Calling for more mass surveillance and registering Muslims are probably better examples of proposed civil rights violations.

"Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. 'They have to be,' he said. 'They have to be.'"

He's also suggested that we should surveil mosques and won't rule out "certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago" like warrant-less searches of Muslims, and closing down Mosques that we decide are a threat.

> More troubling is your unstated implication that anyone who opposes open borders globalization/cultural relativism necessarily wants to take away civil rights for Americans.

That's not my implication at all. It has nothing to do with open borders, only with banning a particular religion. If Trump believes Muslims are so dangerous that we have to ban them from entering the next logical step is to deport the ones already here, and then on to deporting Muslim citizens. This is clearly unconstitutional, so it won't happen, but I personally know many Trump supporters who are followers of Trumpian ideology who would support deporting Muslim citizens.

> If Trump believes Muslims are so dangerous that we have to ban them from entering the next logical step is to deport the ones already here, and then on to deporting Muslim citizens.

That's not a logical progression at all. The United States has no obligation to let anyone into the country. But it does have Constitutional obligations to people already here. As a practical matter, if you look at Trump's statements in context he's focused on Syrian refugees. The demographics of Muslims already in America are very different (in part because of our strict filters on immigration).

"'Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?'

'We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.'"

-----------------

"'Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?

'There should be a lot of systems," Trump responded. "Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems.'"

--------------

In this last quote he is unambiguously being asked about a full Muslim database, not a database of immigrants.

"'Let's hear it directly from you," said host Kimberly Guilfoyle. "Would President Donald Trump support a full Muslim database?'

'Basically the suggestion was made and (it’s) certainly something we should start thinking about'"

-----------------

Establishing a Muslim database is clearly a civil rights violation. Trump says "we should start thinking about it". He says we should start thinking about something which is clearly a civil rights violation, so I don't think it's a stretch at all to be afraid that he may actually harm civil rights.

>That's not a logical progression at all. The United States has no obligation to let anyone into the country.

The police also have no obligation to protect any particular person, but when they refuse to protect someone based on their religion, it becomes a civil rights violation.

I understand that this is a matter for the courts do decide and it isn't actually a clear cut civil rights violation, but a quick google search shows at least a few respected legal scholars who believe that a ban on non-citizens based on religion would violate the constitution http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/harvard-professor-laurence-tribe-...

"According to several scholars surveyed by MSNBC, while foreign citizens do enjoy fewer rights than Americans, it is still illegal for the government to use a religious test on foreigners. The Constitution's 'bar against declaring an official religion' would apply to discrimination against non-citizens, argues Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe."

"Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf said that while U.S. policy 'routinely applies different immigration rules for nationals of different countries,' Trump’s proposal to only exclude 'foreign nationals who are Muslim' would likely be 'unconstitutional.'"

Again, he's really talking on the context of terrorism and refugees in Europe. He's not talking about throwing out all the Muslims or stamping a tattoo on their arms. Also, it would make GREAT sense to have a database of every Muslim(and everyone else) that enters our country... I'm pretty sure we already have that. I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far...

He said we should start thinking about it. He either wasn't paying attention to what she was saying at all, or he thinks a database of all Muslims could be a good idea.

That he even entertains the idea that requiring members of a specific religion to register with the government is absurd.

> I'm just saying I think people take his brash no-bullshit no-filter style and run with it too far...

So when he said that we should "Take out" the family members of terrorists as a deterrent, and then defended his statement the next day, we shouldn't worry about it? He was just bullshitting, not actually advocating committing a war crime?

I don't know which situation is scarier. A president who actually plans on doing the things he says he will, or a president with no filter who just says the first thing that pops into his head.

His "no-filter style" frequently results in him saying things that are factually incorrect, based on mistaken beliefs, describing illegal policies, or in contradiction to things he's already stated.

His words describe his vision, and by extension, his vision lacks integrity and stability. A company with a CEO like that would not last long, and the CEO of a country could cause a lot of damage.