Banning All Muslims to Immigrate to USA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be unconstitutional. In spirit if not in law but I think both. Our country's premise of freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our culture.

Sort of, certain religon value systems are in direct violation of the constitution and freedom.

That is not how the first amendment works.

It's perfectly legal to hate democracy and live here. It's perfectly legal to talk about it. It's not legal to kill people for it.

The first amendment doesn't discriminate against ideologies.

Well-said. Exactly correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be unconstitutional. In spirit if not in law but I think both. Our country's premise of freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our culture.

Sort of, certain religon value systems are in direct violation of the constitution and freedom.

That is not how the first amendment works.

It's perfectly legal to hate democracy and live here. It's perfectly legal to talk about it. It's not legal to kill people for it.

The first amendment doesn't discriminate against ideologies.

Is it legal to threaten to kill someone?

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the offiical statistics on refusal rates for B-1 (tourist) visas by country:
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/RefusalRates/FY15.pdf
Afghanistan is already at 61 % refusal rate.

I had a friend who worked in a US embassy approving visas. Most rejections are not for terrorism, but because there is belief the person intends to overstay their visa and/or work, which aren't allowed for this type of visa. So if you can't show strong ties back to your home country (property ownership, family, etc) you may be rejected. I also know a few people who were rejected (who happened to be white and not Muslim.. just because this was in Eastern Europe) -- typically people in their 20s with no strong ties to their home country.

This goes to my prior point - we already ban people from coming without any regulation or law directing the state department to do so. So arguably, Trump could direct the state department to make the refusal rate 100% for countries x,y, and z. Of course, this would not be a ban on Muslims but rather on all persons from those countries.

Why are you acting so dense. The PP pointed the reason - visitor visa is for visiting and immigrating. So, unless the visitor shows enough evidence to go back to the country of citizenship he is denied. Visa decision are many times reciprocative and affects international relations. It is not so simple to just banning citizens of a country without reason. Yes, a dictator can certainly do that. But hopefully you do not plan to elect Trump to be the dictator of US. Another aspect is a country who does not have a world leadership position can be unfair and many would not worry. However if US unilaterally bans citizens of some countries, it would create serious international relationship issues for us. In addition, how would that eliminate the perceived threat of Islamic radicalism? Muslims are citizens of Afghanistan and also citizens of Canada! Som terrorism around the world are perpetrated by British Muslims. Basically Trump is pointing his focus on the wrong target because he does not understand the complexity of this issue. Religion is not the problem, Hate is. Hate has no religion except may be Evil. No one is being apologetic. Trump and his supporters are blowing this incident disproportionately calling it Islamic Terrorism, to divert the attention from the real issue - semi automatic weapon in the hand of hateful angry person!

I am not trying to argue in favor of any ban. So many people asked how it could happen, and so as you said, Trump could effectuate a complete ban on a country if he chooses. If he were president. Unless there is some law against that which I am unaware of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be unconstitutional. In spirit if not in law but I think both. Our country's premise of freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our culture.

Sort of, certain religon value systems are in direct violation of the constitution and freedom.

That is not how the first amendment works.

It's perfectly legal to hate democracy and live here. It's perfectly legal to talk about it. It's not legal to kill people for it.

The first amendment doesn't discriminate against ideologies.

Is it legal to threaten to kill someone?

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html

Did I give that as an example of something legal? I don't see where I did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be unconstitutional. In spirit if not in law but I think both. Our country's premise of freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our culture.

Even if it were constitutional - it cannot be done. Islam is not written on the face of the person applying Visa.

It would require asking for someone's religion which we don't currently do and IMO is fundamentally unamerican

Even if it were not unamerican, there would be many who would not declare their true religion if that prohibits them from immigrate. The ones with any criminal activity in their mind will sure never declare it.

[Anonymous]

Crusades 2016

[Anonymous]

I spoke with a friend who is expat in Germany. The natives are at the end of the rope. Expats are planning their exit. I wonder why there is zero about this on CNN. (I really don't, but you might LOL)

[Anonymous]

So we have had this inclusive of Islam for 8 years and still get terrorised, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

[Anonymous]

My husband is from a country that would be identified as Muslim country. He is not a practicing Muslim - hasn't been to a Mosque since he was a small child. His passport from his home country identifies him as Muslim.

My question for you Trumpers is -- is my husband Muslim enough for the immigration ban? Is country of birth and religion of record from that county enough to forbid his entry under the new world order?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I spoke with a friend who is expat in Germany. The natives are at the end of the rope. Expats are planning their exit. I wonder why there is zero about this on CNN. (I really don't, but you might LOL)

Right? Breitbart London is on top of this issue in a huge way.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I spoke with a friend who is expat in Germany. The natives are at the end of the rope. Expats are planning their exit. I wonder why there is zero about this on CNN. (I really don't, but you might LOL)

One group of foreigners in Germany is upset about another group of foreigners in Germany? I can't imagine why that is not on CNN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is from a country that would be identified as Muslim country. He is not a practicing Muslim - hasn't been to a Mosque since he was a small child. His passport from his home country identifies him as Muslim.

My question for you Trumpers is -- is my husband Muslim enough for the immigration ban? Is country of birth and religion of record from that county enough to forbid his entry under the new world order?

The temporary band would cover those countries that engage in terror and that are having a current ongoing issue with terror. So you tell me.

[Anonymous]

^^ That's ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is from a country that would be identified as Muslim country. He is not a practicing Muslim - hasn't been to a Mosque since he was a small child. His passport from his home country identifies him as Muslim.

My question for you Trumpers is -- is my husband Muslim enough for the immigration ban? Is country of birth and religion of record from that county enough to forbid his entry under the new world order?

Not a trumper, but yes - he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is from a country that would be identified as Muslim country. He is not a practicing Muslim - hasn't been to a Mosque since he was a small child. His passport from his home country identifies him as Muslim.

My question for you Trumpers is -- is my husband Muslim enough for the immigration ban? Is country of birth and religion of record from that county enough to forbid his entry under the new world order?

Why does your husband still hold a foreign passport? Dual loyalties?