Why NOT stop Muslims from entering the US?

So....the general opinion is that Islam is a peaceful religion. Great.

But...there is no denying that there is a growing group of people that identify as Islam, and believe some incredibly intolerant things, and practice some extreme violence.

So what's the harm in saying "We're stopping ALL Muslims from entering the country until we figure out a way to filter out the extremists"? Muslims don't have a RIGHT to immigrate into the US (Or Canada, or the UK, or anywhere else really). It's a privilege that tens of thousands of people wait years to legally do. But I digress..

So why not stop them? I don't think it's bigotry, despite what a bunch of people spout on the news. I don't dislike Muslims, but I do see SOME of them as a risk. Why? How about.....because certain Muslims literally promote violence.

I know I'm going to be flamed. I really don't care. I'd stop Hindu's from coming in if a portion of them decided to do what ISIS and their ilk are doing. Ditto for Christians. Why not take it a step further? If 5% of Australians one day decided to become "Anti-North-Americans" and try to kill us, let's block all the Aussies until we can sort them out. I'll miss that gorgeous accent though...

I'm not a racist or a bigot. I don't think that people wanting to come into the country should have a greater right to freedom than I do. Make no mistake about it....there are violent Muslim extremists coming in. The fact that there are non-violent Muslims also coming in doesn't negate that. We can't live in a world where our philosophy is to let everyone in

Let them stay in their country until we can sort this out. They have no right to immigrate to whatever country they want. The whole "let them all in and we'll hope that none of the bad ones get through" attitude is a joke.

I'd go a step further and say the libs are wanting them in since the majority vote Dem, and the righties want them in since they want to earn their votes, but that's another topic.

Why not stop all men from entering until you can filter out the rapists, stop all priests until you can filter out the paedophiles, stop all politicians until you can filter out the warmongers etc etc.

a reply to: stolencar18

figure out a way to filter out the extremists

Those are the key words. Most people who want to halt Muslims from entering aren't asking to do so because of Islam, they are asking so because there is too high of a percentage of extremism within Islam.

Our immigration policy needs to be reformed to filter out bad apples in any group that has high percentages of extremism irrelevant of race, culture or religion.

Islam is the obvious place to start.

But if they want in badly enough, won't they just not admit they're Muslim?

a reply to: stolencar18

Simply put, Trump's version is a moratorium until vetting is assured.

This is only logical. Yes, the vast majority are good people who only want to better themselves...SO WHAT? If that's the criteria for immigration/refugee status, then we might as well do as Hillary says and have 'open borders'.

ANY immigrant /refugee is coming for that reason, there' 7 billion or so out there.....

a reply to: stolencar18

Islam is NOT new in America:

One of the earliest accounts of Islam's presence in North America dates to 1528

when a Moroccan slave, called Estevanico by his Spanish masters, was shipwrecked near present-day Galveston, Texas.[15] He and four survivors subsequently traveled through much of the American southwest and the Mexican interior before reaching Mexico City.

An early Egyptian immigrant is mentioned in the accounts of the Dutch settlers of the Catskill Mountains and recorded in the 1884 History of Greene County, New York. According to this tradition, an Egyptian named "Norsereddin" settled in the Catskills in the vicinity of the Catskill Mountain House. He befriended the local indigenous American chief, Shandaken, and sought the hand of his daughter Lotowana in marriage. Rejected, he poisoned Lotowana and in consequence was caught and burned alive

Yarrow Mamout (Muhammad Yaro), 1819. Portrait by Charles Willson Peale, Philadelphia Museum of Art

Letter of George Washington to Mohammed ben Abdallah in appreciation of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed in 1787.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: aorAki

Two birds with one stone.

True Muslims believe having sex with nine year old girls under the guise of marriage is perfectly acceptable. To believe otherwise is an insult to the infallible prophet Muhuammeds lifestyle choices.

Most civilized people consider that rape and pedophilia. Do you?

The problem here is that it won't stop criminals-terrorists who will find a way around any rules to that. Then you would have those stated these rules to take it one step further to a racial connotation. Then you have to ask where it ends. Should history repeat itself? Interment camps for Japanese Americans wasn't exactly a strong point for the US as neither were the internment camps for Ukrainians deemed "enemy aliens" in Canada during WWI.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I see this is something you have been pushing recently, but the true Muslims I know would disagree wholeheartedly with you.

I don't know how you can consistently get away with your lies.

Yes, there is a problem with it. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution does not only give you free speech rights, it also grants you freedom of religion. So if you decide who can get in based on religion, you just violated a key provision of the Bill of Rights. There is no equivocation here, either, because religion is specifically spelled out.

It's really that simple.

a reply to: stolencar18

What do you propose about the Muslims who live in your country now that were born there. Do you want all Muslims thrown out even though they are American citizens?

originally posted by: aorAki
Why not stop all men from entering until you can filter out the rapists, stop all priests until you can filter out the paedophiles, stop all politicians until you can filter out the warmongers etc etc.

how do we no your not a witch...
I really don't like the way African Americans look at me....
Mexicans are taking all our jobs
Most everyone will ignore the heart of the problem," the Congress" and become caught up in the presidential circus.
The powers-that-be will once again con everyone into believing the most important issue is who the El Presidente is.
The simple truth is, if Congress was doing its job, the Congress could set everything right. It's not about El Presidente.

It's about Congress. The Congress has more power than the executive branch. Sure the President can sign or veto bills but the important point to remember is it all starts with Congress. REMEMBER . . .

Even if the president vetoes a bill, the Congress can override the veto. We have to realize that the Congress encourages fixation on the President so they can pass the buck, blame what they are doing on the Executive branch.

Fact is, Presidents have no Constitutional authority to do most of the things they claim they can do.
They can only ask the Congress to do what they want.
The Congress could have stopped everything that's happening; the wars, the Wall Street takeover, the TRILLION DOLLAR defense budget they just passed.
Our so-called representatives have sold us out so many times it makes my head spin......

originally posted by: dreamingawake
The problem here is that it won't stop criminals-terrorists who will find a way around any rules to that. Then you would have those stated these rules to take it one step further to a racial connotation. Then you have to ask where it ends. Should history repeat itself? Interment camps for Japanese Americans wasn't exactly a strong point for the US as neither were the internment camps for Ukrainians deemed "enemy aliens" in Canada during WWII.

Still, it makes it tougher for them. Nothing will stop it completely.

Answering your question in the title:

Because all US-presidents use to play golf (gulf) with Saudi Arabian sheiks. I am not sure, who's head stucks in the other's back. But this is history and tradition and even Trumpet cannot do without Saudis. He even could not do without Merkel, if he really would be your next Führer.

But luckily this is just a troll joke for the unsatisfied minds.

a reply to: aorAki
Well if they truly belive as you say on such a key aspect of muhammeds story then why do they belive the rest of his bs psycho fantasy of being a direct recipient of god's word?

If you disbelieve one aspect of the Quran the whole sham falls apart.

Think about it.

The reason you cannot place a rule or regulation on Muslims and not others is that it violates the principle of equal application of the law.

a reply to: stolencar18

If more terrorist attacks aimed to kill American citizens keep happening you will see the political rats screaming for a halt to immigration from the middle eastern nations.

But they will wait until more people gets killed by radicalized Islamic terrorist to do something about it.

originally posted by: aorAki
Why not stop all men from entering until you can filter out the rapists, stop all priests until you can filter out the paedophiles, stop all politicians until you can filter out the warmongers etc etc.

Why not? Do you want rapists here, even more than we already have? I don't. So why should we add more?

originally posted by: dreamingawake
The problem here is that it won't stop criminals-terrorists who will find a way around any rules to that. Then you would have those stated these rules to take it one step further to a racial connotation. Then you have to ask where it ends. Should history repeat itself? Interment camps for Japanese Americans wasn't exactly a strong point for the US as neither were the internment camps for Ukrainians deemed "enemy aliens" in Canada during WWI.

Well, you know, the laws don't stop murderers or rapists either. I guess we shouldn't bother.