one who got to go?

I don't have any lofty "principles" that are so important I wouldn't sacrifice them to exclude people from this country who will make life worse for me and my family.

As a non-muslim, I am aware that a literal reading of their holy texts encourages the use of violence to force non-muslims to convert, or die.


Since I just don't want to convert or die, and I don't want to have to look over my shoulder, it would be better for ME and MY family if muslims were prevented from coming here. I don't care if that isn't fair. I don't care if that is offensive. I don't even care if it is constitutional, frankly. The founders got a lot right, but they weren't infallible, or we wouldn't have these problems today. When my 2A rights are being infringed by codified law, and the right "shall not be infringed", I suggest the same level of "common sense restrictions" be applied to dangerous ideology being imported into this country. If we can ban the import of firearms without a "sporting purpose", then we can ban the import of religion that doesn't have a peaceful purpose.


Now all that said, it could be argued (I suppose) that it isn't fair, and that we all share the earth with each other, and that other people were here first (Indians) and that myself my family have no more claim to this country than anyone else. To that, I again say, "I don't care."  I'd also point out that the reason this continent was conquered was because the current residents at the time weren't able to defend themselves, and if they had the capability, they would have kept the Europeans out. They didn't and we won. Tough shit.


So now, a new wave of conquerors is flooding in on multiple fronts, and we have a choice to make. Unlike the Indians, we have the power to prevent it. We simply have to decide if we value our own self interest more than we value "moral high ground", because this is one of those times where principles will get you killed. Maybe not today, but within a few generations it will mean the end for western culture if we don't collectively decide we want to save ourselves at the cost of a lot of hurt feelings and triggering. There just is no way to save traditional American culture, customs and values without pissing off a lot of people and making them cry and hate us. And I don't care.