Trump: 'I'm doing good for the Muslims'

Facing harsh criticism for his proposal to temporarily halt Muslim immigration to the U.S., Donald Trump on Wednesday said he was acting in the Islamic community's best interests.

"I'm doing good for the Muslims," Trump told Don Lemon in an interview for "CNN Tonight." "Many Muslim friends of mine are in agreement with me. They say, 'Donald, you brought something up to the fore that is so brilliant and so fantastic.'"

Among those reaching out to thank him, the Republican front-runner said, was "one of the most important people in Middle East" -- Trump didn't reveal the name -- who called on Wednesday to say, "Donald, you're doing a great service."

"I have many friends who are Muslims," Trump told Lemon. "They're phenomenal people. They are so happy at what I'm doing."

"I love the Middle East," Trump declared. "I love the people of the Middle East."

Trump also said his plan had been misrepresented and explained that the immigration ban may not last long.

"It could go quickly, but it's a subject that has to be discussed," he said, adding that there would be exceptions for Muslim athletes and diplomats.

you know I gotta tell you, I’m getting pretty fatigued on one thing around here...and that is confusing the times that Trump’s tough talk is brilliant - and when it’s stupid or just over the top.

I am secure enough in my own beliefs to take Trump’s actions as they come...praise them when they deserve it - but slam them when they deserve that. I just don’t understand this notion of internet posters to either be all in or all against everybody - refusing to admit when the good guys do/say something wrong and when the bad guys do/say something right.

I am all about truth....my mind doesn’t work as above.

As I explained to Forty-seven:

While we do not have sufficient data to thoroughly vet these people in terms of their detailed activities, I believe we can determine with some degree of certainty whether they adhere to Islam.

For example, the woman who came in on the VISA to be Syedâ€™s wife, not only indicated she was, but Pakistan had the data that she had been a member of the Red Mosque.

There are relatives that can be asked. There are acquaintances that can be asked. They can be observed. In many places there is basic birth data.

Such data is not enough to determine if they are radicalized perhaps (though in that womanâ€™s case it most certainly should have been IMH).

Finally, if we find that that is too difficult, we can do exactly what others have done...no Iranians, No Syrians, etc. from nations that are by far and away predominantly Islamic. I have a feeling this data point will be the initial deciding one.

I have no issue with banning people from suspect countries or regions. I believe this was Cruz’s idea before Trump came out with his.

I just don’t see how determining one’s religion would be as effective. There probably are records for some but not all, or even most. Or even as many as simple demographic records such as where they hail from and where they have visited. I submit those latter kinds of records are more commonly available. After all, in these countries we’re talking about the majority are already Muslim, so there’s no need for any record to exist stating Muhammed or Ali is a Muslim. That’s just a given. If anything, records exist to indicate one is a Christian.

Speaking of that fact, that there are Christians from the same area, it would be perfectly plausible for a terrorist to lie, say he was a Christian refugee from Syria, and boom he’s in under the Trump plan. Sure, let’s say we “surveil” them all, (a daunting and financially costly task to say the least) it kind of doesn’t matter really. They have already achieved their goal under this scenario, they are already in, and there’s no way 100 people (much less thousands) can be under surveillance 24/7.

So what do they care if eventually they may be kicked out. They will be sure to commit any act of barbarism before the slow wheels of justice are even close to deporting them. And they’ll have plenty of warning too that this is about to happen, as they are notified of their “rights” including a right to appear in court (which they never will just ask the illegal Mexicans). That’s assuming the surveillance lasts that long which it probably won’t.

Speaking of the lie they will inevitably tell, namely that they aren’t Muslim, to get through the door so to speak, the system Trump seems to be proposing will apparently have the opposite effect than what it intends. Consider: terrorist A gets asked “Are you a Muslim?” At the border or airport or wherever these screenings will take place. He lies, says “No sir I’m not a Muslim I reject Islam!”, because they are allowed to do that under their perverse religion, they are allowed to lie about anything, including whether or not Islam is true, while on “jihad”. So he’s in. The terrorist is in, under surveillance maybe, but he’s in! He wins.

Innocent refugee B, and yes there are some, gets asked and answers truthfully: yes I’m a Muslim. So he’s out.

So what we’ve done here, under the Trump proposal is actually reward the liars (i.e. The probable terrorists) and punish the truthful. So we will actually create a situation where we have MORE terrorists coming in, as a percentage of the immigrant population as a whole, than we do now.

I’m sorry, and I’m not a Trump basher I’ll vote for him if it comes to that in the general, but this idea is, to put it simply < Brooklyn accent > Moronic < /Brooklyn Accent >

Finally, if we find that that is too difficult, we can do exactly what others have done...no Iranians, No Syrians, etc. from nations that are by far and away predominantly Islamic. I have a feeling this data point will be the initial deciding one.

I think it goes without saying that your scheme is unworkable. We don't have enough people to do the in-depth research on every individual wanting a tourist visa or student visa or visa to travel on business. You would have to add hundreds of people to every embassy.

And if you want to ban every Muslim from entering the country you will also have to say no French...no Belgians...no Nigerians or Brits or Indonesians or Indians or any other country in the world because I believe Muslims are present in just about every one of them. And you can't do your in-depth investigation prior to issuing a visa because in about forty countries no visa is required.

So again, Trump has said a complete and total ban on Muslims entering the country. Short of a total ban on anyone entering the country then just how will he do it?

I gave you the ways it could be done...you just do not like them.

But, if we re serious, we can make it happen.

In Western countries where there is strong demographic data, it can work out.

VISAs in any case should not be something someone can get on a lark, or in a few days. It should be something we research. If it takes time... a year, or even two years...to get approved...so be it.

Where we have good records on people, It can happen faster.

That is a presumption on your part that all Trump’s plan would do is ask.

I ddo not think that would be the case. They would research it.

VISAs and permits to enter the country are not something that should be passed out on a lark or given quickly. We should do research and if it takes time...then so be it.

IMHO, we should work on a process of positive affirmation. That is, unless they can prove affirmatively what we ar elooking for...they do not get in. Or if our research fails to affirmatively prove that they are not Muslim...they do not get in.

We need to be much more protective and much more respectful of our nations borders. This is another way we can do that.

“I just donâ€™t understand this notion of internet posters to either be all in or all against everybody - refusing to admit when the good guys do/say something wrong and when the bad guys do/say something right.”

It’s like dealing with liberals here - any perceived ‘weakness’ is reason for more attacks. There are some that don’t want a real discussion, they just want to throw insults. I’ve encountered many Cruz fanatics that way, so I deal with them like they treat me. Or like I would deal with a rabid liberal. all or nothing.

Among reasonable people, I am reasonable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.