Trump wants to stop all Muslims from coming into the US

Consistently polls have shown 25% support terrorism while majorities believe sharia law should be enforced, that women are inferior to men, and that apostates or anyone who speaks out against Islam should be killed. Those are people who are antithetical to our way of life and who should not be let in. Sadly, there is no reliable way to seporate so called good muslims from the bad especially since so called good muslims so often radicalize and become bad ones. The religion is an evil one and has no place in a civilized society.

There was a whole thread where such poll numbers were discussed.

quote="NAHTMMM, post: 2790701, member: 76"]I think by this point, any headline of an article about Donald Trump's antics can safely be replaced with "Trump is an idiot" without losing any accuracy.[/quote]

Not quite. Eugene Volokh and other legal scholars are weighing in. Though he doesn't agree with banning Muslims entirely, he finds it's Constitutionally permissible based on many precedents. The US has often blocked entry to people from troublesome regions.

A fundamental problem is that political correctness prevents us from weighing people from the region based on their views of religion and culture. There are millions of people in Muslim countries who would love to get away from radical Islam and live normal lives. But we don't screen for that. We keep letting in ones who want to come here to bring Islam to the US and make sharia the law of the land.

Again. How would Donald screen people for teh Islam? Genetically? By looking at them? By waiting if they start praying the next time they have to? Questionnaire? Ahnenpass?

But hey, it's the totally fantastic and unhateful, not-at-all-catering-to-the-dumbest idea that counts. Thinking about it for half a second? Overrated. Applauding it? Telling more about you than about the certifyable idiot

You know what? I'm afraid that there will be a President Elect Donald Trump on November 9th, 2016. Because people just don't learn. They are unwilling to. Bush Jr. wasn't enough obviously.

They could ask "Are you a muslim?" From there you look at their country of citizenship and what their name is, interrogate them and ask them questions, if they are allowed in and later it turned out they lied then they lied on an official document so they can be imprisoned, deported, or punished in anyway the co gress should so decide. This would not be 100% effective but it would be well over 90% effective.

First, he's wanting to stop immigration from Muslim countries, so the default assumption is that people from those countries are Muslim. But he's fine with taking in non-Muslims, so you would ask people a half-dozen religious questions drawn of a list. It's pretty fucking trivial. Can the recite the Lords prayer or do they recite the shahada? Religion involves lots of little rituals and recitations that are very hard to fake without a lot of exposure. The prayers, hymns, and stories are completely different. Muslims over there have never needed to hang out in a Christian church (except as a convenient firing position) and Christians are not allowed pray or sing loud enough for any Muslim to hear.

So a Muslim radical intent on bringing violent Jihad to American shores wouldn't lie about it to immigration?

Kinda like those "No Guns Allowed" signs are supposed to stop criminals from shooting up the place?

Simple, make each one wear a big yellow crescent on his lapel.

Unless it impacted my Grandfather (or more recent family up to the present) it is not relevant.

Er, ethnic ancestry isn't subject to your arbitrary rules.

Of course it wouldn't stop them. It just makes it easier to prosecute and deport (and, indeed such questions already appeal on immigration forms in the UK). How dumbass @Dinner can get a 90% effectiveness rate from a measure that is about what you do after a crime is committed, is anyone's guess.

As for "asking if they're a Muslim and then looking at their name" is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read. First, a huge number of Muslims don't use Islamic names, but instead have Persian, Chinese, Russian and Western names, to name but a few. Second, there are people born with Muslim names who have since converted to other religions or pursued atheism. So, forget about religious discrimination for a minute, what about non-Muslims who get accused of being Muslims because of, say, where they come from, their name or their nationality?

How, for instance, is @Dinner going to stop a white Canadian named Robert Smith who has converted to Islam, has become radilcalised online and intends to commit an offence (thus denying he is a Muslim)? Check to see if he has a beard? Ban all men with beards from the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!

Religious discrimination notwithstanding, the whole thing is ridiculously ill thought out and impossible to implement in practice. Pity there are so many dumb shits out there suckling on Trump's teat to stop and thing about it for a second.

How isn't it relevant if it's part of you DNA?

You have a reading comprehension problem, Chup. I already said it would not be perfect but we could get the vast majority of them wrt immigation. Try reading more.

Save that I already referred to your "vast majority" in my post, so I think it's you that cannot read.

The vast majority of terrorists use false identities, false passports and do not overtly behave religiously. All an ISIS fighter has to do is buy a false identity off the black market and use it to enter, while saying he isn't a Muslim. Or, alternately, border hop and enter illegally. So what then genius? You say, look at the name or the country they're from. What of the literally millions of Muslims who don't have Islamic name and/or come from Muslim minority countries? What then? Take your best guess? You have offered no realistic explanation of how this would work, and how you would stop "90%". Remember that I have worked in the field of immigration for 17 years and that is how I know just how ridiculous your claims and proposals are.

Truth is, you aren't going to stop 90%, which is a random figure you pulled out your arse. Do you know the vast majority of the people you would stop? Those who are honest and have no intention of committing a crime.

You dip and dodge around most of the points I and others have made in this threat because you know that none of the drivel you have come out with stands up to intelligent, critical analysis and a little education. The fact that you've now had to go back to cowering behind the "dumb" rating says it all.

ISIS have killed more Muslims than anyone else - Muslims who did not agree with their idea of Islam.

That is also persecution. Frankly I don't even think you know what the word means.

You are arguing with an idiot. None of his ideas work from a practical standpoint, and even if they did, they won't achieve what he seeks, because they miss the target.

I have two friends who converted to Islam as adults, both born and raised in New York, very white, very anglo names, etc. Neither practice the form of Islam Dinner believes is true for all of them, but what if they did? He would not be able to identify them as Moslems.

But Trump isn't saying his plan would stop all attacks by well coordinate Jihadists. The intent is not to have millions of Muslims where the jihadists can breed, and to stop vast number of refugees like we see in Europe where planting unlimited numbers of jihadists among them is trivial.

People look at the photos of those massive streams of migrants and see fighting age males - and lots of them, and people read all the stories about the nightmare problems up and down the line, all the way to the resettlement centers. And the problem doesn't really go away. Most of the Paris attackers were French, born and raised. The California jihadist grew up there. The are easily radicalized online, and if you get a bunch of them together as a community they often self radicalize, constantly engaging in nasty looking protests in the UK and elsewhere, often torching cars.

Why would any sane person want more of that?

I prefer Rand Paul's approach.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ia-subject-french-citizens-to-waiting-period/

Yup, aside from the practicality of his plan and the fact that it is morally corrupt, he tactically avoided my question a few pages back on what his plan is for the 2 million Muslims already in America. The internet and ISIS isn't confined by borders. The London and Paris attacks both prove that the danger from those radicalised in their own homes is just as great as those coming from abroad. He offers no comment on that, because he knows he hasn't got one short of an even more Nazi like proposal.

I know his argument is idiotic, but I just didn't figure that Dinner with this stupid. But on this he makes Dayton look wise and articulate.

See, that is why you are so stupid. Yes, of course there is a risk that Jihadists will hide away among refugees, but they will be a small minority of those refugees, the others of whom are fleeing the very people you are accusing them of being. But Jihadists also hide away among all kinds of ethnic groups, nationalities and are often home grown, as you acknowledge yourself.

You're saying that religious profiling is acceptable and banning 1.4 billion Muslims from entering the US is going to be necessary to stop a small handful of 9000 odd refugees created by the conflict in Syria traveling into the US - all the while not stopping home grown Muslims at all or those with false identities or who hide their religion. It's like you're trying to hit a few fleas with a steam roller, only to have most of them slip through the cracks anyway.

You haven't thought this through have you?

Ignoramus.

DNA isn't destiny El Chup.

I notice that people like Chup never complains that the gulf countries never take their trashy, arrogant, and violent coreligionists. The reason is clear, they know these people are violent welfare leaches and even if they agree with the violent jihad, as they surely do, the gulf states know they are also worthless paracites. They know that they are worthless, they know they will not work, they know they will just sit there sucking up welfare and plotting violent insurrection.

This is why their coreligionists will not take them. That is just a reality. This is also why western countries should not take them. It is a muslim problem for muslims, as evil and debauched as they are, to solve. The west gains nothing by pretending muslim problems are some how the problems of the west.

Saying that we can't stop terrorism because we already have two million Muslims here is just admitting that in retrospect, it was a profound mistake to let them in.

Let's not compound that mistake by letting more in. Just today UK police said Trump was right. There are "no-go zones" in London where the police won't even wear a uniform.

Why should any sane person invite in foreigners that want to kill us? After all, we are the "Great Satan".

What absolute and utter horseshit. I am a Londoner, and I have friends who are in the police and I can assure you there are no such places...and the Prime Minister and Mayor of London have both resolutely and rightly slammed Trump's comments as totally fictitious, because they are. You are parrot parroting the usual sensationalist tabloid garbage you get from the Daily Mail, all based on alleged quotes from supposed police officers, none of whom are named. This, in actual fact, is what the police have actually said:-

An expression that comes from Iran, not the Sunni Muslims that create these radicals. Get your fucking facts right.

Yeah. Britain has no problems with Muslims. None at all. Nobody in Europe does. No siree.

What does that even mean?

Your destiny hasn't exactly worked out for you so far has it?

Besides that, Scopes.com has proven that to be false.

Also, these.

Could be better. Could be worse. I figure overall I'm getting about what I deserve.

Arguably more.

I'll bet they can't even spell either.