Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

These people aren't non-Muslims fleeing war, they are Muslims. They are the ones instigating the war, so if you want to save refugees from war, you don't import the war.

 

The largest portion here is a type question, how do we go about resettling, processing, assimilating x, and form that I would focus on the third type, but for the purpose of Trump's proposal. Trump, in saying ban all Muslims immigration temporarily, isn't commenting on any 'type', but rather is saying we refuse to take Muslims refugees, and his reasoning for that, as far as I'm aware is they are a security threat etc, but more broadly, the sentiment is, is that they would not assimilate in America, or indeed wherever they go.

Ultimately, the major problem comes back to whether Muslims entering ARE a security threat, and whether or not they would assimilate. Therefore, I think I will just focus on your last 2 paragraphs, since they strike the most important points.

You say America needs immigration. Sure, but that does not necessarily mean America needs those immigrants to be Muslim. Is there a shortage of non-Muslim immigrants? If not, then your argument doesn't apply, since you would have to invoke some sort of we should take some Muslim immigrants over other immigrants because they are from war-torn countries etc. Which is a fine argument to make, but wholly separate from the we need immigration argument.

You then say that the Syrians could fit into the Niche the Spanish do. I'm not entirely sure of the American issue, but I do know you have a lot of illegal immigrants. Would the jobs you propose the Syrians fill be legal? There are a lot of ways to find gainful employment illegally, yet from a media perspective, the story REFUGEES UNDERPAID AND ABUSED AFTER FLEEING WAR is something that has to be considered. You would also have to deal with the politics, the standard they come in and take our jobs rhetoric. Remember, as a democracy you're supposed to take in the will of the people.

America can afford it as much as someone paying their 4th credit card off with their 5th credit card can afford it. On your points about the strength of the American economy, my response is simple. Wait a few years and see, because immigration or not, the world economies are in a very unstable position. I have nothing more to add to that, other than I would think a substantial number of Americans would rather see that money spent in America, rather than out of it. Also those UN camps you're talking about also cost quite some money.

You say your argument doesn't fail because you group all Muslims together. You ignore the fact that your argument fails for that very reason. You are plain and simple equivocating. A Muslim born and raised in America exposed to Western culture, values and media is entirely different from a Muslim born in say Iran and growing up with Arabic culture, and values, part of which involved death to America. They are simply different types of people, full stop. We're not bringing in American Muslims to America, we're bringing in Syrian, or Libyan, or West-African Muslims. They are raised in entirely different cultures. You're crazy if you think they're the same just because they are all Muslim.

We also have known intelligence that ISIS is sending their fighters into these countries disguised as refugees. It doesn't even take a genius to work that out without any such intelligence. That is why Trump is calling for a ban on Muslim immigration, because even if most Muslims aren't bad in America, the percentage of non-American Muslims that are bad is higher than in America, and the chance for these 'fighters' to infiltrate America without an acceptable consideration of the whole issue is real. His policy itself, surely you can see where he's coming from.

Your arguments can be summarized as. We need immigration. Sure, but not necessarily Muslim immigration. Muslims can find work like the Spanish. Ok, but that work may or may not be legal in some instances, and people don't like foreigners taking American jobs. There are bad cookies in every group. Yes sure, but American Muslims are different from say Libyan Muslims, you can't say they are the same just because they have the same religion.


Anyway, since a lot of the refugees don't have documentation and are claiming to be Syrian despite being economic migrants, you're going to have quite the difficult time finding the real refugees from the false ones. All the more reason to, you know, be careful about who you take in. Just one final thing, even if America had a system in place to stop those Muslims from acting out as they did in Europe, they are the same type of people, just that they are being prevented from acting out. I don't know about you, but I don't want the same type of people in my country as were in Germany or Switzerland, screened or not, even if you, via policy were able to curb their mannerisms. They are the same type of nasty people, and they are a product of their culture and religion. This is painting them with a broad brush, yes, but right now unless you have a narrow brush (which screening might be, but that remains to be seen), one ought to be very careful about immigration policy, and at best you can say that a temp ban is being too careful, but I would rather someone be too careful than not careful enough. The stakes are high, and Germany lost, like I said, let's see what happens to Germany in 40 years if those immigrants aren't deported or mad to assimilate.

 

There is thousands of years of documented proof of conquests of every religion. What makes Islam so bad? Have they caused every war in history? I don't think so.

& as for your last quote from the Quran - is it translated from a reliable source?

 

The reason Islam is bad is because it asserts that everyone must submit to the laws of its murderous prophet, who spread his religion through the sword, and explicitly commanded his followers to spread it through the sword. It is a crime in Islam to insult the prophet. I should be free to insult Muhammad, Genghis Khan, or Hitler for their crimes without being beheaded by their worshippers.

There is no ambiguity from translation.

 

Muslim migrants attacking infidel caravans:

 

For the most part you are free to do insult whoever you like. You need to understand your words are going to anger a lot of people because thats what they believe in. It's like me going to the US and chanting that America should be destroyed, I don't think they would take that too well, I'd probably get my ass kicked.

There is a fine line between "free speech" and "hate speech".

And fair enough you want to insult Muhammad, Genghis Khan or Hitler. I'm guessing you'd want to do that because of their supposed barbaric policies. In that case you'd have to insult the US, NATO, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia as their countries are literally doing the same thing, killing innocent civilians for political goals.

Just because they are muslim countries and you don't agree with an ideology that they have you justify them being killed (that's my opinion, from the way you talk I don't think you'd care) when it's really the same thing.

You can try and justify your argument by saying Islam teaches by the sword, but so does every monotheistic religion. The bible & the Talmud are equally as violent as the Quran and their views are equally as extreme. In that case, you'd have to refute them all.

You seem to really take a disliking to Islam without realising it is extremely similar to a lot of ideologies you probably wouldn't have a problem with.

You need to realise the Middle East is being destroyed, peoples homes are being destroyed by your countries and you people are sat safe and sound at home without a worry in the world. You call them the terrorists but they are the ones worrying if they are going to live the next day from a bomb, not you. I don't see american or european countries torn to absolute shreds by middle eastern governments like you see there. Our governments are the real terrorists, and we will be collateral. You can't destroy entire countries (iraq, afghanistan etc) and not expect a backlash.

Since 9/11 America has led a coalition of military force in several muslim countries and blown them to bits. Is this what you call justice? Someone flew a place into a building in your country (killed 3,000) and you retaliated by destroying whole countries (killing millions) which continued after the suspect was killed and apparently it's justified.

Muslims are not the problem on this earth, people like you are. It's people like you that are so blind you can't see we are all being played like a game and our kids will be played in the same way. We've been manufactured to hate each other while those at the top sit and laugh as they make our lives hell with their new legislations and propaganda. Our leaders are in power because of people like you, sheep.

 

Really? Would you get your ass kicked if you burned an American flag? No. Would you be executed if burned a Quran? Yes.

Exactly. The reason that Islam is not free speech is because it is hate speech. It explicitly commands Muslims to commit violence.

I absolutely oppose governments and their crimes across the board. The US government has an abysmal record of denying rights to its people, even though it claims life liberty and property for them. That doesn't prevent me from criticizing Islam, who has an abysmal record of denying rights to its people, and claims that its goal is to deny the rights of ALL people.

Why would you think it probable that I wouldn't have a problem with other violent ideologies/groups?

Just because I oppose murder and conquest by Muslims doesn't mean I support the murder and conquest by politicians, funded unwillingly through my own labor, under threat of death.

I hate politicians. They steal my money and use it to expand their power. I don't know why you would assume I support another group of murderers because I oppose Muslim murderers.

 

You would probably get your ass kicked, yes.

In what way could religion constitute as free speech? I think there is a confusion here between law and religion.

 

Fair enough, I can understand your point of view. I apologise if anything I said offended you, I can see I did make assumptions.

It just annoys me when people talk ill of my faith, I wasn't raised a murderer and to hate every non-muslim, I was taught the exact opposite.

 

Have you heard of the term "Islamic Law", or "Sharia Law"? Did you read the passage of the Quran I quoted where Muhammad commands Muslims to fight people who don't submit to Muhammad's law, until they submit to Islamic Rule & slavery?

Religion refers to beliefs that people hold on faith. If someone believes that Muhammad actually did fly to heaven on a winged horse, that's religion. If they believe that Muhammad has relayed a command directly from god to lay waste to all other civilizations, that's murder.

 

This is what you said:

You said Islam is not free speech, which doesn't make sense since Islam is not a law, or a rendition of law. The law which you speak of being Sharia/Islamic Law is an influence of the Qur'an and Hadith based on interpretation.

Islamic shariah is not implemented in any country of the world, most Muslim countries have their own laws & chosen only few of laws from Islamic shariah.

 

So you didn't read the verse I guess.

 

Religion is not law. I suggest you re-read my comment.

To highlight it for you:

 

Right, so it is foolish to consider Islam a religion when it is law.

 

Again, you're not making much sense, rather twisting facts to support your argument.

Islam is a religion, Islam is not a law or an accumulation of laws. Laws in the US are influenced by Christianity, is Christianity then considered law and not religion?

 

Twisting facts? Not "using" facts? In what way have I misrepresented Islam by quoting direct scripture?

 

Islam is bar far the most errant of any popular religion out there. To say it isn't a religion, or to call it law would be false. It influences law, yes, but it isn't law itself, this is where I was getting at. I don't think anyone at this point would be or is trying to defend the religion, I was just pointing out the distinction between law and religion.

 

That's fine. Islam establishes itself as law, regardless of what law actually is, however. It has laws for must nots in addition to statutes for musts.

 

That's basically what the 10 commandments are in Christianity. Does that mean it's law and not religion?

Basic understanding of what a religion is: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

It's impossible to refute Islam not being religion, and it's comical to insist on it being law.

 

If someone believes Hitler was god, does that make National Socialism a religion, or is it still a political ideology? We evaluate ideologies for what they actually are, we don't apply some arbitrary standard of "Well, the only exception is if someone think's the guy is magic, then it's religion". Worshiping a murderer doesn't turn an army into a clergy.