It's just a pet peeve I hear the debate surrounding anything Muslim. There is bigotry from some people surrounding it but it's different than racism.

 

Maybe this is overly simplistic, but I would say that racism is a subset of bigotry.

Maybe this is overly simplistic, but I would say that racism is a subset of bigotry.

 

Racism is a type of bigotry but it doesn't apply to this. I have no doubts some habe feelings torward Muslims for hateful reasons.

 

But I also think it's wrong to lump everyone into one bucket . Some have legitimate fears.

 

When 68% of Muslims in England feels people should be put in jail for leaving the Muslim faith that is scary.

 

What people on both sides of aisle have to come to gripes with is both may be a little extreme on opposite sides of the spectrum.

 

All Muslims aren't evil or terrorists. Those on the right who portray that are wrong. But those on the left who don't fear the ideology that a majority of Muslims have they are wrong.

 

There are dozens of polls and science tific studies on thoughts and beliefs of Western Muslims communities. The results are scary when compared to ideals of the average person of the Western world.

 

We have to identify this disconnect and solve this problem.

 

A very small minority of Muslim believe in Jihad. But a majority have ideals that go against the social behavior of the right and left of this country.

 

I'm not some random white dude just spewing none sense I lived , worked and socialized in a community with a majority Muslim population. I habe friends to this day.

 

This is a real problem that many in their community know about and being ignored but most of America.

 

Mainly because it turns into a fight of right and left. The Left wants to always look like they are the sensitive social justice warriors and the right goes to extreme native cultural.

 

Both are feeding the problem when there are legitimate problems all should agree on.

The US ended its diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980 over the hostage crisis. That means we no longer kept an Iranian embassy and no longer recognized their visas or passports. We don't have diplomatic relations with North Korea either. Or Cuba until very recently. It's a matter of governmental relations between two states.

 

To equate diplomatic relations to rejecting any immigrant based on their nominal religious belief irrespective of national origin is so categorically different that it boggles my mind you all are straining to make such a connection. This is akin to saying we will no longer accept non-white immigrants or will no longer accept female immigrants.

I'm sorry that I boggled your mind. Why did you quote me, I made a simple observation regarding two very clear cases of discrimination. Are you saying that one of these is acceptable and the other is not, if so we shall both be mind boggled.

^^^^

Carter and FDR was both Democrats. Of course its ok.

As much as I distrust Clinton, I will vote for her if Trump is her opponent.:(

I'm sorry that I boggled your mind. Why did you quote me, I made a simple observation regarding two very clear cases of discrimination. Are you saying that one of these is acceptable and the other is not, if so we shall both be mind boggled.

 

You've said discrimination of any kind is wrong and you've said a lack of diplomatic relations between two countries is discrimination. Do you believe the US should re-open its embassy in Iran and begin normalizing relations (Iran is on the US state-sponsor of terror list and an Iranian passport is not readily accepted without jumping through a Byzantine number of hoops, including leaving Iran and going to an American embassy)? If not, you're making a strained talking point to downplay what Trump has said regarding Muslims.

This law has been used several times: Number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.

 

"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

 

When one uses the google key to search for opinions on this subject you get many who cite the above and many who say the above would not survive a challenge in court. Remember, there are always laws that are passed. We also then see many times where current laws are taken to court and overruled.

 

It would be interesting to see how this law you cite passes the part of the Constitution that says there cannot be a "religion test."

Like I said, this law has been used several times without question.. Help me with the "religion test".. I thought that had to do with citizenship, not immigration.

Like I said, this law has been used several times without question.. Help me with the "religion test".. I thought that had to do with citizenship, not immigration.

 

Gray area from what I gather. On the side of Mr Trump would be the plenary power would be used by SCOTUS to allow it even though it may , in theory, be against what the Constitution says. Actually, it seems plenary power would make overturning such a law very difficult.

The primary reason most refugees give for seeking asylum is that they are fleeing religious persecution in whatever war torn place they're coming from. During the interview process, it is required that we investigate that. "What religion are you?" we ask. They must tell us. Based on what they tell us, we then examine whether or not there is indeed persecution of that religious belief in the place where the immigrant, the refugee, is coming from. Is that a "religion test" ?

The primary reason most refugees give for seeking asylum is that they are fleeing religious persecution in whatever war torn place they're coming from. During the interview process, it is required that we investigate that. "What religion are you?" we ask. They must tell us. Based on what they tell us, we then examine whether or not there is indeed persecution of that religious belief in the place where the immigrant, the refugee, is coming from. Is that a "religion test" ?

 

You're obviously asking someone who is not a legal expert.

 

My guess (key) is that your example would not violate the "religion test." I would guess excluding someone simply b/c of their religion would. Trump's is the latter and not the same as what you list above.

The primary reason most refugees give for seeking asylum is that they are fleeing religious persecution in whatever war torn place they're coming from. During the interview process, it is required that we investigate that. "What religion are you?" we ask. They must tell us. Based on what they tell us, we then examine whether or not there is indeed persecution of that religious belief in the place where the immigrant, the refugee, is coming from. Is that a "religion test" ?

 

Refugees aren't asylum seekers. There is a distinction. Refugees are normal citizens displaced for various reasons. Asylum seekers are seeking protection for political reasons, primarily.

When Carter used the law he kicked out Sunni-Muslims and no one complained then.. So why the uproar now? Trump did NOT say ban them forever. Just until we get a grip on this terror thingie..

Refugees aren't asylum seekers. There is a distinction. Refugees are normal citizens displaced for various reasons. Asylum seekers are seeking protection for political reasons, primarily.

If the refugees are not seeking asylum, what are they seeking?

When Carter used the law he kicked out Sunni-Muslims and no one complained then.. So why the uproar now? Trump did NOT say ban them forever. Just until we get a grip on this terror thingie..

 

Did he ban certain religions or did he ban everyone from a particular country? If it was the latter that makes it completely different IMO.