The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

There is a potential solution that would satisfy most sides of the debate. However because Trump is so anti United Nations and self grandiose, he has not the ability to call on one of their most fundamental tenants.

Simply put, if all immigrants regardless of status or religion ( refugee, asylum seeking, standard legal etc) were to pledge loyalty to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Article 18 then the problem of cultural, religious assimilation etc lessens hugely.

Article 18 simply states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."​

Persons of Traditional Orthodox Islamic values would not be able to agree to this fundamental right and would be barred entry. Islamic extremist can not agree to this fundamental right.

Of course some one could always pretend to agree.. but is this not the case generally any how.?

Perhaps over time the idea will work it's way through the USA public, governance and change to the positive would occur.

Applied world wide and the problem of cultural disharmony lessens tremendously ( re: refugees and asylum seekers)
The UN could hardly get upset about it's own Article being enforced now could they?

The first person to sign it would need to be Trump and I honestly don't think he could do it...
 
Last edited:
Refugee from Syria regardless of religion:
"If I solemnly agree with article 18 of the UDHR and will defend and protect it's intent, will you let me in?"
Trump knocking on the door:
"If I solemnly agree with article 18 of the UDHR and will defend and protect it's intent, will you let me be President of the USA?"
 
billvon said:
No "hero" about it. Dead human, perhaps. Life is risky.

You wouldn't know that listening to the rhetoric of the time. Irish were violent, lazy drunks who were always being arrested. "That's why they call it a paddy wagon!" Over half of the arrests in NYC during that time were of Irish. "Irish need not apply" was posted in employment ads, and sometimes expanded to "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" just to make it clear what they thought of Irish. Everyone knew that to walk into an Irish bar meant injury or worse. Benjamin Disraeli wrote that "The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. . . . Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood."

In other words, they were the Mexicans and Muslims of their time.

Fortunately, we were a better people back then, and welcomed them anyway. And we are all better off for doing that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson

I was unaware of that

Here in Australia we had the same, but to a much lesser degree, feelings towards new arrivals

Sadly though with the rise of idiots caution has become more of a necessity
 
Quantum Quack said:
exactly...
If you stood in any shopping mall and wanted to make the same sort of assessment who would you pick as being intent on harming you?

The guys with a beard perhaps?
The guys pretending to be Christian evangelists?

or the child with an overly bulky jacket on....
who?

You see this is why the terrorists have won...
Paranoia cripples every one...
Click to expand...

Australia has a catchy slogan

Be alert but not alarmed

Living in Darwin only 1,700km flight distance I go Bali twice a year

After the Sari Club bombing which killed 88 Australians and even more others (I had finished my week holiday on the Wednesday prior to the Saturday bombing) I returned after about 6 weeks

It never occurred to me to cease going and I have continued to return twice a year since

I certainly am not paranoid and have not changed my life style not crippled
 
Quantum Quack said:
Refugee from Syria regardless of religion:
"If I solemnly agree with article 18 of the UDHR and will defend and protect it's intent, will you let me in?"
Trump knocking on the door:
"If I solemnly agree with article 18 of the UDHR and will defend and protect it's intent, will you let me be President of the USA?"
Click to expand...

Tricky

Does the refugee have to ask all of the population of America via a election process or just one border guard?
 
ElectricFetus said:
No they must reply there visa every couple of mouths, I think she said it was a J-1, I guess it would be because I distinctly remember them saying their daughter was a J-2.
Click to expand...

I read through the link and did not see anything there which should concern the people you referenced

Perhaps they have concerns for some reason but they should contact the department which deals with their visas and check for clarification
 
Quantum Quack said:
Michael 345,
What say you to post #41 especially in an Australian context?
Click to expand...

Unworkable

First refugee goes through and makes the pledge

The rest follow chanting 'Me to Me to'

I would love to go to a bank who only asked me to promise to pay back the million dollar loan without checking my capabilities to do so
 
Last edited:
I dunno, an orthodox or radical Muslim takes his beliefs pretty seriously. To pledge to the contrary in public is worse than blasphemy. If they simply acted as you suggest then they are not a real threat either. Add further vetting and allegence to rule of law and the vexation currently being experienced over Muslim migration is diminished.
Only modern, liberal Muslim's can be considered as compatable for nations that aspire to the intent of article 18 and would have no problem agreeing
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
Sadly though with the rise of idiots caution has become more of a necessity
Click to expand...
I agree it is always wise to exercise caution. But we are cautious of the wrong things nowadays.

In the past 10 years there have been 36 terrorist attacks in the US, killing 126 people. Almost none of those deaths would have been stopped by keeping immigrants from middle eastern Muslim nations out. You probably haven't heard of most of these, because the perpetrators have names like Robert Dear, Eric Frein, James Lee, Joe Stack and Wade Page. One attack - the 2015 San Bernadino attack - might have been mitigated because the wife of perpetrator Rizwan Farook (Tashfeen Malik) might have been kept out by such restrictions, but Rizwan, being born in the US, would not have been hindered.

So out of those 126 people killed, you could make an argument that by keeping out all Middle Eastern Muslims - even people's wives - you might have prevented 14 deaths. But if you are just keeping out refugees from those countries? None would have been prevented.

In the past 10 years there have been ~110,000 murders in the US due to gun violence. There is no doubt that universal background checks would reduce that number. But any attempt to do THAT is met with horror and dismay.

So why do we concentrate on something that won't solve any problems, and ignore the solutions that will work? Because it is easier to make people afraid of outsiders, and politicians stroke that fear to garner support and votes.
 
Michael 345 said:
At the personal level you do understand that in any dangerous situation you are not required to do anything which puts you at risk
Click to expand...
But you are required to allow some things, even though such restraint involves risk. All freedoms and liberties enjoyed by any American come with considerable risks for everyone else, which you are forbidden to mitigate by undue restriction.

Cowardice poorly defends freedom and liberty.
 
I just had a convo with an Australian Muslim and discussed just this subject. According to him orthodox/traditional Muslim's would not even attempt to migrate to a country that obliged them to agree to article 18
 
Quantum Quack said:
I dunno, an orthodox or radical Muslim takes his beliefs pretty seriously. To pledge to the contrary in public is worse than blasphemy. If they simply acted as you suggest then they are not a real threat either. Add further vetting and allegence to rule of law and the vexation currently being experienced over Muslim migration is diminished.
Only modern, liberal Muslim's can be considered as compatable for nations that aspire to the intent of article 18 and would have no problem agreeing
Click to expand...

Like your optimism
 
billvon said:
So why do we concentrate on something that won't solve any problems, and ignore the solutions that will work? Because it is easier to make people afraid of outsiders, and politicians stroke that fear to garner support and votes.
Click to expand...

Think the idea of keeping undesirables out is to prevent additional problems

Obviously such measures would have no effect on internal problems

Gun laws are a result of collective stupidity and ain't no pill to cure that
 
iceaura said:
But you are required to allow some things, even though such restraint involves risk. All freedoms and liberties enjoyed by any American come with considerable risks for everyone else, which you are forbidden to mitigate by undue restriction.

Cowardice poorly defends freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...

I am guessing you are referring to laws which if passed put your person at risk

I am also guessing there would be very few of those

All freedoms and liberties enjoyed by any American come with considerable risks for everyone else, which you are forbidden to mitigate by undue restriction.

Can you please post an example? Thanks

Cowardice poorly defends freedom and liberty

Agreed but putting your own life at risk to help another in dangerous situations

Makes no sense to go to the aid of someone being taken out by a rip if you can't swim

If you mean going to war and putting yourself in harm's way no-one joins the forces, gets a rifle and sent to the front line next day. You at least get some training to mitigate the risk
 
Michael 345 said:
I read through the link and did not see anything there which should concern the people you referenced

Perhaps they have concerns for some reason but they should contact the department which deals with their visas and check for clarification
Click to expand...

Well there simply no assurance there visa will be re-instated, and no matter if it is re-instated they can't leave the country or else they can't enter again, and considering the nature of it the ban would require Iran to grovel before trump to get it lifted in 90 days, it is most likely a permanent ban.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...ock-legal-residents-from-returning-to-america

Michael 345 said:
All freedoms and liberties enjoyed by any American come with considerable risks for everyone else, which you are forbidden to mitigate by undue restriction.

Can you please post an example? Thanks
Click to expand...

Let me show you my gun collection.
 
Quantum Quack said:
I just had a convo with an Australian Muslim and discussed just this subject. According to him orthodox/traditional Muslim's would not even attempt to migrate to a country that obliged them to agree to article 18
Click to expand...

I am guessing radical idiots would have no trouble lying their face off so the requirement to pledge has the effect of keeping out good guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top