Trump has suggested that under his administration, Muslims may be listed and recorded in a national database, forced to carry special identification cards, and subjected to intensified surveillance in their places of worship.The precedent here is too obvious to state and risk confirming Godwin's law.
The Intercept
Muslims in Trump’s America: Fearful but Defiant
Murtaza Hussain
4 comments:
See a counterpoint - I’m a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump.
This is more fear-mongering. This isn't going to happem. No one seems to understad how Trump rolled the country into believing him, how he garnered their approval to usher in the Dem ideas he held for over two decades in Manhattan.
Well, no one sensible wants many of the crazy things he said to happen. And the way he's furiously rowing back now is proof that he's distancing himself from much of the stuff that captured the headlines: Killary is a lovely woman who won't face any charges even though she's as guilty as hell, and so is Bubba; fencing may be more appropriate than a wall, which is at odds with what he promised; he's more concerned with the illegal criminals, which again is not what he proposed on the stump.
The problem is that this movement may be uncontrollable. A sensible Trump may be considered the ultimate betrayal. That may lead to a real demagogue taking the reigns in future. And any sense of betrayal may be met with violence. Look at that poor university student who got savagely pushed off a flight of stairs for saying next to nothing. That could easily have ended up as a fatality. And a few of the ultra-frenzied loyalists he's whipped up can wreak havoc. In jest, the Daily Show called it WISIS. There are, however, a lot of people who are not jesting, have had enough of being laughed at and economically and culturally humiliated by the establishment and condescending liberals.
he's more concerned with the illegal criminals, which again is not what he proposed on the stump.
DJT still has to get this stuff through Congress. At that point, the details emerge and it may not be as easy or intuitive as one may think.
Take just getting rid of the illegal immigrants that are criminals, which seems to be just common sense. It is but there are costs and not only $ — time, personnel, equipment, facilities, etc.
I was listening to an NPR interview of someone in immigration. This is going to take either pulling people away from other duties or funding and ramping up a force.
Moreover, immigration courts are already on backlog and many immigrants can't just be deported without court approval, So that law would have to be changed — which the ACLU would fight to SCOTUS, taking time ‚ or the immigration court system would have to be expanded.
I suspect that DJT assumes that local police departments will round up the legal immigrant criminals but as law enforcement as pointed out already, that is not how the system works.
The active part of it is operated by immigration and that force would have to be expanded. Local police only turn over people apprehended in a crime and they do that already.
Tasking law enforcement for active immigration duties would involve changing their mission and require more recruits, funding and training. This is now funded by local taxpayers. Moreover, many law enforcement departments are opposed this expansion of their mission and have said so publicly, the LAPD chief, for example.
The other aspect of this is expansion of police power. For example. many people are upset at finding out that the NYPD is actually an army with intelligence, drones and other sophisticated military equipment, and it operates internationally.
Post a Comment