Banning Muslims and the UN

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby mat.gopack » 10 Nov 2016, 06:32

Given how little attention the US paid to the yearly UN vote to condemn the Cuban embargo, I don't think any UN resolution against a Muslim ban would have any more effect than a strongly worded letter...
.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.mat.gopack.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.
Mattopia of the Mattibean Union in CYOC. You should join ;)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

Spreadsheets are fun!
User avatar
mat.gopack
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: 22 Nov 2009, 23:40
Location: The Carolinas
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (929)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby Bromley86 » 10 Nov 2016, 09:36

Don Juan of Austria wrote:
Bromley86 wrote:Thanks guys, all makes sense. Interestingly, although the reality may well be that Jews are effectively banned from Saudi Arabia (unless they decide they really need their services), Saudi Arabia in theory bans on the basis of connection to Israel (be it citizenship or visa stamp). 1 I believe some other Muslim countries, like Bangladesh, do likewise.


Does Saudi Arabia advertise freedom of religion? I don't really think its a strong point for them... Whereas the US does have a Constitution which refers to little things like freedom of religion. ;)


And if the US started banning Muslim citizens from returning, that would indeed be a problem :) . Although, even then, there's precedence for something similar with FDR's Japanese internment order.
A member of the Classicists, a group that aims to reduce NMRs/surrenders.
Bromley86
 
Posts: 503
Joined: 02 May 2012, 00:16
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1880)
All-game rating: (2233)
Timezone: GMT+12

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby ruffdove » 10 Nov 2016, 15:38

Just pointing out, the Constitution applies to people inside the United States. People outside the United States have no Constitutional right to come here, and the United States government is not exceeding the Constitution to limit immigration into the country in any way. Every country in the world controls its borders and those crossing its borders in some way that it perceives to be in its best national interests.

I don't think the US should bar Muslims from entering this country. I do think the US should limit immigration to what we can responsibly handle, and we should assign quotas to each country based on number of people desiring to come here (i.e., the more who want in, the higher the quota relative to countries with low desire to come here). Morally, I think we're obligated to give priority to those with the most pressing need to immigrate - which would men that for Syria and Iraq, priority would go to Christians and Yazidis. Muslims are having a hard time in those areas, no doubt. But they're not being enslaved, mass-murdered, systematically gang-raped, and, in the case of Christian children, crucified. If there's room under the quota after those people, sure, I'd take Muslims.

EDIT - Adding to Christians and Yazidis: atheists, homosexuals, transsexuals, Muslim apostates, and anyone else marked for death/enslavement under the reigning religious order.
User avatar
ruffdove
 
Posts: 416
Joined: 28 Mar 2015, 04:32
Location: Mid-Atlantic, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1515)
All-game rating: (1579)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby bindlestiff » 11 Nov 2016, 20:34

ruffdove wrote:Just pointing out, the Constitution applies to people inside the United States. People outside the United States have no Constitutional right to come here, and the United States government is not exceeding the Constitution to limit immigration into the country in any way. Every country in the world controls its borders and those crossing its borders in some way that it perceives to be in its best national interests.

I don't think the US should bar Muslims from entering this country. I do think the US should limit immigration to what we can responsibly handle, and we should assign quotas to each country based on number of people desiring to come here (i.e., the more who want in, the higher the quota relative to countries with low desire to come here). Morally, I think we're obligated to give priority to those with the most pressing need to immigrate - which would men that for Syria and Iraq, priority would go to Christians and Yazidis. Muslims are having a hard time in those areas, no doubt. But they're not being enslaved, mass-murdered, systematically gang-raped, and, in the case of Christian children, crucified. If there's room under the quota after those people, sure, I'd take Muslims.

EDIT - Adding to Christians and Yazidis: atheists, homosexuals, transsexuals, Muslim apostates, and anyone else marked for death/enslavement under the reigning religious order.


I agree with you that the Constitution strictly applies only to US citizens. However, the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances") does prohibit any religious tests as a condition of, or impediment to, citizenship.

Depending on the whim of the US Supreme Court, this language could be applied to immigrants. Barring anyone with a particular religious affinity is very difficult to justify, in contradistinction to barring nationals of foreign countries with which the US is at war, or limiting the rights of such foreign nationals who are already in the US, as the US, to its shame, did in WW 2. It seems to me to be especially problematic given the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between religious identification (e.g., Islam) and threat to national security (e.g., terrorism). Yes, Muslims have been associated associated with some acts of terror, but obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims.

Despite the heated rhetoric of the recent presidential campaign, and despite what some might wish to assert, the US is not at war with Islam, and I have to believe a preponderance of Americans, including our elected representatives, will keep that fact in mind as we stumble forward. If I did not believe that, I would be seriously looking into moving to Canada.
-- bindlestiff
-- Platinum Classicist, Star Ambassador, card-carrying Oldie, and all-around prince of a guy

"La parole nous a été donnée pour déguiser notre pensée." (We were given speech to hide our thoughts.)
-- Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord
User avatar
bindlestiff
Premium Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 24 Feb 2011, 06:02
Location: Oregon, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1377)
All-game rating: (1465)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby Carebear » 11 Nov 2016, 21:26

bindlestiff wrote:
ruffdove wrote:Just pointing out, the Constitution applies to people inside the United States. People outside the United States have no Constitutional right to come here, and the United States government is not exceeding the Constitution to limit immigration into the country in any way. Every country in the world controls its borders and those crossing its borders in some way that it perceives to be in its best national interests.

I don't think the US should bar Muslims from entering this country. I do think the US should limit immigration to what we can responsibly handle, and we should assign quotas to each country based on number of people desiring to come here (i.e., the more who want in, the higher the quota relative to countries with low desire to come here). Morally, I think we're obligated to give priority to those with the most pressing need to immigrate - which would men that for Syria and Iraq, priority would go to Christians and Yazidis. Muslims are having a hard time in those areas, no doubt. But they're not being enslaved, mass-murdered, systematically gang-raped, and, in the case of Christian children, crucified. If there's room under the quota after those people, sure, I'd take Muslims.

EDIT - Adding to Christians and Yazidis: atheists, homosexuals, transsexuals, Muslim apostates, and anyone else marked for death/enslavement under the reigning religious order.


I agree with you that the Constitution strictly applies only to US citizens. However, the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances") does prohibit any religious tests as a condition of, or impediment to, citizenship.

Depending on the whim of the US Supreme Court, this language could be applied to immigrants. Barring anyone with a particular religious affinity is very difficult to justify, in contradistinction to barring nationals of foreign countries with which the US is at war, or limiting the rights of such foreign nationals who are already in the US, as the US, to its shame, did in WW 2. It seems to me to be especially problematic given the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between religious identification (e.g., Islam) and threat to national security (e.g., terrorism). Yes, Muslims have been associated associated with some acts of terror, but obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims.

Despite the heated rhetoric of the recent presidential campaign, and despite what some might wish to assert, the US is not at war with Islam, and I have to believe a preponderance of Americans, including our elected representatives, will keep that fact in mind as we stumble forward. If I did not believe that, I would be seriously looking into moving to Canada.

Just to be clear, there is a proud tradition in the USA of turning away refugees. Why change now?
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby ruffdove » 12 Nov 2016, 00:18

bindlestiff wrote:I agree with you that the Constitution strictly applies only to US citizens.


I never said this! Constitutional rights are extended to visitors to our country as well. If you come here from China or the UK or wherever, you are ABSOLUTELY free to protest in front of the White House, you are ABSOLUTELY protected from cruel and unusual punishment, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to due process. I think you can even buy a gun, at least in states where background checks aren't mandatory (not sure how we could do background checks for foreigners). My words if you go back and look were that the Constitution doesn't apply to people outside this country... and that includes American citizens, btw. If I go to Saudi Arabia and try to speak out on certain things or win someone over to my religion, I'm getting arrested and there's nothing the USG can do about it.

bindlestiff wrote:However, the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances") does prohibit any religious tests as a condition of, or impediment to, citizenship.


Right you are - but we're not talking about people trying to become citizens, are we? We're talking about people trying to get into this country. Let's keep the goal posts where they started, okay?

bindlestiff wrote:It seems to me to be especially problematic given the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between religious identification (e.g., Islam) and threat to national security (e.g., terrorism). Yes, Muslims have been associated associated with some acts of terror, but obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims.


Agreed, that's why I said I don't think we should ban Muslims from coming to the country. And while we're on the topic of what people actually said, Donald Trump's "ban on all Muslims" was actually a proposed TEMPORARY moratorium on incoming Muslims until we could get a decent screening infrastructure in place to ensure that we were able to at least have a shot at weeding out known terrorists. Not that I want to ruin everyone's fun by letting facts get in the way of a good Clinton campaign scare tactic.

bindlestiff wrote:Despite the heated rhetoric of the recent presidential campaign, and despite what some might wish to assert, the US is not at war with Islam, and I have to believe a preponderance of Americans, including our elected representatives, will keep that fact in mind as we stumble forward. If I did not believe that, I would be seriously looking into moving to Canada.


We would miss you, because some mischaracterizations aside, you seem a decent and bright fellow.
User avatar
ruffdove
 
Posts: 416
Joined: 28 Mar 2015, 04:32
Location: Mid-Atlantic, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1515)
All-game rating: (1579)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby Keirador » 16 Nov 2016, 04:14

ruffdove wrote:And while we're on the topic of what people actually said, Donald Trump's "ban on all Muslims" was actually a proposed TEMPORARY moratorium on incoming Muslims until we could get a decent screening infrastructure in place to ensure that we were able to at least have a shot at weeding out known terrorists. Not that I want to ruin everyone's fun by letting facts get in the way of a good Clinton campaign scare tactic.


C'mon man. You're cobbling together some disparate things Trump said, separated in time by weeks or months and sometimes contradictory, with some of your own language, and then claiming that's what Trump "actually said." Weak sauce. Donald Trump has never said something closely resembling what you've paraphrased. "Until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on" is not the same as "until we can get a decent screening infrastructure in place" unless you wish it to be. Given that in that speech he talked extensively about poll numbers demonstrating anti-American sentiment amongst many Muslims, it seems far likelier that what he wanted to figure the hell out was why the US is unpopular in the Islamic world. But there are lots of possible interpretations to Trump's vague, grandiose rhetoric, and unless you're on his staff you're not the arbiter of which interpretation is right or the most reasonable.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 8965
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby mat.gopack » 16 Nov 2016, 05:09

Keirador wrote:
ruffdove wrote:And while we're on the topic of what people actually said, Donald Trump's "ban on all Muslims" was actually a proposed TEMPORARY moratorium on incoming Muslims until we could get a decent screening infrastructure in place to ensure that we were able to at least have a shot at weeding out known terrorists. Not that I want to ruin everyone's fun by letting facts get in the way of a good Clinton campaign scare tactic.


C'mon man. You're cobbling together some disparate things Trump said, separated in time by weeks or months and sometimes contradictory, with some of your own language, and then claiming that's what Trump "actually said." Weak sauce. Donald Trump has never said something closely resembling what you've paraphrased. "Until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on" is not the same as "until we can get a decent screening infrastructure in place" unless you wish it to be. Given that in that speech he talked extensively about poll numbers demonstrating anti-American sentiment amongst many Muslims, it seems far likelier that what he wanted to figure the hell out was why the US is unpopular in the Islamic world. But there are lots of possible interpretations to Trump's vague, grandiose rhetoric, and unless you're on his staff you're not the arbiter of which interpretation is right or the most reasonable.

Yeah, the thing with Trump is we have no idea what his actual policies are. It seems to flip-flop based on who the last person he talked to told him... So it might be a full on ban on muslims, it might be a temporary ban, it might be to drone kill all the ones currently in the US for being un-american.

What I think is most likely is that he decides to stem the 'gigantic tide of terrorist refugees' (all 13,000 refugees a year from Syria, that seems unnecessarily high). It'll probably some kind of ban on muslim refugees. Though again, it is Trump, so he might flip-flop and do something even more insane. :(
.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.mat.gopack.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.
Mattopia of the Mattibean Union in CYOC. You should join ;)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

Spreadsheets are fun!
User avatar
mat.gopack
 
Posts: 20286
Joined: 22 Nov 2009, 23:40
Location: The Carolinas
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (929)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Banning Muslims and the UN

Postby Keirador » 16 Nov 2016, 05:17

Or less insane. I'm convinced the man has no convictions that don't relate to his own popularity and ego. I don't really believe he's ideologically committed to any of the many awful things he has promised, and could probably be convinced to govern as a moderate, or maybe just not govern at all. There's a universe where Trump takes the path of least resistance, brings together Republicans and Democrats on a massive infrastructure bill, and just builds a bunch of bridges and roads and railways. All named Tremendous Trump Bridge, of course.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 8965
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Previous

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest