Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the United States, barring followers of the world’s fastest-growing religion because he considers the faith rooted in hatred and violence.

The proposal — which was quickly denounced by other candidates from both parties — marks the latest escalation of the virulent anti-Muslim and ­anti-immigrant rhetoric that has fueled his unlikely candidacy. It also came less than 24 hours after President Obama urged tolerance in an Oval Office address, saying the fight against terrorists should not “be defined as a war between America and Islam.”

But at a rally Monday night in South Carolina, Trump received a boisterous standing ovation as he shared the idea, telling the crowd that a ban is “common sense” and that his Muslim friends agree with him.

“We have no choice,” he said to cheers. “We have no choice. We have no choice.”

I suppose the fact that this move would be illegal and unconstitutional is OK with Trump supporters?

It’s actually frightening that his campaign has gotten as far as it has gotten.  He plays on fears and proposes what the ignorant want to hear, not what is actually possible.

The mainstream Republicans had better decide what they are going to do about him.  Can they disavow his rhetoric?  Can they distance themselves?  Can they simply tell him he can’t be a Republican?

How does Trump propose to tell if people are Muslim?  How would they be marked?  What would he do about American citizen Muslims who wanted to return home from visiting overseas?  What about American service personnel who just happened to be Muslim?

Do people have any idea how un-American  this kind of talk sounds?  No wonder some of them hate us.


42 Thoughts to “Trump proposal: Ban all Muslims from entering the US”

  1. Cargosquid

    The more I hear from Trump, the more I think he is either a ringer that succeeded beyond all hope at messing up the GOP races or he’s a boob.

  2. He might just have an ego the size of Kansas. He really has a stupid mouth.

    I just wonder what the GOP is going to do about him. He is shameful.

  3. Scout

    He seems to be drilling down to see if there is any bottom to the GOP “base”. So far, he hasn’t hit it.

  4. Wolve

    I think Jeb is at the bottom — or getting pretty close to it.

  5. Scout

    By”bottom”, Wolve, I’m referring to moral and civic values. If Bush were at the bottom or close to it, his numbers would be a lot better.

  6. Trump seems to have no bottom. If I believed in eschatology and the like, I would believe that Trump was the anti-Christ. He seems to fit the bill from all I have read.

  7. Scout

    The problem, Moon, is that Trump wouldn’t be doing this if he were not tapping into a very strong current of public sentiment. The fear, ignorance and lack of appreciation for American Values, America and its security interests is much more widespread than many of us would like to think. So Trump may be a symptom, but he’s not entirely the problem. The Angry Drunks in a Bar voting bloc is far more numerous than I had imagined or am comfortable living with in a constitutional Republic.

    1. It is very scary. I think that I am more insulated from the Angry Drunks that I thought. I don’t hang out with those sorts and therefore, they don’t seem as much like the norm to me as I thought.

      What is even scarier is that these Angry Drunks aren’t all uneducated bumpkins.

    2. Don’t we usually have a whole bunch of malcontents, each and every election? Do you think this cycle is worse than normal or even last time?

  8. Emma

    @Cargosquid I vote ringer. I’ve been feeling that way for several weeks now. He’s drowning out the rest of the GOP field, and the media is thrilled to play along. Once he’s out of the race, whoever is left standing will spend their time defending and explaining how they are different from Trump rather than how they are better than Clinton.

    Boob? No. Not if the above is true.

  9. Cargosquid

    Actually, I just found out that the “headlines” and articles are leaving out a key part.
    He wants to halt all entry to Muslims, until the gov’t can get a better handle on it.

    “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine,” the candidate said in the statement.

    “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” he continued.

    So…. again, the media plays “gotcha” instead of reporting.

    Again, I don’t like Trump. But report him honestly.

    1. Our country has victims every day. Victims of accidents, victims of spree killing. In the end, what difference does it really make? Nuts is nuts. Dead is Dead. We have had incident after incident where some nut cases kill dozens of people, including little bitty kids. We have one crazed radical Islam couple go postal and all of a sudden it’s time to DO something. Let’s ban all the Muslims is not a solution.

      I know what Trump said yesterday. Today he is tweaking it. Sorry, I don’t accept his tweak.

  10. Cargosquid

    Cruz just took the lead in Iowa polling. Just saying.

    1. Oh, I feel so much better. So Trump has been replaced with another crazy-ass.

  11. Watching

    “How can people who are Muslims who come here be made citizens? How can they take an oath to follow the laws of the US when their faith demands they follow Sharia law first?” This is the verbatim argument of a person I spoke to just this morning who supported Trump.

  12. Cargosquid

    And your answer?

  13. Steve Thomas

    Quick comment, since I see (rare) consensus that Trump wouldn’t make the best President. I am in agreement here, too, but that shouldn’t be news to anyone.

    That this “move” would be “illegal and unconstitutional” is incorrect. Under the constitution, the congress has the power to set any immigration & customs policies it deems proper, including a total embargo on certain nationalities, ethnic groups, and religions. This has been done several times throughout our history.

    To be fair to Trump, his proposal (as much as I disagree with it), is for a “temporary halt”, until authorities can demonstrate competence in vetting those seeking temporary or permanent entry. We didn’t allow Japanese citizens, German Citizens, Austrian, or Italian citizens to enter the US during WWII, regardless of their seeking asylum, so there is precedent.

    While I think it’s legal to do so, I disagree with the principle of banning someone entry, based solely on their religion. Lots of Saudis and Kuwaitis own property in the US. Lots of Muslims come here seeking an education, and get a chance to taste what a free society is.

    If you want to ban certain passports, fine with me.

    But I think Scout has it nailed, in his analysis as to why Trump, with all of his flaws and outrageous statements, seems to skate right through the controversy, and grows stronger: He has tapped the mother lode of frustration within the (I won’t say Republican, as close to 70% prefer someone else) right of the spectrum. There’s much to alarm the GOP, but the DNC should be alarmed too.

    I am a student of history. I see parallels everywhere. Today, I see one between the US and Wiemar Germany, in the 1920’s and 1930’s.

    1. Congress might be able to do it but the president cannot decree that, can he?

      I have been imbibing at City Tavern so I am not going out on any limbs. Yes, I had a designated driver. thank you to dog breath.

  14. Starryflights

    @Steve Thomas
    There has never in American history been an immigrant ban based on an individual’s religion. Passports don’t even identify a person’s religion. You should apply for a passport some time and find out what the requirements are.

  15. Starryflights

    @Steve Thomas
    You know nothing of history. There has never in American history been an immigrant ban based on an individual’s religion. Passports don’t even identify a person’s religion. You should apply for a passport some time and find out what the requirements are.

  16. Steve Thomas

    Starry…piss off. You need to check your history. If you want to contend..post a fact. That’s how it works in a debate…moron. I made the assertion. Now prove me wrong.

  17. Wolve


    Nah, Scout. Jeb is bottom of the pile. He has no feel whatsoever for what is stirring the anger of the base and many others. Much like his father in 1992.

    1. People ought to stop being pissed off over every little thing. I honestly don’t see what the rub was at Bush in 92.

      voted for him in 88 but not in 92. I wasn’t pissed off at him. I just liked the other guy better.

  18. Wolve

    This is getting humorous. Now we have Lindsey “0.3%” Graham puffing up his feathers and trying to scold the big hawk overhead. Well, Lindsey does help to keep Jeb Bush from hitting absolute bottom.

  19. Steve Thomas

    And in addition, you need to work on your reading comprehension too. I said it was ok to ban certain passports. This has nothing to do with religion, and I made no claim to that effect. It has everything to do with country of origin, and the suspect integrity of national processes to vet those holding these documents, and the associated visa policies of the US, regarding entrance policies….as far as religions go, to help you out, the US congress limited the number of Irish Catholics allowed onto the country. No such restrictions were placed on Irish protestants.

    So I have proved your assertions incorrect. There have been religious limits on immigration…and that diploma I have for a BA in History was correctly awarded, so I do know my history.

    1. What year was that? I am descended from both the protestant Irish and the Catholic Irish. (County Cork) Was it marked on the passport at the time?

      I am not waging war on this …I just want to know. I am in too good of a mood to fight with anyone. No TV, a lot of Dewars and good friends. The hell with politics.

  20. Steve Thomas

    Check out the various immigration acts such as the “emergency quota act” of 1924, and read the debates surrounding the rationale and passage of these acts…and you will realize you are not just wrong, but ignorant as well.

  21. @Watching

    Lot’s of people are supposed to obey God as defined by their own religion over the laws of man.

    I am not sure why Muslims are any different.

    I am reminded of the arguments against Kennedy back in 1960…..

  22. @Cargosquid

    Yesterday he said something different from what he said today.

    I can’t find our discussion but I did get a response from Moe. Here it is:

    It used to be “unlawful enemy combatants, ” but that term was replaced by “unprivileged enemy belligerents” in DoD Joint Publication 3-13 on Detainee Operations dated November 13, 2014.

  23. Starryflights

    @Steve Thomas You made the claim, you prove it. You’re full of bs.

  24. Steve Thomas


    Since Starry has such serious reading comprehension problems, I’ll answer your question: The year was 1924, and the legislation passed was “The Emergency Quota Act”. This was passed by those who became alarmed by the number of Jewish and Catholic immigrants entering the US, and employed strict quotas on who would be let in. The Irish quota was filled almost exclusively by protestants. Eastern European immigrants had historically been Jewish, so the quotas for those originating from those areas were reduced to practically zero.

    I could point to several other examples of past US Immigration policies from the 19th and early 20th centuries that were passed to stop or reduce the number of immigrants with certain ethnic origins or religious practices. When the public and legislative debate surrounding the passage of the acts is examined, the context is proved out. Starry’s claims do not stand up to the historical record.

    My grandfather was from Cork, and arrived in the US in 1918. His parents had come in 1911, his brother Raymond in 1914,and the war delayed his coming over. He lived with his sister Mary’s family in Cork. I remember him telling me that his sister Mary and her husband couldn’t come for years after, because the Congress had “shut the door” on Irish Catholics, not long after he arrived. I think he may have been referring to the 1924 act.

    1. I think we might be related except I think my peeps came over in the 1800s. There was definitely a Raymond.

      My question for you is, were specific religions banned or was it done by country and region so it didn’t pinpoint religion?

      Did the Congressional ban actually say Jews and Catholics?

      I knew of that 1924 act but I had long forgotten the details.

      There are a lot of immigration rules that are kept “behind the scenes” even today.

  25. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    Congress might be able to do it but the president cannot decree that, can he?
    I have been imbibing at City Tavern so I am not going out on any limbs. Yes, I had a designated driver. thank you to dog breath.

    No, the president cannot make immigration law. Only the congress can. Someone had to remind our current president of that fact, via the courts, when he tried to do something for the “DREAMERs” via executive orders.

  26. Steve Thomas

    @Steve Thomas
    “The year was 1924, and the legislation passed was “The Emergency Quota Act”.

    Correction…the year was 1921. The National Origins Act was passed in 1924, which built upon the 1921 act. Basically, it set the immigration quotas for each nationality to 2% of the population of the specific nationality already living in the US. Clearly, WASP’s would get the preferences, as they represented the largest nationality in the US at that time…and along with that, their religions. Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Hindus, Muslims, Greek Orthodox immigration was slowed to a trickle, as their established populations within the US were much smaller, at the time the quotas were set.

    My point is, if the Congress lost it’s collective minds, it could pass a President Trump immigration plan that restricted those originating from Muslim countries. It would be constitutional, and there is historical precedent, though Starry can’t seem to get his head wrapped around this. I am not advocating for Trump. Quite the contrary. However, reassuring ourselves that it would be as claimed previously “Illegal”, “Unconstitutional” or “Un-American” is relying on false assertions. Better to rely on the American people to ensure this doesn’t happen, and Congress does not act as it did in the past. But make no mistake, there have been times in our history where we have indeed done what Trump is advocating.

  27. Cargosquid

    “unprivileged enemy belligerents”

    OMG. I love government bureaucratese.

  28. Cargosquid

    Moon-howler :
    Lot’s of people are supposed to obey God as defined by their own religion over the laws of man.
    I am not sure why Muslims are any different.
    I am reminded of the arguments against Kennedy back in 1960…..

    That one is easy. Sharia is not compatible with the freedoms of the western world.

  29. Steve Thomas

    Starryflights :
    @Steve Thomas You made the claim, you prove it. You’re full of bs.

    Just like I was wrong about the San Bernardino shooting being not only terror related, but ISIS related as well?

    Starry, you are a true example of Proverbs 19:2, in that you have tremendous “zeal”, but lack “knowledge”.

  30. Wolve

    Rasmussen says 66% of Republicans polled support Donald Trump’s view about a temporary halt to immigration/refugees until we can straighten out the whole security/vetting aspect of it. Democrats also support it by 46% in favor, 40% against, and the rest don’t know.

    Some striking crosscurrents out there. Trump was jumped upon by Democrat and Republican politicos alike, including most of the presidential candidates on both sides; by the media; and by many pundits. But that viewpoint is not reflected in the Rasmussen survey. This suggests to me that the Trump critics may have underestimated the depth of public reaction to the San Bernardino killings so quickly after Paris-Bataclan, the downing of the Russian plane in Sinai, the beach resort in Tunisia, and Paris-Charlie Hebdo.

    1. The biggest part of Trumps problem is his big mouth. He said he would not let Muslims in the country. That’s a far cry from saying we need to make cure our vetting process is up to par.

      Can we compare our own airport security to airport security in Egypt? I have been told no. Much of this issue deals in how you say things. We are going to have to continue to step up our security. Now….do we say that or do we direct our fears directly at Muslims?

      Many Muslims aren’t any closer to being like these killers and thugs than I am to be being a snake handler in the Christian world or like one of those anti-abortion thugs who somehow think it is morally appropriate to shoot up clinics, doctors and patients.

      There are as many Muslim sects as there are Christian sects.

      There would probably be as many Jewish sects had Hitler not attempted to annihilate all of them. Those good men who did nothing might have stopped some of it just by speaking out.

    2. Wolve, I am not trying to down-play the seriousness of terrorism. I am not. I just think that Trump is a horrible emissary. The broad-brushing is simply not right and I don’t want him representing how people around the world feel about America.

      I just think he is a blathering, egotistical bully.

  31. Wolve

    Change #38 to read: “All likely voters support it by 46% in favor, 40% against, and the rest don’t know.”

    The Finns reportedly have announced that they believe they have identified a pair of 23-year-old male twins in one of their refugee centers who are believed to have been among the ISIS perpetrators of a mass execution of Iraqi Shi’ite military cadets when ISIS seized Tikrit in 2014. The Finns claim that other refugees in the center ratted these guys out.

    The Finns are having some uncomfortable moments because of these refugee centers. They have reportedly had four Finnish girls raped by refugees in places where the centers are located, including one girl who was raped, killed, and burned. Finnish officials seem to be getting some serious blow back from citizens living near the centers.

    1. So what do we do? Probably 99% of those refugees are decent people, fleeing war and destruction.

      Life is a risk, that bad people will infiltrate whatever population it is.

      We don’t ban guns because there might be some psychotic killer in that population of gun owners.

Comments are closed.