Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[OttoVonBismarck]

However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.

As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.

[The Brain]

These words were once sung by an American prophet. Was he insane? Maybe, but what prophet isn't? Hell, what American isn't?

Immigrants and faggots
They make no sense to me
They come to our country
And think they'll do as they please
Like start some mini Iran,
Or spread some fuckin' disease
They talk so many goddamn ways
It's all Greek to me

Radicals and racists
Don't point your finger at me
I'm a small town white boy
Just tryin' to make ends meet
Don't need your religion
Don't watch that much T.V.
Just makin' my livin', baby
Well that's enough for me

[OttoVonBismarck]

I thought you were making blanket statements that all Muslims resisted integration.  Are you saying instead that it isn't the religion that's the problem but the culture that the individuals come from?

Not really, no. I had hoped to not have to wade into this too much, but just like Christianity Islam has sects. Some are much more injurious than others. Unfortunately for us, the worst of Islam tends to be concentrated in the Gulf States and the Levant, where Wahhabism/Salafism is practiced widely. That is where most of our immigration into Europe is coming from right now. The school of Sharia law Pakistanis follow (Hanafi) is also extremely bad.

I'd mostly be cool with immigrants who followed the tenets of Sufism, but the reality is there is no easy way to determine who follows which of these ideologies upon immigration. That's why a more aggressive ban is required.

[Berkut]

Islam is a religion.

Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam.

in that case there's no difference between the two as Islam has that same property.
But then Islam is not purely a religion, but also an ideology.

I love the way you cut out the part of my post that addresses *exactly* your "conclusion", and clearly refutes it.

[derspiess]

The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.

I got a kick out of my wife having to swear she wasn't a member of the SS when she signed her naturalization papers.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Immigration isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting Muslims in America. Islam isn't something innate, it's a belief system. The United States should be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't get in. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.

Freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination based on race or religion very much are civil rights issues.

Disagreed.

[Malthus]

The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.

I got a kick out of my wife having to swear she wasn't a member of the SS when she signed her naturalization papers.

If she's from Argentina, it's a reasonable question to ask. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

No, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration

Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.

The 9/11 hijackers were all middle class or upper class in Saudi Arabia. Further, I fully agree we shouldn't have poor uneducated immigrants. I don't want those either. It's weird you'd consider that some odd position to hold, there is no benefit to uneducated immigrants in the 21st century. It isn't the 20th/19th century where we had a need for tons of low skilled labor.

[Malthus]

The 9/11 hijackers were all middle class or upper class in Saudi Arabia.

I'm describing homophobic attitudes on average. Specific terrorist acts have nothing to do with that discussion.

Further, I fully agree we shouldn't have poor uneducated immigrants. I don't want those either. It's weird you'd consider that some odd position to hold, there is no benefit to uneducated immigrants in the 21st century. It isn't the 20th/19th century where we had a need for tons of low skilled labor.

Where did I say that was an odd position to hold? I thought I said that position "makes a certain amount of sense", in contrast to Trump's proposed blanket exclusion of Muslims, which doesn't.

[Barrister]

However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.

As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.

There's no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US.  If you wanted to legally you could stop all immigration.  Whether that would be a good idea economically, and given the problems with illegal immigration whether it could practically be done, are questions for another day.

But once you do allow immigration it has to be done in compliance with the Bill of Rights.  And allowing/rejecting immigrants based on their religion would clearly violate the 1st amendment.

Amending the constitution means amending the separation of church and state.  I'm not sure you really want to go down that road...

[Martinus]

Well, to be fair Trump is not proposing a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants - he is proposing to ban immigration from Muslim countries *until we figure out what's going on*. Assuming he is not expecting this ban to last indefinitely, this may be a prelude for a sound policy. Or not. But you are mischaracterising it.

[Martinus]

However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.

As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.

There's no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US.  If you wanted to legally you could stop all immigration.  Whether that would be a good idea economically, and given the problems with illegal immigration whether it could practically be done, are questions for another day.

But once you do allow immigration it has to be done in compliance with the Bill of Rights.  And allowing/rejecting immigrants based on their religion would clearly violate the 1st amendment.

Amending the constitution means amending the separation of church and state.  I'm not sure you really want to go down that road...

You are wrong. The 1st amendment bans imposing a state church. It does not mean members of certain religions cannot be banned from entering the US.

[frunk]

Not really, no. I had hoped to not have to wade into this too much, but just like Christianity Islam has sects. Some are much more injurious than others. Unfortunately for us, the worst of Islam tends to be concentrated in the Gulf States and the Levant, where Wahhabism/Salafism is practiced widely. That is where most of our immigration into Europe is coming from right now. The school of Sharia law Pakistanis follow (Hanafi) is also extremely bad.

I'd mostly be cool with immigrants who followed the tenets of Sufism, but the reality is there is no easy way to determine who follows which of these ideologies upon immigration. That's why a more aggressive ban is required.

You do recognize distinctions based on differences within Islam and don't think that Muslims by their very nature are unable to integrate, you just choose to ignore those because of the risks from the more extreme elements.  That's completely different from saying that Muslims can't integrate.

[The Brain]

The US clearly can limit immigration from current or former members of certain organizations without dumping the Constitution.

[Martinus]

Not really, no. I had hoped to not have to wade into this too much, but just like Christianity Islam has sects. Some are much more injurious than others. Unfortunately for us, the worst of Islam tends to be concentrated in the Gulf States and the Levant, where Wahhabism/Salafism is practiced widely. That is where most of our immigration into Europe is coming from right now. The school of Sharia law Pakistanis follow (Hanafi) is also extremely bad.

I'd mostly be cool with immigrants who followed the tenets of Sufism, but the reality is there is no easy way to determine who follows which of these ideologies upon immigration. That's why a more aggressive ban is required.

You do recognize distinctions based on differences within Islam and don't think that Muslims by their very nature are unable to integrate, you just choose to ignore those because of the risks from the more extreme elements.  That's completely different from saying that Muslims can't integrate.

Yes. It's not an unreasonable position to take.

It is also not that different from Trump's position. He is not saying ban all Muslims in eternity. He is saying that we need to come up with a way of telling "good Muslims" from "bad Muslims" apart. And until we do, we should have a moratorium on more Muslims entering the US. It's really not as crazy as some people here paint it if you assume his position is genuine and he actually wants to figure it out and eventually allow "good Muslims" to enter.