Why NOT stop Muslims from entering the US?

a reply to: mekhanics

Who said it was new? Certainly not me. And even if it WAS new. who cares? Who cares if its 1000 years old. We're not fighting 1000 years ago. We're living today, facing todays problems. I don't care if 1000 year old Muslims were the greatest humans that ever lived on earth. The problem was have today is real.

a reply to: stolencar18

Jimmy Carter stopped them during the Iranian hostage crisis.

No one said a thing then.

I have yet to see anyone say why we shouldn't block them from coming in. Lots of "they aren't bad" rants. I didn't ask if they're bad. I asked why we shouldn't block them. What is the benefit in allowing them in? Does that benefit outweigh the risk?


You know what bugs me about these answers? They aren't even relevant to the question being asked. I didn't about blocking men or rapists or whether or not Muslims are good or bad or what Trump thinks. I'm asking WHY NOT block them?

In my opinion there is no benefit to the country to allowing them in that makes the risk of extremists coming in worth it.

originally posted by: stolencar18
The problem was have today is real.

You're right. Education is the answer.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: stolencar18

Jimmy Carter stopped them during the Iranian hostage crisis.

No one said a thing then.

That was Iranians. Not Muslims. Try again.

ETA: And the US allowed Iranians in the disavowed the regime.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: stolencar18

Jimmy Carter stopped them during the Iranian hostage crisis.

No one said a thing then.

That's because stopping people from a certain nation is totally different than stopping people because of their faith.

originally posted by: introvert
The reason you cannot place a rule or regulation on Muslims and not others is that it violates the principle of equal application of the law.

Not only is there precedent for doing it (legally), there are wartime measures that could be enacted. That's another topic, but one could argue that they are at war with the US, even if the US won't declare war on them.

a reply to: stolencar18

A constitutional declaration of was is between the US and another nation. Not an ideology.

Not only is there precedent for doing it (legally), there are wartime measures that could be enacted

That's how people end-up in camps.

a reply to: stolencar18

I have yet to see anyone say why we shouldn't block them from coming in.

Because one of the building blocks of our nation is freedom of religion that applies to people that live here and people that want to live here. If we are not going to support freedom of religion then take it out of the Constitution.

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: introvert
The reason you cannot place a rule or regulation on Muslims and not others is that it violates the principle of equal application of the law.

Not only is there precedent for doing it (legally), there are wartime measures that could be enacted. That's another topic, but one could argue that they are at war with the US, even if the US won't declare war on them.

So you're saying a war between a nation and a people? That's vaguely familiar. 1939-1945. Is that what you are proposing?

a reply to: stolencar18

I'll ask again.

What do you propose about the Muslims who live in your country now that were born there. Do you want all Muslims thrown out even though they are American citizens?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dreamingawake
The problem here is that it won't stop criminals-terrorists who will find a way around any rules to that. Then you would have those stated these rules to take it one step further to a racial connotation. Then you have to ask where it ends. Should history repeat itself? Interment camps for Japanese Americans wasn't exactly a strong point for the US as neither were the internment camps for Ukrainians deemed "enemy aliens" in Canada during WWII.

Still, it makes it tougher for them. Nothing will stop it completely.

For what percentage would it make it tougher as we just don't know that? That's still grouping all Muslims into that, banning all of them from entering as mentioned in the OP.

Having the innocent refugees who may have a better place to live in the US rejected from entering won't stop those that are already being radicalized from "the inside out", some with prior links to the ME, some with newer influence. Even without the SB shooter's wife with him, he may still have acted out, as he was radicalized before hand.

originally posted by: stolencar18
I'm asking WHY NOT block them?

You can't.
You won't know who is one.

It's entirely different from checking someone's nationality on a passport.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: stolencar18

I have yet to see anyone say why we shouldn't block them from coming in.

Because one of the building blocks of our nation is freedom of religion that applies to people that live here and people that want to live here. If we are not going to support freedom of religion then take it out of the Constitution.

Exactly, otherwise you're talking nationality-ME and or from Muslim countries. Then again, doesn't that apply(maybe now days) just like religious freedom?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: stolencar18

Jimmy Carter stopped them during the Iranian hostage crisis.

No one said a thing then.

That was Iranians. Not Muslims. Try again.

ETA: And the US allowed Iranians in the disavowed the regime.

The difference now is that we are at war with an ideology, not a country.

originally posted by: schuyler
Yes, there is a problem with it. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution does not only give you free speech rights, it also grants you freedom of religion. So if you decide who can get in based on religion, you just violated a key provision of the Bill of Rights. There is no equivocation here, either, because religion is specifically spelled out.

It's really that simple.

Your right but that is OUR Constitution to protect US citizens, those trying to get in are not US citizens. Since when has our constitution covered non-citizens?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: stolencar18

Jimmy Carter stopped them during the Iranian hostage crisis.

No one said a thing then.

That was Iranians. Not Muslims. Try again.

ETA: And the US allowed Iranians in the disavowed the regime.

The difference now is that we are at war with an ideology, not a country.

Therefore your analogy fails.

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I see this is something you have been pushing recently, but the true Muslims I know would disagree wholeheartedly with you.

I don't know how you can consistently get away with your lies.

Some people just hate Muslims. If you debunk every lie they peddle, they'll just look for more excuses to rationalize their hate.

As for the OP: Who does the majority of crimes in the US? Who does the majority of arsons, mass shootings, murder/suicides, and other shootings? Who steals the most, including embezzlement, fraud, identity theft, robbery, armed robbery, larceny, shoplifting, joyriding, kidnapping & abductions? Who kills the most kids here (5,000 American kids are murdered every year from child abuse & child neglect)? Every day, 3 American women will be murdered by men they've been intimate with. Who's committing those murders? And who's causing the American rape epidemic, which is making 1 in 6 American women a rape victim in her lifetime?

People are using Muslims as scapegoats when we're not the ones who are an actual danger to this country. While everyone's distracted by the recent explosion of Islamophobia, how many more Americans have been killed, hurt, robbed, or exploited by non-Muslims? How many murders have happened since the terrorist attack in California? Do you guys even care? No!

You don't care that things like cancers (580,000+) & heart disease (600,000+) kill more than half a million Americans every year. Combined, cancers and heart disease kill at least 3,200 Americans every day. Yes, that's more Americans being killed every day by cancers and heart disease than from the terrorist attacks on 9/11! Where's the outrage?

You (plural form) don't care about protecting Americans, saving Americans, or even about creating safe conditions for Americans. If you did, you'd be channeling all of this energy into fighting American poverty, fighting the American cancer & std epidemics, fighting the American drug overdose epidemic, etc. You just want excuses to discriminate against people who are different from you and excuses to justify yet another profitable war for anyone invested in the defense industry.

Plus this happens to be a perfect distraction so people don't pay attention to all of the real problems we're facing in this country. Just like that idiotic Mayan prophecy hysteria in 2012 and the Ebola hysteria in 2014, Islamophobia is the current election cycle's agent of hysteria. And it keeps working because some people are too easily distracted by their ignorance and fears.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Get out of here with your sensible post. This isn't the forum for that!

I liked it, by the way.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: stolencar18

I have yet to see anyone say why we shouldn't block them from coming in.

Because one of the building blocks of our nation is freedom of religion that applies to people that live here and people that want to live here. If we are not going to support freedom of religion then take it out of the Constitution.

Woah...the constitution and bill of rights do not extend to people who "want to live here". Basic human rights, etc, maybe, but non-Americans are not Americans.