NYT: “Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S.”

That’s the headline from the NY Times. Given this development, I’m going to save Donald Trump some time in writing up the legislation. Here is some handy-dandy text borrowed from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

An Act to Execute Certain Treaty Stipulations Relating to Muslims

Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Muslims to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Muslims to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Muslim to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.

SEC. 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Muslim, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 for each and every such Muslim so brought, and may be also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC. 3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Muslims who were in the United States on the XXth day of XXXX, XXXX, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act…

SEC. 4. That for the purpose of properly identifying Muslims who were in the United States on the XXth day of XXXX, XXXX, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and in order to furnish them with the proper evidence of their right to go from and come to the United States of their free will and accord, as provided by the treaty between the United States and XXXX dated XXth day of XXXX, XXXX, the collector of customs of the district from which any such Muslim shall depart from the United States shall, in person or by deputy, go on board each vessel having on board any such Muslim and cleared or about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and on such vessel make a list of all such Muslims, which shall be entered in registry-books to be kept for that purpose, in which shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks or peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of each of such Muslims, which books shall be safely kept in the custom-house; and every such Muslims so departing from the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive, free of any charge or cost upon application therefor, from the collector or his deputy, at the time such list is taken a certificate, signed by the collector or his deputy and attested by his seal of office, in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, which certificate shall contain a statement of the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, personal description, and facts of identification of the Muslims to whom the certificate is issued, corresponding with the said list and registry in all particulars…

SEC. 5. That any Muslims mentioned in section four of this act being in the United States, and desiring to depart from the United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive, free of charge or cost, a certificate of identification similar to that provided for in section four of this act to be issued to such Muslims as may desire to leave the United States by water; and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Muslims desires to go to issue such certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application by such Muslims, and to enter the same upon registry-books to be kept by him for the purpose, as provided for in section four of this act.

SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of articles one and two of the treaty in this act before mentioned, every Muslim other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall be identified as so entitled by the XXXX Government in each case, such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said government, which certificate shall be in the English language or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come, and which certificate shall state the name, title, or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession, and place of residence in XXXX of the person to whom the certificate is issued and that such person is entitled conformably to the treaty in this act mentioned to come within the United States…

SEC. 7. That any person who shall knowingly and falsely alter or substitute any name for the name written in such certificate or forge any such certificate, or knowingly utter any forged or fraudulent certificate, or falsely personate any person named in any such certificate, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $1,000, and imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not more than five years.

SEC. 8. That the master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place shall, at the same time he delivers a manifest of the cargo, and if there be no cargo, then at the time of making a report, of the entry of the vessel pursuant to law, in addition to the other matter required to be reported, and before landing, or permitting to land, any Muslim passengers, deliver and report to the collector of customs of the district in which such vessels shall have arrived a separate list of all Muslim passengers taken on board his vessel at any foreign port or place, and all such passengers on board the vessel at that time…

SEC. 9. That before any Muslim passengers are landed from any such vessel, the collector, or his deputy, shall proceed to examine such passengers, comparing the certificates with the list and with the passengers; and no passenger shall be allowed to land in the United States from such vessel in violation of law…

SEC. 11. That any person who shall knowingly bring into or cause to be brought into the United States by land, or who shall knowingly aid or abet the same, or aid or abet the landing in the United States from any vessel of any Muslim person not lawfully entitled to enter the United states, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding $1,000, and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC. 12. That no Muslim person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Muslim persons seeking to land from a vessel…

SEC. 13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the XXXX Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and household servants from the provisions of this act as to other Muslim persons.

SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Muslim to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

I have relied upon this Act for the text, omitting Article 15, which did not seem relevant. The altered text is underlined.

Update, 12/9: It’s pointed out in this NYT article that the Trump proposal is more draconian the original Exclusion Act:

Erika Lee, director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota, said that the Chinese Exclusion Act was remembered by scholars as one of the darkest periods in American history. However, unlike Mr. Trump’s proposal, it had some exceptions that allowed passage for Chinese students, teachers and tourists.

“As egregious as that law was, Trump’s recent proposal to call for an all-out ban on Muslim immigration is even worse than the exclusion act,” Ms. Lee said. “I never thought I’d say this, but in comparison to this proposal, the exclusion act looks better.”

74 thoughts on “NYT: “Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S.”

  1. BC

    That Islam is an historical evolution of the human apes’ winner-take-all, fearful, angry, jealous, violent, genocidal, Abrahamic, tribal, desert sky god religions, should we not only permit immigrants who are not afflicted by the radicalized mental disorder of believing in tribal desert sky gods and affirming their violent proclivities?

    That would leave pagans, animists, Confucians, Shintoists, no-minded Zen Buddhists, and a few others.

    Atheists, hmmm, I’m not so sure, as believing that there is no tribal desert sky god could be perceived as a religion, and some atheists are no less violent than psycho-emotionally and mentally disturbed theists.

    Hindus whose gods are depicted as having the power and discretion to annihilate existence and have sexual relations with four-legged animals might require some discretionary review; but they could be provisionally permitted to settle in parts of rural Appalachia, the Mid-South, Mountain West, and Texas. If they are trans-gender (or non-gender-specific types on any given day of the week), then all the better, as they have no god to worship but their genitals (or someone else’s), or the lack thereof. That’s an admirable conviction of one’s religious belief, which the Catholic Church ought to consider for practical purposes and to potentially avoid future lawsuits.

    1. Craig West

      Or one could adopt the platform of the Know Nothing Party from the early 1800s and substitute “Muslim” for “Catholic.” You’d have the modern day Republican Party.

  2. PeakTrader

    Maybe, if non-Muslim countries bar Muslims from entering their countries, then Muslims will police their religion.

    It’s totally unacceptable when thousands of Muslims chant God is Great when the crowd at a soccer match in Turkey is asked to give a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris attacks.

  3. rtd

    Someone with your smarts & level of education should be able to ignore these types of political rhetoric & certainly not induce you to create a blog post devoted to such atrocious comments & lunacy (particularly considering, as you’ve explicitly noted in the past, that you hold your readers to a relatively high regard as it relates to their intellectual capabilities). Unfortunately your (persistent) biases & subjectivity don’t seem to allow you to take the high road……..

    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      rtd: You do know that this person has consistently lead amongst Republican voters, so his views represent an important component of the electorate.

      Is your point we should just ignore this candidate, and his fringe views will magically disappear? I bet some folks in 1930s Germany had that view.

      1. rtd

        I do know there are indications that this person is in the lead as it relates to polling for the republican nomination and the samples used…….. & that’s quite sad. This isn’t, however, a valid excuse for your continual hijacking of Dr. Hamilton’s fine econo-blogging. At the minimum, keep your subjectiveness veiled & related to an “Analysis of current economic conditions and policy.” Because we know you love the partisan & normative – how about a post analyzing the nation’s ability to pay for the policy recommendations of Bernie Sanders or how about penning a blog post smashing Rand Paul’s or Ben Carson’s interests in fixed-exchange rate regimes?

        Based on your prior comments, I’m just surprised that you would think your readers would find Trump’s comments as anything other than political rhetoric & simply vile.

          1. rtd

            Fair enough – I’m certainly not in favor of blocking one’s freedom & particularly via one’s own medium.

      2. rtd

        I’m not certain if your comment was edited or I simply overlooked the last portion.

        To respond, I don’t think voters should ignore this candidate if it is not in their interest to do so. However, if the candidate were ignored, I do believe the relevance of his fringe views would disappear – as an ignored candidate would no longer likely be polling so highly. However, I think the very article you link to & damn near every news source in business does not ignore this candidate nor (again, as the NYTimes article you’ve linked to makes quite clear) his ridiculous comments – I’ve neither said (nor implied) anything about news sources ignoring the comments/views of politicians.

        1. Menzie Chinn Post author

          rtd: I did add that soon after writing it. Apologies.

          I wonder, if only the mainstream Zeitung in Germany had not written anything about him, if Hitler would never risen in power.

          1. rtd

            Let’s keep things in perspective as the media in 2015 US is much different than 1930’s Germany. Also, the media has covered this topic (as your link displays quite clearly) and many of Trump’s nauseous comments ad nauseam.

            You’re certainly fre to post whatever it is you like on your own blog, just as readers are free to have their own opinions of said posts, but I just don’t see how this is relevant to analysis of current economic condition or policy. Nor do I see how this post is at all likely to prevent the rise of Trumpzi-ism. On the other hand, given the content of this post, you could very likely believe that your readers would/do support Trump’s comments only if weren’t for your enlightening them to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. If that’s the case, you might want to pull back a bit on the econometrics for future posts.

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            rtd: If you can’t see the macro implications of closing the border to all Muslims, then I certainly can’t help you.

            I must say, in your world-view, Executive Order 9066 would have never occurred.

            In any case, thanks for your advice on what I should be writing about.

          3. rtd

            Where in this post do you even come close to providing an analysis of the macro implications of closing the border to all Muslims?

            As it relates to my “world-view”, i take an approach akin to the Lucas Critique.

          4. Menzie Chinn Post author

            rtd: I’ve done a cost analysis of the Northern border Wall. I’ll get to the macro of this measure soon.

            Well, just remember the title of Reinhart and Rogoff’s tome: “This time it’s different”. If you haven’t read the book, I’ll just tell you the title is ironic.

          5. rtd

            Mezie, Just realize that not assuming prior relations always hold is vastly different than assuming anything as it relates to a singular occurrence.

  4. Johnny

    The next time, Muslim terrorists execute people in a a café in Paris, hopefully Menzie is among the guests inside. That way, Menzie will learn the hard way that Islam is teaching to execute non-believers and that way, Menzie will learn the hard way that Islam is not compatible with humanity.

    Trump is an idiot and he does not understand that only closing the borders is not enough by far, as the enemy is already inside our country.
    Or political-correct formulated by our President during his oval office speech lately: “We will overcome. Stay on course.” The President wanted to tell the fellow Americans in San Bernadino : Not so bad, wait for the next murder rampage.

    1. baffling

      “The next time, Muslim terrorists execute people in a a café in Paris, hopefully Menzie is among the guests inside. ”
      it is hard to take seriously anybody who makes such a statement. an apology is in order.

  5. Ricardo

    The US has moved into a deflationary recession and we are worrying about the rantings of some nutty celebrity? We have bigger problems than Donald Trump.

  6. Jeffrey J. Brown

    I’ve thought for a while that the most likely explanation for the Trump phenomenon is that the guy must be on the Clintons’ payroll. If one takes the totality of his statements, he seems determined to antagonize every voting block except for the AWM’s (Angry White Males).

    1. Jeffrey J. Brown

      Incidentally, isn’t Trump saying, in effect, that if he were elected President, that he would intend to violate his oath of office?

      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    2. baffling

      “he seems determined to antagonize every voting block except for the AWM’s (Angry White Males)”
      actually this represents a significant constituency of the conservative movement. i think he is representing the appropriately chosen party. see the party for what it actually is, not what it tries to represent itself as.

      1. Jeffrey J. Brown

        I actually think that we have had periods of cyclical insanity for quite a while. A lot of Republicans went crazy in the Clinton 42 years, then a lot of Democrats went crazy in the Bush 43 years, and now a lot of Republicans have gone crazy in the Obama years.

        Of course, the irony is that if the AWM vote gets Trump nominated, it all but guarantees a Clinton 45 presidential term, which is my point about speculating about Trump being on the Clintons’ payroll. In any case, if HIllary takes the oath of office in 2017, I suspect that a lot of AWM’s will spontaneously combust.

        1. baffling

          jeffrey, do you think the amount of crazy targeted towards the clinton and obama white house was even similar in magnitude to what was faced by the bush white house? were there any equivalents to whitewater, bengazi and birthers? there has certainly been an asymmetry of anger and vitriol over the residents of the white house.

    3. dilbert dogbert

      The possibility that Trump was encouraged to run by Big Bad Bill KKKlinton has been mentioned on the internets.

      1. Jeffrey J. Brown

        You think the Clintons paid him to energize the republican base? You seem dumb bro.

        I agree that Trump has energized what I call the (predominantly) Angry White Male (AWM) voting block, but AWM’s don’t represent a winning coalition in general elections.

        I think that there may be two key contributing factors to what I described above as the Cyclical Insanity pattern: (1) The rise of talk radio and highly targeted MSM cable channels, e.g., Fox News and MSNBC, and (2) Gerrymandered congressional districts, which have produced generally safe Republican and Democratic congressional districts. I think that there is a tendency, perhaps more in right wing than left wing circles, for people to only talk to and to listen to people that they agree with. For someone who exchanges emails with their friends about Obama being a closet Muslim, who was born in Kenya, and who listens to Rush Limbaugh on the radio and watches Fox News, it seems self-evident that Trump will be a powerful candidate in the general election. We shall see, but here is an excerpt from Karl Rove’s column in the 12/10/15 WSJ (do a Google Search for the title, for access to the column):

        Karl Rove: Trump Is the Democrats’ Dream Nominee
        He could win the primaries but would get creamed in the presidential election.

        All these numbers combine to make Mr. Trump the weakest Republican tested by Quinnipiac in head-to-head matchups against Mrs. Clinton, to whom he loses 41% to 47%. Among young voters, he loses by 20 points, 32% to 52%. He receives only 13% of Hispanic votes—less than half of what Mitt Romney did in 2012—to Mrs. Clinton’s 76%.

        The Donald doesn’t compensate by beating Mr. Romney’s nearly 20-point margin among whites: He leads Mrs. Clinton among whites by only 12 points, 50% to 38%. So although Mr. Trump’s antics may not drive away his current supporters, they make him unlikely to win the White House.

        Yet if the Republican field remains large and splintered through mid-March, Mr. Trump could become the Republican nominee by winning states with 25% to 30% of the vote. Then Democrats would attack Mr. Trump, a target-rich candidate, with an endless stream of ads. Perhaps they would open with his immortal line from the Cleveland debate—that he had “taken advantage of the laws of this country” in having his companies declare bankruptcy four times. This footage might be followed by compelling testimony from contractors, small-business people and bondholders whom he stiffed. America has never elected a president with that kind of a dubious business record.

        Donald Trump would be the dream opponent for the Democratic Party. We’ll see in the next four months whether that matters to Republicans.

  7. Joseph

    Paul Ryan: “This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And, more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

    Asked whether he would support Trump as the GOP presidential nominee, Ryan said he would support “whoever the nominee is.”

    There are no moderates in the Republican Party.

  8. Vivian Darkbloom

    To be fair, actually, Trump proposed to ban all Muslim immigration *until our representatives can figure out what is going on*”

    That strikes me as pretty harsh and likely unconstitutional. Taken literally, I think it means a permanent ban. But, I think the same principle might well be applied to other, constitutionally permissible subjects. It would, I think, greatly reduce the size of government.

    1. Vivian Darkbloom

      Thanks Mike. I’ve let me WSJ subscription lapse, so I don’t have access to the full article.

      I did read an article on NPR today suggesting that from consultations with “constitutional scholars” the issue is not clear. Being one myself (among my many other talents–smiley face), I was very surprised that the Establishment Clause was not mentioned by those “experts”. The Establishment Clause doesn’t merely prevent government from “establishing” a religion, but favouring one over another. And, like the power to tax being the power to destroy, I would think such an exclusion based on religious affiliation and disfavouring a religion could be struck down on those grounds, even if “aliens” are the only ones directly affected. It’s an interesting issue, though, and I did write “likely unconstitutional”. I trust my assessment won’t need to be tested.

      1. Mike


        If you google the name of the article and enter the website through the search, you can get through the paywall most of the time. If it stops working just switch your browser.

        1. Vivian Darkbloom

          Thanks, Mike, again. I did get through with the method you recommended.

          I see the article was written by James Taranto. He’s really sharp and one of the main reasons I would consider re-upping at the WSJ. Although not a lawyer (or even a college graduate), he’s very well informed about matters legal and writes very knowledgeably about them (better than most lawyers!). I’m a (retired) lawyer and he often amazes me.

          But, here, I think he somewhat misses the mark. Although Taranto mentions the First Amendment, he refers to the “Freedom of Exercise” provision. Actually, the First Amendment is not limited to the “freedom of exercise”. It has two separate provisions–the establishment clause and the free exercise clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. Nota bene the conjunction. I think the Establishment provision is more relevant, in part because it doesn’t require there to be any infringement on a particular person’s right to exercise (e.g., an alien who would normally not have standing). The mere fact of “establishing” (i.e., passing laws that expressly support or indirectly prefer one religion over another would be considered “establishing”). I think this has implications for the issue of standing because it is alone the government action that is prescribed without any reference to its affect on the “rights” of individuals or any specific individual, per se.

          Because Taranto sidesteps this, none of the precedents he cites regarding freedom of speech, etc., are directly applicable.

          I see from Steve Sailer’s site that Congress has previously granted special refugee status (*preference*, not the reverse) for certain religious minorities. To my knowledge, that has never been challenged on Constitutional grounds. The fact that the law exists doesn’t mean it is precedent or would be valid if challenged.

          But, again, all this is interesting because there is no direct precedent.

    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      Bob: I agree with Joseph. Just because I admire FDR doesn’t mean we should believe everything he did was right. And I think (like Ronald Reagan) that Executive Order 9066 was wrong.

  9. Joseph

    Bob: “It’s disgraceful to see Donald Trump stoop to the level of Franklin Roosevelt.”

    So, Bob, if I interpret your bitter sarcasm correctly, if Trump’s next suggestion is the re-institution of slavery, your nine-year-old response is “Well, Washington did it too!”

    You know, the optimistic view is that we as a society progress over time. You seem to want to regress to our worst times in history.

    1. Bob

      As usual, your sarcastic interpretation is wrong. We don’t need Trump to re-institute slavery, Dems did that years ago when they decided that teacher unions were more important than students and, so, have confined millions of inner-city minorities to a crappy K-12 public educational system that has kept them down on dat Dem plantation …… and when they push for ever increasing minimum wages that price the very inner city public edukated unskilled black teens they created out of the market. If there is a party of white privilege and of slavery, it is your party.

  10. Rick Stryker


    I’ve been pretty busy lately and not able to follow the machinations of econbrowser. But I see you have a post on the Donald’s latest bit of lunacy and it reminded me of Stryker’s Second Law of Politics. In case you are not familiar, Stryker’s Second Law says: whatever the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of trying to do, they are already guilty of doing it themselves.

    Here we have a good example of Stryker’s Second Law. You’ve gone to the trouble of writing some legislation to give the Donald the power to implement his proposal. But you don’t apparently realize that your fellow Democrats have already given a prospective President Trump the power he needs.

    The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 was proposed by the Democratic Speaker of the House and Democratic Senate majority leader and backed on a bipartisan basis. When it was passed by both the House and Senate, Truman vetoed it, saying it was “un-American.” But Congress overrode his veto. Take a look at section 212(f), which reads:

    “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.”

    Is this Constitutional? Very likely yes under the longstanding plenary power doctrine. Courts have consistently not intervened in challenges to immigration statutes or executive orders on the basis of race, national origin, political beliefs etc. and have generally not accepted the argument that foreign nationals deserve due process protections, except in special cases, such as Zadvydas vs. Davis.

    I’d suggest that you keep in mind Stryker’s Second Law to save you from wasting time drafting unnecessary legislation.

    1. Rick Stryker

      Sorry, correction, something went wrong with my brain when I wrote that. The legislation was not introduced by the Speaker and Majority leader but rather by a Democratic house member from Pennsylvania and a Democratic senator from Nevada. The House member was for a time chair of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

    2. Menzie Chinn Post author

      Rick Stryker: I didn’t have to spend much time drafting, because, as you saw, I just edited very slightly previously written legislation. I expect soon getting a chance to re-use Executive Order 9066 language, either because of something Mr. Trump says, or some other Republican. I do not expect to use it for what some Democrat in the first part of the 21st Century says (really, you had to go back over 60 years???; go back long enough, and Democrats were the pro-Secession party).

      1. Rick Stryker


        Go back 60 years? That law is on the books today. The modern Democratic Party has had a number of opportunities to change it.

        Why are you talking about other Republicans? Who in the Republican leadership agrees with Trump on this? As I’ve reminded you before, Trump was a self-admitted Democrat until recently, bashing Bush and praising John Kerry and Hilary Clinton. Even now, he has not repudiated his belief in single payer or taxes on the rich. You don’t really believe Trump means this, do you? This is Trump’s way of dealing with Ted Cruz pulling ahead of him.

        Here’s the question: if Trump thought he had a better shot at the nomination as a Democrat, would he now be embarrassing the Democratic party? Yes, I think so.

        1. Menzie Chinn Post author

          Rick Stryker: But the fact is Trump declared as a Republican because he found the ground more fertile there for his regressive beliefs (I hope you concur they are regressive).

          By the way, Trump’s plan is even more extreme than the law you cite because it allows barring Muslim Americans traveling abroad from coming back (Guardian):

          Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said Trump’s proposed ban would apply to “everybody”, including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists seeking to enter the country. Another Trump staffer confirmed that the ban would also apply to American Muslims who were currently overseas – presumably including members of the military and diplomatic service. “This does not apply to people living in the country,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News, “but we have to be vigilant.”

          I see he has revised and extended his view after one day; citizens can come back. But that view might have the durability of his other promises.

          1. Rick Stryker


            No, I think he declared as a Republican because he knew he had little chance of unseating Hilary. The Republican race, on the other hand, is wide open.

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Rick Stryker: So you’re saying Trump would proposed banning all Muslims and Muslim-Americans from coming into the US if (a) he were running as a Democrat, and (b) Hillary was not running?

          3. Anonymous

            No Menzie, because that wouldn’t play to the Dem base. Trump says outrageous things that have a kernel of truth to get attention focused on him. He is an egomaniac who wants to be president and he is a master marketer and linguist. If he was running as a Democrat he’s say outrageous things with a kernel of truth that would rile up Democrats.

          4. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Anonymous aka Asian with 4.0 and a perfect SAT rejected by Harvard aka Anonymous aka Future President Donald Trump aka Scott Walker, American Patriot and Freedom Fighter aka BUT THE MODELS SHOW US!! aka (xo poa) aka YOLO! aka JS aka Joe: If you are saying that the views Donald Trump is currently espousing with respect to building a wall, monitoring all Mosques, and barring all Muslims (including Mulsim-Americans) from entering (or re-entering) the country, are representative of many in the Republican party, then I agree with you.

          5. Menzie's spreadsheet tracker of my monikers, employer, DOB, and SSN is totally health and normal

            I do not understand your bizarre obsession with noting every moniker I’ve posted under. Why allow people to post anonymously if you’re not going to allow them to be anonymous?

      2. rtd

        Geez, this is ironic as can be. Talk about déjà vu within the same post………….

        rtd in reply to Menzie Chinn December 8, 2015 at 12:24 pm:
        “Let’s keep things in perspective as the media in 2015 US is much different than 1930’s Germany.”

        Menzie Chinn in reply to Rick Stryker December 9, 2015 at 2:21 pm:
        “I do not expect to use it for what some Democrat in the first part of the 21st Century says (really, you had to go back over 60 years???”

        1. Menzie Chinn Post author

          rtd: I know you are obtuse, and heck-bent on proving you’re right. But there is a difference between (1) asserting that behavior is the same (e.g., there are nativist tendencies), and (2) one political party is always nativist. Duh.

          1. rtd

            And I know it burns your ass to get burnt on your own blog.
            You tried to 1930s Germany media with the USA mass media in 2015. I thought this comparison of totally different media, technology, nations, experience, etc…. was a presumptuous & quite sloppy. You later admonished Rick Stryker for doing the same. See, we’re actually on the same team right now, Menzie. With the interesting exception that I’m on the same team the whole time while you switch at your convenience – another case of you trying to play tennis without the net.

            In any case, more déjà vu:
            rtd to Menzie Chinn December 8, 2015 at 5:32 pm
            “Mezie, Just realize that not assuming prior relations always hold is vastly different than assuming anything as it relates to a singular occurrence.”
            Menzie Chinn to rtd December 9, 2015 at 8:28 pm
            “But there is a difference between (1) asserting that behavior is the same (e.g., there are nativist tendencies), and (2) one political party is always nativist.”

            Also, nice touch with the 1990’s schoolgirl “duh” comment.

          2. rtd

            Excuse the many typos. I’ll place the blame on Siri.

            You tried to COMPARE 1930s Germany media with the USA mass media in 2015. I thought this comparison of totally different media, technology, nations, experience, etc…. was a presumptuous ASSUMPTION & quite sloppy. You later admonished Rick Stryker for doing the same INTERTEMPORAL COMPARISON. See, we’re actually on the same team right now, Menzie. With the interesting exception that I’m on the same team the whole time while you switch at your convenience – another case of you trying to play tennis without the net.

  11. Joseph

    Rick Stryker: “Why are you talking about other Republicans? Who in the Republican leadership agrees with Trump on this?”

    Jeb Bush says that only refugees that can prove they are Christians should be admitted to the U.S. Ted Cruz, using converse framing, says that all Muslim refugees should be excluded. Talking about refugees doesn’t make it any less ugly.

    The bigotry is rampant throughout the Republican Party. The “Southern Strategy” has been the modus operandi for the GOP for decades. As Lee Atwater famously explained, Republicans had to keep it coded using racist dog whistles. But Trump has broken all the rules, brought the angry bigotry right up front and the Republican base is delighted. No more hidden agenda. Overt, shameless bigotry is cool again for Republicans.

    1. Rick Stryker


      As usual you are wrong on the facts. Here’s what just a sampling of prominent Republicans have said in response to Trump’s proposal:

      “@Realdonaldtrump has gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric.” Lyndsey Graham

      “Unfortunately I think Donald Trump’s over reaction is as dangerous as Obama’s under reaction” Carly Fiorina

      “Donald Trump is unhinged. His “policy” proposals are not serious.” Jeb Bush

      “I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.” Marco Rubio

      Cruz’s proposal is not at all equivalent to Trump’s. And, as I said, the motive for Trump taking his much more extreme position is to stop Cruz, who is threatening his pole position.

      I think it’s funny how the the Left prattles on and on about alleged bigotry of the right. But I remember the aftermath of 9/11. The worst islamophobes at the time were progressives. I used to argue with them about it. I would try to explain that Islam isn’t inherently violent or threatening, but to no avail with them. And now they’ve all forgotten about that and are back to making their usual attacks on the right.

      But you can see the real soul of the progressive if you look at what’s going on in France, whose government is very left wing by American standards. The French system is what progressives in America wish for here. What are the French progressives doing in the aftermath of their terrorist attack? They’ve declared a state of emergency, giving the police unprecedented powers. What powers?

      “Most significant for the French state in the current context are the powers given to the security services and police to act without judicial oversight. They can conduct house searches at any time, enforce house arrest and confiscate certain classes of weapons, even if people hold them legally.”

      So far the French are raiding and closing mosques, kicking in doors, putting people under house arrest, etc. Without any due process. And who are the recipients of this treatment? Muslims, or course.

      You see, that’s what progressives really do when they feel threatened. But when they don’t feel threatened they accuse their political enemies of what they are in fact guilty of.

    1. Jeffrey J. Brown

      Probably like a lot of people, color me as conflicted. I’ve posted some negative comments on Trump above, but on the other hand . . . .

      In regard to the Hitler analogy, one version is that Trump’s call to ban Muslim immigrants is analogous to Hitler’s early efforts to persecute Jews in Germany in the early Thirties. Where this analogy breaks down is that clearly a certain percentage of Muslim immigrants are, or will become, Radical Islamic Terrorists, while the Jews in Germany in the early Thirties were clearly scapegoats. (Which is a point about Muslim immigrants that Adams made in his blog post.)

      I’ve phrased it this way. If X is the number of Radical Islamic Terrorists and if Y is the total number of Muslims, unfortunately our experience seems to be that as Y increases so does X.

      Following is a very interesting column in the WSJ (same page as Karl Rove’s column excerpted above, for full access do a Google Search for the title). Again, in contrast to the persecution of Jewish citizens in Germany in the early Thirties, there seems to be no dispute, even among most Muslims, that a certain percentage of Muslims represent a clear and present danger to the US.

      WSJ: Our Duty as American Muslims
      We are the only ones who can lead a winning fight against the radicalism crippling our faith.
      By Khurram Dara

      After San Bernardino, American Muslims have to come to terms with an ever more apparent truth: that we, and our mainstream Muslim brethren, are the only ones who can lead a winning fight against the radicalism crippling our faith.

      What’s most troubling about the San Bernardino massacre is that Syed Farook seemed to have been, by almost all accounts, an ordinary American. He was an educated and employed 28-year-old first-generation citizen, born to Pakistani immigrants.

      Like many Americans, I have a similar background, which makes the attack all the more concerning. It seems unthinkable that someone in such a position could be susceptible to radicalization. Yet we have seen this happen time and again, particularly among younger Muslims in the Middle East, Europe and now America.

      Attacks like last week’s underscore the importance of countering extremist propaganda. . . .

      But in order to lead this fight with unified support, certain things will have to change. We can’t call out prejudice against our faith without also calling out the gender inequality and homophobia that we find in some of our communities. We can’t be champions of our own religious freedom without also championing the rights of all traditions across the globe that wish to peacefully practice, including other Muslim sects we may disagree with doctrinally. We have to change the way we think about Islamic law and vilify the medieval judicial practices that persist in the Middle East. And we must have uncomfortable but necessary conversations about where much of the funding for this cancerous supremacist ideology is coming from—Saudi Arabia.

      We carry with us a responsibility to our country, our faith and our children. The majority of us are here because our parents or grandparents emigrated from oppressive and illiberal nations for the promise of a better life in America. But the way things are heading, our children may grow up with less opportunity and freedom than we did. I can think of no greater defeat and surrender to radicalism than that.

  12. Joseph

    Of course the other Republican candidates are criticizing Trump. He’s their opponent at the front of the pack. They are always criticizing him.

    But these are the facts. This is what the other candidates say about their own policies when they aren’t attacking Trump.

    Chris Christie: “Not even 3-year-old orphan refugees should be able to enter the country.”
    Ted Cruz: “No Muslim refugees should be able to enter the country.”
    Jeb Bush: “Only refugees that can prove they are Christians should be able to enter the country.”
    Mark Rubio: “It’s not that we don’t want to. It’s that we can’t.”
    Rand Paul: “Ban all immigration from 34 Muslim countries.”
    Donald Trump: “No Muslim immigration, period.”
    Ben Carson: “No Muslim should be President.”
    And don’t forget that paragon of common sense, Paul Ryan, who says that he disagrees with Trump (the bigot), but when directly asked, pledged to support Trump (the bigot) if nominated.

    Where are the non-bigots in the Republican Party? The reason Trump has to dial it up to eleven is because that is the only way to stand out in a uniform field of bigots. The latest Bloomberg poll shows that 65% of Republicans support Trump’s ban on Muslims.

    1. Rick Stryker


      Why don’t you and your fellow progressives condemn what’s going on in France? Not a word from you about that. Almost makes me think this is about getting political advantage and not about principle.

    2. Anonymous

      The irony here is you are advocating for more Muslim immigrants, who are hands-down the most bigoted group of people anywhere.

  13. Rick Stryker


    In response to your comment, no, if Trump were running as a Democrat I don’t think he be talking about Muslims. But he’d be saying something really outrageous to keep the news media completely focused on him and not on his opponents.

    1. baffling

      rick, it does not change the fact that donald trump is a republican, running in the republican primaries, with significant support from his republican constituents. and his constituents of the republican party seem to support the very controversial statements and positions he has taken with continued support of the candidate himself. the future of the republican party is bleak at this time. you can thank the tea party for the republican demise.

  14. Joseph

    Rick Stryker: “But I remember the aftermath of 9/11. The worst islamophobes at the time were progressives. I used to argue with them about it. I would try to explain that Islam isn’t inherently violent or threatening, but to no avail with them.”

    Yes, it was progressives that were at the forefront in the drumbeat for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It was in reaction to the “thousands and thousands of Muslims” riding jet-skis across Lake Ontario into New Jersey to celebrate the falling of the World Trade Center towers. It was all on TV as you recall.

    What the heck are you smoking, Rick? Are you on medication?

    1. Rick Stryker

      With all that smoking, I must be getting forgetful about what really happened in the aftermath of 9-11. Now where did I put my list of Democratic Senators who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq? Oh, here it is. Recognize any names?

      Baucus (D-MT), Yea
      Bayh (D-IN), Yea
      Biden (D-DE), Yea
      Breaux (D-LA), Yea
      Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
      Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
      Carper (D-DE), Yea
      Cleland (D-GA), Yea
      Clinton (D-NY), Yea
      Daschle (D-SD), Yea
      Dodd (D-CT), Yea
      Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
      Edwards (D-NC), Yea
      Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
      Harkin (D-IA), Yea
      Hollings (D-SC), Yea
      Johnson (D-SD), Yea
      Kerry (D-MA), Yea
      Kohl (D-WI), Yea
      Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
      Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
      Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
      Miller (D-GA), Yea
      Nelson (D-FL), Yea
      Nelson (D-NE), Yea
      Reid (D-NV), Yea
      Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
      Schumer (D-NY), Yea
      Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

  15. Joseph

    This is Rick’s story and he’s sticking to it:

    Picture him as he stands before the whimpering but angry “Islamophobic progressives” as they sit huddled on the floor before his feet while he tries to soothe them by saying “These are not the droids you are looking for …” — oops, wrong script — “These are not the Muslims you need fear”. He tried his best, but … alas … to no avail. Curtain falls.

    You should submit it to the Bulwer-Lytton Awards for worst fiction of the year. (Check them out. Rick’s story could be a contender.)

    I think “progressive” to Rick means anyone to the left of Dick Cheney.

    Meanwhile, in October 2001, the real progressives were marching by the tens of thousands in Washington D.C., New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, London, Berlin, Sydney and elsewhere to protest the march to war in Afghanistan.

    1. Rick Stryker


      The people that you call “real progressives” who marched against the war in Afghanistan are hardly the progressives I’m talking about. The progressives I’m talking about are people in the Left Wing of the Democratic Party. They believe that government is a force for good and that we should have more of it. They believe income inequality should be addressed by higher progressive income tax rates. They believe that health care is a right and should be supplied to everyone free of charge. Many of those progressives were on my list of Democratic Senators.

      The “real progressives” you refer to were organized by A.N.S.W.E.R., (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), which is a radical leftist group. The difference between progressives and A.N.S.W.E.R. protesters is that the protesters condemn American actions abroad pretty much across the board, attack capitalism, and are virulently anti-semitic, to wit:

      “Several anti-war protests in San Francisco organized by the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) featured imagery and slogans some considered anti-Semitic, including the burning of the Israeli flag, chants of support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Nazi-like arm salutes.”

      The Anti-Defamation League reports that A.N.S.W.E.R. is an affiliate of the far left International Action Center, (IAC) founded in 1992 by Ramsey Clark. IAC and A.N.S.W.E.R derive their ideology from the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist group that advocates socialism as the answer to the world’s ills. The ADL also notes A.N.S.W.E.R.’s support for terrorist organizations.

      It’s true that A.N.S.W.E.R. protested against US action in Afghanistan in 2001. But that’s hardly prescient or surprising because they always protest against any American intervention anywhere for any reason. They are still protesting today. Just to get a better idea of who they are, here’s an informative video showing A.N.S.W.E.R. protesting a true progressive’s (President Obama’s) Afghanistan policies.

      You call them “real progressives?” You should be ashamed to be associated with them.

    2. Joseph

      Rick, thanks for verifying my surmise above. Like I said, you consider anyone to the left of Dick Cheney to be a progressive. It really clarifies where you stand.

      And it makes all the funnier your fantasy story about trying to explain to “Islamophobic progressives” that Islam isn’t inherently violent or threatening … but to no avail.

      Rick — always good for a laugh.

      1. Rick Stryker


        You don’t believe my story because you have a different definition of “progressive” than I have. For you, progressives are the A.N.S.W.E.R. people. Those guys support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The principal founder of IAC and A.N.S.W.E.R., Ramsey Clark, defended Saddam Hussein in Iraq, among other assorted global villains. Clark made it clear that he believed that the US had illegally detained Hussein, that Hussein was a victim of US aggression, and that any legitimate court that could try Hussein should have the power to try coalition military forces for war crimes. I guess employing chemical weapons against your own people is not a big deal in Clark’s eyes.

        Ramsey Clark also defended the PLO from a suit brought by Leon Klinghoffer’s family. As you may recall, Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas and his fellow terrorists threw wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer overboard from the Achillo Lauro, the cruise ship that Klinghoffer and his wife were sailing on. Apparently, Klinghoffer was guilty of vacationing while being Jewish.

        Abu Abbas got away. And where was he found hiding? Why in Baghdad of course, hidden by his good friend Saddam.

        You’re right. I never had to argue with any of those “progressives” about Islamophobia. Those “progressives” are guilty of supporting evil all around the world but I wouldn’t count Islamophobia as one of their sins.

        I think you have clarified where you stand.

  16. Rick Stryker


    I got the feeling from your comments that you were not taking Stryker’s Second Law of Politics seriously so perhaps another example would be useful. You and others on the Left are deriding Trump for his recent proposal, but allow me to remind you that Jimmy Carter by decree banned all Iranian immigrants from entering the US. These immigrants were not responsible for what their government did and posed no terrorist threat to the American people. As far as I know, no one questioned the constitutionality of Carter’s action and he was not condemned, unlike Trump today.

Comments are closed.