Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[Malthus]

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.

It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.

However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims.  I mean, here it is on his own website:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

I can't believe anyone takes seriously the notion that this is just a brief pause until a sound policy is worked out.

[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.

It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.

However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims.  I mean, here it is on his own website:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

Err, the bolded part is exactly saying what I said and contradicts what you said.

[Valmy]

But the part BEFORE the bolded parts is exactly what he said and contradicts what you said

[The Brain]

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.

It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.

However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims.  I mean, here it is on his own website:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

Err, the bolded part is exactly saying what I said and contradicts what you said.

Sounds pretty permanent to me.

[Malthus]

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.

It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.

However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims.  I mean, here it is on his own website:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

Err, the bolded part is exactly saying what I said and contradicts what you said.

I thought that might be what you meant, but dismissed it as being too absurd for anyone to hang their argument on. 

Yes, he does claim the ban is limited "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". That's an idiomatic phrase understood to be like "until the cows come home" or "when the work's all done". It means, and is clearly intended to mean, "never". 

What I thought was your [more reasonable] argument was that the ban wasn't on "Muslims" per se but on people from "Muslim countries".

[garbon]

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.

Interesting given that a quick search says that whether or not this would pass judicial review is up in the air.

[Martinus]

See, your problem, guys, is that you are reading Trump's shit like he was a politician. I don't think it's that.

I spoke with Jaron about it recently and he made a very interesting observation - Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.

[The Minsky Moment]

The United States doesn't have "representatives"
There is a "House of Representatives" but I doubt that is what Trump meant.
Although trying to parse through the fetid pieces of verbal diarrhea that spew forth from his mouth is a fool's errand.

[Martinus]

The United States doesn't have "representatives"
There is a "House of Representatives" but I doubt that is what Trump meant.

Oh please. 

[Admiral Yi]

See, your problem, guys, is that you are reading Trump's shit like he was a politician. I don't think it's that.

I spoke with Jaron about it recently and he made a very interesting observation - Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.

CEOs have boards, shareholders, employees, and customers they have to be able to communicate with.  Trump sounds like an independent businessman who has been surrounded by yes men his entire life.

[Malthus]

See, your problem, guys, is that you are reading Trump's shit like he was a politician. I don't think it's that.

I spoke with Jaron about it recently and he made a very interesting observation - Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.

The proposal creates severe problems even assuming he sincerely meant it to be temporary.

Banning travel from certain countries is easy, countries have done that frequently for various reasons; it is easy to discriminate based on country of origin, or to demand vicious visa requirements from country A but not from country B. All you have to do is look at a passport.

Banning travel by "Muslims" is hard (and seriously stupid). There is no way of knowing who is a Muslim and who isn't, aside from a prohibitively invasive level of scrutiny. Many Muslims live in other First World countries, who are likely to take significant offence if their citizens are subject to religious discrimination at the border.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.

You almost had me until the last part. 
What he says doesn't make sense and I don't get what he is saying.  Who are these representatives?  - DHS? FBI/CIA?  the President?  The justice department?  the executive branch writ large?  the Congress?   The Courts?
What are these people supposed to be figuring out?  How to predict behavior?  Make windows into men's souls?  What is the unknown factor here that requires additional data to sort through?

See there is a much more simple view here.  One is what Malthus says - he is just giving a verbal placeholder for the indefinite.  Another is that he is doing what CEO types often do - cover their ass with vague hand waving while preserving maximum flexibility to act as he or she pleases.

[Valmy]

Well if the leader making incomprehensible rants and the underlings scrambling to try to somehow figure out what the wise policy behind those rants was is his management style then damn. Maybe he really is Hitler 

[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...

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.

Oh come on.  Now I know we're both non-American lawyers, but surely you have some passing familiarity with the past 200+ years of caselaw on the 1st amendment?  It's been held to go a hell of a lot further than not establishing a state church.  The courts have held that it means there must be a complete separation between church and state, which includes not giving preference to members of one religion over another.

[mongers]

I'm surprised by the intensity of the fighting for ownership of this slaughter.