Was Trump out of Line?

[Ronkh]

So for a couple of days I have been thinking that Trump may have stepped over the line with his comments.

I've listened to all the talking heads at Fox, MSNBC, and the Clinton News Network as well as all the legal "experts" and political pundits saying how this was illegal, unconstitutional etc.

Then heard about this today and went to look for it.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jimmy Carter Barred Iranians From Entering the US


Despite vast criticism over GOP front-runner Donald Trump's latest comments regarding Muslims entering the U.S., this is not the first time limitations are issued on allowing foreigners from entering the country, Front Page Mag reports.

In 1980, when dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter issued a number of orders putting pressure on Iran — one order included banning Iranians from entering the U.S. "unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency."

Despite vast criticism over GOP front-runner Donald Trump's latest comments regarding Muslims entering the U.S., this is not the first time limitations are issued on allowing foreigners from entering the country, Front Page Mag reports.

In 1980, when dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter issued a number of orders putting pressure on Iran — one order included banning Iranians from entering the U.S. "unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency."





In a 1980 speech, Carter stated:

"The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."

In 1979, the attorney general issued all Iranian students to report to their local immigration offices. While 7,000 were in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the U.S.

Trumps latest call on a "complete and total shutdown" on Muslims entering the U.S. begs the question of whether the real estate mogul is a racist, or barring individuals from leaving terrorist stricken countries is part of "who we are" and does not go against "our values."

However, Front Page Mag notes that while Carter targeted people by nationality, Trump's proposal targets individuals by ideology.

"Classifying Iranians as a group is closer to racism than classifying people by a racist supremacist ideology that calls for the mass murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as ISIS is doing today," Front Page Mag reports.

Jimmy Carter Barred Iranians From Entering the US



And I believe by US code 8
The President, by proclamation can bar entry/immigration by any entity he deems a possible danger to the US.

 

[Mbkite]

Trupm is our only hope he is not wrong but may be too late..

 

[heisenberg]

Trupm is our only hope he is not wrong but may be too late..

He absolutely is wrong about a great deal of things. He and Hillary both are both complete jokes of candidates.

Our only hope as a country is to improve our media literacy so that all of these politicians don't get to lie to our faces and get away with it. Education and discourse are both pillars of democracy(like this country was founded on) and not bigotry and hate.

 

[Angus]

Yes Trump was totally out of line. And he has been for a very long time.

Never thought I say this, but I completely agree with what Paul Ryan said in response to Trumps latest round of bigotry:

""This is not conservatism. What was proposed [Monday by Trump] is not what this party stands for and more importantly, it is not what this country stands for.

Not only are there many Muslims serving in our armed forces dying for this country, there are Muslims serving right here in the House, working every day to uphold and defend the Constitution. Some of our best and biggest allies in this struggle and fight against radical Islamic terror are Muslims. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful, who believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy, individual rights."

 

[Mbkite]

You both will be proven wrong wake up..

 

[Stokdgs]

I believe he is right and this is needed at this time..

What everyone conveniently forgot to say when they were slamming what he said was this - "ban them until our government can figure out what the hell is going on"...

Isnt that different than saying just Ban them forever???

And while we are on the subject - terrorism in this country - wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to slow down or stop the number of potential Terrorists entering this country????

Do we actually think that by letting terrorists into this country then giving them welfare, jobs, an education, and all the other stuff they immediately ask for when they get off the plane, that this is going to somehow change their ideology one bit ??? Seriously ???

I cant think of a battle or a war in history where a country that was terrorized internally thought it would be a good idea to not stop said terrorists from coming across their borders...

I am so for education and discourse as said above, but the reality is that they have been telling the world for decades that their plan is to remove infidels from this planet.. So at what point in the terrorism is everyone going to be "ok" with stopping the killing of innocent men, women, and children ???

If so many muslims are serving, doing good, sacrificing, etc., why have we not ever seen them actually protesting, marching, going on the record to condemn the behavior of members of their religion that are behaving so badly ???

Has anyone seen them marching down the street carrying signs, burning the ISIS leaders in effigy, burning the ISIS flag, calling for their destruction, etc.. ???

Here is a new word for all those that want to keep using the 2 most evil words ever invented - political correctness - a phrase cleverly designed to allow all manner of bad behavior and evil to grow and we are somehow supposed to be "ok" with it -- Unacceptable ---

Its still war no matter how you want to spin it or call it by any other name...
Dan F

 

[heisenberg]

You both will be proven wrong wake up..

Please explain instead of speaking in vague sentences. What will I be proven wrong on? That Trump is not the answer to America's problem? And that maybe the state of our society is not going to be fixed by trying to rally beneath one person, and the problems that plague us run from the top to the very bottom?

Here's my issue with what Trump is proposing: there's no definitive way you're ever going to stop terrorism. Radical muslims hate our way of life. They seek for us to live in fear and for us to live oppressed. The radicals that we are seeking to ban entry to our country? If they want in, they will get in.

How do you expect to enforce this? "Are you Muslim?" People will lie and they will get in anyway. You can't just put up a sign that says "NO TERRORISTS ALLOWED" and expect to be safe.

Here's another quote from Trump: “If a person is a Muslim, goes overseas and comes back, they can come back,” Trump said. “They’re a citizen. That’s different.“

Guess what? Plenty of terrorists were citizens of the United States. Remember Timothy McVeigh? It doesn't matter what label you slap on a person, we're having a war of ideals and it's not solved by banning entire religions or groups of people from enjoying the same freedoms that we do. Thinking you can just prevent it from happening altogether is a pipe dream.

 

[GearHead_1]

I appreciate seeing opinions from both sides of the isle and how this forum is capable of having these conversations without letting the conversations degrade to a point that is simply one side attacking the other. I am a member of and have visited many forums, this type of dialog is rare indeed. I believe it sets this forum apart as a stellar group of people that can come to discuss important things like cars, get a dose of politics while you're here and then get back to truly important things, like cars. Thanks to all.

I'm kidding on the part about what's truly important of course.

 

[The Driver]

Until these matters effect everyone, especially liberals they will continue to cry about PC. As much as I hate to say it, there will be more of these attacks and until the public is screaming bloody murder nothing is going to get done.

Keep those shot guns under your bed...

 

[heisenberg]

Until these matters effect everyone, especially liberals they will continue to cry about PC. As much as I hate to say it, there will be more of these attacks and until the public is screaming bloody murder nothing is going to get done.

Keep those shot guns under your bed...

I halfway agree. I think the easy insult of "That tree hugging liberal!" and "That crazy conservative!" doesn't help anyone. But yeah, the PC stuff just has to stop. We have to have a return to common sense.

I saw a term called "Crybully" the other day which is people who cry really loudly and walk around on other people for hurting their feelings, which I found pretty funny. It's a real problem. We're so litigious in the US that we can't tell someone if they're being an a-hole out of fear of retaliation in some way.

 

[GearHead_1]

...Keep those shot guns under your bed...

Some time ago I read an article where a number of firearms experts agreed that a 20 gauge shotgun was the weapon of choice for a defensive weapon inside the home, there was further discussion about having an extended magazine to make the weapon ideal but that's kind of beside the point I was trying to make here. The experts concluded that a 20 gauge was capable of stopping most any attacker (even those high on drugs) with a lesser possibility of shooting your neighbor/family member on the other side of the wall or next door. There were a number of considerations that were discussed, the article weighted the selections considering such things as pistols both semi and revolver, size, high capacity magazines, sheer knock down power and the ability to conceal or store. The shotgun was the firearm selected. Interestingly they commented that the sound of simply racking a pump shotgun often made intruders leave without further incident. I also found it interesting that firearms like an AK47 or AR15 were far down the list for this particular purpose. Wanted to link to that article but can't find it now.

 

[The Driver]

Some time ago I read an article where a number of firearms experts agreed that a 20 gauge shotgun was the weapon of choice for a defensive weapon inside the home, there was further discussion about having an extended magazine to make the weapon ideal but that's kind of beside the point I was trying to make here. The experts concluded that a 20 gauge was capable of stopping most any attacker (even those high on drugs) with a lesser possibility of shooting your neighbor/family member on the other side of the wall or next door. There were a number of considerations that were discussed, the article weighted the selections considering such things as pistols both semi and revolver, size, high capacity magazines, sheer knock down power and the ability to conceal or store. The shotgun was the firearm selected. Interestingly they commented that the sound of simply racking a pump shotgun often made intruders leave without further incident. I also found it interesting that firearms like an AK47 or AR15 were far down the list for this particular purpose. Wanted to link to that article but can't find it now.

LOL at racking a shotgun, that is a myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrxkjRXk7m8

Rifles are a not a great choice because of barrel size, think about it. If your "pie'n" a corner an attacker can grab the barrel easily, thus bad choice.

Lastly, if the intruder hears a rack it's because I missed

 

[Stokdgs]

We have to have a return to common sense.

Thank you, Heisenberg !!!
Dan F

 

[Angus]

Sure I'm a liberal, but I'm also a proud American who fails to see how standing up for the founding principles of our great nation is somehow being "politically correct"? It's far to easy to point the finger at others and say "you people" are the problem as Trump as done over and over again with "The Mexicans" and now "The Muslims" without offering any real solutions other then "kick them all out".

 

[Angus]

We're so litigious in the US that we can't tell someone if they're being an a-hole out of fear of retaliation in some way.

Man, isn't that the truth.

 

[silverfox]

He's a genius. He has always known that he's not going to be the president. This is about pumping up his fame factor and he knows the media are suckers for ratings as are the American public for craving it.

 

[GearHead_1]

LOL at racking a shotgun, that is a myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrxkjRXk7m8

Rifles are a not a great choice because of barrel size, think about it. If your "pie'n" a corner an attacker can grab the barrel easily, thus bad choice.

Lastly, if the intruder hears a rack it's because I missed

Watched the YouTube. Many do not store a firearm with a round in the chamber. His comments toward the end discussing LE not carrying an 870 with one in the chamber is evidence of that. I'm not arguing whether this is the best all around tactic but it very well may be for some.

If I'm an intruder and I hear the guy in the next room rack a shotgun as he's coming to find me, it would get my attention. Is it a myth? I don't think so. This gentleman also makes a good point about a drawn pistol and a long gun be it a rifle or a shotgun essentially occupying the same space (i.e. coming around the corner). I don't keep a shotgun in a book on the bookshelf so I'm not arguing the particulars of a shotgun as the weapon of choice. That said, the YouTube guy basically agrees with what I read in the article I referred to. He likes a shotgun and indicated a 20 guage being a good choice. If as an intruder someone in the next room racking a shotgun doesn't make you nervous, so be it.

 

[Stokdgs]

My friend Angus -

I am also for the Founding Principles of this great Nation as much as the next guy too !!!

And at the same time, I strongly believe that providing for the safety and common defense of this Nation is also part of the Founding Principles...

And if that means removing things that threaten the safety and common defense, then we will willingly do that for everyone - those that want it and need it, those that were killed or wounded by these threats, and those that apparently don't want it...
Dan F

 

[The Driver]

If I'm an intruder and I hear the guy in the next room rack a shotgun as he's coming to find me, it would get my attention. Is it a myth? I don't think so. This gentleman also makes a good point about a drawn pistol and a long gun be it a rifle or a shotgun essentially occupying the same space (i.e. coming around the corner). I don't keep a shotgun in a book on the bookshelf so I'm not arguing the particulars of a shotgun as the weapon of choice. That said, the YouTube guy basically agrees with what I read in the article I referred to. He likes a shotgun and indicated a 20 guage being a good choice. If as an intruder someone in the next room racking a shotgun doesn't make you nervous, so be it.

Exactly though, you're not. Your an educated american posting a debate. Were talking about the most unscrupulous of people. People who may think they can sneak up on you, what if your on a first floor ranch that circles around? Surprise is the best asset you have, why would you give that up to essentially "hope" you scare the guy away. What about if he's on meth or any other amphetamine? There is ZERO RATIONALIZING with someone on drugs and rest assured if break in bobby perceives YOU as a threat while he's feeling invincible on a narcotic... he WILL charge you. Drugs alter state of mind, intimidation only works for rational people, physical force ends the situation immediately.

Fyi ~ A 120b guy on meth can easily over power an average 160lb man. There's a reason why amphetamines are banned from sports.

 

[GearHead_1]

Exactly though, you're not. Your an educated american posting a debate. Were talking about the most unscrupulous of people. People who may think they can sneak up on you, what if your on a first floor ranch that circles around? Surprise is the best asset you have, why would you give that up to essentially "hope" you scare the guy away. What about if he's on meth or any other amphetamine? There is ZERO RATIONALIZING with someone on drugs and rest assured if break in bobby perceives YOU as a threat while he's feeling invincible on a narcotic... he WILL charge you. Drugs alter state of mind, intimidation only works for rational people, physical force ends the situation immediately.

Fyi ~ A 120b guy on meth can easily over power an average 160lb man. There's a reason why amphetamines are banned from sports.

No idea where you're going with this. I was not trying to start a debate and certainly don't intend to argue, simply relating something I had read that was brought to memory by a members (your) comment. Apparently I don't agree with the article I read as I have no loaded shotguns in my home.