Donald Trump and the Spike in Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes in the U.S.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sooooo like a typical regressive authoritarian, drunk on party Kool aid, your going to be upset about what trump says?

You seem to be silent on the war criminal and outright traitor, king obozo funding and protecting Isis who has murdered thousands of Muslims.

Your a leftist hypocrite. In your world trump is bad because he says things you don't like and has a "R" in front of his name, but Obama can MURDER thousands of Muslims and you'll sing his praises because he has a "D" in front of his name.

Sorry to be so harsh but Its really sickening. All you leftist act like humanitarians but support a murdering psychopath like your cheering for a football team.

Let me know when trump is buying weapons for rapists and murders, till then ill save my outrage.

Deplorable actions. But to ignore the hate crimes that some muslims commit against others for being non muslim or american, or european or chinese should not be ignored, particularly when the numbers dwarf the hate crimes against muslims. But the media says one way is a hate crime and one isnt, depending on your religion or ethnicity and that is a load of manure.

All these type of acts are terrible. But the extreme one sided view of this OP is kind of ridiculous. And so is the medias extreme biaa on this matter.

Furthermore, while Trump can be a dick, his entire anti-muslim speech was (paraphrased) "we should ban muslim immigrants from entering america until,we know what is going on and can screen them properly.. Thats it. Thats not,hate speech. One might diagree with the position, but when did it become hate speech to have an actual border that does its job?

Trump deserves a bit of ire on mexican immigration. His rapists comment was over the line and uncalled for. That said, his negative comments wete only about illegal immigrants, and what the mexican government was doing, not legal immigrants, not US citizens and not hispanics. Conversely, pay attention to how mexico deals with guatemalan immigrants and illegal immigrants. Of course I do understand why some people might be ticked. Thats their right. Rioting to force everyone to bow to their political opinion however is not.

Probably voting libertarian, but lets be real. The left has gone off the rails in a lot of ways in the last few years.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The source is a poor example.
The race riots that worsened race relations in the U.S occurred prior to Wilson's presidency,as did much of the KKK lynching. It even says so in your Wiki source.

I get that you dislike Trump,so do I. But as I said earlier his rhetoric and policy proposal's are not the causality for the increase in hate crimes against Muslims. Stupid people do stupid things on their own time. If you want to believe Trump is indirectly responsible,you would also have to give Bernie some crap for his supporters protesting violently outside Trump rallies. However I won't deny that their is a correlation between his candidacy and the increase in anti-Islamic sentiment.

The causality for that is quite obvious...Hint; Muslim extremism.
All Trump is doing is feeding off the existing Muslim sentiment of your average conservative voter.
No offense to Conservatives.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As you can see, with the rise of Donald Trump we are seeing a rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes. It has gotten to extreme levels. 174 incidents in 2015!

ERMERGAWRD!!! 3 outta 174 supported Trump! That's nearly 2 WHOLE PERCENT!!!

Oh yeah, that's right this article is a hit piece against trump and will just result in 100,000 more votes for him right? God forbid his supporters ever took any accountability...

WOW!!! Some OP got their ass handed to them Guess I don't even have to chime in.

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The first amendment doesn't apply to ENEMIES OF THE STATE. Our children and mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, etc are NOT going to be destroyed/murdered by the army of satan. Go to Canada, hippy. God help us this country will wake up, and thankfully that looks like it's happening. We may finally stop leading ourselves to slaughter voluntarily.

Not all Muslims are enemies of the state... And to assume that they are is pretty intolerant.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The first amendment doesn't apply to ENEMIES OF THE STATE. Our children and mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, etc are NOT going to be destroyed/murdered by the army of satan. Go to Canada, hippy. God help us this country will wake up, and thankfully that looks like it's happening. We may finally stop leading ourselves to slaughter voluntarily.

Not all Muslims are enemies of the state... And to assume that they are is pretty intolerant.

The US has an extensive issue with intolerance. Just because you don't like Donald Trump doesn't mean you should make falsified posts trying to push a narrative.

It makes you the exact thing you are claiming to dislike as a matter of fact.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Irrelevant! It still completely and 100% violates not only the spirit of freedom of religion but also the actual 1st Amendment.

Ahem. You do realize that applies to U.S. citizens, right? It does not guarantee those rights to just any and everyone.

You are like the third or fourth person whose tried to point this lie out to me. Read the thread. You're wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Irrelevant! It still completely and 100% violates not only the spirit of freedom of religion but also the actual 1st Amendment.

Ahem. You do realize that applies to U.S. citizens, right? It does not guarantee those rights to just any and everyone.

You are like the third or fourth person whose tried to point this lie out to me. Read the thread. You're wrong.

You do realize the argument you are pushing about the constitution not specifically covering Americans is for a reason right?

You know, the fact that at the time the constitution was written there were no such things as US Americans.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: C8H10N4O2
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Trump has yet to publicly say anything anti-Muslim. He simply believes in stricter screening for immigrants whether they come from a muslin country or any other country... Funny actually, the majority of voting Americans agree with him!

Nothing except for wanting to ban admittance of Muslims into the country? That isn't anti-Muslim in your book? Lol no wonder you guys can't see anything wrong with this picture...

Trump and we want to stop terrorists from coming into the Country...Besides what's wrong with being anti-muzlim...Their 'holy' book tells them to murder everyone who refuses to join their religion...If someone isn't anti-muzlim there's a mental health problem going on...

Because it is intolerant and not how our country works. This is regardless of what you think their holy texts tell them to do.

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Every single individual person is responsible for his or her own actions. I do not care what anyone else is saying or doing. The lack of personal responsibility in modern society is getting out of control.

Morons that are committing crimes, regardless of what they are or what the motivation is, are 100% responsible.

This same defense works for law enforcement and military personnel across the world. Following orders is not an excuse for committing crimes.

It is always someone else's fault. They made me do it.

This is true, but suggestion is a very REAL thing. If someone everyone is looking up to gives the ok on certain actions, people WILL act on them. Yes, you are right, they are responsible for said actions, but that still doesn't excuse the rhetoric that lead them down that path.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The causality for that is quite obvious...Hint; Muslim extremism.
All Trump is doing is feeding off the existing Muslim sentiment of your average conservative voter.
No offense to Conservatives.

This is more or less an extension of my complaint against the conservative narrative of muslim bigotry. Trump hijacked that narrative and made it his own. Likewise, Wilson probably did the same thing with the racist movement. The anti-Muslim sentiments already existed. Trump just made them mainstream. That's more or less what I'm getting at with this thread. I guess.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Irrelevant! It still completely and 100% violates not only the spirit of freedom of religion but also the actual 1st Amendment.

Ahem. You do realize that applies to U.S. citizens, right? It does not guarantee those rights to just any and everyone.

You are like the third or fourth person whose tried to point this lie out to me. Read the thread. You're wrong.

You do realize the argument you are pushing about the constitution not specifically covering Americans is for a reason right?

You know, the fact that at the time the constitution was written there were no such things as US Americans.

Don't care. The Constitution still doesn't work like you are suggesting it works. Non-US citizens DO have rights whether you want to believe it is true or not. Or regardless of whatever reasoning you convince yourself why this is the case. The simple fact is that it is true and the narrative that non-us citizen Muslims don't have the freedom of religion in this country is simple 100% false. It's always been that way. If we change that, we are eroding our 1st Amendment rights. You cannot get around that fact, no matter how you try to spin this as a positive.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Non-US citizens DO have rights whether you want to believe it is true or not.

Only when they are in US jurisdiction. Outside of it, they aren't granted a single right by the constitution.

The simple fact is that it is true and the narrative that non-us citizen Muslims don't have the freedom of religion in this country is simple 100% false.

bolded the important part for you

It's always been that way. If we change that, we are eroding our 1st Amendment rights.

No, if they are not in the jurisdiction of the constitutional US, no it is not.

You cannot get around that fact, no matter how you try to spin this as a positive.

Yes I can by reiterating your own words IN the USA.

Trump has only called for a temporary halt on Muslim immigration, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise. For the record -

tem·po·rar·y ˈtempəˌrerē/Submit adjective 1. lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Only when they are in US jurisdiction. Outside of it, they aren't granted a single right by the constitution.

What's your point? I've been talking about just the US since word one.

Yes I can by reiterating your own words IN the USA.

And that's what I've been talking about. Banning a religion from entering into the USA. So your entire point is just repeating what I've been saying but thinking it says something else.

Trump has only called for a temporary halt on Muslim immigration, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise. For the record -

For the record that is 100% unconstitutional. Again freedom of religion and all that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

For the record that is 100% unconstitutional. Again freedom of religion and all that.

Um no, foreigners are not granted the rights of the constitution until they are on US soil either legally or illegally.

Banning immigration based on things like religion is actually constitutionally allowed.

I'm not saying it's right, but yes indeed it is allowed.

Syrians in Syria do not get the privilege of first amendment rights.

a reply to: pirhanna

Deplorable actions. But to ignore the hate crimes that some muslims commit against others for being non muslim or american, or european or chinese should not be ignored, particularly when the numbers dwarf the hate crimes against muslims. But the media says one way is a hate crime and one isnt, depending on your religion or ethnicity and that is a load of manure.

You're implying that there's some kind of justice in this mix - that we can't call out one without calling out the other

One thing doesn't justify the other. Hate crimes have nothing to do with terrorism - they are separate

Unless we want to say that people that go after Muslims here in the states are too stupid to understand the difference

a reply to: Vector99

Would Donald Trump's ban on Muslims be legal?

While some may have viewed the president's reaction as insufficient to meet the threat posed by terrorism, Trump's proposal appears to be an overreach which is largely inconsistent with U.S. practices, law and precedent.

"The only respect in which religion is a legal criterion in immigration choices is that fleeing religious persecution weighs in someone's favor on the question of being granted refugee status," Richard Primus, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan law school, told CBS News. "Saying 'no Muslims allowed' or 'no Christians allowed' would not be legal. It would probably be unconstitutional."

Also this:

... Similarly, immigrants who have been legally admitted to the U.S. and are looking to become permanent residents are also not asked about their religion.

That omission is no mistake. A 2012 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy memorandum instructs immigration officers, "Avoid questions about a person's religious beliefs or practices unless they are relevant to determine the individual's eligibility for a benefit. Do not make any comments that might be taken as a negative reflection upon any other person, race, religion, or country."

If an immigration official asks about an immigrant's religion and then uses the answer as the basis for denial of relief, "that could be a constitutional violation," Greg Chen, the director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told CBS News. This comes into play especially in cases when immigrants have already been legally admitted to the U.S. because, says Chen, a court could find that their equal protection rights have been violated.

Also, besides violating the Constitution it violates international treaties that America helped pioneer in the past.

One troubling issue Abou El Fadl did identify in Trump's proposal is the disregard shown for the United States' commitment to international bodies and human rights charters that forbid religious discrimination - all of which the U.S. helped pioneer.

"Trump seems to have just not bothered to read the Constitution or any international law or even have any regard for it," he said. "You're not going to take an action like that without opening the door and validating other countries reciprocating in kind or choosing having their own choice of bogeyman."

Trump MAY be able to convince the right courts to get away with this (he better hope that Obama's Supreme Court nominee doesn't get approved and he gets a chance to appoint one), but it is SO far from American policy, precedent, and the forefathers' intentions that calling it patriotic would be an insult to everything that is American.

Politics designed too divide you

"Trump inspires bigots"
"Hillary is corrupt"

immigration , taxes , welfare , war , terrorism

everyone's got an opinion
use those opinions too divide you

increase the gap between each of us
so we end up thinking people who do not share our opinions
are so different from us

we spend our efforts fighting each other
they spend their effort giving us topics too argue over

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump MAY be able to convince the right courts to get away with this (he better hope that Obama's Supreme Court nominee doesn't get approved and he gets a chance to appoint one), but it is SO far from American policy, precedent, and the forefathers' intentions that calling it patriotic would be an insult to everything that is American.

Obama won't get to appoint the next supreme court justice, I think we all know that much.

Also, besides violating the Constitution it violates international treaties that America helped pioneer in the past.

Let's go ahead and break this down. From your source.

It would probably be unconstitutional."

You only say probably if you aren't sure. For a news station such as CBS to run with probably[i/], well it PROBABLY means they don't know what they are talking about.

America has pioneered a lot of stuff they have backtracked on. And I mean A LOT.

Your thread in general is a generic attempt to try to tie crimes committed to Donald Trump. Your thread is a fail.

Those three, yes again THREE of 174 only admitted to being trump supporters. There is no history on them whatsoever unless you care to provide it. Correlation does not equal causation. In fact, if you were to look at the spike in anti-muslim rhetoric (which you obviously won't) compared to muslim related world-wide attacks, you would see a greater causation/correlation factor, but you won't.

Instead you hate Trump so you create a thread based on correlation/causation in it's most pitiful form ever, and try your damn heart out to spin it your way.

We aren't that stupid here. We see through this kind of rhetoric and laugh at the straws you grasp at to demonize an individual.

You have not provided any legal reason his proposed immigration ban is unconstitutional, just opinion pieces instead.

The fact of the matter is, yes the president can close immigration and borders to ANYONE they determine to be a threat to the country.

When Islam stops blowing people up on a regular basis the borders will open. Or do you just really deny that they do that?