IS he trying to turn the US into a police state? Big claim. I am guessing like most things, you cannot back this claim up. I bet the very best you can do is some random associations LIKE He wants to deport people who are in US illegally and he does not want to let extremists in. To you I bet that and the dread of what other "crazy things" he is not telling anyone he will do will be enough. It isn't.
Propaganda.
Hey if I am wrong, I look forward to being shown substance. I just feel you have very little substance from which to draw from.
The first few paragraphs should suffice:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-president-trump-would-threaten-our-constitutional-freedoms/2016/07/13/42b41048-4876-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html?utm_term=.61ae643443be
You can either admit that you are wrong or attempt to explain away this.
Or maybe your definition of a police state is different. Hmm. that would explain things.
Absolutely can explain away most of that by two things Donald Trump (as Art of the Deal sets out) is a negotiator. He wants everything out on the table even things that he is not really interested in entertaining. When he concedes the more extreme elements he is left with what he is interested in.
Will Trump interested in rounding up 11 million people? Probably not. He would start with any that have committed crimes and when they are being held in jail use that opportunity to deport them, after having strengthen laws around this. As to illegal immigrants in US doing no crime? They would be on notice. He would tighten regulations to make it difficult for them BUT at the same time someone has to pay for building the wall. His idea of making Mexico pay for it, I understand is predicated on his putting to the Mexican government that illegal immigrants in America contribute billions to the economy in Mexico from payments from America sent back to Mexico by illegal immigrant families (
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271455/Revealed-How-immigrants-America-sending-120-BILLION-struggling-families-home.html) . By tightening laws and regulations around this (in terms of required ID and so forth), I understand that he could effectively stem the flow of cash to the point where it may be more beneficial for Mexico to pay for the wall. Now IF this is the case, for this tactic to work, he would NEED a large number of illegal immigrants to remain here.
Politics is about full disclosures or being savvy enough to appear to be fully disclosing everything whilst giving yourself a bit of wiggle room to disavow "misunderstandings". Hardline negotiation requires a different skill set. It requires you to not give anything away and to have everything on the table to barter down to a position that you initially wanted. So I do not imagine for a moment that he wishes to round up 11 million illegal immigrants in the dead of night with guns drawn and door smashed open. But he doesn't want to appear to be backing down from appearing hard on the issue.
He will cut the flow of illegal immigrants to US over the border and the preying of the cartel on the illegal immigrants. He will get rid of illegal immigrants who commit crimes but extraditing them. In doing so he will achieve two things he will both show his supporters that his being tough on illegal immigration is not all hot air and he will dispel Liberal hot air around the police state.
Now as far as Muslim immigration and the constitutionality...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182"(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admissionExcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:.....
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."
Waterboarding, well it is something that I do not support but is it unconstitutional? I think perhaps even more important is that if US allows that then do they not open the door for others to do it with moral justification. Sure wars should be restricted to killing, wounding and maiming people with bullets, stab wounds concussive and explosive trauma, and shrapnel injuries - not torturing people.
As to whether it could be argued that doing it off US soil which I think was Bush's point, is a different point and I do not know how this challenges the law.
Libel laws are absolutely needing strengthening. I do not think this ought to be a difficult one to consider and it is a false characterisation to say that it is so Trump can sue over things he does not like. It is so everyone will have protection from people lying about them from a position of strengthen and having the person lied about not being able to contest this.
You may not know who Jeremy Glick is. He is the child of someone kill in 9/11. He went on The O'reilly factor touting an unpopular opinion. For which Bill O'Reilly wantonly lied and mischaracterised and insulted this young man. (Yes it was 13 years ago but it is still a point worth making)
It was not that what Bill O'Reilly did an dhow he treated Glick was immoral, dishonest and nasty. It was all of that but when Glick went to a lawyer and said "Hey can't I sue O'Reilly?" the response was along the line of "No. The reason is that O'Reilly often reacts in these kinds of crazy ways and you would have a battle proving that HE did not believe what he is saying even though it is patently absurd and extreme and ridiculous". In this instance it was Slander rather than libel but the point is the same.
THAT is the reason for needing to tighten poor laws where the onus on proving the case of libel is so extreme that most victims of libel and slander are having to swallow most of what is cast at them from very powerful media.
Explaining away is not too difficult. I want you in light of what I have said to explain this police state of your fertile imaginings and how this would come to be. Don't simply throw biased propagandist articles at me, explain it....yourself. Back yourself.
