Trump's idea of a Muslim ban has legal experts divided

“In all honesty, I never in my whole entire life thought that we’d be fighting for the human and due process rights of refugees,” including many who have fled religious persecution, McCarthy said. Efforts to halt the flow of refugees risks disturbing the balance “our commitment to fairness and refugee protection with our national security interests,” she said.

In other words, Trump's plans risk pushing her snout away from the trough.

“Imagine that instead of banning Muslims, we banned blacks from any country,”

The demographic braying for the former wouldn't be too traumatised by the latter either.

The US in the past made it very difficult for refugees fleeing right-wing regimes the US supported, as well as communist party members.

So this move wouldn't quite be "unprecedented."

Imagine that instead of banning Muslims, we banned blacks from any country,”

Irrelevant. Islam is not a race or ethnicity. It is akin to an ideology, like communism.

Bottom line: no one knows. Legally, the Executive branch has wide discretion here. My guess: it's "constitutional." -- regarding non-American Muslims.

That said, it is definitely anti-American. And bad policy.

And, to the credit of the American people, bad politics.

@Black Sabbath,

What does anti or un-American mean?

The US, like every culture, is comprised of people with a wide range of beliefs. Historically those with equalitarian beliefs have had to struggle against those who wanted to be able to continue to discriminate against groups and individuals because of their race, religion, gender, sexuality, physical characteristics, etc.

Up until the 1950’s the US had a policy of ‘separate but equal’ (NEVER equal in reality), which legally permitted racial segregation. It’s frightening to hear US Americans clamouring for a return to those times.

Touch wood the US Americans who believe in an egalitarian society will continue to prevail. Touch wood those who want to return to the 1950’s will be marginalised. Touch wood the US will continue to follow the words written on the Statue of Liberty.

I am an Australain but I have strong views on both Trump and ISIL. To me Trump seems to be expressing the view of the "silent majority" which are always under represented politically because they are not noisy ....that is to say they keep their view to themselves based on fear of persecution and bullying by those on the left who wish to squash rational debate. As far as I can tell from my remote location and reflecting media bias against Trump, he seems to be gaining strength from his open stance on the Islamic problem (yes it is an Islamic problem that even liberal Islamists seem to want a revolution to solve) and is likely to end up as the Republican Candidate if things continue for the next 11 months or so. We live in a largely unprecedented period of time although the Islam v Christian rivalry has been a constant over the last 1000 years or so. This current age of ISIL is so serious a threat to "non believers" as to warrant the protection of our respective Homelands of Australia and USA (and other Christain based societies) ....I.e. "The West" ....such protection will almost certainly require some extraordinary measures be taken ....such as banning groups of people from entering the country. The USA already bans certain people such as those with criminal records from entering as does Australai so it is not a large stretch of position and/ or Legislation to bring this about. We have not seen such barbaric acts of violence against innocent peoples of any race or religion since the last Crusade period in world history. The problem is that on face evidence it is migrants or their direct descendants who have perpetrated most if not all of the various acts of terrorism in recent years across the world and as a result it seems only proper that the respective Governments make decisions that protect their citizens until such time as ...to use Trumps language ....."they figure out what is going on". The various Courts of Jurisdiction who's job it is to uphold the Law and/or interpret it appropriately will see the sense in protecting their citizens as distinct from prioritising the rights of "non citizens" It is not racist or discriminatory to take such measures in times of crisis but trying to squash debate on the subject is not going to solve the problem. I for one applaud Donald Trump for having the courage to express his views and look forward to watching the outcome of the continuing political debate leading up to the 2016 Presidential election.

Good Words Darl: I would change that to Judeo Christian Values though. However, the philosophy behind Judaism is Deeds Over Creeds, and Action Over Faith, which is the opposite of Christianity.

Even though I have read a lot about the Muslim religion, I cannot really get a grasp of what it is about. Seems so brutal and pointless to me. Anyone here read a good book on it? Let us know. I do not want to make judgements blindly. My Megan David I wear has seen enough of that from history and irrational group behavior.

I am voting for Trump though if Nader does not get on the ballot.

Irrelevant. Islam is not a race or ethnicity. It is akin to an ideology, like communism

Ok genius. How do U ban them??

At immigration: Business or pleasure? Traveller: Pleasure Immigration: Are you Muslim? Traveller: No Immigration: Ok. Thank you Mr. Hussein. Welcome to America! Next please.

"Ok genius. How do U ban them??"

An outright ban would be unworkable. However, it is common for countries to encourage or discourage certain types of immigrants from certain parts of the world or certain cultural backgrounds . The US receive way more from, say, the Philippines, than from the Congo. A major reason is the locations and availability of visa-processing facilities plus application requirements.

If Japan were to open its doors,you can count on lots of Vietnamese, often viewed here as more likely to adapt to Japan due to their fairly similar cultures, than, say, Pakistanis or Ukrainians.

You see, genius, government policies can give countries a certain degree of control over what kinds of people get in the country. If I were Trump, that would be the approach I would take.

This is in line with American mainstream mentality, American Japanese were imprisoned during the second world war for being Japanese by origin. So there is a law & freedom for Anglo Americans and there is another for other races....

So any Muslim is a threat to US national security? So... Indonesians, those from Kosovo... are they also to be targets? They're Muslims, just not from the Middle East. Or will the ban only cover ME and Pakistani Muslims? How about Indians with 'Islamic' names?

Seriously, this is just obscene... it's profiling people based on the actions by a few. Can you imagine if in the 70s and 80s we banned all catholic Irish from entering mainland UK because of the actions of the IRA? That's what Trump is proposing... a blanket ban on one group of people thanks to the actions of a few. Have the French banned all Muslims?

If, god forbid, that maniac becomes President, you think he'll stop at Muslims? He's shown he has contempt for women and those with disabilities (taking the mick out of a reporter with a disability)... they'd be his next targets.

Trump's... Muslim ban

Trump to close Guantánamo?

Well this article can be debunked right at the start. The article falsely claims it is about religion, it isn't. Since there is no ban on a religion, there can't be confusion about it.

This entire argument is false, to remove the terrorism concern, pretend terrorists don't exist and then conclude it's all about religion.

The fact is, there are terrorists in the world, there are millions and they are not easy to identify. Because there is no effective way to identify terrorists, the logical act to take is to go with what is known and that would be the population which is producing the terrorists.

It is a fact, terrorists think of themselves as Muslim and they come from that culture. It is inconvenient but true.

It is no different than the fact 99% of serial killers are Caucasian males, it is so common, police logically start there when on a man hunt for one.

If you have Ebola out breaks, it is logical to ban travel of people in areas where eboloa is rampant.

In this case, the violent terrorists are in a specific population and preventing that population from coming to the USA at least blocks a majority of terrorists.

And the fact is, no country is required to allow terrorists in their country. It is the fault of the culture producing terrorists and it is the responsibility of those countries to clean up their own problems.

What the politically correct is doing is basically saying, the more violent and psychotic your group is, like Isis, the more legitimate. How does the world justify telling America we must put up with violent thug terrorists but the world says nothing to demand Isis stop killing and the world says nothing to the culture producing terrorists. It makes no sense. The UN and left wing politicians are attacking America for not allowing terrorists to get visitor visas but the same politicians will not in anyway tell the countries producing terrorists, to stop producing them, tell the culture which creates potential terrorists to not create them.

@Daryl1307

Excellent post!

Trump to close Guantánamo?

No, he said, he wants to put more jihadists back in there.

Up until the 1950’s the US had a policy of ‘separate but equal’ (NEVER equal in reality), which legally permitted racial segregation. It’s frightening to hear US Americans clamouring for a return to those times.

That is a total lie. Tell me, how many Blacks tried to kill other people? How many Black Christian fundamentalists wanted to cause mayhem throughout the country? There was a time where whites thought Blacks were less than 1/5 of a person and totally inferior to them, racially, physically, mentally and intellectually. None of that is going on here. All the people are asking for is a halt to allowing Muslims or rather Jihadists from coming into this country. ISIS admitted themselves that they would send in fighters mixed in with the refugees. The people have the right to feel scared and concerned and all you libs can jump on Trump make fun of the man, but the people are not listening, they don't care what liberal progressive and Obama supporters think, they don't care how many times Obama says, it's all good or everything is under control. No one is listening except that Obama won't do anything and that he is not serious enough, casual about everything, compare that to Trump sounding strong, indecisive, bold, confident and concerned, this is what the people gravitate, it's logical. That's why the guys numbers are through the roof. And no amount of bashing the guy will change that.

Touch wood the US Americans who believe in an egalitarian society will continue to prevail. Touch wood those who want to return to the 1950’s will be marginalised. Touch wood the US will continue to follow the words written on the Statue of Liberty.

Maybe that's why people love Trump so much.

Black people aren't terrorists. Muslim extremists are. The black argument is racist because you are equating blacks with terrorists.

@Bass & @Jorge My point is that the US has a history, a legal history of discriminating against people for any number of reasons, including race, country of origin and religion. (Look at laws against Jews, for example.) Muslim extremists can be terrorists, but that does not mean Muslims are, and that - in my opinion - does not mean Muslims seeking to come to the US should be discriminated against. If you're a US American, please read the plaque on the Statue of Liberty again. And @Bass, slaves were legally considered 3/5 a person. Fact.

If Japan were to open its doors,you can count on lots of Vietnamese, often viewed here as more likely to adapt to Japan due to their fairly similar cultures, than, say, Pakistanis or Ukrainians.

that comment shows you know nothing about Japan. the south east asians primarily come here to work and send money home. They don't integrate. That's not what they are here for genius.

The pakistanis on the other hand, are almost always married to Japanese, speak the language fluently, and open up businesses. I know quite a few. My Japanese wife's first job was in a company whose president was from Pakistan.

often viewed here as more likely to adapt to Japan due to their fairly similar cultures,

a very racist comment. Just because people may look similar doesn't mean their cultures are.

The moderators here are very biased

Moderator: You are the one who is biased, since most of your posts bash Japan in some way, which lowers the level of the discussion board.

I don't bash Japan. I bash its government. I suppose we all have to tout the Abe line that everything is great?? How does THAT raise the level of the discussion board?

Moderator: Please do not attempt to engage moderators in discussion. Your posting history shows you to be a Japan basher and as such, you are instructed to be more objective. That ends discussion on this point.

Will he'd tougher as most SNs and sites will encircled the laws, Germany was the 1dt with hate cimre enforcde, expect libal and slanders laws to follow with legal prosecutions.

IMO should have been from the start

However, it is common for countries to encourage or discourage certain types of immigrants from certain parts of the world or certain cultural backgrounds

using certain cultural backgrounds. That's racism. What countries do that?

If Japan were to open its doors,you can count on lots of Vietnamese, often viewed here as more likely to adapt to Japan due to their fairly similar cultures, than, say, Pakistanis or Ukrainians

completely untrue. Pakistanis start companies and employ Japanese people. They intermarry with the Japanese. There are hundreds of thousands of cases like this. Where are those cases on the vietnamese side? Heck, even the Korean Zainichi marry koreans and bring them over rather than intermarry with the Japanese. Again. COMPLETELY wrong.

You see, genius, government policies can give countries a certain degree of control over what kinds of people get in the country. If I were Trump, that would be the approach I would take.

That is the approach he is taking Genius. You 2 are on the same page. So just to set the record straight, you are a Trump supporter?

There’s no legal or historical precedent for closing U.S. borders to the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, but neither is there any Supreme Court case that clearly prevents a president or Congress from doing so. - article

Except, you'd have to tortured them to admit what they believe in their minds that no one can know. Welcome to the Republican Inquisition.

(But, well, Dick Cheney already proved a good water boarding at the airport is as good an amusement as killing 100,000 innocent Iraqis based on a lie. Merry Christmas, Dick)

The GOP, one disaster idiot after another. Trump's the next in a long line of jackasses. Maybe it would be better to ban stupid?