Trump wants to stop all Muslims from coming into the US

He does. Though he's not clear about stopping Muslims who are US citizens from returning.

Many are screaming in outrage, but most people seem to agree that Muslims don't really belong here.

Vox on Trump and Islam

Donald Trump has a base: 76% of Republicans think Islam is un-American

A full 76 percent of Republicans, currently Donald Trump's target audience, see Islam's values — and thus, presumably, the Muslims who adhere to them — as incompatible with the American way of life.

And a majority of the general public agrees with them! Fifty-six percent of all Americans in the survey agreed Islamic values are incompatible with American values — as a did substantial minority of Democrats (43 percent). Hostility toward Muslims and Islam is fairly popular, as far as bigotry goes.​

It looks like too many Americans have read surveys of Muslims, and how 25 percent think terrorist attacks against America are justified and how half think they should live under sharia. Truth be told, we all know their medieval values are incompatible. Women are not property. You can't collect wives like pets. You can't force others to submit to your religion. You can't go around executing gay people.

Nobody in either party has been willing to even hint such thoughts, but Trump just reached out and grabbed that rail with both hands, perhaps because Obama is so insistent on allowing tens of thousands of Syrians to come here when even the Gulf states won't let them in, as they'e a security risk even to Muslims.

Apparently the Obama Administration knows about ISIS plans to infiltrate as refugees (warning - The Hill autoplays news blurbs).

Intelligence officials have determined that Islamic extremists have explored using the refugee program to enter the United States, they told the head of the Homeland Security Committee.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) revealed portions of a classified letter from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) on Monday, which offered new claims not previously disclosed by the Obama administration.

The disclosure could give ammunition to critics of the White House’s refugee plans who have warned that the program is vulnerable to infiltration by adherents of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The NCTC has identified “individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria attempting to gain entry to the U.S. through the U.S. refugee program,” the intelligence agency told McCaul in a letter.

“The refugee system, like all immigration programs, is vulnerable to exploitation from extremist groups seeking to send operatives to the West,” the agency added, noting that a small number of Iraqi refugees were arrested on terror charges in 2010.
​

Like everyone except Obama didn't already know that.

But the risk of infiltration through the Southern and Canadian borders will remain real until either party is willing to actually do something regarding the illegal immigration they keep winking at.

Brief summary:

1) Unconstitutional
2) Ineffective
3) Pointless
4) Overreaction
5) Executive overreach

@gturner is clearly in favour of this fascist measure. Would he like to repeal the first amendment to the US constitution?

So, the refugee screening currently in place is working?

I mean, that's how they identified these attempted infiltration events, isn't it?

So where, exactly, has Obama gone wrong (other than his name, political affiliation, skin colour and attitude, all of which only count if you are gturner or one of the other more deluded right-wingers)?

It's not unconstitutional. It's even current US law that people can be denied entry if they pose a potential risk to US security, and under current US law you could question whether Muslims are already banned, since they all participate in religious persecution.

It might also be effective. If no new Muslims were coming to the US then they'd have a harder time striking the US, as they'd depend on recruiting Mulsims who are already here. The fewer Muslims we have, the fewer Muslims we have to watch out for, and it seems the new arrivals are the biggest threat.

Under Bush we worked to accept pro-Western Muslims, often ones who had worked hand-in-hand with us. A few extremists still got through, but it was part of helping those who helped us.

Trumps position seems to be a response to Obama's insistence that we take in tens of thousands of Syrians, almost all of whom have been taught to hate the United States since they were small children. It would make more sense to take Muslims from countries that are allies, like Pakistan and the Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia. Oh wait... That didn't work out well either.

It all comes down to the problem that out of political correctness, politicians won't even say "Islamic extremist". Nor will they admit that "the vast majority of Muslims" (a phrase they love) don't actually oppose jihad or sharia. So whereas Muslims themselves will talk about all the different branches and philosophies within Islam, we won't. That leaves us with no way to differentiate between Salafists and Sufis, Sunnis and Shias. It leaves us unable to select for Muslims who want to get out because they're fed up with Islamists and the Islamists they're fed up with.

So Trumps response is simple. If we can't tell who's who then keep them all out.

No, the refugee screening isn't working. New arrivals are showing up at Christmas parties and slaughtering everyone.

The refugee screening cannot work based on documentation and papers because Syria is awash with forged documents and we're committed to overthrowing its government, so they're not going to verify anything for us. And since we're politically correct, we can't ask religious questions.

One of the almost infinite ways Obama has gone wrong is to deny refugee status to the Middle East's religious minorities like Christians and Yazidis. The groups that we know pose absolutely no terrorist threat and that we know are facing religious persecution, and in some cases genocide, aren't allowed in, but radical Muslims are. That's probably because Obama loves radical Muslims and despises Christians.

Have you ever heard the propaganda that Syria pumps out for the past, oh, half century? It's much like Iranian or Palestinian propaganda. Their newspapers are online you know, and have been since before the Iraq War. I used to read them. You see, America backs Syria's great enemy, the evil Zionist Jews. The chaos along the Syrian/Israeli border has allowed some Syrians to actually meet Israelis and give interviews about it. They were shocked to learn that the Israelis are actually nice people who aren't trying to kill their babies.

That actually just happened, in case you missed the news last week.

No it didn't. You'll want to be more precise in your wording when you're using it to punish millions of people for the actions of one.

Exactly.

We did this in WWII, and caught a whooping zero Japanese spies from it.

But we didn't let Japanese keep coming to the US, did we.

It's also completely Constitutional, and would be a return to historical US immigration policies. For decades we kept most everyone from Eastern and south central Europe from coming here because they tended to do things like blow up factories and assassinate US presidents. There is no "right to immigrate" in the Constitution, and we used to refuse people for being sick or from countries that we thought were full of stupid people.

Farook was born in Illinois, you twat.

And his wife was here on a spousal visa, not the refugee system.

Neither are Syrian in any way.

Again, you twat.

No, we rounded up our own citizens, many of whom had never set foot on Japanese soil and some who went on to serve in the U.S. Military while their families were shipped off to glorified concentration camps.

Some of those camps were in Idaho and from the accounts I've read they weren't exactly "glorified" although I guess there weren't many who starved to death there.

And thus the genius of what Trump is suggesting. Since everybody refuses to do anything else that might actually work, just ban all the Muslims and the problem of Muslim terrorism in the US is solved. Back when we had zero Muslims living in the US, we had zero Muslim attacks. Europe didn't have Muslim attacks either, because until after World War I Muslims weren't allowed to live outside countries that enforced sharia. It was a limitation that their own imams made, and one based on the Koran and Hadith that said Muslims had to live in the caliphate, the Dar-al-Islam.

So non-Muslims didn't have to give much thought to Muslim extremists unless they lived in Muslim lands, or lands the Muslims contested. They did their child-rapey wife-beatey stuff and we ignored them and they ignored us. The friction and danger comes when non-Muslims mix with "modern" Middle Eastern Muslims, who have been taught that Islamic supremacy is still the word of the day.

There were none who starved to death, though some died of diabetes and heart disease. Anyone who wanted to leave the camps to go to college, at government expense, could do so, and did. Harvard, Yale, UMass, you name it.

And not surprisingly, the opposition to the internment came from Republicans who said it was both stupid and immoral.

The L.A. Times had legal scholars from USC and UCLA look at this and they said it was entirely legal as the constitution only effects citizens and residents not dirty foreigners but it would require an act of congress to be put into effect. Something he is not likely to get.

Anyways, this is classic Trump when he is down in the polls (he is up nationally but down in places like Iowa) he throws out shockers like this as it gets him back into the headlines. He will just as likely flip flop the second the polls favor him doing it.

By my way of reading what Trump said though, it COULD be interpreted as not allowing American citizens who are Muslims and who have been overseas from returning to the U.S. and I think that would be blatantly unconstitutional. A 14th amendment violation at the very least.

Perhaps Trump meant something different. But I'm reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The US should take half the Syrian refugees that Europe has taken in. Minus the ones that have gone to Germany since the Germans have happily taken in as many Syrians that have managed to make it to the Fatherland.
The US has helped to foster the Syrian civil war since its inception and thus are partly responsible for the refugee crisis so should take their fair share. Not only that, it was US-led intervention in Iraq that ultimately gave rise to ISIS which has also exacerbated the refugee situation.
Someone should remind the dumbass supporters of Trump and others opposed to Syrians going to America of these facts. If you want to create refugees then be ready to take them in, assholes.

If you guys want to commit suicide that is your business but I am happy to say we shall not.

He said one thing, his spokesman said another. Muslims who are US citizens are a problem, although the vast majority of them are just fine people. Some are porn stars. Those get death threats from other American Muslims for disgracing Islam.

But as Europe is finding out, the problem with Muslim citizens grows with the number of Muslims you allow to immigrate. France can kick out the non-citizens but is stuck with the rest. In many cases they haven't integrated and will never integrate. They will always be a threat until they chill out, marry a Jewish girl, and walk away from Islamic nonsense.

So what Trump suggests is simple. Stop admitting more because we can't even be sure about the ones we've already got. And it resonates. Given that there are people on the other side of the planet who desperately want to kill you, take your stuff, and rape your wife, why on Earth would you want to invite them to live next door? If we don't want to live with those people (and how many of us are looking at apartment rentals anywhere in the Middle East?), why should we have to live with those people. It's our country, not theirs.

I don't see why anyone would oppose admitting Syrian refugees as long as they were women, children, and the aged. I would say no to unmarried men of military service age (something like 15-50).

Why the fuck would we want to take in the people we're bombing? People get pissy about that. "Hey neighbor! Did you see today's footage of where we blew up your mother with a smart bomb?! Awesome, eh? And yes, it's all our fault because we armed the rebels, but we thought it would be funny."

Even if we take the dimmest view of US actions possible, note that Mafia hit-men do not invite their victim's families to come live with them.

"Dirty foreigners". Why don't you go fuck yourself, you xenophobic, bigoted lump of shit? A Nazi by any other name ladies and gentlemen. You remind me of this.

As for it being entirely legal, that's highly debatable. Trump isn't just talking about banning Muslims coming to the US. He's also talking about profiling and registering all Muslims (you know, like putting a gold star on someone's chest). That's religious discrimination, and your First Amendment prohibits religious discrimination by the state. It isn't that it applies to inbound immigrants directly. It is that it applies to the authorities of the United States. What you, and these supposed "legal scholars" are saying is that the institutions of the United States should be free to ignore the principles of free exercise of religion in the constitution when exercising immigration control. You are saying that if someone is an immigrant and they meet all the legal requirements of entry, you still want to exclude them based on religion and only religion. Aside from the fact that it breaches international laws to which the US is a party, and aside from the fact that it could create a breakdown of family units and family contact between first and second generation immigrant families (which in of themselves raise further legal issues), what you are in effect saying is that the natural human rights that should apply to all people, one of which is freedom is religion, should and can be ignored if the person is of a certain profile. That is exactly the same attitude as was used the US and British Empire in the slave trade and the Germans during the Third Reich. It's an attitude that we can use religion, race or nationality as a reason to treat others as sub-human. So even if it were to be technically legally possible in terms of the constitution, it cannot be morally correct.

Which is why I couldn't stand the audacity of Cheney coming out and laying into Trump today. Did he feel this way when he was dropping bombs on Iraq women and children? When he left office and left the instability for another administration to clean up? Like hell he did.