Donald Trump calls for a total ban of Muslims traveling to the United States. Reuters.

Donald Trump speaking in Iowa. Reuters. 

Republican front runner Donald Trump has called for a total travel ban for all Muslims entering the country. Reuters. The shutdown would apply to all Muslims and would last until "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Trump has gone further then other Republican candidates, who have largely rejected President Obama's plan to bring in refugees from Muslim countries. Trump cited a poll that said that 1/4th of Muslims thought violence against America was justified. Trump has come under withering criticism for his remarks, from both parties and the media. 

Donald Trump's statement can be found here. 

My Comment:

Talk about a controversy! It's pretty clear that people are losing their minds about Donald Trump's comments. I'll get into that criticism in a bit, but I have a few comments about that criticism that I feel is unfair. Don't worry, I think there is plenty of room for criticism here, but the way people are attacking him is stupid. First, anyone calling Trump a racist for this is stupid as Islam is a religion, not a race. Not all Muslims are Arab, and they can be White, Black, Asian or any other race. You can definitely argue that Trump is bigoted against Islam, but you can't possibly say that he is racist against Islam because it isn't possible to be racist against a diverse group of people made up of many different races and are only united by their beliefs. Anyone that says it's possible to be racist against Muslims either doesn't know what racism means or doesn't know that there is any racial diversity in Islam, thus showing a rather alarming amount of ignorance and prejudice themselves. You can argue that Trump is bigoted against Muslims or that he is racist against other groups, but you can't say he is racist against Muslims. 

Second, I don't think it is fair to call Trump a fascist. It helps if you actually know what fascism is. But that's the problem. Nobody knows what fascism is! As early as 1944, George Orwell said that the word fascism had lost any actual meaning. He said that it is basically a synonym for "bully" and I think that is more true now then it was back then. I'd go further and say that calling someone a fascist is just another way saying "I disagree with this person and don't like him". Generally, whenever anyone invokes fascism in their criticism of  someone, I stop listening to what they have to say.

 As for Trump, unless he starts spouting lines from Mien Kamph, it's stupid to call him a fascist. He's a populist, not a fascist. And outside of immigration, he's actually a political moderate. Compared to the rest of the Republican Party, some of which are willing to risk war with Russia over Syria, of all things, he's practically a pacifist. Economically he doesn't have much in common with the Republican Party either, as he isn't in favor of getting rid of social security and even said that de-funding Planned Parenthood is a mistake! Hardly a fascist, Trump is much closer to the center then anyone, including him, is willing to admit. Criticism him for his political beliefs if you so desire, but you should actually know what those beliefs are! 

As for Trump's comments, I have to disagree with him. Not for the reasons that the media disagrees with him, mind you, but out of pure practical concern. I don't think it is legal or even possible for Donald Trump, even if he was president, to stop all Muslim travel. Immigration, yes. Maybe even casual travel. But he can't get rid of all of them, and trying to do so is probably unconstitutional. Even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be worth it for the massive fight in congress and the courts that it would cause. There would be dozens of lawsuits that would pop up, and congress would fight it at every step of the way. I just don't think that there is anyway that Donald Trump could possibly pull this off. 

I also think that it goes to far. In my last post I said that there is a major difference between the two major sects of Islam. Sunni Islam is responsible for almost all Islamic terror attacks and Shia Muslims are much more moderate in comparison. Though they have similar beliefs, it's always been clear to me that Shiites are much more acceptable then Sunni ones. Though I am no fan of Iran or Hezbollah, they are much less likely to attack America then most Sunni terror groups. I think the worst thing a Shia Iranian would do in America is espionage, and that's a threat that is universal throughout all countries. That isn't to say that there aren't problems with the Shiite interpretation of Islam, but I think it's clear that they aren't the same as Sunni Muslims. To lump Shiites in with Sunnis is unfair and I think it is very right to criticize Trump for not recognizing the difference. Though I would agree that the Sunni branch of Islam needs to be criticized and criticized severely.

And I really don't think that banning tourists would do all that much anyways. I don't think that all that many terrorists would infiltrate via tourism. I think this is due to purely tactical concerns. It's fairly hard to plan a terrorist attack, and I think you would need to be in a country for much longer then the average tourist comes for. And it has some obvious downsides as well. Banning tourists and business people from coming to the country would have a major impact on our economy, and I doubt it would stop any terrorist attacks. It reminds me a lot of gun control. A whole lot of stupid ideas that would do nothing to stop the actual problem. The bigger threat by far is immigration, either through refugees, or other forms of visas, like the marriage one Tashfeen Malik entered on. And it's more of a long term threat as the 2nd generation born here in America is a much larger threat then the tiny amount of terrorist that manage to make it through our screening process. Banning immigration and/or taking refugees from countries where ISIS or other major terrorist groups are active would be a much more defensible position but unfortunately Donald Trump didn't take that position. 

All that being said, I do think that Donald Trump is on to something here. His policy is wrong, but his reasons for it are sound. I think that he is ahead of the curve and his kind of thinking will be much more common and politically correct in the future. Why? Well, just look at the problems Europe is having with their Muslim populations right now. They have had a very difficult time integrating their Muslims and that has lead to a large increase in crime, to say nothing of the threat of terrorism. For anyone paying attention to the news lately, it's clear that Islam has a problem with violence right now, and bringing in thousands of people from regions where such violence is occurring just does not makes sense. People are sick of the threat and the fact that right wing parties are having quite a bit of success in Europe right now tells me that more people agree with Trump then the media would ever admit. And that number will increase as the problems and attacks get worse... 

Is Trump wrong for blaming the actions of all Muslims on just a few terrorists? Absolutely. But isn't it also wrong to endanger everyone by not properly vetting the people that are coming here? Is it unconstitutional to have a religious test for bringing people into the country? Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to let them in either. Does Trump go to far? Sure, but it seems like nobody else is taking the threat seriously. If the only options are either doing nothing or doing too much, I think people will probably want to do too much. That's not rational thinking, but the appeal is obvious. 

Does this hurt Trump? Quite the opposite really. People are extremely upset about immigration in general and are also rather afraid of terrorism. I think there is a large portion of the American electorate that would be happy with a complete stoppage of all immigration, regardless of anything else. And people are rightly concerned with terrorism. They are seeing what is happening in the Middle East and Africa, and what is starting to happen in Europe, and don't want it to happen here. Trump's solution to the problem is unfeasible and probably illegal, but at least he recognizes that there is a problem. Everyone is tired of people apologizing for Islamic extremism. If only one candidate is going to take the issue head on, even if his solution is dumb, it's going to help him. And it's not like Trump's comments have hurt him before... 

I also think that the media is blowing this out of proportion. From the headlines you would think that Trump is calling for putting all the Muslims in camps or something. He is going further then anyone else, and I think you can criticize him for that, but the absolute hysteria going on in the media is not justified. If you actually read the statement he's calling for a temporary measure while congress tries to come up with some kind of solution to the current crisis. I think that goes too far, but the situation is almost bad enough that it could be justified. Should we have another 9/11 attack, or a Nuclear/Chemical/Biological attack, or even an attack that was successful as the one that hit Paris recently, some of the things Trump would do will happen no matter who the president is... 

Personally, it doesn't really change my opinion of Trump. I agree with Rand Paul much more then I agree with Trump, but I still think that he is acceptable as a candidate, even if he is bigoted against Muslims. Bigotry probably isn't justified, but he's much stronger on foreign policy then the other candidates. He's not a war hawk, but he also isn't a mewling wimp like Bernie Sanders. He won't get us into a war with Russia, which is starting to be my number one foreign policy question I have for the candidates. And I will do everything in my power to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. If it means I have to vote for someone who says mean things about Muslims, many of whom are kind of assholes anyways, then so be it. He's far from a perfect candidate, but in my eye, he may be the best of bad options, and the only real threat to a third Clinton presidency... 

I do think that it would be wise for Trump to revise his position. His position here is going to get him a lot of criticism and may even make mainstream Republicans take action against him. If he wants to win the election, he can't fight against both the Democrat and Republican party. He needs Republican support and I think he should at least modify or clarify his position to get the party off of his back. He's made the point that he will take action against the threat that immigration from predominately Muslim countries can cause. It's not worth pounding that into the ground.