(December 8, 2015 at 3:29 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 8, 2015 at 3:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You must be blind. An organized military is forcibly gaining territory and sujectong those within its borders to its will while controlling the resources within that geographic area. That's what war looks like.

As I said, Bushite idiocy. The results are accordingly.

So you really think, conventional tactics will solve that problem? And, what you failed to answer, where's the muslim nation? You know, such as Germany or Japan. Where's that? Are muslims a nation?

It is fair to say that in the late 1930's and early 40' Germany was a Nazi nation. Likewise it would be fair to say that Japan at that time was an Imperial Shinto nation. Iran, Malaysia, and Libya are all 'Muslim' countries. When Trump says he wants to ban all Muslims his comment lacks any nuance whatsoever. I disagree with him as strongly and for the same reason as I disagree with you. Islam is not a monolith.

You've completely ignored all the carefully drawn distinctions of my first post. It's like ignoring that being Jewish is both a religious identity and an ethnicity. I know many Roman Catholics that no longer believe the doctrines or the authority of the Church and yet still consider themselves Catholic. You need to be clear about whether you are talking about a set of religious beliefs and practices (which are generally benign), a repressive political ideology, or cultural identity. The fact is that in "Islam" it is particularly difficult to make such distinctions. Those distinctions matter and have policy implications. Preventing the migration into the USA of Muslims from politically unstable regions means that a significant number of members will hold beliefs hostile to the USA. Our policy would most likely be more lenient to Turkish Muslims than Syrian ones.

There is no 'right to immigrate'. Only citizens have civil rights. Foreign nationals are not citizens. Therefore, no group of foreign nationals can claim that their civil rights have been violated by a country to which they do not belong.

And your point is, if there is one?

I see only rambling and the desperate try to find some meaning between this diarhea of words. Oh, and I see you not answering where the comparison between Japan and Germany comes in, since, last time I checked, these are nations - as opposed to what ...?

Three guesses, if you please.

(December 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

(December 8, 2015 at 4:25 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Congress can exempt laws from judicial review.

Technically this is correct to some extent, but no one has any idea to what extent.

---

It's been long agreed by just about everyone who's thought deeply about it (I know that's a total BS appeal to authority but I believe it's true) that one of the absolute worst things the government can do is get into the business of deciding whether someone's professed religious beliefs are sincere.  In order to ban muslims from entering the US, a determination about the sincerity of personal convictions would have to be made.

That way madness lies.

Congress includes a phrase in all laws that specifically allow for judicial review.  It could simply state that the law is not subject to judicial review and if the President signs it the court can never take a case involving it.

(December 8, 2015 at 5:48 pm)abaris Wrote: And your point is, if there is one?

I see only rambling and the desperate try to find some meaning between this diarhea of words. Oh, and I see you not answering where the comparison between Japan and Germany comes in, since, last time I checked, these are nations - as opposed to what ...?

Three guesses, if you please.

Ferdinand & Isabella kicked the muslims and Jews out of Spain without too much trouble and that was in 1492.  Maybe someone should resurrect them?

(December 9, 2015 at 1:28 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Ferdinand & Isabella kicked the muslims and Jews out of Spain without too much trouble and that was in 1492.  Maybe someone should resurrect them?

Aside from the tens of thousands of deaths, you mean?

No trouble at all!

(December 9, 2015 at 3:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 9, 2015 at 1:28 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Ferdinand & Isabella kicked the muslims and Jews out of Spain without too much trouble and that was in 1492.  Maybe someone should resurrect them?

Aside from the tens of thousands of deaths, you mean?

No trouble at all!

Are you saying that the Spanish should have continued to let the muslims & Jews rule them?

(December 9, 2015 at 1:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Congress includes a phrase in all laws that specifically allow for judicial review.  It could simply state that the law is not subject to judicial review and if the President signs it the court can never take a case involving it.

Really? I've never heard of that, can you link to an article which elaborates? Wouldn't that violate the entire concept of "checks and balances" that American government is built upon?

Turns out it's a little more complicated than Congress just adding a phrase:

Quote:Congress may not strip the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction over those cases that fall under the Court's original jurisdiction defined in the U.S. Constitution, and instead Congress can only limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in, "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party...."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

ChadWooters Wrote:First, I don’t support Trump. Got it, everyone? His comments lack nuance so I cannot be certain of his exact policy stance; yet I can conceive of an interpretation of his statements with which I could agree. Citizens of the United States are to be protected against discrimination on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, gender, and religion. Acceptance of those fleeing persecution and seeking refuge is a long-standing tradition of our country. Yet discriminating on the basis of national origin has been our practice under all previous Congresses, Courts and Administrations.

Placing restrictions upon foreign nationals coming into and residing in the USA is a necessary practice just as it is for other Western democracies. We place quotas on how many immigrants we willingly to legally accept from other countries. Those restrictions relate, not so much to the race or ethnicity; but rather on allegiances and respect. Qualifying immigrants willing to transfer their national allegiance to the US get accepted as legal citizens. Visiting foreign nations willing to respect the authority of the US get to live and work here on a qualified basis. It is right and proper to filter out  those who as citizens would put their allegiance elsewhere, particularly if their allegiance lies with nations wanting to harm the USA. Likewise, people who we suspect will not respect the legal authority of the USA and defy its foundational principles should be filtered out.

Country of origin, ethnic decent, and religious identity matter and can be a legitimate reasons for discrimination against foreign nationals under certain conditions. Historically, US citizens of German and Japanese decent were unjustly persecuted and detained. That was wrong. And yet, no one to my knowledge believes that the USA should have uncritically allowed Germans and Japanese nationals to enter US territory during a time of war.

It is foolish for us to deny that the adherents of some religious doctrines and political ideologies threaten peace in the US and the liberties of our people. It makes no difference if a hostile organization is political (National Socialism for example) or religious (Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS) in nature.  It is a fact that many devout Muslims from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries have no intention of respecting US legal authority, openly state their intentions to do harm, and are formally aligned with or tacitly supportive of hostile organizations. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with restricting a non-citizen’s access to the US if the nation from which he or she comes or the religion with which he or she identify calls into question their respect for their host nation.

It would have been madness to let in avowed Nazis during WWII and committed Soviet communist party members during the Cold War. The US did embrace some defectors but not before removing all suspicion that they would respect US sovereignty and did not pose a national security risk. Likewise it would have been madness to give any of those people a pass just because they belonged to a protected class. If some are coming to the US to impose Sharia, they aren’t welcome any more those in times past who wanted to actively undermine the institutions of our government, culture and business.

So, let's hear a quote from a Syrian refugee applying to live in the USA stating that they have no intention of respecting US legal authority, openly state intentions to do harm, and are formally aligned with or tacitly supportive of hostile organizations.

Keep out DAESH, sure. But you want to keep out the victims of DAESH. There's no reason to believe any of them are affiliated with DAESH, and no reason to think 18-24 months of checking them out won't turn up such connections if there are any.

You're not turning away Nazis, you're turning away Jews.

I'm surprised that anyone is taking Trump seriously, yet alone actually listening to his arguments. Building a wall along the Mexican border and getting Mexico to pay for it, how's he going to convince Mexic to pay for that then?

And banning Muslims even if they are American and are going on holiday? Won't that just stop Muslims going abroad? It's not like Muslims are given a different passport. All you need to do is to say a few words in front of another Muslim. Islam is a religion, not a race. So you can't test for it say by measuring the size of their noses like the Nazis did.

How do you test for someone being a Muslim even if they lie? You would have to employ the same techniques used in McCarthy era witch hunts. Because if you're doing it to stop terrorists entering the country, then you know, they might just lie about being a Muslim!

Not to mention all the Muslims in the US army.

And finally, "until we can figure out what is going on" ??? He's wanting to convince people that he is a suitable presidential candidate. Shouldn't he already know what is going on? So even assuming that no one in America has any expertise with Islam, how is banning Muslims supposed to acquire this information?

I personally signed the petition to have Donald Trump from ever entering the UK. It's currently approaching 190,000 signatures. Not necessarily because of his hate speech, after all, no one here is ever going to take him seriously. I signed because he's a fucking idiot.