Political Roundtable Part VIII

[FAH1223]

Trump's policy is obviously unconstitutional and not going to happen. But as a Muslim American, in a sense, I'm glad he's saying what a lot of people in this country are thinking behind closed doors. It lets me know that as a community we need to be even more active in getting out there and building bridges. Nearly 2/3s of Americans have never even met a Muslim before.

On another note, I think Trump is a Clinton mole. I think this is all by design.

[nate33]

Trump's policy is obviously unconstitutional and not going to happen. But as a Muslim American, in a sense, I'm glad he's saying what a lot of people in this country are thinking behind closed doors. It lets me know that as a community we need to be even more active in getting out there and building bridges. Nearly 2/3s of Americans have never even met a Muslim before.

On another note, I think Trump is a Clinton mole. I think this is all by design.

Trump's policy is completely constitutional because the Constitution doesn't apply to prospective immigrants who are, by definition, under the jurisdiction of another country. There is actually precedent for this when, in 1891, Congress passed a law banning immigrants who practice polygamy (aimed at Mormons).

Furthermore, not only is it Constitutional, but a future President Trump would have the ability to implement his policy under existing law without any consent from Congress. Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

I suppose Congress could attempt to rescind that law, but as it stands now, Trump's proposal could be implemented on the first day of his inauguration.

http://ericposner.com/is-an-immigration-ban-on-muslims-unconstitutional/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/did-trump-just-win-1449604108

[nate33]

Research into stop & frisk says it didn't reduce crime. NYC's crime data indicates there's been no crime wave since the end of stop & frisk. Year-to-date, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, larceny, etc.) is basically the same as it was last year (down 2.5%), down 6% from 2013, and about the same (down 1.1%) from 5 years ago. Violent crimes are down 76% from 22 years ago (the timeframe published by the NYPD).

During that same time frame, rates have plummeted for violent crimes and property crimes. Not just in NYC. And not because of stop & frisk, because it wasn't being used in all the other places where crime rates fell.

The stop & frisk policy was racist in its application (if not design), and unconstitutional.

I don't know enough about the results of stop & frisk to argue either way. I do know that the broken windows policy of policing has proven to be very, very effective. From the time it was implemented, New York had a much greater reduction in crime relative to every other major city in the country. The only other city that was even close to New York's crime reduction was Fort Worth, Texas, which had also imposed a broken windows policing strategy.

Effectiveness of the broken windows tactic is also debatable. Its proponents assert that it's a cause of dropping crime rates; other researchers think it may have played a role in reducing crimes, but that smart use of data, the end of the crack epidemic, better security on cars, and the reduction of atmospheric lead are more important factors.

I remember discussing this years ago and I dug up data that showed that New York and Fort Worth ranked #1 and #2 in crime reduction in all kinds of crimes. I can't find the link anymore, but believe me, the New York and Fort Worth crime rate dropped at a far greater rate than the general national trend.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Rubio has my vote.

I respect what Trump is saying. Extreme thinking weakens his effectiveness. Us vs them is what Trump is saying but he's woefully myopic and misinformed or clueless. He needs a timeout IMO.

Black or white thinking and agitated speech shows fear, desperation, rage, hatred UNLIKE having vast knowledge, wider perspectives, and using Spectrum thinking.

[dckingsfan]

I don't know enough about the results of stop & frisk to argue either way. I do know that the broken windows policy of policing has proven to be very, very effective. From the time it was implemented, New York had a much greater reduction in crime relative to every other major city in the country. The only other city that was even close to New York's crime reduction was Fort Worth, Texas, which had also imposed a broken windows policing strategy.

Effectiveness of the broken windows tactic is also debatable. Its proponents assert that it's a cause of dropping crime rates; other researchers think it may have played a role in reducing crimes, but that smart use of data, the end of the crack epidemic, better security on cars, and the reduction of atmospheric lead are more important factors.

I remember discussing this years ago and I dug up data that showed that New York and Fort Worth ranked #1 and #2 in crime reduction in all kinds of crimes. I can't find the link anymore, but believe me, the New York and Fort Worth crime rate dropped at a far greater rate than the general national trend.

During the 1990s, New York City violent crime declined by more than 56 percent as compared to about 28 percent in the nation. Property crimes dropped by about 65 percent in NYC but fell only 26 percent nationally.

[nate33]

Rubio has my vote.

I respect what Trump is saying. Extreme thinking weakens his effectiveness.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

The vast majority of prospective Muslim immigrants are surely peaceful. There is an extremely small minority, presumably well less than 1%, who are jihadists. We have no way of knowing what percentage are jihadists, but it is almost surely greater than 0, particularly since ISIS has boldly stated that they are trying to infiltrate the refugee groups.

Right now Trump is the only candidate who has issued an actual plan that will have an effect in decreasing domestic terrorism. Our choices are essentially: do nothing substantive and endure further terrorist attacks, or do something that will restrict terrorist attacks at the expense of compromising our ideals and/or freedoms.

Essentially, Trump was presented with impossible choices and he actually picked one! He has now forced all other candidates and detractors in the media to defend the imaginary option in which none of the peace-loving Muslims are barred from legally entering the country and all terrorists are kept out. That uncomfortable realization will sink in with voters over time. If there is another attack, Trump was the only realist and everyone else was a pie-in-the-sky dreamer who will bear part of the blame for the deaths.

Now the obvious downside of Trump's plan is that it significantly taints our image as a nation that advocates for religious liberty and corrupts one of the primary ideals behind our founding. Nobody wants that. But the question you have to ask yourself is, how many terrorism deaths per year do you think we ought to endure in order to maintain that ideal? Seriously, state a number. Is it 10? 100? 1000? If you are unwilling to state a number, then you have no standing in criticizing Trump's proposal. (This isn't aimed at you, CCJ. It's a question for everyone.)

[TheSecretWeapon]

I don't know enough about the results of stop & frisk to argue either way. I do know that the broken windows policy of policing has proven to be very, very effective. From the time it was implemented, New York had a much greater reduction in crime relative to every other major city in the country. The only other city that was even close to New York's crime reduction was Fort Worth, Texas, which had also imposed a broken windows policing strategy.

Effectiveness of the broken windows tactic is also debatable. Its proponents assert that it's a cause of dropping crime rates; other researchers think it may have played a role in reducing crimes, but that smart use of data, the end of the crack epidemic, better security on cars, and the reduction of atmospheric lead are more important factors.

I remember discussing this years ago and I dug up data that showed that New York and Fort Worth ranked #1 and #2 in crime reduction in all kinds of crimes. I can't find the link anymore, but believe me, the New York and Fort Worth crime rate dropped at a far greater rate than the general national trend.

I know that's true of New York. I remember seeing something similar about Albuquerque and someplace in Massachusetts. You're probably correct about Ft. Worth too. But, is the difference significant or is it just random variation within the nationwide trend of falling crime rates? I don't know the answer to that -- it's something researchers are delving into.

I did come across a 2002 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (working paper 9061), which found that the surge in misdemeanor arrests (a key part of broken windows policing) had a modest effect on robbery and vehicle thefts, but no effect on the number of murders, assaults or burglaries. They said the police work that helped reduce those types of crimes were felony arrests.

My thinking is that there were a number of factors at work nationwide and in NYC. I'm (obviously) skeptical of the effectiveness of broken windows and/or stop & frisk tactics, but I think good police work played a role in falling crime rates. I don't think we'll ever be able to tease out which factor was most important considering the number of things at work like data-driven policing, the dying out of the crack epidemic, better security on cars, reduction of atmospheric lead, and even demographic changes (specifically, a decline in the population of young males).

[dobrojim]

brings to mind the famous quote about those willing to sacrifice liberty for security

btw - any plain reading of the 4th amendment should render S&F unconstitutional.
You gotta have some reasonable basis in order to search someone.

[TheSecretWeapon]

But the question you have to ask yourself is, how many terrorism deaths per year do you think we ought to endure in order to maintain that ideal? Seriously, state a number. Is it 10? 100? 1000? If you are unwilling to state a number, then you have no standing in criticizing Trump's proposal. (This isn't aimed at you, CCJ. It's a question for everyone.)

Isn't this the exact question some are asking about mass shootings? What's the number of mass shootings that's acceptable before we try to reduce the number of guns available? So far, the answer from gun owners is "infinite."

I don't have a number on the terrorist question, because I think it's a **** question. "Muslim" and "terrorist" are not synonyms. Unless, of course, "white male" is a synonym for "serial killer" or "mass shooter."

Discriminating against Muslims won't prevent a terrorist attack. My guess: it would probably increase the number of attacks because it feeds the narrative terrorist leaders are using to recruit.

[FAH1223]

Trump's policy is obviously unconstitutional and not going to happen. But as a Muslim American, in a sense, I'm glad he's saying what a lot of people in this country are thinking behind closed doors. It lets me know that as a community we need to be even more active in getting out there and building bridges. Nearly 2/3s of Americans have never even met a Muslim before.

On another note, I think Trump is a Clinton mole. I think this is all by design.

Trump's policy is completely constitutional because the Constitution doesn't apply to prospective immigrants who are, by definition, under the jurisdiction of another country. There is actually precedent for this when, in 1891, Congress passed a law banning immigrants who practice polygamy (aimed at Mormons).

Furthermore, not only is it Constitutional, but a future President Trump would have the ability to implement his policy under existing law without any consent from Congress. Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

I suppose Congress could attempt to rescind that law, but as it stands now, Trump's proposal could be implemented on the first day of his inauguration.

http://ericposner.com/is-an-immigration-ban-on-muslims-unconstitutional/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/did-trump-just-win-1449604108

Trump's plan also goes after U.S. citizens who have constitutional rights. He said "all of them" even ones who are abroad and returning home.

That wouldn't work.

[nate33]

Discriminating against Muslims won't prevent a terrorist attack. My guess: it would probably increase the number of attacks because it feeds the narrative terrorist leaders are using to recruit.

Wait. Are you saying that there is a contingent of Muslims who are angry right now, but not sufficiently angry to perpetrate a terrorist attack; but if we change our immigration policy, these unstable Muslims will go "Full Terrorist" and attacks will ensue?

I guess we need Trump more than ever.

[nate33]

My thinking is that there were a number of factors at work nationwide and in NYC. I'm (obviously) skeptical of the effectiveness of broken windows and/or stop & frisk tactics, but I think good police work played a role in falling crime rates. I don't think we'll ever be able to tease out which factor was most important considering the number of things at work like data-driven policing, the dying out of the crack epidemic, better security on cars, reduction of atmospheric lead, and even demographic changes (specifically, a decline in the population of young males).

My understanding of Guliani's broken windows policy is that he developed a database of petty criminals (turnstile jumpers etc.) from which he could obtain their fingerprints, addresses etc. If one of them went on to commit a bigger crime, they were easier to identify and apprehend.

[FAH1223]

[

Now the obvious downside of Trump's plan is that it significantly taints our image as a nation that advocates for religious liberty and corrupts one of the primary ideals behind our founding. Nobody wants that. But the question you have to ask yourself is, how many terrorism deaths per year do you think we ought to endure in order to maintain that ideal? Seriously, state a number. Is it 10? 100? 1000? If you are unwilling to state a number, then you have no standing in criticizing Trump's proposal. (This isn't aimed at you, CCJ. It's a question for everyone.)

More Americans are dying because of gun violence than anything Muslims are doing. I mean, just the week before the CA shooting, there was one in CO where a bunch of people were killed and injured. The reasons may be different but the results were the same.

We have 10,000+ people dying because of all types of violence in this country.

There's obviously a terrorist threat but the U.S. has been able to thwart mass attacks of a 9/11 scale for the last 14 years.

[nate33]

brings to mind the famous quote about those willing to sacrifice liberty for security

Yes it does. Nobody is saying there isn't a tradeoff.

And it's fine to argue that the impact on our liberty exceeds the benefits of more security. But is there a number of deaths that would make you change your mind? I'm assuming we're not at that number yet, but what would that number be?

[nate33]

[

Now the obvious downside of Trump's plan is that it significantly taints our image as a nation that advocates for religious liberty and corrupts one of the primary ideals behind our founding. Nobody wants that. But the question you have to ask yourself is, how many terrorism deaths per year do you think we ought to endure in order to maintain that ideal? Seriously, state a number. Is it 10? 100? 1000? If you are unwilling to state a number, then you have no standing in criticizing Trump's proposal. (This isn't aimed at you, CCJ. It's a question for everyone.)

More Americans are dying because of gun violence than anything Muslims are doing. I mean, just the week before the CA shooting, there was one in CO where a bunch of people were killed and injured. The reasons may be different but the results were the same.

We have 10,000+ people dying because of all types of violence in this country.

There's obviously a terrorist threat but the U.S. has been able to thwart mass attacks of a 9/11 scale for the last 14 years.

Gun control and Muslim Immigration control are two different things.

We have no proof that gun control would affect those numbers because gun control doesn't make guns magically disappear. The evidence we have to date so far in America indicates that jurisdictions that enact gun control result in increasing violent crime.

Muslim immigration control would have stopped 9-11 and San Bernadino. It would have worked. I'm not saying the benefits of Muslim immigration control are worth the cost, just that there are actual benefits.

[nate33]

Trump's plan also goes after U.S. citizens who have constitutional rights. He said "all of them" even ones who are abroad and returning home.

That wouldn't work.

Trump's "all of them" quote was a brief 3 word response to a reporter's question. In ABC interview Tuesday, Trump clarified that American Muslims would still be able to travel freely under his plan.

"If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different,"

[dobrojim]

brings to mind the famous quote about those willing to sacrifice liberty for security

Yes it does. Nobody is saying there isn't a tradeoff.

And it's fine to argue that the impact on our liberty exceeds the benefits of more security. But is there a number of deaths that would make you change your mind? I'm assuming we're not at that number yet, but what would that number be?

the point of the quote is that there isn't a number high enough.

[nate33]

brings to mind the famous quote about those willing to sacrifice liberty for security

Yes it does. Nobody is saying there isn't a tradeoff.

And it's fine to argue that the impact on our liberty exceeds the benefits of more security. But is there a number of deaths that would make you change your mind? I'm assuming we're not at that number yet, but what would that number be?

the point of the quote is that there isn't a number high enough.

Really?

Did you bash Jimmy Carter when he banned Iranians?

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Discriminating against Muslims won't prevent a terrorist attack. My guess: it would probably increase the number of attacks because it feeds the narrative terrorist leaders are using to recruit.

Wait. Are you saying that there is a contingent of Muslims who are angry right now, but not sufficiently angry to perpetrate a terrorist attack; but if we change our immigration policy, these unstable Muslims will go "Full Terrorist" and attacks will ensue?

I guess we need Trump more than ever.

Really nate? That's what you think I'm saying?

[nate33]

Discriminating against Muslims won't prevent a terrorist attack. My guess: it would probably increase the number of attacks because it feeds the narrative terrorist leaders are using to recruit.

Wait. Are you saying that there is a contingent of Muslims who are angry right now, but not sufficiently angry to perpetrate a terrorist attack; but if we change our immigration policy, these unstable Muslims will go "Full Terrorist" and attacks will ensue?

I guess we need Trump more than ever.

Really nate? That's what you think I'm saying?

Perhaps I misunderstand. Explain to me the mechanism whereby our immigration policy would provoke more domestic terrorism.