Donald Trump

Trump's Muslim Ban is a Vile Joke That GOP Contenders Don't Have the Guts to Take On

He is the Manchurian candidate

|

As self-parody goes, Donald Trump's doubling down on his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the country — "till

Donald Trump Mouth
Todd Krainin

we have figured out what's going on" — on the debate stage last night can't be beat. And then, as if that was not enough, he even invoked unnamed Muslim friends who allegedly support his ban. "My Muslim friends, some, said, "thank you very much; we'll get to the bottom of it."

There is no reason to believe that these Muslim friends of Trump exist any more than the "thousands of Muslims" in New Jersey who he said he saw cheering the 9-11 attack. But one reason Trump keeps getting away with such nonsense is that mature, rational people simply don't know how to respond to such grade-school-level absurdity. A religious test on travellers to the country would almost certainly not pass constitutional muster except in a dire emergency. Trump had previously said the ban wouldn't apply to Muslim citizens. So, mercifully, Kareem Abdul Jabbar would still be able to come and go freely from the country. But it would presumably apply to any family members of  American Muslims abroad. Such a penalty on American Muslims without any individualized finding of danger would violate the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion and be constitutionally questionable.

 You obviously can't try and explain such intricacies to a nasty hare-brain who trucks in inflammatory bromides. So what do you do? Condemn him? Ignore him? The first would be the most honorable course and the second understandable. But what the GOP luminaries actually did – i.e. sing and dance to Trump's tune – was neither. The only exception was Jeb Bush.

John Kasich, who had previously called Trump's suggestion "outrageous," seemed to back off on the debate stage last night. He countered Trump's blanket ban with his own mini-ban on Syrian refugees. Chris Christie seconded this idea while rattling his saber even louder. He said he wouldn't allow "Syrian refugees of any kind." Given that there are plenty of Christians among the Syrian refugees, this arguably goes even further than Trump's Muslim ban.

Marco Rubio, the erstwhile immigrant friendly candidate, didn't endorse any specific ban but just muttered vaguely that when he's president, "If we do not know who you are, and we do not know why are you coming…you are not getting into the United States of America." OK. But it's not like immigration authorities are currently rolling out the red carpet for any and all foreigners no questions asked. They stop people for the most trivial reason. (My 25-year-old Hindu cousin in India was refused three times for just a tourist visa, apparently, because she was a single woman at the time and so might have gotten married here or found a job and never left. Never mind that she is perfectly content in India and wouldn't accept a green card even if it was offered to her on a silver platter. Not even a letter from my local Congressman with the visa application persuaded the American consulate in India.) So what Rubio is suggesting is already policy, but, it makes him sound like a tiger and that's all that matters next to a pitbull like Trump.

Not to be outdone, Cruz bared his teeth and countered Trump's Muslim ban with a proposal to take away the passport of American jihadis. "If an American goes and wages jihad against America, then you forfeit your citizenship," Cruz said, adding that reentry to the country with a US passport would be blocked. Actually, if you go jihadi, you don't just lose your passport, you go to jail for a very long time. Just ask John Walker Lindh.

And then there was Ben Carson, who was constantly tickled into giggles by his own lines. He made the unfunny – and unremarkable – suggestion to get a "group of experts together… " in order to "come up with new guidelines for visas." But this is a copout masquerading as a plan.

Clearly, they were all uncomfortable with Trump's ban. But none of them were comfortable saying so – except for Jeb Bush who repeated that Trump's suggestion was "unhinged." A blanket ban on all Muslims would mean banning Kurds, who are America's chief allies in the battle against ISIS (as I wrote this morning) and Muslims from India and Indonesia, both friendly countries, he noted. (He might have also added Turkey, Malaysia, Albania and numerous others to the list.) This policy, he pointed out, would make it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS:

We cannot be the world's policeman. We can't do this unilaterally. We have to do this in unison with the Arab world. And sending that signal makes it impossible for us to be serious about taking out ISIS and restoring democracy in Syria.

This was Jeb's finest hour on the stage but why didn't his fellow contestants back him?

The answer obviously is that they are afraid of Trump. Trump, as Abdul Jabbar has pointed out, is ISIS's greatest triumph. "[He's the] perfect Manchurian Candidate who, instead of offering specific and realistic policies, preys on the fears of the public, doing ISIS's job for them."

This callow man has infiltrated the Republican Party and turned it into the party of gloom and doom. It remains to be seen if he'll go much further. Regardless, given that his fear-mongering is now setting the GOP's tune, it should rename itself the CLP (Chicken Little Party).

NEXT: Liberals Are Simple-Minded

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I was walking in the hallway at lunch time, and I was behind a pair of 50-ish women who clearly work in the factory. One of the women apparently watched all of the Republican debate and was saying lots of positive things about Trump.

    50-year-old woman, blue-collar, union factory worker in Iowa saying positive things about Trump. The world has tipped over sideways, and Hillary Clinton is fucked regardless of who is nominated by the Republicans.

    1. I actually think that is quite understandable. Trump appeals to those who feel disenfranchised, as most populist demagogues do. And the traditional blue-collar union members have been getting the shaft from the Dems for a while now,.

      1. Trump pulling in the Reagan Democrats. Economic and International insecurity.

        1. Stop indulging Tulpa, por favor.

          1. So sorry. I have been too busy to keep up with the revolving handles.

            1. Chemjeff isn’t too bad. He disagrees with a lot of people here on “Syrian refugees”, but he’s pretty good about reading the source material being discussed and backing himself up with links. No need to ignore him.

                1. Uh no.

                  Been hanging out since 2004 or thereabouts.

                  Been too fucking tired of having the same fucking discussion over and over again with a rotating cast of characters to pay too much attention to H&R over the last 3 or 4 months.

                  1. Not you, Illocust. Also, 2004? WHO LET OLDZ IN?

                    1. I’m even older than you think I am.

                    2. This website ruined my life forever when I first found it in 2007.

                    3. I arrived here fresh out of the womb in 2013.

                    4. I arrived here fresh out of the womb in 2013.

                      *millenial high-five*

                    5. I arrived here during the great porn outage of 2008

                  2. “Been too fucking tired of having the same fucking discussion over and over again with a rotating cast of characters”

                    What about abortion?

                    Maybe we could talk about abortion.

                    What do you think about abortion?

                    P.S. Abortion.

      2. Bernie appeals to the same people. Which is why I won’t be surprised to see a Trump-Sanders contest this November. (Of course, in that case, I’ll be saying, like Henry Kissinger, “Can’t we fix it so they both lose.”)

    2. People are just sick of PC, like for reals this time.

      Progressive puritanism is on the wane. It’ll fade even further when Obama is gone.

      The campaign makes people imagine a future without Obama, and it makes them feel like the sun is coming out again. They remember when they weren’t supposed to hate themselves for being white, middle-class, or heterosexual, and it makes them feel all tingly inside.

      That’s why people like Trump. He’s the anti-Obama.

      1. Just as Obama was the anti-Bush. So who will be the anti-Trump? Gary Johnson?

        1. Obama wasn’t exactly the anti-Bush, not like Trump is the anti-Obama.

          Whatever else Obama actually is, he’s seen as the Social Justice Warrior in Chief. Even the things Obama does on the economy are seen through the lens of social justice.

          And Trump is a total complete mirror opposite of that brand of PC. Trump’s success is a dramatic reaction to seven years of PC sensibilities taken to such extremes that comedians claim it’s too dangerous for them to be funny anymore.

          Bush and Obama were practically one in the same from TARP to the Iraq War to domestic surveillance and free healthcare.

          1. What a country! We follow Our First Black President with our first White Nationalist president! Do we got diversity or what?

        2. Obama was the same policies as Bush but with a healthcare reform and post-racial America cherry on top. I really liked Jerryskids’ post a few days ago. *Ahem*

          The motor is sputtering and all the mechanics under the hood have been arguing over what exactly the problem is and how to fix it, they’ve each taken turns trying their own suggested fixes and nothing seems to have worked. But you’ve still got that one guy over there, the one guy who’s been insisting all along the way to fix it is to whack the fuck out of the battery with this big goddamn sledgehammer. And people keep seeing the failure of the mechanics to fix the motor and they’re starting to think it couldn’t hurt to let that guy with the sledgehammer have a try. It’s not like whacking the fuck out of the battery with a big goddamn sledgehammer could make things any worse, could it? Let’s watch the video and see what happens next. The results probably won’t surprise you.

          Sanders/Trump 2016! Clownshow for the donkeybrains!

        3. Obama presented as the anti-Bush, but he was basically pre-op. Once we got to know him, you could see that he was really just cross-dressing for the role, and was still a fully equipped authoritarian warmonger a-hole.

        4. Who’ll be the Anti-Trump in 4 or 8 yrs.? That’s a good one. Paul Rubens? Jello Biafra?

      2. The union was fucked by Obamacare. The union has been fucked by offshoring. The union in Iowa is comprised by mostly middle-aged white people. Muslim immigrants have two strikes against them now, terrorism and economics. Trump is pounding on both of those.

        1. I would add that Iowa’s private-sector union “workers” have also been sold a bill of goods by Iowa’s relatively large public-sector unions (“non-workers”) and their handlers.

          1. I am in the Iowa-City/Cedar-Rapids corridor. And you?

                1. Unfortunately, not as cool as we hoped after moving back from Princeton (NJ, not IA)…

                  1. It would be hard for Ames to be worse that living in or near the People’s Republic of Johnson County.

      3. Apt description KS. Obama was very electable while Trump is totally unelectable.

    3. This is why blue-collar know-nothings probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

      Hillary can easily beat Trump. Not sure if you noticed but picking on minorities is not exactly a winner at elections.

        1. No he’s not retard. Learn to read. And do something about your color blindness.

      1. You’re saying that middle aged blue collar women should’t be allowed to vote? That they are all no nothings? As far as hillary easily beating trump, they have been talking about trump’s demise from day one. She will also beat a rubio, or cruz.

  2. “Chris Christie seconded this idea while rattling his saber even louder. He said he wouldn’t allow “Syrian refugees of any kind.” Given that there are plenty of Christians among the Syrian refugees, this arguably goes even further than Trump’s Muslim ban.”

    Well, that’s not true. Christie, and the others, were careful to distinguish between profiling based on nationality or place of residence, rather than religion.

    I’m not in favor of either Christie or Trump, but at least Christie is not saying to ban an entire religion.

      1. I have told you time and time again that I am not Tulpa and I have no idea even who Tulpa is. I”m beginning to think that “Tulpa” is some fictional Emmanuel Goldstein-like character against whom Reasonites express their 2 minutes of hate.

        I freely confess that I am not a strict down-the-line capital-L Libertarian. I consider myself halfish-conservative and halfish-libertarian, who, with the rise of Trump, quite frankly, is feeling a bit alienated by Republicans nowadays. I’m here to engage in friendly dialogue, if that is possible. I don’t share all your views but I can guarantee that I am more than halfway on your side when it comes to most issues. I don’t see the point of telling those who are at least friendly to your position to “fuck off” if we aren’t strict capital-L Libertarians.

        1. You’re not Tulpa and don’t know who Tulpa is, but somehow respond to the accusation of being Tulpa in the exact same manner as Tulpa. Hmm…

          1. How should I know how Tulpa responds to things?

            I don’t know what it would take to convince you that I’m not Tulpa.

            And why can’t you even discuss issues on their merits instead of bringing up some potentially imaginary bogeyman? Seems to me it is just a rhetorical device to get opponents to shut up instead of engage in their arguments. “Oh look over there, it’s THE OTHER, turn your backs away from him…”

            1. Here a Tulpa, there a Tulpa, everywhere a Tulpa, Tulpa!

            2. Tulpa is not imaginary. He stank up this board for months, if not years awhile back. He was known for changing his handle and he was known for not arguing in good faith and for repeating arguments that had been repeatedly refuted. Some of the other commenters are very anti-Tulpa, as you can see. So anyone who talks like Tulpa and has views like Tulpa is assumed to be Tulpa. Sorry, but you’re just going to have to deal with the hate. The original Tulpa destroyed a lot of our tolerance for people with your political views.

              1. Well thank you for the explanation. I sincerely don’t try to argue in bad faith, although sometimes it is difficult to express intentions via the Internet. I am willing to listen to what you all have to say about things, which is why I’m here. If I just wanted to hear Republican talking points I would hang out at redstate or something.

              2. Some of the other commenters are very anti-Tulpa

                Tell me who is pro-Tulpa and I shall smite them.

                1. *points at Epi, chortles under his breath*

                  1. *waits for Epi to get bashed over head with giant dildo by SF, ala ‘Clockwork Orange’*

                    1. *waits for Epi to get bashed over head with giant dildo by SF, ala ‘Clockwork Orange’*

                      “I, Caligula Caesar, command in the name of the senate and the people of Rome. Rome! Rome! Rome! Caesar! Caesar! Rome! Rome! Rubbish! Rubbish!”

                2. I’m actually annoyed when new commenters are routinely accused of being Tulpa. I’m pretty sure there’s more than one conservative who disagrees with libertarians and can write in complete sentences.

                  1. Hitler?

                    1. This may be an ignorant question, but I’m new enough here (circa 2012) to not remember the original Tulpa. Was/is he more of a traditional conservative — like that guy who always went to the mat to defend any and all cops? Or is he more of a lefty progressive a la Red Tony, Palin’s Buttplug, or Jackass?

                      I’m just curious.

                    2. Tulpa’s views were mostly libertarian with a propensity for extreme heterodoxy, particularly when it came to law-and-order issues. He’s not a boogeyman because of his views, it’s because of his complete dishonesty combined with a truly repellant personality. He had a pathological need to be the smartest guy in the room and would come up with new handles in an attempt to make himself and his positions look better. When he screwed up and let this fact come to light, what little was left of his reputation went to hell.

                      You should recognize the handle if you were around in 2012. He skunked umpteen threads shilling for Romney and accusing the board of generally not being anti-Obama enough.

                  2. I’m not sure, you guys, but I think grizzly might be Tulpa.

                    ; )

              3. So anyone who talks like Tulpa and has views like Tulpa is assumed to be Tulpa.

                Huh? Unless I’m missing something, the original post, the one that provoked the “Fuck off Tulpa” response, didn’t express any particular views at all, but made a factual clarification, explaining that Christie’s proposal was, unlike Trump’s directed at the geographic origin of the refugees he would exclude and not at their religion. Maybe he incorrectly characterized Christie’s proposal, but that’s a factual issue, not one about “views.”

                1. Tulpa is a grade-A pedant who loves to argue materially unimportant minutiae like that. That tic trips the Tulpdar of the most committed Tulpa hounds.

                  1. Tulpdar the Magnificent!

                  2. Tulpa had a penchant for accusing people of saying things they never said. Then he’d double down by lying about it, run around with the goalposts for a while, then build a strawman, and then call you a liar for not being his strawman, too.

                    He also has a childish way of desperately wanting to be accepted by the people he mistreats.

            3. We should put a temporary ban on all tulpas until we can sort this out.

  3. A religious test on travellers to the country would almost certainly not pass constitutional muster except in a dire emergency.

    Where in the constitution do you find support for this statement?

    1. Yeah, there is nothing unconstitutional about denying entrance of non-citizens to the country for any reason whatsoever. Wrong, immoral, foolish- perhaps, but not unconstitutional.

      1. Exactly. It may or may not be a bad idea, but it’s not unconstitutional.

    2. You’re not in the US until you clear customs and immigration. And they can turn you away for pretty much any reason they like.

      1. Wouldn’t it take an act of Congress to specifically forbid Muslims from entering and wouldn’t that violate the 1A? Also, wouldn’t equal protection apply (within the context of existing immigration law)?

        1. http://www.immigrationpolicy.o…..fact-sheet

          U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. Congress and the President determine a separate number for refugee admissions. Immigration to the United States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed.

          So as I understand it, Obama thinks he can let big numbers of Syrians in as refugees by executive action under existing law. I imagine future President Trump thinks he can drive Muslim immigration to zero by executive action under existing law. Until SCOTUS says otherwise, who could stop him?

        2. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          I don’t see how that prohibits the government from refusing entry to foreigners based on religious criteria. They can freely exercise their religion, they just can’t come in. They are not citizens.

          1. So, no basic human right to live wherever you want then? Only permission from the government?

            1. If there is a basic human right to live wherever you want, then no border controls are allowable, unless and until you have been convicted, following due process, of a crime that would enable the state to imprison you.

              And yes, that means that the government may not ban people who have communicable diseases. You don’t lose your basic human rights because you are sick, after all.

              1. So my basic human rights are being violated because I can’t settle in the Bailiwick of Jersey?

            2. No, there is no basic human right to live wherever you want. You can’t, for example, live in my living room. Nor can you live in my country, unless you enter and remain in it in conformity to the laws of my country.

              Or do you believe that every Arab who wants to has a basic human right to live in Israel?

    3. except in a dire emergency.

      There is no dire emergency exception to the First Amendment, you know.

    4. Reason is an equal opportunity employer. Paranoid schizophrenia is no disqualification!

  4. A blanket ban on all Muslims […] he pointed out, would make it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS

    So Muslims’ assistance in us taking out ISIS for them is conditioned on letting them immigrate to the United States. Wut?

    1. If majority Muslim countries believe that the US is hostile to their religion, they have no incentive to help us fight ISIS. We don’t have to let all the Muslims in, but we should be smarter in who we let in and not rely on lazy religious tests.

      1. If majority Muslim countries believe that the US is hostile to their religion, they have no incentive to help us fight ISIS.

        They *want* us there to fight ISIS and, you know, not die at the hands of ISIS.

        Whether they have a sad at our immigration policies is irrelevant.

        1. But Jeb is right, we can’t fight ISIS without the help of potential allies in the area, all of whom are majority Muslim. If our potential allies have a sad at our immigration policies, they are less likely to help us.

          I don’t support Jeb but I at least agree with him here.

          1. I love watching you ramp up into your “if you don’t vote GOP you’re letting the Dems win” rhetoric, Tulpy-Poo. It’s so predictable and wonderfully retarded.

            1. Umm, when have I said that? I even said I don’t support Jeb.

            2. And just to make myself really clear on this point:

              If it is Trump vs. Hillary, I will not vote for either of them. Either possibility is just too frightening to ponder.

              I don’t know if that means I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, but it would be more likely that I will vote (L) than either (R) or (D).

              1. Thanks for clarifying how shitty you are at sockpuppeting, Tulpy-Poo. You must be anticipating another dismally lonely weekend, just like always.

                1. Well, maybe I am “shitty at sockpuppeting” because… I’m not actually a sockpuppet of Tulpa?

      2. “If majority Muslim countries believe that the US is hostile to their religion, they have no incentive to help us fight ISIS. ”

        Aside from the part where ISIS has murdered hundreds of them for every Westerner it’s killed. It’s like saying in the 40s that if we ban French and British immigration, they won’t have any reason to help us fight the Nazis.

        1. Indeed. And how about this option? No more Muslim immigration, and we let the Muslim world fight it out with ISIS. When we fight ISIS, we can fight always fight them without “help.”

      3. the ban makes no sense. Look how many Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are becoming Islamic terrorists.

        1. You are being facetious – no?

      4. Someone either wants to oppose ISIS or they don’t. I fail to see how this is about us. I would think the reality of the caliphate would trump any reflection on us.

        If someone is so offended by our immigration policy that they are willing to tolerate ISIS, then I don’t think we want them here.

    2. And if perfectly peaceful, moderate Muslims hear about Trump’s proposals and rhetoric, they will turn jihadi, because recruiting tool, or something.

    3. It could easily be conditioned on not being 100% convinced the US is led by anti-Muslim bigots.

      1. Fine, let’s take our ball and go home, and see what their reaction is.

        1. Fine by me.

          1. Sadly, that option doesn’t seem to be on the table.

      2. “They” are also on ISIS to-kill list, which is very, very potent motivator.

        Seriously, which government in the area is gonna stop fighting an organization that wants to overthrow it and murder its members because their subjects (you fucking bet Saudi princes and Egyptian officers will get an exemption) can’t come to US?

      3. I had to look up bigot to see if I am one.

        According to Webster: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

        I guess the argument boils down to the unfairly qualifier. I boarded a flight in 1990 to Saudi Arabia with an open mind and a copy of the Koran to help understand the people I was about to meet. Came home six months later with an extremely low opinion of the religion and culture and no desire to have any of them as neighbors.

        1. Came home six months later with an extremely low opinion of the religion and culture and no desire to have any of them as neighbors.

          Here’s the thing. I completely understand feeling this way. I just already feel this way about My Fellow Americans. My impression from these threads is that people severely underestimate how alienated I, and possibly others, are from American culture and values. I saw John say this week that he was “appalled” by many Muslims to the point he did not want them as neighbors; I am appalled by millions of my American neighbors.

          1. Cosign. American culture boggles.

          2. Oh come now.

            I’m appalled by the level of mooching and looting by many of my fellow Americans too, but at least I can be confident that very few of them are angling to cut my head off for being an apostate.

            1. Holy fucking shit you’re tedious, Tulpy-Poo. At least we know that’ll never change.

            2. Translation: “I’m closer to mainstream culture than you are.”

              1. Really? Are you so far from mainstream American culture that you fear everyday Americans might behead you, let alone radical Islamists?

          3. I would suggest a field trip to the Middle East if you want to appreciate your American neighbors. Most of your neighbors probably don’t treat women as property, don’t view any act of kindness as weakness and invitation for attack. Your neighbors probably have at least a bit of empathy for other people. They probably don’t view the slightest variation in beliefs as justification to rob, rape, and kill.

            1. Yeah I disagree with the implied equivalence between shitty Americans and shitty Muslims.

              Unless Nikki here is just a complete misanthrope. Which of course is possible I suppose.

            2. That you can’t understand how small a difference those things make for me is a sign of privilege. I mean, hey, we don’t treat women as property?only children!

              1. Really now. ISIS burns people in cages, tosses gays off buildings, and sells girls into sex slavery. That is a completely new level of shittiness beyond what anyone might experience in America.

                1. Why would the actions of ISIS bear on my desire to have Americans as neighbors?

              2. Exactly. We don’t even let three year olds vote or drive cars! We’re just like Saudi Arabia, but with small children instead of women.

                1. We don’t even let three year olds vote or drive cars! We’re just like Saudi Arabia, but with small children instead of women.

                  This is a case in point. You think it’s funny. I think it’s a moral abomination.

                  1. Wait… you seriously think it’s a moral abomination that we don’t let small children drive or vote? I thought you pro-choicers were comfortable with the notion that human beings at earlier stages of development had fewer or no rights?

                    But seriously… you’re serious about the toddlers voting thing? Because that’s fucking stupid. That’s sub-Cytotoxic-level stupid. That’s PETA-level stupid.

                    1. I don’t think it’s morally acceptable for anyone to vote. That you chose “voting” and “driving cars” as your “examples” was inherent to your considering the entire issue of child liberation a joke. Children are maimed and imprisoned by their parents regularly. They do not get to choose who they live with, where they live, how they spend their time, etc. They do not even consent to be born.

                      It is not exactly a secret here that I think human reproduction is extremely morally problematic.

                    2. Morality is an evolutionary adaptation that exists to serve humanity, Nikki. Do you think there is some sort of absolute moral law written into the universe? What, it’s moral to minimize pain? You don’t strike me as religious. No, pain is also an evolutionary adaptation that helps us to avoid phenomena that increase our odds of ceasing to exist. There is only life and existence and experience. That’s it, and any morality we’ve developed is a tool for following that prime directive.

                    3. You know, I do not nor have I ever one _anything_ remotely adjacent to human reproduction.

                      But this statement is as downright bizarre, as _anything thing_ you people have ever posted

                      (excluding of course, postings that are undoubtedly the result of long term cocaine or heroin use)

              3. A small difference? A sign of my privilege? I guess when you get to be as lofty a being as you, we all look the same from such great heights. They sure seemed like big differences to us down in the sand.

                We treat children as property? So no consequences for raping and killing them, like…many places in the Muslim world?

                1. A small difference? A sign of my privilege? I guess when you get to be as lofty a being as you, we all look the same from such great heights. They sure seemed like big differences to us down in the sand.

                  There’s really no question you share more cultural values with the average American than I do. I don’t see why you seem to be offended by the idea that I feel very far apart from those values.

                  We treat children as property? So no consequences for raping and killing them, like…many places in the Muslim world?

                  Are you suggesting that I think people treat children well in the Muslim world? Because I don’t.

                  And yes, Americans do treat children as chattels. Routine infant circumcision? Routine daily imprisonment? Routine abridgment of rights and freedoms?

                  1. I’m really glad I was routinely circumcised as an infant. It sure beat having the operation done at an age when I would remember it.

                    1. You know what’s even better? Not being genitally mutilated as an infant.

                  2. Curious about how you (Nikki) feel that’s a uniquely American treatment of women, and not a global and historical norm. I understand your objections to the practices you describe, but am surprised that this translates to a critique of America specifically.

                    1. *treatment of children

                    2. It doesn’t translate to a critique of America specifically. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that I don’t feel like I live in a culture that shares my values, so I don’t have the same problem where I want to maintain that culture as it’s (perhaps) threatened by another one.

                    3. Ah, but absent any particular cultural affiliation, I fail to see how you would be offended by the rest of us desiring to preserve the culture that lets you hate it.

                    4. I fail to see how you would be offended by the rest of us desiring to preserve the culture that lets you hate it.

                      Well, since you’re trying to preserve a culture I’d like to see destroyed…

                    5. Are you saying you don’t like McRibs?

          4. what does this mean? You are a vegan in New York and are appalled by fat people in Kansas City?

            Or you are offended by 99% of Americans?

            Would be helpful to know if there is a place on the planet that would yield a lower rate of being appalled by your neighbors.

            1. Would be helpful to know if there is a place on the planet that would yield a lower rate of being appalled by your neighbors.

              I seriously doubt it. That’s kind of the point. Why would you expect not to be horrified by other people?

    4. Look, she gets paid to write here. You and I do it for free. DO NOT QUESTION THE DALMIA!

    5. We have such an awesome coalition going on now, don’t want to ruin what we don’t have. Except maybe the Kurds, but I don’t think we have too many kurdish men abandoning their lands to come to the US, and we know we aren’t giving them the full military support they should be getting. Our only real muslim ally in the region are the Kurds and we are shitting on them.

  5. Pro-Muslim immigration is a campaign loser this year. Western Europe appears to be coming apart at the seams. If Bush’s campaign wasn’t already dead, he killed it last night.

  6. Trump is an opportunist – and who gave him the opportunity?

    The establishment types who don’t want to discuss immigration except in the rah-rah-no-downside context.

    The public is skeptical (perhaps overly-skeptical) of immigration, but nobody in politics is reflecting their concerns.

    So Trump probably saw that and said, “here’s a chance for me to get some votes!”

    That’s not to endorse Trump, just saying he saw a neglected issue lying around and he picked it up.

    For my part, I think it’s great the USA is the kind of country people want to move to. We should keep taking in immigrants. I just think we can afford to be a tad more selective about who comes in. While Ms. Dalmia’s cousin plays by the rules and gets turned down, other people come in illegally and even the most basic measures to deal with the situation is mocked as racist.

    We see the abuses of the system in Europe, and we should say, “how can we be not-Europe and still have good people immigrate here?”

    1. Trump is a hustler, and he has identified an under-served market. He is going after that market with a vengeance.

    2. You can’t actually be serious. Do you have any familiarity with the actual US immigration system? It’s byzantine and takes years to get through. Yes, people come here illegally. And the government is deporting them at record levels. What more do you want?

      1. Again,

        “While Ms. Dalmia’s cousin plays by the rules and gets turned down”

      2. No, we are not “deporting them at record levels.” The administration changed the way they report stats, and now everyone turned away at the border counts as “deported.” Previously those people weren’t counted that way. At least that’s what I’ve read.

        1. Yep. I posted a link in a prior comment section. Obama changed the labels, that is all.

    3. The establishment types who don’t want to discuss immigration except in the rah-rah-no-downside context.

      That’s a super accurate appraisal of the situation, which I’m sure accounts for the government deporting 400,000 people a year, about an order of magnitude more than 20 years ago.

      1. Maybe the evidence could make me reassess my views.

        Though I’d like to know if the *rate* of deportation as a proportion of illegal immigrants has gone up, as well as the absolute numbers.

        1. The US Government is deporting the population of Minneapolis every year. There is no one in the Establishment arguing that immigration has no downside.

          1. Maybe I’ve been reading Reason articles too much and taking their viewpoint for conventional wisdom.

            1. Conflating the libertarian position with conventional wisdom on any topic is a sign that you need to get back on the meds.

              1. I think he is saying that he is adopting the libertarian viewpoint on conventional wisdom (ie. it is crap) because of all of his reading of Reason?

      2. the government deporting 400,000 people a year, about an order of magnitude more than 20 years ago.

        Should be no surprise that this very high number (much like the high number of campus rates) results from a change in definition.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..tatistics/

  7. his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the country ? “till we have figured out what’s going on” ?

    I keep really hitting on this language, because (a) it sounds silly and weak to me, but also (b) I really want to know what it means. What do Trump and his supporters think there is to find out? Based on last night’s discussion, my takeaway is that we won’t be able to let in any more Muslim immigrants until the nature of evil is explained to Trump’s satisfaction.

    I think it may be a long wait.

    1. What it means? It means “as long as it is politically expedient for me to say this”.

      Jeez, Nicole, I thought you were fluent in retard-politician-ese. What else have you lied about?!?

      1. “as long as it is politically expedient for me to say this”

        Well… yeah.

    2. A short while after 9/11, I was talking with a pilot who passed on his conversation with an El Al pilot. The Israeli said “You Americans are stupid. You spend all this time looking for weapons. We look for terrorists”.

      The answer is profiling. But when profiling crosses over with populations that liberals care about (blacks and drug-dealers; Muslims and terrorists), the liberals shit their pants.

      Of course, when government agents do profiling we can be assured they are going to fuck it up; often; and in terrible ways.

      1. Well sure, profiling is much better than looking for weapons hiding everywhere. But there is smart profiling and there is lazy profiling. Religious tests are just lazy profiling.

        1. This statement is mildly ironic, considering your lazy sockpuppeting, Tulpy-Poo. Because you sure aren’t capable of engaging in smart sockpuppeting.

    3. We just need to figure out all the terrorists, Nicole. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    4. Nothing too crazy – in linguistic killshotese, he’s speaking to the sense that people have that the situation in Europe and the Middle East (to say nothing of the global economy) is incredibly unstable, and in most cases, that instability is related somehow to the rising Islamist movement. There’s little clear idea where things will head (other than that there will be massive, violent changes) or how rapidly they will devolve. It doesn’t seem too farfetched to think that we could just wake up one day to news of a thousand Paris attacks, hundreds of thousands dead, and the whole continent in a state of martial law or civil war.

      And Americans would just rather not be part of that situation if they can help it.

      1. So he’s trying to figure out why the world is an imperfect place full of suffering. Like I said.

        1. Well, if you want to oversimplify or make bad analogies (and there’s never a time you don’t want to oversimplify or make bad analogies), then sure.

          But no, it’s nothing abstract like that. People sense some sort of major upheaval in the works. Islamism is an ascendant global mass movement. As the primary organization in that movement and outlet for its fanatacism, ISIS could fizzle out with a whimper, or we could be talking about the Caliphate in a few decades like we talk about the Third Reich right now.

          The uncertainty is compounded by the fact that there is little trust in our institutions to even properly understand the situation, much less speak frankly to the people about it. The cravenness and dishonesty of our leaders makes Neville Chamberlain look like fucking Leonidas.

          1. The uncertainty is compounded by the fact that there is little trust in our institutions to even properly understand the situation, much less speak frankly to the people about it.

            The idea that there is a way to “properly understand the situation” seems like the oversimplification where I’m sitting.

            1. There are degrees of improper. E.g., it can be workable but imprecise, it can be theoretically reasonable but incorrect, or it can be abjectly idiotic.

              The Bushies attempting to apply the lessons of post-war Europe and Japan to the Middle East was an example of the second.

              The Bammies deciding that the chief flaw with the Bush plan was the wrong TOP MEN doing it and only trying it out in one country was an example of the third.

    5. Trump supporters don’t think. They are retarded.

    6. Ban it until a pro immigration advocate proposes a workable screening system.

      I don’t think it unreasonable to put the onus on those who want to import refugees.

    7. “My Muslim friends, some, said, `thank you very much; we’ll get to the bottom of it.'”

      Reminds me of what I knew of the world when I was about 8 YO. The police were supposed to find the bad guys; they were easy to recognize, everybody knew who they were, they were labeled “Bad Guys”. They didn’t necessarily do anything to earn that label, it’s just what they intrinsically were, or it was just their turn; everybody would eventually be one. The police would then put them in jail, where they’d stay until they rolled doubles or paid $50, or broke out, which was usu. sooner, probably every week. Then the police would put them back in, etc.

  8. You don’t ban people by religion; you prioritize people fleeing religious persecution (like ME Christians) and let a low number of people you let in do the rest.

    1. Pretty much this.

      Sure, sure, “ban all Muslim immigrants” is overbroad, although I am not entirely sure its unconstitutional.

      Now, a very tight “refugee” policy, and a very tight control on immigration from specified countries known to be exporting terrorists, seems like not only a good idea, but actually something the government has a duty (I know, stop laughing) to its citizens to do in the current environment.

  9. Trumps hardline on muslims will lock up the Hindu vote.

    1. Yes, please, do go on…

  10. I work at a major research university. Muslim faculty and researchers make up about a quarter of our Electrical Engineering department, and tend to be the ones who avoid green energy blood money for quality basic and applied research. Trump is an idiot on so many levels.

    1. Same. They are vital to the workings of the university I used to work at. If America doesn’t want them we’ll take them here in Canada.

      1. Say, Cyto, did you sign up for your “Syrian” “refugee” yet?

        1. I wish! But I don’t own my place. I see some churches are hosting meetings for helping refugees. They may be religious but they’re not angry xenophobic assholes.

          Trump would such a shitty prez that he could make Trudeau Jr look good.

        2. I want a Sybian refugee

    2. How many of them are refugees from syria?

  11. Donald Trump is the Adam Lanza of politics. – Shikha

    1. If you put an armed Donald Trump in a school full of Muslims, what do you think is gonna happen? Huh?

      I see no difference – none!

  12. There are all sorts of reasons why you can be banned from entering the US

    Here is the offical list

    http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/il…..-2006.html

    1. It includes communists and those who want to violently overthrow the US government

      1. The immigration bill Calvin Coolidge signed included a ban on Arabs.

  13. Such a penalty on American Muslims without any individualized finding of danger would violate the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion and be constitutionally questionable.

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that. A similar penalty on Communists isn’t generally thought to violate the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of expression or free association and thus to be constitutionally questionable.

  14. Banning Muslims even non-citizens from entering America would do massive damage to America’s economy, massively increasing the damage ISIS causes by orders of magnitude. Those who support such a ban are useful idiots for ISIS, and are beneath contempt for that and many other reasons.

    1. So, if we add up the benefits of all Muslim immigrants to our economy in the past 15 years, and stack them against the harm that 9/11 did, both directly and by helping to scare people into allowing the state more power, which stack comes out higher?

    2. Bull. All the syrian “refugees” – most of which are young men, 99% of which are muslim – go straight on to welfare. They have no skills.

  15. I’m starting to wonder if I’m Tulpa. can I get a 2nd opinion?

  16. I disagree. They know how to respond to it, they just don’t want to because they secretly agree with it.

  17. Trump is right in his call to temporarily ban immigration until we can figure out what is going on and who is who. HE’S RIGHT and the author of this article is a freaking idiotic moron..
    After 8 years of a piece of shit named oscumpig, it’s about time we elect someone who actually knows what they are doing and can get things done. After 8 years of the fiscally incompetent, and the morally bankrupt, its about time to elect we need someone who loves America and will do what it takes to get us out of debt and re-instill morals. After 8 years of a cowardly piece of shit, we need someone who has a spine and will NOT bow to our enemies and turn on our allies like oscumpig has been doing.
    If you voted for oscumpig you should have to be neutered or spayed because you are too stupid to allow to procreate.

  18. Not only should be ban Muslims from America, but we should ban Islam, to boot: A proposed constitutional amendment to ban Islam

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here!”

  19. In other news, stoning has come to Germany: Three North African men attempted to stone two male to female transsexuals to death in Dortmund, according to local Police.

    In other news: Report: Obama Administration Denying Visas for Christians Seeking Asylum

  20. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  21. my friend’s half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information…

    ???? http://www.Wage90.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.