Brussels Attack

Donald Trump on Brussels: 'I Would Close Up Our Borders'

Halting all immigration is an extreme measure.

|

Trump
Todd Kranin

Donald Trump has renewed his call to seal off the U.S. border and halt immigration—all immigration, it seems—until such time as we "figure out what's going on." 

Trump called into the Fox & Friends program on Fox News this morning to address the terrorist attack in Brussels. 

"I would close up our borders to people until we figure out what's going on," he said. "We have to be very, very vigilant with who we let into this country. We are taking in people without real documentation. We don't know who they are or where they're from. We don't learn. I will tell you I've been talking about this for a long time. This whole thing will get worse as time goes by." 

Trump has already proposed a travel ban for all foreign-born Muslims who want to come to the U.S. It isn't totally clear if Trump is merely doubling down on that position, or broadening it to include all immigrants, from anywhere. A total immigration ban would be a logistical nightmare, according to The Washington Post

The closest thing to the latter we've seen in recent history was the grounding of flights after 9/11—a temporary measure narrowly focused on the precise type of threat that had been presented. Beyond that, and beyond laws in the early 20th Century limiting particular types of immigration, we've never seen an incident in which the country halted all migratory traffic. (Which, of course, would be a logistical challenge of enormous scale.) 

It would also be profoundly illiberal and brazenly authoritarian to punish millions of non-threatening immigrants because of the crimes of a few. Trump wrote on Twitter that the U.S. must be "vigilant and smart," if it wants to prevent the kinds of attacks that have rocked Paris and Brussels. But halting all immigration is neither vigilant, nor smart: it would be a reactionary, counter-productive course of action that increases the power of the government to disrupt the lives of ordinary, peaceful people. 

NEXT: Before We Know Much of Anything About Brussels Attack, Encryption Fears Already Invoked

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. In a no-holds-barred match, who comes out on to, Robby’s Hair, or Trump’s Hair?

    1. Robby’s hair is just pretty. Trump’s hair is an ugly, street-fighter. No contest.

      1. Robby’s hair is red-blooded American manly man hair, though, Trump’s hair was made by a five-year old Chinese sweatshop worker. From the looks of it, somewhere around 1978.

        1. Robby’s hair is that way because Trump had him waterboarded with pig’s blood.

          1. Well, he had to make sure Robby wasn’t one a’ them Islams!

            1. How do we know Trump’s not in cahoots with Punjab and The Asp ?

    2. That’s a little like asking who would win between Ravaging Ronald and The Crusher.

      http://www.ebaumsworld.com/vid…../82493307/

  2. “I would close up our borders to people until we figure out what’s going on,” he said. “We have to be very, very vigilant with who we let into this country. We are taking in people without real documentation. We don’t know who they are or where they’re from.

    Immigration is simply an issue that Trump has not studied in any serious way. He is shooting from the hip.

    He could correct this by simply assembling a team of consultants/advisors on immigration – as he seems to have done on foreign policy. That would be a good step in the right direction, and would likely change his tone substantially. It will be interesting to see how his tone changes if he becomes lead Heffalump.

    1. Does he realize that he culturally appropriated the Taj from a Muslim?

      1. He also stole casino dome designs from Bonomo’s Turkish Taffy , so the Italians and Welsh should get a cut of the Turk’s reparations

    2. “Immigration is simply an issue that Trump has not studied in any serious way.”

      This seems to imply there are issues that Trump has studied in a serious way.

      1. Are you kidding? He’s studied a yuge amount, just really classy studying. He’s acing all these tests so hard, he’s gotten bored of acing them.

      2. I believe he is well versed in bankruptcy, eminent domain, and snake oil.

        1. He’s also an expert in toupee maintenance.

  3. “I would close up our borders to people until we figure out what’s going on,” he said.

    He really likes that “until we figure out what’s going on” phrasing. But I have it on good authority that we all already know what the problem is. Why is Trump too PC to admit “what’s going on” is radical Islam?

    1. “Until we figure out what’s going on” is his way of saying “I’ll do something” without ever saying what that is. It’s specifically designed to appeal to morons who like to fill in the blanks with what they *hope* he’ll do (which he never will, of course).

      1. Shocking that a politician/huckster would behave in such a manner.

      2. You just don’t know which of his statements to listen to. He’ll do it. I know.

    2. It’s not just *radical Islam*, it’s existentially-threatening radical Islam.

  4. So Trump is saying nothing as usual, but with it being nice and open-ended so that his dipshit fans can read whatever the fuck fantasy about immigration/borders/foreigners they have into it. Holy shit, Trump supporters are suckers of the highest order. Barnum would be envious.

    1. He’s saying the things other people are afraid to say, Epi. And cable news will be damned if they’re not going to let him call in and say it live for as long as he pleases.

      1. He’s saying all the nothing that everyone else is afraid to not say! He’s got my vote!

    2. Fuck it, it worked for Obama.

    3. WHATCOME ALL THS BADD TLK ABOT TRMMP DON U KNO MZULMS SHREEA ITS HAPPNIGG

      1. “Now I understand everyone’s shit’s emotional right now. But I’ve got a 3 point plan that’s going to fix EVERYTHING. “

        1. JUST TELL ME WHAT IM ALREADY THINKING

  5. Well thank God we finally have a candidate with the balls to say what needs to be said and I agree 1000% – it’s long past time we closed off the US/Belgian border to those goddamn Belgians and their disgustingly overloaded waffles. All decent red-blooded Americans eat French toast anyways, with good old American Canadian maple syrple. If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

    1. But the beer! The Belgian beer!

      1. Awesome! Haven’t had a beer thread in a while. On my last trip to Brussels, I debated whether I should go to Beermania which now brews it’s very own Mea Culpa, or just load up on excellent Trappist beers like Trappiste Rocheforte 10 at $3 per bottle at City2.
        Beermania, of course, is the most reliable source for Westvleteren, but the gray-market price of $10 per bottle is steep even though it’s the cheapest I’ve ever found it, not having the chance to have picked it up brewery direct.
        I went with the City2. My supply of krieks, lambics and gueuzes is good and I even still have some Westvleterens from my last visit.

        1. Is Westvleteren worth the hype, and isn’t it basically the same thing as St. Bernardus 12?

          One of these days, I’m going to make it out to NOLA for Zwanze Day. Or Texas can get off their ass and start importing Cantillon.

          1. It is great stuff but you’re right about hype. Kind of like how movie critics can’t downgrade Citizen Kane. I personally go with St Bernardus which is available in Texas. But I try to keep Westvleren around for beer geek friends. I’d mail you a bottle, but that’s illegal now. You know, the children.
            Cantillon is great stuff. I think it will be a few more years until enough fan base builds up on lambics (I see sours gaining even in domestic micros) but our day will come.

            1. We did recently (last year or two) get in Rodenbach, so it’s not all bad here. More and more sours and other types every day. Even some gueze like lambics.

              (Which was really funny watching the guy doing the tasting, as he was expecting us to spit the strawberry lambic out when we found it didn’t taste like say, Lindemanns. Nope, just a gueze with strawberry flavor.)

              Thanks for the tip on Bernardus. I’d heard that, but had never been in a position to contrast/compare. Nothing probably compares to buying right from the monastery and trying them there. At least, that’s how it seems to work for a lot of the Rieslings I like.

    2. Oh please. Waffles are superior to both French toast and pancakes in every way.

      1. I find this assertion highly suspect.

    3. Too late I already got in. You can’t stop us.

  6. I wish the two sides in the immigration debate would at least acknowledge how they are talking past each other. You can only “punish” someone by taking something they had a right to have in the first place. So, whenever someone like Robby goes on about “punishing millions of innocent immigrants”, he is assuming that the immigrants have a right to come to the US that forcing them to leave violates. The other side of course assumes the opposite. So the debate always boils down to a shouting match where both sides calls the other one irrational and neither side bothers to notice the completely different assumptions being made.

    There is no settling the argument about whether someone has a right to cross a border over the objection of the people already there. It is one of those prime assumptions that people make about government or politics. You can’t expect people to change their assumptions but it would be nice if they would at least recognize that they are making them.

    1. It’s always been the case that large majorities of Americans believe two things: that we have to secure our borders and stop any new illegal immigration, and that we should grant amnesty of varying degrees to those already here. The left only cares about the second part, the right only cares about the first. It all depends on which is the higher priority, and that’s usually split down the middle.

    2. I punish the little one here occasionally by taking away her TV privileges. She actually has no right to watch TV, I extend her the privilege of doing so. Failing to extend that privilege is not therefore “taking something they had a right to have in the first place” but it works pretty damn well as a punishment. It’s a routine privilege she sometimes takes as a right and sometimes I gotta remind her it’s not actually a right – just like sleeping indoors or having running water and electricity and enough food to eat and somebody to keep her safe from being eaten by wolves. But those are indeed routine privileges for her.

      1. So is it that you don’t understand how rationality works and thus don’t know what an “assumption” is or are you just too dishonest or stupid to understand what your assumptions are?

        1. No, John, you just said something stupid and don’t want to admit it again. So you go ad hominem. Again.

    3. There is also a complete refusal by the open-borders / tolerate-Islam folks to closely examine history and Islam itself.

      Islam spread across North Africa by terrorizing and intimidating the classical Goths into submission. But that ancient history and has nothing to do with Muslims using violence to intimidate Europeans into submission.

      When parts of Europe (Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and Greece – as recently as 1820) were ruled by Muslims, Christian Europeans were 2nd class non-citizens. They were prohibited from many roles, taxed into poverty with the jiyza, taken as slaves – the women sent to harems, the men to slave armies, and generally oppressed at every turn. But when European countries become majority Muslim, things will be different this time – because.

      1. My ancestry is too complicated for me to pull for any particular player in Medieval to Renaissance Europe. In fact, much of my lineage came to America to escape their own kind.

        1. And every person in the world is just like you and your ancestors. Your experience is fucking universal apparently.

          1. Shouldn’t you be busy today? You know, keeping us safe and all.

          2. Outside of places like Papua New Guinea or some Sub-Saharan country, tribalism is on the wane. Islam isn’t exactly unique to Arabia. The argument is about Islam and immigration? Right? Or are we some neocon experts analyzing history and coming up with top policy?

          3. The coming to America to escape in search of a better life is a pretty universal thing, John. I would say that it is a significant part of American culture and a large part of what makes the USA exceptional.

            1. It didn’t seem to be very universal among the guys who did 911 or the Boston bombing.

              1. They were here on a work visa and the geniuses at Immigration weren’t wise on the type of work they were engaged in.

      2. Drake, many people are unable or unwilling to admit that all religions aren’t just the same thing with different labels.

        1. Religions can be quite different and even within themselves. Hence words like orthodox or sect.

          1. Yeah, many people are unwilling to admit that Islam is a large and diverse religion with many sects and different interpretations of what it all means.

            1. So we need to do some kind of theological testing to make sure we only get the ones who don’t take the Koran and Haddith seriously?

              1. We need to treat people as individuals.

                1. So… read their minds?

                  1. Don’t you already think you can read their minds?

                    1. Nope – just the books they believe in.

                    2. You think you can know they “believe in” them.

                    3. And you don’t think that means you think you can read their minds?

                    4. No. I can only understand beliefs and how they translates into action.

                2. But Zeb, would you say that we have to judge individual Nazis and Communists “as individuals”? They adhere to terrible ideologies. That’s all we need to know. We are not “collectivizing” them, they have collectivized themselves. Same with Muslims.

              2. LHR is obviously manned with thousands of apostate Muslims, because given their presence in sheer numbers they could take the whole airport out in a matter of minutes. I mean, they might lose their job, but jihad requires that they kill the infidel.

            2. Islam, by definition, follows the Koran. The Koran often advocates religious violence. And no, it’s not equivalent to the Bible, for many reasons I have no time to relate here again.

              1. Why do you get to define Islam? I’d think it is up to each individual practitioner.

                1. Uh, no. It really isn’t. People are put to death in Muslim countries for apostasy and blasphemy.

                  1. China isn’t a Muslim state but they put people to death for heresy. So does North Korea.

                2. Zeb, the Koran defines Islam. There’s not a lot of room for interpretation, since it’s Allah’s perfect and final word on things.

                  1. There’s not a lot of room for interpretation, since it’s Allah’s perfect and final word on things.

                    Yet one of, if not the, most violent conflict in Islam is between two sects of the religion itself. Obviously there is “room for interpretation”.

                    What there isn’t is room for outsiders’ interpretations.

                  2. Syntax is always open to interpretation. Two people can read the same sentence and see it entirely differently.

                    1. That is why I always refer to the Koran AND the Haddith. Mohammed said lots of crazy stuff in the Koran and did a few nutty things. Then, his pals wrote his biography (the Haddith) that talked about him doing crazy stuff – slaughter, rape, selling captives into slavery, etc…

                      It’s the words, followed up by numerous active demonstrations that he really did mean them.

          2. Of course. The problem is that many aren’t willing to say that Islam is inherently more violent than other religions. It is.

            1. Of course it is. It’s whole foundation rests on violent conquest.

              But as I see it, it’s not going away and I just don’t think that demonizing the whole group is going to help encourage Muslims to modernize a bit.

              1. So, we submit and hope they calm down?

              2. Orthodox Islam is on the wane pretty much like every orthodox religion is on the wane. Most self identifying Christians I know believe in shit like astrology, space aliens, astrology and some even believe in evolution.

                1. pretty much like every orthodox religion is on the wane

                  Maybe in the West. Not so much elsewhere.

            2. Christianity has become less violent since most of its believers became more secular.

              1. But jester, Christianity and Islam are inherently quite different.

                1. Christianity and Islam are inherently quite different

                  This is metaphysical alchemy.

                  There are observable, objective differences between the adherents of Christianity and the adherents of Islam, approaching both groups from a statistical perspective.

                  There are observable, objective differences in the texts that each of those religions claim as their scripture. However, the interpretation and application of texts–especially religious texts–is subjective.

                  Saying the differences are “inherent” implies you know something supernatural; that you have had some kind of revelation about the nature of the universe to which us mere mortals are hitherto not privy.

                  1. No, I just know more theology than you seem to. There’s nothing supernatural about noting that a religion founded by a caravan robber turned warlord and slaver is different than one founded by a pacifist carpenter.

                    1. There’s nothing supernatural about noting that a religion founded by a caravan robber turned warlord and slaver is different than one founded by a pacifist carpenter

                      But now you’ve changed the terms of the debate, from “inherent” to “founded upon”. Again, nothing I said disputes the existence or even meaning of outside observables. But “inherent” is a stronger statement and one which cannot be supported by naturalistic means.

                    2. I haven’t changed the terms of the debate at all. “Inherent” is a stronger statement, and yes, it can be supported by “naturalist means.” You look at the texts people believe in: what they say, what the leaders of the religion say about them, the degree to which people follow them, the actual real-world results as shown in the cultures and sub-cultures that follow them. Clearly, objectively, Islam is inherently more violent and more oppressive than Christianity. Christians don’t believe in forced conversion, forcing followers of other religions to pay a special tax, or death for apostasy or blasphemy. Christians don’t believe that God wants them to conquer the world, by force in necessary. No Christian leader believes that the Bible was dictated from Heaven to Jesus, is in God’s words in the language God speaks, and that it’s “perfect” in the way Muslims believe the Koran is perfect. Etc., etc.

                    3. No, I just know more theology than you seem to

                      Either the Muslims will agree with you or they won’t; “knowing” some version of their theology does not make you an authority on it, and as I pointed out above, the putative authorities are hardly in agreement.

                      Stop making claims about “inherent” and “theology”. Nobody who calls himself a Muslim gives a shit what you think his religion really means, any more than someone who bleats about the “religion of peace” can stop a jihadi in his tracks with an appeal to the religion’s “true” meaning.

                    4. It is not “‘knowing’ some version of their theology” to say that the relationship of all Muslims to the Koran is different in significant ways from the relationship of all Christians to the Bible.

      3. There is also a complete refusal by the open-borders / tolerate-Islam folks to closely examine history and Islam itself.

        How would an understanding of history bear on the legitimacy of the state?

        1. You know, like how experts like Kissinger and Wolfowitz were experts and just had the Middle East totally figured out.

        2. If you believe that a state, a culture, a society, has the right to defend itself against people who wish to destroy it, then history and theology matter. If you don’t, perhaps because you refuse to see anything larger than an individual as legitimate, then they don’t.

          1. A state culture or society or threesome or whatever is valid as long as the players act willingly. Perhaps one of the reasons I’m so pro immigration is that I realize that many people are fleeing a bullshit situation where they don’t want to be.

            1. A state culture or society or threesome or whatever is valid as long as the players act willingly. Perhaps one of the reasons I’m so pro immigration is that I realize that many people are fleeing a bullshit situation where they don’t want to be.

              Which is fine, unless you also believe that the people doing the fleeing have a right to move in with people who, through whatever collective mechanism, have declared that they aren’t willing to let them in.

              If you say that these collective mechanisms are invalid, I think you are attacking the legitimacy of any state, and every border. Which is also fine, as long as you recognize that’s what you are doing. Bust on Trump all you want, but when he says you can’t have a country without borders, he is correct.

              1. So is any restraint on collective mechanisms an attack on statehood itself?

              2. I believe everyone has a right to come but saying of course is another story. If you don’t obtain property and contribute instead of stealing and/or carry on in such a way that you are infringing on others rights then you get evicted and you can live somewhere else.
                I just don’t agree that most people who a lot of people want to evict have done anything wrong other than *belong* to the wrong group.

          2. Not only do I not see those things as legitimate, I too would like to see them destroyed.

      4. There seem to be some rather divergent views on how the Muslim rule of the Iberian peninsula. You haven’t given me a lot of reason to believe you over anyone else. I honestly don’t know.

        And it’s not as if the European Christians of the time were a whole lot better. What happened right after the reconquista? The Christian monarchs made the Jews second or third class non-citizens and kicked them out.

      5. But when European countries become majority Muslim

        How the fuck does this happen?

        Either militarily — in which case Europeans deserve much of the blame* — or by legally voiding the property and self-defense rights of their own citizens — in which case Europeans deserve much of the blame.

        It might help when taking the “reasonable” position to start with reasonable premises, or at least to examine the consequences of your premises to a somewhat deeper level than just whatever makes your argument most rhetorically potent.

        * = No, people don’t deserve blame for being aggressed upon. But in order for Islamic forces to take Europe by military force, the Europeans would basically have to stand aside and let them.

        1. But when European countries become majority Muslim

          Some of them are well on their way, given the high percentage of Muslim teenagers and the relative reproduction rates (which will probably slow down, granted). But an absolute statistical majority is really not important – a large enough and motivated enough minority can transform a country.

          1. a large enough and motivated enough minority can transform a country

            Europe is even more “democratic” (vs. republican, dictionary definitions not party affiliations) than we are. The only way a “large enough and motivated enough minority can transform a [European] country” is with the permission and consent (tacit or otherwise) of the majority.

            We may well see that there is no such consent and thus there will be no such permission. Regardless, my point still stands. If you have respect for property and self-defense, you don’t arrive at sharia except by military conquest. And the only way that happens (presently) is if the Europeans let it.

      6. “Islam spread across North Africa by terrorizing and intimidating the classical Goths into submission.”

        The Goths never ruled North Africa. Did you mean Spain? And while it is true that Christians faced discrimination in the parts of Europe ruled by Muslims in those days, the same was true of non-Christians in Christian countries. I’m not arguing that there’s an equivalence today, but to act as if Islam in the Middle Ages and Renaissance era was a uniquely imperialistic and intolerant religion is simply revisionist nonsense.

        Is any European country today, excluding historically Muslim countries like Bosnia and Albania, even 10% Muslim? If you listened to half the people on the right you would think that sharia law was imminent any day now. While there doesn’t need to be a majority to be issues, as we are seeing currently, the “Muslims are taking over any day now!” narrative is alarmist nonsense. It’s not even remotely close to happening in any European country (excluding the ones I described above).

      7. I like that it’s now come to “tolerate-Islam.”

        I guess the solution is to… not tolerate Islam? There goes the Enlightenment.

    4. So the debate always boils down to a shouting match where both sides calls the other one irrational and neither side bothers to notice the completely different assumptions being made.

      This is a good point. TO take the example of what we see here among mostly libertarians, you have one side that takes the pure natural rights argument to apply, and the other that, for purely practical and not necessarily terrible reasons, thinks it is a worthwhile tradeoff to limit the rights of people who want to cross borders. So each side is really trying to make a very different point. I don’t think either side is terribly irrational.

      1. They are not irrational. They are both making rational arguments based on opposite assumptions.

    5. In what sense does a green card holder not have the right to remain in the US? They certainly have that right under the law.

      1. He has a right not to be summarily deported. If Congress decided to change the law, however, he would have no right to stay.

        You are talking about specific questions of law. I am talking about the larger issue of just how far the law can go .

        1. Well I guess then no one has any “right” to be in the US as you’ve defined it. If the law or constitution were changed, the government could deport citizens too. I’d certainly regard getting deported as a punishment though, and I imagine you would too.

  7. Europe must immediately decriminalize speech and religion. They are on a witch hunt and it will only get worse. What do you expect after months of SWAT style home invasions on a disgruntled minority? Let’s not repeat their mistakes. They let in millions of refugees because the people who spoke out against it were prosecuted with ‘hate speech’ laws. That’s not what’s happening here. The solution to these types of problems is good old fashioned police work. They don’t need to break into people’s iphones and restrict privacy – the kinds of rights that millions of Americans died for. BTW, this is exactly the kind of attack that Cruz will stage if elected – to impose a Christian Caliphate.

    1. You may need a higher dosage.

    2. You need to seek help.

    3. “Christian Caliphate” – where’s Mike Hihn?

      1. Getting all his old, dusty blood replaced with black-market orphan blood from Brazil, probably.

      2. Where’s Tulpa, might be a better question.

  8. “closing up our borders to people” sounds like a lot more than banning immigration. It sounds like banning all foreign travel into the US. If your concern is that they’re terrorists, then it hardly matters if they are technically here on a travel visa.

    1. We have a winner!

    2. It does matter if you consider that you may well not have as much trouble from Muslim tourists than from the children of immigrants and a growing proportion of Muslims in the population. They don’t get more western with each successive generation, they get more Islamist.

      Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS.
      http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho…..-poll.html

      31% of younger British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified compared to 14% of those over 45.
      http://www.policyexchange.org……ons/living apart together – jan 07.pdf

      1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
        35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
        42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
        22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
        29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
        http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

        16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is “acceptable”.
        http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1275/…..baar.dhtml

        1. 88% of Patriots fans say deflate gate was no big deal. 0% think cheating is okay. Cognitive dissonance. Because someone says something is justified does not mean they’d do it themselves.

          1. No one’s arguing that they’d all do it themselves. The problem here is that a huge proportion of Muslims give terrorists moral and material support to do what they do. The jihadis wouldn’t be able to do what they do without the recruitment pool and support of so many “moderate” Muslims. This isn’t about what constitutes cheating in a fucking ball game, this is about fundamental differences in moral philosophy between the Islamic world and the West that should not be ignored. Islamic culture is regressive, barbaric and resistant to moderation and assimilation.

            1. Straight up Maoism – the guerrilla/terrorist needs a sea of sympathizers to swim in. It sure seems like the Islamonutters have plenty of friendly waters out there, unfortunately.

              1. And Maoism is ultimately a self-destructive philosophy. It takes no more than 20 yrs to implode. Maoist threat would be possible only in distressed economy, so worry about the economy (I.e. Keep it free) and you’re good.

    3. “closing up our borders to people”

      Huh?

      So, my sister (US citizen, born in Buffalo, NY) traveling abroad is stuck out of the country?

      How bout the retired Canadian couple who have vacationed for 2 weeks each year in Florida for 20 years? No sun this year?

      What about the trucker bringing a load of avacados up from Mexico? “Let in the fruit and the truck, but someone else has to drive it?”

      At the very least, Trump’s language is sloppy. And that applies to the rest of the “seal the borders” crowd too. Just like rounding up 12 or 30 million people and deporting them, it simply isn’t going to happen. So let’s ditch the hyperbole and start to work on solutions that are at least possible, even if not practical or humane.

  9. A total immigration ban would be a logistical nightmare

    “It would never be perfect!” is a poor argument. We had pretty restrictive immigration from the ’20s to 1965. Somehow the country survived. And we currently have a “logistical nightmare” (and billions in expenditures) dealing with mass immigration.

    At the very least, we should end all Muslim immigration. No legal immigrants, and certainly no refugees. There are lots of Muslim countries. Go to one of them. (Yes, I know they all suck, because they are filled with Muslims. Sorry, not our problem.)

    1. Indonesia is a great place to visit. Nice people, great food. And not everyone there is Muslim though the preponderance are identified as such.

      1. The government sucks of course, but if I limited my traveling to countries with awesome governments, I couldn’t even go to Canada if Hillary or Trump won the presidency.

        1. I think it’s less a problem with Muslim governments, more a problem with the political culture from which those governments arise.

    2. I’m just kicking around an idea here. But could there be a first amendment problem with a specifically religious immigration restriction? Afterall, the 1st is a restriction on what government can do and doesn’t apply only to citizens. So would a ban on visas for people simply because of their religion be a violation of free exercise or the establishment clause? I could see arguments both ways.

      1. I don’t know, but there’s a “simple” and court-approved* way to do it. Just ban or at least severely restrict immigration from countries with large, native Muslim populations.

        * = for now, anyway

      2. Short answer: probably not.

        Would a religious exclusion for immigrants violate their right to free exercise?

        That is a novel legal question; as far as we know Congress has never enacted, nor the executive branch practiced, such an exclusion. But the 1972 case Kleindienst v. Mandel strongly suggests the Trump proposal would pass muster.

        Mandel and his colleagues argued that [Mandel’s exclusion due to his communist beliefs] violated the right to free speech. In a decision for a 6-3 majority, Justice Harry Blackmun [disagreed; quote omitted].

        [T]he government’s authority to set immigration policy, at least as applied to nonresident aliens, outweighs any free-speech claim an alien may wish to assert. Logic would suggest the same is true of the First Amendment’s other protections.

        1. At the very least there is already a legally defensible means (and an act of Congress) to implement such a policy, so even if it would eventually get thrown out on 1A grounds it can still be put in place for a certain period of time.

      3. Presumably the government is clever enough to simply word it in such a way that it captures a deplorable belief that a genuine Muslim would nevertheless share. Basically, have them sign something that would make ISIS types consider them an apostate. Like, ask (use a polygraph too, might as well) if they belief that society should be governed by democracy or by a Muslim theocracy.

        AFAIK, we have kept people out on a political basis before.

        1. So that won’t stop millions of Muslims, or those willing to lie (which we are constantly reminded they have a duty to do in furtherance of their holy mission).

          1. There holy mission is to hajj where they will trample eachother.

    3. At the very least, we should end all Muslim immigration.

      So how do you “end all Muslim immigration”? It’s not like people come with visible labels on them.

      Block anybody who comes from a majority-Muslim country? That blocks Jews, Christians, Baha’i, Zoroastrians, etc. who happen to come from a majority-Muslim country.

      Block anybody who says “Yes, I am a Muslim”? That blocks peaceful Muslims of good faith, while allowing those who are willing to lie about it…in other words, pretty much the reverse of what any sensible policy would want to accomplish.

      1. Yes, block the Muslims of “good faith,” too. They are just the good cops in the Muslim good cop/bad cop routine. Plus, you never know when they (or their kids or grandkids) will decide to go jihad.

    4. “Somehow the country survived” is an even poorer argument. And calling it a logistical nightmare is not the perfect solution fallacy, it’s an argument about the costs and difficulties that proponents are ignoring.

      No legal immigrants, and certainly no refugees.

      LOL, certainly no refugees? Definitely not refugees!

      1. Why are there jihadists in Minnesota? Muslim refugees = welfare for future terrorists.

  10. All this shit happened less than 200 years ago as Greeks fought their way out from under Turkish rule. The end result was a separation of Christian and Muslims.

    Why, less than 2 centuries later, does anyone think mixing Muslims back into Europe will end better this time? I just don’t get it.

    1. Well, this time a hostile foreign nation hasn’t taken over several European countries. So I’m not sure it’s entirely a parallel situation.

      1. Just friendly peaceful immigrants like the guys in Brussels, right?

        It does closely parallel some of the early Muslim conquests in Africa. Immigration and infiltration combined with raids and other forms of intimidation.

        1. Yes, because there are only two possibilities.

          1. Tell me about the others.

        2. “It does closely parallel some of the early Muslim conquests in Africa. Immigration and infiltration combined with raids and other forms of intimidation.”

          No. No it doesn’t. If you seriously think that you are delusional.

    2. We have Facebook now?

  11. True story: yesterday at Costco parking lot, a Muslim man (he had a funny hat on) asked if he could help me load a heavy box (shelving) into my truck.
    [i just knew he was up to no good]

    1. He was just warmin’ up for loadin a heavy bomb into a Ryder truck. Ban ’em!

    2. Are you a great big fat girl?

      1. A true Islamist would never offer to help a woman.

    3. Nobody really wants to deal in nuance. The guy who helped you is probably a decent fellow. And it is at least plainly evident that the vast majority of Muslims living in the US are not actively engaged in overtly violent acts against others.

      But that guy might be a donor to CAIR. He might support BDS. Or he might do none of those things. Saying he helped you load something into your truck proves nothing about his character holistically. Perhaps more importantly, it says nothing about the children he might have raised.

      In much the same way, saying I comment on libertarian forums with generally libertarian positions proves nothing about my character holistically.

      The broader question of why does any of this merit a governmental response is the one most pertinent to libertarians yet is basically ignored by everyone commenting. The answer to terrorism, conflict, cultural mismatch, etc. is the same as it has always been: respect for life, liberty, and property.

      The Second Amendment is a far more important and enduring “political question” yet we are quibbling about immigration.

      1. The broader question of why does any of this merit a governmental response is the one most pertinent to libertarians yet is basically ignored by everyone commenting.

        Yep. Because terrorism works. They’re afraid.

      2. That’s what I was getting at. It’s kind of like if you were running a business. Say a restaurant. You’d probably let most people in except maybe a naked deranged vagrant. Then if they acted bad say like bothering your other clients you’d ask them to leave. It’s a judgement call, but if you want to run a successful business, it doesn’t make sense to disqualify people based on broad assumptions.
        But ultimately, it is your property, and you have necessary force (second amendment) to enforce your decision if need be.

        1. And I wasn’t afraid of the Muslim. I agree that we don’t know what he does but we also can’t automatically or semiautomatically assume it’s the worst.

    4. The real threat is definitely Canada. I think that’s so widely accepted here on the comment boards that it’s not even discussed. YOU HEAR THAT RUFUS?!

      1. Aw fuck. That didn’t work like I wanted it to.

        *slinks off*

  12. Beyond that, and beyond laws in the early 20th Century limiting particular types of immigration, we’ve never seen an incident in which the country halted all migratory traffic. (Which, of course, would be a logistical challenge of enormous scale.)

    Such a logistical nightmare that customs and immigration officials armed with pen and paper and relatively weak documentation on the part of immigrants, were able to cope with in the 1920’s.

    1. An anarchist immigrant from the times around the turn-of-the-century would never assassinate a U.S. President or something like that.

      1. As I recall, anarchists were not looked upon favorably by immigration law, so I don’t see your point. Side note, these “anarchists” were of the leftist redistributionist variety who were in fact statists that called their state by another name.

      2. Are you referring to Czolgosz, or just saying they we’re a potentially dangerous bunch? As he wasn’t an immigrant technically.

        An immigrant did conspire to kill the Vice President though. (I think some Puerto Ricans tried to kill Truman as well)

        1. Are you referring to Czolgosz, or just saying they we’re a potentially dangerous bunch? As he wasn’t an immigrant technically.

          An immigrant did conspire to kill the Vice President though. (I think some Puerto Ricans tried to kill Truman as well)

          And neither person’s affiliated groups can be said to have a comparable body count and willingness to commit atrocities on the large and decentralized scale that Muslims have.

          1. “And neither person’s affiliated groups can be said to have a comparable body count and willingness to commit atrocities on the large and decentralized scale that Muslims have.”

            I wouldn’t be so sure about some of those commie anarchists, at least for the latter. (You’re probably preaching to the choir here though)

  13. “Halting all immigration is an extreme measure.”

    Libertarian site, all of the measures are extreme.

  14. my buddy’s step-mother makes $89 /hr on the laptop . She has been fired for seven months but last month her income was $19439 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you could check here

    ? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  15. ‘I would close up our borders’

    Must have stock in Barnes and Nobles.

  16. Robby: “Have some steak!”

    Me: “But it’s got mold on it! I’m not eating that!”

    Robby: “But not eating it would be a logistical nightmare! And you’d be discriminating against the innocent parts of the steak that don’t have visible mold!”

  17. Wow, a Trump and immigration thread. And it did not disappoint. So, how do we feel about immigrants getting abortions? And then maybe going for a nice deep-dish pizza?

  18. Events in Brussell suggest we need an Atlantic Wall to keep out the Waloons

  19. It isn’t totally clear if Trump is merely doubling down on that position

    But why let that hold up the hysterical pants shitting? Amirite, or what?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.