[Sola Veritas]

“So in snort, you have no knowledge of immigration history.”

You cannot constitutionally say that immigrants from hypothetical country “A” cannot be Muslims while allowing others from that country in. It would have to be a situation where you say “none” from country “A” can immigrate.

Trying to eliminate a specific religious affliation while allowing others is not going to fly. Mr. Trump knows this and is just playing the crowds for fools. Plus, it is a terrible precident to set.

Also, we are NEVER going to be able to say “zero” immigrants from anywhere....ain’t gonna happen for many reasons. Mr. Trump’s rhetoric is over-the-top and has no realism in it. However, it gets the naïve to buy in.

I do not mean to be disrespectful towards you by saying this.

[VanDeKoik]

“You cannot constitutionally say that immigrants from hypothetical country “A” cannot be Muslims while allowing others from that country in. It would have to be a situation where you say “none” from country “A” can immigrate.”

But again, WHERE in the constitution does it state that non-citizens have a right to come to the U.S.?

[eyedigress]

Also, we are NEVER going to be able to say zero immigrants from anywhere..

Ummmm, last I checked, this is a sovereign nation that can do whatever the hell it wants with our border. Get a clue.

[pierrem15]

You cannot constitutionally say that immigrants from hypothetical country “A” cannot be Muslims while allowing others from that country in. It would have to be a situation where you say “none” from country “A” can immigrate.

Horsefeathers: we discriminate like this all the time based on wealth or education, etc.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You cannot constitutionally say that immigrants from hypothetical country “A” cannot be Muslims

There's literally nothing in the constitution that says that.

[mills044]

Re: post 80

I am following where you’re thought process is coming from; however, I think you are failing to account for two things:

1) trump has radically shifted the Overton window, and
2) a future catastrophic attack (which I believe is rather likely in the near term) could change the landscape even more dramatically. If 100 American school kids were slaughtered on tv like in Beslan, do you doubt that serious calls for internment camps would ensue? Immigration stoppage would of course be implemented immediately by any politicians not wishing to be literally attacked by mobs. Now try a nuclear terror attack on for size- or chemical attack, etc.

My point is, that your logic is how things used to be.

[JustaCowgirl]

Trying to eliminate a specific religious affliation while allowing others is not going to fly.

You might tell Barky's INS that, because that's exactly what they are doing to persecuted Christians in the Middle East RIGHT NOW. If you don't believe that, look at the immigration statistics.