Segregation breeds contempt and politicians that advocate it, maybe they are saying what people want to hear, but that isn't promoting a progressive society. The Jews had to wear a special badge to show their religion and we know how that worked out and was perceived eventually. This is no different and one should be learning from history and not making the same mistakes.
Do you think the Muslims will take it sitting down when you issue them special identification? It is as if putting a bar code on their faces and they are already suspect of something. Maybe that special ID will not push through because there are Muslims everywhere no matter if they are in the minority. Even in China where the law is very strict, they cannot totally eradicate the ethnic Muslims there and all they could do is to harass those Muslims so they will move elsewhere.
There aren't very many countries in the world that haven't been affected by these terrorist attacks, but the ones who haven't, tend to be the ones that dint have any sort of Muslim population. Japan for example, as virtually no Muslims living there, not even doctors or wealthy business owners live there like they tend to be welcomed into other countries.
He does appear to be, either intentionally or otherwise, ratcheting up the rhetoric in recent memory. Curiously, it doesn't seem to have hurt him too much in the polls, nor knocked him out of the race. We live in unusual times.
We need sensible, workable solutions to the illegal immigration problem that are constitutional and practical. We cannot simply ban the followers of any one particular religion, nor can we expect any sort of self-reporting of such a ban to work even if we could somehow enforce it. We do need to do a better job protecting the borders, and give more scrutiny overall to immigrants, visas, etc - particularly those from certain countries and regions (not religions) that produce unusually high levels of terrorists/terrorism.
I agree that barring a particular religious group would never fly in the courts as it would be grossly unconstitutional. The only example I can think of that holding up was the anti-Mormon laws of the 19th century, but that was a long time ago, and the courts would never sustain such a thing now. However, the idea of barring traffic from certain hot spots makes all kinds of sense. Particularly if we cannot properly vet who they are and why they want to come here. I'll add we have closed down emigration before from areas that could potentially be a problem. During for most of World War II, for example, immigrants could not come here from Germany, Japan, or Italy. And that included refugees from those despotic regimes, though it was loosened up some in 1944 to allow some of those escaping the Holocaust to resettle here. In '41, FDR even suspended naturalization proceedings for those already here that came from the aforementioned big three Axis powers. It wasn't until after the war that Truman started opening up the quotas again (December 1945). No I'm not suggesting we go to the extremes of that era, but it is an example of how we restricted the flow of individuals who might do us harm.
Dreadful for him to consider that, really. This guy doesn't deserve the attention he's lately been getting, and I really start doubting the average American's political savviness if they even consider voting for this guy. But of course he's getting a few more votes on the run. Most Americans don't even want to filter the information they're getting through TV and/or Internet and just stay with the first opinion they get. Shameful, really.
I just watched an interview he did with Barbara Walters in which he said he was going to ban Muslims from entering into America for a while if he were to become president. Than man is sick and twisted and I will be appalled if he became the leader
Timothy McVeigh, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Boston Marathon... even the recent clinic bombing.... done by whites. I think all white males who make anti-government comments should have to register and wear a bracelet. But that is besides the point. It is just a stupid idea that takes away all kind of constitutional rights. It would never pass, never get adopted and Trump is just preaching to the most hateful 20% of the Republican party.
The problem is the definition of ´linked´. It kinda goes to the 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon, but we do this all the time in US politics where we say something is linked to something else, and then when you do the research, it is two people who have never met, but who have friends of friends of friends who know each other. It is similar to how Bush said Iraq was linked to Al Queda.... but the path they needed to weave to get that link basically meant by the same standards, almost every country on the planet was ´linked´ to Al Queda.
