White House: Trump's Statement "Disqualifies" Him

[Thermodolia]

They were pro-Muslim until only recently.

http://mic.com/articles/130019/muslims-helped-elect-george-w-bush-now-the-gop-front-runner-wants-to-ban-them#.xfucS5vew

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/republicans-muslim-vote-george-w-bush-donald-trump/419481/

Let's not forgot that Dubya made a statement mere days after 9/11 urging America not to use what became the War on Terror as a race war or a clash of cultures, actually quoting the Quran and calling Islam the religion of peace.

How far the world has fallen when George W motherfucking Bush is now essentially the most enlightened of right-wing thinkers.

Damn....

[The Archregimancy]

I had inadvertently left out part of my original post. Here is the addendum I posted to Farn.

He also barred any iranians from entering the US. by invoking: 8 US code /# 1182- Inadmissible Aliens, it allows the US government to stop anyone or any group they deem as a danger to the US from entering


I'm just getting at what trump had said isn't all that shocking, IMO.

They're not comparable.

You can place a nationality test on entry to the United States; the difference between nationalities that can enter on a visa waiver system or require a visa to enter already establishes that principle. Forbidding entry to a specific nationality is simply an extension of that existing principle, shared by just about every nation.

But Islam is not a nationality. Placing a religious test on entry to the United States is both unprecedented and likely unconstitutional since it arguably breaches the second part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[Imperializt Russia]

Let's not forgot that Dubya made a statement mere days after 9/11 urging America not to use what became the War on Terror as a race war or a clash of cultures, actually quoting the Quran and calling Islam the religion of peace.

How far the world has fallen when George W motherfucking Bush is now essentially the most enlightened of right-wing thinkers.

Enlightened isn't the right word. He just wasn't strong in his convictions. So really, Bush was a failure.

Not my fault that the only people the American right have to go against the Dems are a slew of people who weren't as good as Bush.

[Imperializt Russia]

I had inadvertently left out part of my original post. Here is the addendum I posted to Farn.

They're not comparable.

You can place a nationality test on entry to the United States; the difference between nationalities that can enter on a visa waiver system or require a visa to enter already establishes that principle. Forbidding entry to a specific nationality is simply an extension of that existing principle, shared by just about every nation.

But Islam is not a nationality. Placing a religious test on entry to the United States is both unprecedented and likely unconstitutional since it arguably breaches the second part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And possibly the Treaty of Tripoli.

[The Archregimancy]

They're not comparable.

You can place a nationality test on entry to the United States; the difference between nationalities that can enter on a visa waiver system or require a visa to enter already establishes that principle. Forbidding entry to a specific nationality is simply an extension of that existing principle, shared by just about every nation.

But Islam is not a nationality. Placing a religious test on entry to the United States is both unprecedented and likely unconstitutional since it arguably breaches the second part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And possibly the Treaty of Tripoli.

I wouldn't think so; Article 11 of Tripoli is a useful guide to the thinking of early American political figures rather than a binding point of current US law.

The Treaty of Tripoli was a treaty between the United States of America and local autonomous provincial officials of the Ottoman Empire. Its famous Article 11 probably has no bearing on current US law since A) neither the North African Beys nor the Ottoman Empire are still extant and B) the Treaty of Tripoli is no longer binding as it was replaced and superseded by the 1805 Treaty of Peace and Amity with the same powers, the latter not including any equivalent to the earlier treaty's Article 11.

Happy to be corrected here, though, by those more conversant with US constitutional law.

[Imperializt Russia]

Damn.

Does this mean we can't use the ToT to keep pointing out "you're supposed to be state secular"?

[The Archregimancy]

Damn.

Does this mean we can't use the ToT to keep pointing out "you're supposed to be state secular"?

Tripoli still has its uses.

The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution are, I believe, the primary legal frameworks for establishing the secular nature of US government institutions.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is instead best used to counter those who insist the US was established on explicitly Christian principles.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

I had inadvertently left out part of my original post. Here is the addendum I posted to Farn.

They're not comparable.

You can place a nationality test on entry to the United States; the difference between nationalities that can enter on a visa waiver system or require a visa to enter already establishes that principle. Forbidding entry to a specific nationality is simply an extension of that existing principle, shared by just about every nation.

But Islam is not a nationality. Placing a religious test on entry to the United States is both unprecedented and likely unconstitutional since it arguably breaches the second part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

A Dutch politician found an easy loophole around that, which Trump could use. Instead of banning all Muslim immigrants, simply ban all immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

[Imperializt Russia]

They're not comparable.

You can place a nationality test on entry to the United States; the difference between nationalities that can enter on a visa waiver system or require a visa to enter already establishes that principle. Forbidding entry to a specific nationality is simply an extension of that existing principle, shared by just about every nation.

But Islam is not a nationality. Placing a religious test on entry to the United States is both unprecedented and likely unconstitutional since it arguably breaches the second part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

A Dutch politician found an easy loophole around that, which Trump could use. Instead of banning all Muslim immigrants, simply ban all immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

Which is a diplomatic clusterfuck because it serves no actual purpose unless you're a racist twatbasket.
I'd actually go so far to suggest that's probably worse than "no muzzies allowed" because that's actually enforcible.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

A Dutch politician found an easy loophole around that, which Trump could use. Instead of banning all Muslim immigrants, simply ban all immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

Which is a diplomatic clusterfuck because it serves no actual purpose unless you're a racist twatbasket.

Exactly, but try telling that to them.

[Valystria]

A Dutch politician found an easy loophole around that, which Trump could use. Instead of banning all Muslim immigrants, simply ban all immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

Which is a diplomatic clusterfuck because it serves no actual purpose unless you're a racist twatbasket.
I'd actually go so far to suggest that's probably worse than "no muzzies allowed" because that's actually enforcible.

So if someone wants to prevent Muslim immigrants... why would you call them a racist?

You realize Islam is not a race? It certainly doesn't seem like you're aware of that. After all, you're calling people racist for not liking Islam.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which is a diplomatic clusterfuck because it serves no actual purpose unless you're a racist twatbasket.
I'd actually go so far to suggest that's probably worse than "no muzzies allowed" because that's actually enforcible.

So if someone wants to prevent Muslim immigrants... why would you call them a racist?

You realize Islam is not a race? It certainly doesn't seem like you're aware of that. After all, you're calling people racist for not liking Islam.

Why do you want to ban creationism in schools you homophobe?!

[Imperializt Russia]

Which is a diplomatic clusterfuck because it serves no actual purpose unless you're a racist twatbasket.
I'd actually go so far to suggest that's probably worse than "no muzzies allowed" because that's actually enforcible.

So if someone wants to prevent Muslim immigrants... why would you call them a racist?

You realize Islam is not a race? It certainly doesn't seem like you're aware of that. After all, you're calling people racist for not liking Islam.

A, adherence to Islam is typically prejudiced by a person's skin colour, perceived origin and dress sense, particularly for women.
B, if Islam is not a race, why do Islamophobes make racial arguments identical to those used against blacks and other racial groups?

[Ostroeuropa]

So if someone wants to prevent Muslim immigrants... why would you call them a racist?

You realize Islam is not a race? It certainly doesn't seem like you're aware of that. After all, you're calling people racist for not liking Islam.

A, adherence to Islam is typically prejudiced by a person's skin colour, perceived origin and dress sense, particularly for women.
B, if Islam is not a race, why do Islamophobes make racial arguments identical to those used against blacks and other racial groups?

A: And that's wrong when they do so, so talk about that instead.

B: Do they? What kind of arguments?

[Novorobo]

So if someone wants to prevent Muslim immigrants... why would you call them a racist?

You realize Islam is not a race? It certainly doesn't seem like you're aware of that. After all, you're calling people racist for not liking Islam.

A, adherence to Islam is typically prejudiced by a person's skin colour, perceived origin and dress sense, particularly for women.
B, if Islam is not a race, why do Islamophobes make racial arguments identical to those used against blacks and other racial groups?

A. An arbitrary point. Plenty of Arabs are non-Muslim.

B. All of them? Is it inherent in it? No? Then your argument is the one that's analogous to racial arguments.

[The Archregimancy]

They're not comparable.

You can place a nationality test on entry to the United States; the difference between nationalities that can enter on a visa waiver system or require a visa to enter already establishes that principle. Forbidding entry to a specific nationality is simply an extension of that existing principle, shared by just about every nation.

But Islam is not a nationality. Placing a religious test on entry to the United States is both unprecedented and likely unconstitutional since it arguably breaches the second part of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

A Dutch politician found an easy loophole around that, which Trump could use. Instead of banning all Muslim immigrants, simply ban all immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

That rather collapses on the observation that the country with the third-largest Muslim population in the world - India, with some 177 million Muslims - is also a country where only some 14% of the population is Muslim.

Similarly, the country with the sixth-largest Muslim population - Nigeria, with some 76 million Muslims, and a fairly nasty local radical ISIS-affiliated Islamic insurgency - is only just about 50% Muslim.

So no, I don't see how that 'easy loophole' is in any way practical.

[Ugatoo]

So if someone wants to prevent Muslim immigrants... why would you call them a racist?

You realize Islam is not a race? It certainly doesn't seem like you're aware of that. After all, you're calling people racist for not liking Islam.

A, adherence to Islam is typically prejudiced by a person's skin colour, perceived origin and dress sense, particularly for women.
B, if Islam is not a race, why do Islamophobes make racial arguments identical to those used against blacks and other racial groups?

A. adherence to Christianity is typically prejudiced by a person's skin colour, perceived origin and dress sence.
B. Islam is a system of beliefs. Black isn't.

[Frenline Delpha]

Lunacy is the only thing that qualifies one to be president.

Trump sure isn't lacking in that area.

[Imperializt Russia]

A, adherence to Islam is typically prejudiced by a person's skin colour, perceived origin and dress sense, particularly for women.
B, if Islam is not a race, why do Islamophobes make racial arguments identical to those used against blacks and other racial groups?

A. adherence to Christianity is typically prejudiced by a person's skin colour, perceived origin and dress sence.

Not sure when jeans and a t-shirt was perceived Christian dress. Or that, beyond a habit and a collar, there really is any traditional Christian garb widely worn.

I don't get perceived as a Christian even though I live in a western, white country that still has a state (Christian) religion.

[Novorobo]

A Dutch politician found an easy loophole around that, which Trump could use. Instead of banning all Muslim immigrants, simply ban all immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

That rather collapses on the observation that the country with the third-largest Muslim population in the world - India, with some 177 million Muslims - is also a country where only some 14% of the population is Muslim.

Similarly, the country with the sixth-largest Muslim population - Nigeria, with some 76 million Muslims, and a fairly nasty local radical ISIS-affiliated Islamic insurgency - is only just about 50% Muslim.

So no, I don't see how that 'easy loophole' is in any way practical.

The idea that it was ever more acceptable to discriminate based on nationality than based on beliefs was bizarre to begin with anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense the other way around?

[The Archregimancy]

That rather collapses on the observation that the country with the third-largest Muslim population in the world - India, with some 177 million Muslims - is also a country where only some 14% of the population is Muslim.

Similarly, the country with the sixth-largest Muslim population - Nigeria, with some 76 million Muslims, and a fairly nasty local radical ISIS-affiliated Islamic insurgency - is only just about 50% Muslim.

So no, I don't see how that 'easy loophole' is in any way practical.

The idea that it was ever more acceptable to discriminate based on nationality than based on beliefs was bizarre to begin with anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense the other way around?

As noted earlier, it's fairly easy to discriminate on the basis of nationality; any country that has a visa regime where citizens of some countries find it harder to gain entry into a country than others (as almost every country does) already has a de facto system of discrimination on the basis of nationality in place. There's also plenty of historical precedent for the US restricting immigration and/or entry on the basis of nationality.

Religion, not so much.

Whether either approach is more morally acceptable than the other is arguably a different issue.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

A Dutch politician found an easy loophole around that, which Trump could use. Instead of banning all Muslim immigrants, simply ban all immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

That rather collapses on the observation that the country with the third-largest Muslim population in the world - India, with some 177 million Muslims - is also a country where only some 14% of the population is Muslim.

Similarly, the country with the sixth-largest Muslim population - Nigeria, with some 76 million Muslims, and a fairly nasty local radical ISIS-affiliated Islamic insurgency - is only just about 50% Muslim.

So no, I don't see how that 'easy loophole' is in any way practical.

Never said it was. Just wanted to point out that a religious test being unconstitutional won't stop them from creating a similar law.