Trump to propose ideological test for immigrants to U.S.

[KEEF]

If the Catholic church doesn't start ordaining women as priests and performing gay marriage ceremonies you risk being labeled a terrorist by Trump.

Yeah, didn't even think about that either.

 

[KEEF]

 

[phill4paul]

Don't forget the shopping. Gotta go shopping. It's what is most important.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump to propose ideological test for immigrants to U.S.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-proposes-ideological-test-immigration-u-s/

Skin color, facial air and accent silly.......

Given that Trump sees Obama as founder of ISIS and lacking "genuine birther certificate", would Obama have been allowed in or stopped under tests Trump just proposed?
I didn't listen to his speech today. For those who did, under Trump's proposed test, current POTUS Obama's father would or would not have been able to get in ?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/politics/obama-father-abusive/

 

[Zippyjuan]

It could, but it doesn't. Instead it looks like something the Southern Poverty Law Center cooked up. "Do you support gay rights? Do you believe in gender equality?" Seriously your boy Trump just gutted conservatives.....again.

IF that is the standard, his buddy Putin could not come to visit.

 

[jmdrake]

Brilliant move by Trump. By refining the test from religious to ideological he makes his position virtually unassailable. Hillary will either have to copy him or look like a potential Merkel in waiting.

So you agree that anyone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is a potential terrorist? Cause that's what Trump just said in his "brilliance."

 

[jmdrake]

IF that is the standard, his buddy Putin could not come to visit.

Putin would get diplomatic immunity.

 

[Zippyjuan]

So you agree that anyone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is a potential terrorist? Cause that's what Trump just said in his "brilliance."

Would rule out a lot of conservatives abroad. Would that mean Liberals Only?

 

[LibertyEagle]

There is no requirement that our country let in ANY foreigner. So, vetting them thoroughly, should not only be a requirement, it is common sense.

 

[jmdrake]

There is no requirement that our country let in ANY foreigner. So, vetting them thoroughly, should not only be a requirement, it is common sense.

Actually.....under current U.S. law a U.S. citizen has a right to petition to allow his or her spouse into the country. If that law is abrogated based on religion and/or ideology that is a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. So Trumps original "Ban all Muslims" policy was facially unconstitutional.

Also its funny that while Trump got you and other supporters attacking the Khans, he later went on Hannity and said he would have let the Khans into the U.S. if he had been president, that they were fine people and that he thanked them and their son for his service. Oh....and contrary to the "The Khans are only against Trump for economic reasons because Mr. Khan is an immigration lawyer" BS put out by Trump supporters, Trump's "extreme vetting" proposal will actually make immigration lawyers filthy rich. Why? Because filling all of the new vetting paperwork will most likely require the assistance of...you guessed it....a lawyer.

 

[Valli6]

He shouldn't use extreme vetting. He should use comprehensive vetting.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

He shouldn't use extreme vetting. He should use comprehensive vetting.

Naa..

He should use "enhanced vetting".

 

[Zippyjuan]

There is no requirement that our country let in ANY foreigner. So, vetting them thoroughly, should not only be a requirement, it is common sense.

Since many of the people in the country at the time were immigrants I guess they didn't feel the need to say it in the Constitution. Nowhere does it allow for any restrictions on immigration.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Actually.....under current U.S. law a U.S. citizen has a right to petition to allow his or her spouse into the country. If that law is abrogated based on religion and/or ideology that is a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

No one wants to stop them from petitioning. But, since their spouse is not a U.S. citizen, sorry, but the Constitution does not apply to foreigners.

So Trumps original "Ban all Muslims" policy was facially unconstitutional.

He should have said it differently and he later did. The goal is still the same. Keep assholes out of our country who want to blow us to kingdom come. The FBI director has said that we currently have no way to adequately vet refugees, in case you were not aware.

Also its funny that while Trump got you and other supporters attacking the Khans, he later went on Hannity and said he would have let the Khans into the U.S. if he had been president, that they were fine people and that he thanked them and their son for his service. Oh....and contrary to the "The Khans are only against Trump for economic reasons because Mr. Khan is an immigration lawyer" BS put out by Trump supporters, Trump's "extreme vetting" proposal will actually make immigration lawyers filthy rich. Why? Because filling all of the new vetting paperwork will most likely require the assistance of...you guessed it....a lawyer.

Uh huh, sure, Drake. And Khan didn't write about how the Constitution should be subordinated to Sharia, either.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics by Tom Woods

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”


What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1798 that emigrants from Scotland had typically brought with them certificates from “the religious societies to which they belonged” that testified to their good character. King proposed that something similar be required of all those wishing to settle here.

And the list goes on.

The problem here is not that the question — “Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?” — is usually answered incorrectly or badly. The problem is that it is never raised in the first place. (That’s why it’s the very first entry in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.)

The Founding Fathers were not infallible, of course, and they were sometimes wrong. But on a matter as critical as this one, shouldn’t we at least be aware of what they thought?

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

 

[Zippyjuan]

As your piece notes:

The problem here is not that the question — “Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?” — is usually answered incorrectly or badly. The problem is that it is never raised in the first place.

I guess it wasn't a big enough issue for them.

 

[CPUd]

Sorry, but Donald Trump’s latest immigration idea is a total joke

Donald Trump is trying to turn his train wreck of a campaign around. And what better way than by focusing on his pet issue? That would be immigration.

Instead of just saying he’ll build a wall that Mexico will pay for, Trump is now trying to portray himself as more sensible. In that vein, he unveiled a new immigrant screening proposal last weekend.

From Politico :

According to The Associated Press, the Republican presidential nominee plans to present a proposal during an address in Youngstown, Ohio, to create an ideological admissions test that would question potential immigrants on positions such as religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. The test, in addition to combing social media and interviewing friends and families, would be used to determine whether potential immigrants support American values.In addition to the immigrant screening proposal, Trump will also call for the suspension of visa issuance to “regions with a history of exporting terrorism.”

RELATED: Donald Trump is treading water, but don’t count him out yet

That means if you’re a liberal Saudi who wants to build a new life in America, Trump will trap you in that barbaric “kingdom” because Saudi Arabia is a source of terrorism .

Meanwhile, the immigrant screening proposal is predicated on the notion that everyone tells the whole truth. How many people are going to say they support Sharia law if you ask them? How many are going to admit they endorse stoning women for adultery or throwing gay people off of buildings? Will their friends and family concede the same?

Donald Trump is one to understand that people lie. After all, his campaign has been lying through its teeth for almost a year and a half now.

RELATED: This new poll shows how Americans really feel about Donald Trump’s immigration views

Also, how are we going to define “religious freedom,” “gender equality,” and “gay rights”? What if they collide? Would a Muslim immigrant baker have to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

This immigration proposal is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that Donald Trump’s campaign is an epic failure. It’s certainly not a policy suggestion that should be taken seriously by anyone.

http://rare.us/story/sorry-but-donald-trumps-latest-immigration-idea-is-a-total-joke/

 

[liveandletlive]

a total joke sounds about right. If he wants to ban them, I dont see why not. Go ahead and do it, coward. He does have the executive authority.

 

[FyreLyon]

Hillary and her ilk are open borders fanatics, but it's possible she could twist Trump's immigration test to exclude people she considers "politically incorrect," much like they do in the UK.

 

[FyreLyon]

He shouldn't use extreme vetting. He should use comprehensive vetting.

Amnesty proponents have permanently corrupted the word "comprehensive" when it comes to immigration.