Which policy is racist? Building a wall to prevent illegals from coming into the country is "racist"? By your definition every country in the world that enforces its borders is "racist", including America's #1 ally Israel.
The wall is just a terrible idea, but the comments he made in his support of it were racist, thus making one of the motivating factors of his policy racism, on top of already not being worth the cost, the Muslim thing is pure discrimination.
I don't care about Israel's border policy, they have their own reasons, which may or may not be racist, that's none of my concern ultimately. I care about the policies of the elected President of my own country more than I care about the policies of the leader of Israel, China, Pakistan, whatever, and we don't need to take that step back from fear and ignorance, certainly not on this issue.
How do you know when most of these people are undocumented and there is no way of checking their criminal history? That's the security threat: there is no way of knowing who's coming in through that "border" and where they're going.
Are you serious? How do you know most of those people aren't riding unicorns and eating liquid gold? Since when is it my burden to prove the majority of undocumented illegals are
not rapists and druggies? The burden is on
YOU (and Trump) to prove it.
If your issue is not in fact whether they are rapists or not but the issue of not knowing period, then the simplest solution is to legalize illegal immigrants so that the illegals have incentive to become known. That comes with pitfalls and complications of its own, but it is the cheaper and simpler solution. As it is the hispanic immigration has not proven itself to be a cultural and national security threat warranting the spending of absurd amounts (given our national budget) of money on building a wall as well as building and maintaining the absolutely huge security force that would be needed to effectively man that wall. Until the illegal immigration has proven itself to be just such a threat, I see no reason to spend the money to build a wall to deal with a security threat that doesn't exist.
Honestly instead of locking potential immigrants out, we should be creating more avenues for legal immigration, a way for existing illegal immigrants to become legal citizens. That would both lessen the illegal immigration flow and do more to sort out those with criminal intentions/ bakcground than any wall could possibly do in today's world.
Because it isn't racist. You're beginning to sound like those SJW's who yell and scream "Trump's a racist" at the top of their lungs but when asked for proof you have no real, legitimate proof and out of desperation you're trying to portray Federal Government recognized facts as "racist".
I can see you are starting to get personal, so before we get into personal name-calling we should just agree to disagree on how racially damaging his policies are.
So many countries (including America's #1 Ally israel) have built border walls to keep out various threats and its proved to work just fine. Secondly, the Federal government has wasted trillions on various programs and foreign interventions within the past decade alone, a $17 billion dollar wall (it won't be a waste) is peanuts in comparison. If we cut down wasteful spending on other areas then we will have more than enough $$ to build the wall.
Its not just the upfront cost, its the ongoing maintenance of this wall, plus the manpower needed to man it and the surveillance needed to make it effective, all 2000 miles of it. Israel's wall is going to be about 1/5 the size when finished, and given their historical tensions with Muslims (especially the Palestinians in the area) the strategic calculus might actually make it a good idea for their armed forces, which don't have to worry about far ranging commitments and global power projection. Not to mention their citizenry generally has military training.
We simply don't have such deep hate or tensions with either Mexico, or Hispanics in general at this time as what exists between the Israeli's and the Palestinians. Just because we have wasted lots of money on other programs doesn't mean I support wasting our money on another, and yes I still view it as a waste for a problem that is not much of a problem aside from the entirely legal aspects of it. It is a problem the same way Marijuana is a problem, and building a 'YUGE' wall is not the way to fix it.
FDR's ban on immigration from Axis countries during WW2 and Abraham Lincolns suspension of Habeas Corpus (
among many other unconstitutional things Lincoln did)
were unconstitutional, BUT
during times of war they were necessary and today these two presidents are considered one of the greatest leaders of this country
for taking the necessary measures to preserve America and her peace.
Next time we are at war with all Muslims, your point will be more relevant. Also next time ISIS is actually a state, your point will be more relevant.
ISIS has declared they will send terrorists infiltrators among refugees and immigrants to attack the West, thus the common sense thing to do would be to temporarily halt Muslim immigration until the threat of ISIS has been significantly reduced. Anyone opposing this sensible move is by default in favor of exposing American citizens to terrorist attacks by ISIS and similar organizations.
This is why we have domestic intelligence agencies, to weed out the threats instead of a blanket ban. They've generally done a good job of it.
You calling it sensible does not make it sensible, it is unconstitutional, and would be rightly challenged and struck down in court until we actually formally declare war on all Muslims states, if not all Muslims. Good luck getting that doozie through Congress.
If someone is coming to my country just to make money and not because he shares my values or my outlook on life or because he wants to integrate into my culture, then that is bound to cause conflicts on so many levels between me and that person and naturally that is an unavoidable outcome. Just look at Europe where there are Muslim majority neighborhoods, they're not following European laws, rather they're following Shariah.
Being a second or third generation "well integrated" Muslim doesn't make one any less prone to extremism:
Radicalised Muslims in UK more likely to be born in Britain, rich and depressed
UK != US
Likewise EU != US
Instead of looking at the UK or European countries for how immigration might effect the US, you would be better served to look at Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Like the US, they have a similar immigrant history that is not connected to any single ethnicity that the European countries simply don't.
http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-american-muslims-fare-better-their-french-counterparts-2189449
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-better-america-europe-islamic-yet-integrated