A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
....and you went with lie.
I am going to ask you a serious question.
"Are you an idiot?" Don't be too quick in answering. let me make a quick case
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did.
As I have mentioned this in several posts that this IS a position of his "to ban all Muslims" and is on his website as you pointed out HOWEVER (pay attention this time) his initial position before the reclarification (that he gave in speeches) was that he wished to place a freeze on Muslim Immigrants. I agreed in principle with the initial position. I have not vouched an opinion for this new position (as a result of him reclarifying an older position) but you seem to want me to agree or disavow it.
This is NOT "getting it wrong" is it? Only an idiot would suggest that, right?
As mentioned If person X makes position A and person Y agrees with person X on position A, that in itself is COMPLETELY separate to if Person X then reclarifies or alters position A to come up to a new position B.
Given this, does person Y need to agree with position B? Can they if they wish?
Too hard?
You seem incapable of seeing that agreeing with one position that a person takes is NOT IN ANY WAY rubberstamping everything they say forever and ever, based in the fact they agree with them on a or even several positions.
Some may say that is lazy thinking or even intellectual dishonesty. I call that being an idiot? What would you call that?
Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Suggesting motive is one thing. We all do it and we can second guess people. Depending on our intellectual rigour and instinct we may have a good strike rate of getting it right.
You are not suggesting, you are trying to make a fact based assertion. When exactly did you last chat with Donald Trump? You have made a few assertions here. Can you please tell me if not having a conversion with Donald, did you speak to his aides? Did you perhaps have mindreading equipment?
No? Just throwing out big assertions as fact based claims based on bullshit and expecting me to just nod my head? Do you think THAT is idiotic?
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
I am not bigoted and you have not made a case for that. Best you can say at present without trying to lie or pad your assertions with bullshit is to say that I agreed with what Donald trump said about Muslim immigration. I think that in cases where a threat does seem to be present in ANY group, nation, religion or whatever then there HAS to be an upgrade to the security to check this.
Now we can disagree as to the degree of threat or how good the current security is all day. but I have good reason to think that the last few years has given rise to a lot more attacks on European soil by Muslim radical extremists and this has aligned with the relaxed border policies. I also know that 900 active cases with the FBI of US based Islamic extremist issues, and apparent difficulties cross-referencing incoming migrants due to them fleeing a nation under conflict and with poor infrastructure and records access. I also know that the Orlando shooter was checked out twice with the FBI and no apparent action taken against him. They dropped the ball in my belief.
So I have my reasoning for suspecting that there is a heightened risk and poor methods of vetting potential risks. Therefore I believe this cannot be addressed by carrying on business as normal. IF there is a way to hold this process and tightened up and better rework the vetting methods (and Hell maybe directing some resources to clearing up the 900 cases before another Orlando gunman gets away from them), then it makes sense this ought to be pursued.
That is not bigoted. Only an idiot would think so.
As to whether this idea could work out in a practical way rather than being a good theory, I don't know and would be interested how this could be done. I see a lot of problems in the practicalities and possible implementation, including belief of Islam being exactly that. Denouncing you are a Muslim to come in for example would seem to sidestep this freeze.
I agree in principle with the idea and happy to look at other ideas as to solving the problem, but not at all interested in saying it is not a problem. For all your talk of falling furniture death, I think that would be little concern to Parisians after the Paris attacks for example. IF some radical Islamic extremist attack happens in Sweden do I have your permission to make some off-hand remark about at least they weren't squashed by a bookcase? No?
So being that I am not bigoted the statement ....
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
.... makes no sense. I do not agree with what you effectively have said you are disagreeing with and so how could I agree to something I inherently disagree with being equivalent or comparable to something else? No, it would be idiotic to expect I would give such an assertion any credibility. You may wish to take a run up and try again.
But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
Speaking about what one does not know, you make the accusation of me lying.
The fact that my suggestion that America can minimise attacks on its citizens by tightening its borders and freezing Muslim immigration until such time that it can improve its vetting systems and clear up its 900 active US based cases of Islamic extremism, you call bigoted.
You suggested rather than further addressing the threat that the threat was less great than falling furniture and that there was no issue in Sweden despite your open border policies and despite the fact that I mentioned the heightened female rape (and yes your rebuke still showed at more than double that of US and UK - which again is higher than Australian rates) and the pool crisis both of which made international news (in fact now your music festivals the last few years running have been targeted [30 this last one just gone] by groups of foreign men in groups of 10 isolating and sexually assaulting teenage girls - sound familiar - Cologne) you waved it off as of no real concern.
So at this stage, we can agree or disagree but you are demonstrating by your response an acceptance of the status quo in Sweden in respect to immigration and the movement of people and you back this by pounding on about treaties. So you honestly think that it somehow seems like me lying about you agreeing with the open border policies of Sweden (especially as I contrasted them against the border policies of Australia). No you only would think this if you were an idiot. I don't know that you honestly do, maybe you are just lying again.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
Title 8 US codes 1182
Its constitutional.
They have made various arguments against our detention Centres. Not buying it.
So now far from ME being misguided or "needing to understand".... "are you an idiot?"
If not that is fine, how did you get EVERYTHING so very wrong.