Muslims in the US

[AlbqOwl]

It started here.



Then a clarification.


My reply as it like Trumps so called plan was not clear.


China does have attacks by Muslims inside China.
Then further clarification and adding on to an obvious error by throwing in more clarification. Oh and it has to be against Americans. Everyone else is fair game?


Then this.



No idea of what I am talking about. No Ms. the shoe for that is on your foot

What is "on my foot" is an argument I believe I can support and I will stand by. And you still aren't making any argument to challenge it and are really vague as to what you have posted in response. But nevertheless I'll wish you a happy holiday season and move on.

 

[JANFU]

What is "on my foot" is an argument I believe I can support and I will stand by. And you still aren't making any argument to challenge it and are really vague as to what you have posted in response. But nevertheless I'll wish you a happy holiday season and move on.

Really much ado about nothing important.
Merry Christmas to you, your family and loved ones.

 

[FieldTheorist]

The Immigration Act of 1924 was in effect for 41 years. Lets try it again for 41 years and see what happens.

That law is overtly racist. It doesn't even try to hide it's racism. It was literally called the "Asian Exclusion Act."

Don't you think that comes at a very high risk?

There's nothing thinking involved, and I mean that in all senses.

What did the Immigration Act of 1924 say?

Ban everyone who isn't white, and then only allow a tiny number of white people. It's racist as hell.

Right now he is the 2nd most popular Presidential candidate behind Hillary Clinton only, as far as we know.

And most of the Independents have not yet even made up their minds between the two.

That's literally false on both counts from pretty much every statistic regarding the electibility of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. Trump does massively less well in a national election over Clinton and Sanders.

Over the many generations America's been in existence, how many times have longstanding laws been brought up to SCOTUS and only there declared unconstitutional? Jim Crow laws were considered constitutional for over fifty years...until they finally weren't, beginning with Brown v. Board of Education.

That is quite correct.

Non sequitur and red herring.

That's an amusing suggestion. You think that when someone asks you to support your own bare assertion, they're the one committing a red herring fallacy? You clearly need to spend some time boning up on what a logical fallacy is, because you clearly don't know what "burden of proof" is, what "non-sequitur" fallacy is, or what a "red herring" fallacy is.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Just to add to my last post, it's really important that people read how overtly and unabashedly racist the Immigration Bill of 1924 is:

"Proponents of the Act sought to establish a distinct American identity by favoring native-born Americans over Jews, Southern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans in order to "maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain on our people and thereby to stabilize the ethnic composition of the population". Reed told the Senate that earlier legislation "disregards entirely those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard – that is, the people who were born here". Southern/Eastern Europeans and Jews, he believed, arrived sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.

Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race.Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Nordic races. Most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers."​

We're propelling ourselves backwards about 100 years, back to eugenics and racial superiority. Again, I've read this story before, I know how it ends.

 

[Gardener]

Just to add to my last post, it's really important that people read how overtly and unabashedly racist the Immigration Bill of 1924 is:

"Proponents of the Act sought to establish a distinct American identity by favoring native-born Americans over Jews, Southern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans in order to "maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain on our people and thereby to stabilize the ethnic composition of the population". Reed told the Senate that earlier legislation "disregards entirely those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard – that is, the people who were born here". Southern/Eastern Europeans and Jews, he believed, arrived sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.

Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race.Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Nordic races. Most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers."​

We're propelling ourselves backwards about 100 years, back to eugenics and racial superiority. Again, I've read this story before, I know how it ends.

Yet all this talk of such is a red herring because the issue here is one of ideology and not race.

The propensity towards a willingness to adopt American values is predicated upon the former, rather than the latter.

 

[Port & Starboard]

What a president and congress do have in legal respects, is the right to determine countries of "high risk". They could both legally shut down travel from these countries in the matter of hours.

 

[Sweden]

Yet all this talk of such is a red herring because the issue here is one of ideology and not race.

The propensity towards a willingness to adopt American values is predicated upon the former, rather than the latter.

Exactly Gardener. This thread seems permeated with the notion that Islam is simply a religion. But it is, as you rightly say, an ideology with strong political aspects and a world view which is incompatible with open, tolerant and democratic Western (not only American) norms. Having lived in two Muslim countries, one Shia one Sunni, I understand Mr Trump's concern.