45

Donald Trump has been reported in the news and over the internet for suggesting that Muslims should wear some visible id or badge of some sort.

Raw Story headlined with:

Trump crosses the Nazi line: Maybe Muslims should wear special ID badges

Newsbusters claimed that it didn't happen:

MSM Spreads False Claim Trump Wants Special Badges for Muslims

I live in Europe, which means I can't tell which American news site is more credible.

Did he say anything like that?

JJJ
  • 1,222
  • 10
  • 23
Tomáš Zato
  • 951
  • 1
  • 10
  • 18

1 Answers1

63

TL;DR: Not true

I'll go the easy route and steal from Snopes:

Claim: Donald Trump stated that Muslims should be made to wear identifying badges.

WHAT'S TRUE: Donald Trump was asked in an interview about whether Muslims should be subject to special scrutiny, a question he answered ambiguously.

... (I'm skipping the second half of the "true" sentence about databases, because it will be discussed later in the answer).

WHAT'S FALSE: Donald Trump asserted that Muslims should wear identifying badges

To elaborate, Snopes clarifies:

In the context of that interview, it's important to note that Trump's responses were non-committal. Furthermore, they were clearly in response to leading questions for which the actual phrasing wasn't even provided:

Precisely how such a question was presented to Trump was not elaborated upon in the printed text of the interview, nor was what his exact response (not "rul[ing] it out") entailed. Moreover, the portions involving quotes were so exceptionally vague ("do things that we never did before," "certain things will be done") and full of obfuscation, it was impossible to discern even vaguely what Trump referenced. (The mandate of badges for Muslims was quite a leap by any measure.)

While it appeared Trump fielded a question about enhanced surveillance for Muslims and mosques, in no reasonable interpretation of the material provided did he himself suggest that followers of Islam should wear Holocaust-like badges as in Nazi Germany. That assertion appeared to be one fronted by the interviewer, and not fairly attributable to Donald Trump. It's true that Trump espoused a position many would deem objectionable or offensive in the little he did say, but the controversy hinged largely on words he didn't appear to have said.

A little bit more organized, if more partisanly-worded, rebuttal of the claim with details of how it was spun up is here.

P.S. There was a second part of the claim, that was NOT part of this question; but was related and analyzed by Snopes as part of the same article.

... He then later affirmed that Muslims should be required to register in a database - Evaluated by Snopes as part of "TRUE" claim.

I actually disagree with Snopes in this "true" evaluation. This part of the claim is somewhat true but very misleading given context - no matter what interviewer's intent, Trump was NOT speaking of all Muslims, just immigrants. Which can of course be spun into something awfully sounding until one realizes that all legal immigrants to USA have been registered with INS/DHS, forever.

Note Trump's exact words around the clarifying discussion - they are almost certainly referring to immigration:

But right now, we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen any longer.”

Community
  • 1
user5341
  • 31,075
  • 8
  • 130
  • 178
  • 2
    I thought Skeptics.se didn't view Snopes as a legitimate source for confirming or denying stuff? – Nzall Nov 23 '15 at 12:04
  • @NateKerkhofs - it does when 50%+ of the underlying article are straight up quotes, which this was. – user5341 Nov 23 '15 at 12:21
  • 22
    @user5341 +1 for pointing out that one of the 'crazy sounding things' is actually common practice today. – David says Reinstate Monica Nov 23 '15 at 15:42
  • 6
    What's more troubling is that the OP linked to Newsbusters, which itself linked to Snopes and quoted the same passage. So, this answer doesn't add any information that the OP didn't already have, and I am not sure it helps make the Internet a better place. – Oddthinking Nov 23 '15 at 23:43
  • 1
    @Oddthinking - then close the question perhaps? You can't answer it with any OTHER quotes since Snopes combined with Breitbart link I provided pretty much quote all there is to quote on the topic. P.S. I chose not to quote from Breitbart because I know exactly how voting would go if I did that vs. snopes. – user5341 Nov 24 '15 at 00:31
  • Ooh, I missed that Breitbart link. If anything, that helps because you are adding more than Snopes. You also "add value" by pointing out about the INS/DHS registration - a reference there would be nice, but I assume it is uncontroversial. – Oddthinking Nov 24 '15 at 00:40
  • 5
    @Oddthinking - ooooh. I **gotta** ask that on Politics.SE: "provide incontrovertible proof that immigrants **actually** are registered with INS/DHS". It's not controversial but definitely isn't 100% obviously proven absent some rulebook or regulation. Having dealt with INS I have anecdotal proof; I saw my own file :) – user5341 Nov 24 '15 at 00:42
  • 3
    What is your source for *Trump was NOT speaking of all Muslims, just immigrants*? The articles I find claim the opposite. – gerrit Nov 24 '15 at 20:06
  • 3
    @gerrit - it means that Trump has a hobby topic (like every other politician) and angles to make anything he answers on ANY question - no matter how distantly related - to be tied to that topic. His hobby topic (or one of the few) is illegal aliens and borders. He's never been interested in Islam or Muslims before, and likely hasn't exactly gone interested now, other than as an excuse to talk about borders *again*. – user5341 Nov 24 '15 at 23:08
  • 2
    @gerrit - did you actually read the quote I posted? That's the reference. Last quote in the answer, which came RIGHT AFTER his point about registerring people (next sentence) and explicitly talks about borders and "what's happening in this country" - which in context of everything he said in the months before means illegal immigrarion. – user5341 Nov 24 '15 at 23:11
  • 1
    "all legal immigrants to USA have been registered with INS/DHS, forever": well, no, if they become citizens, they no longer have to be registered with DHS or any other government body. – phoog Feb 03 '17 at 17:09
  • @phoog - (1) did INS destroyed the records officially and with proof? (2) If so, did Trump specifically say that this is different with his registration idea once someone's a citizen? – user5341 Feb 03 '17 at 17:26
  • 1
    @phoog - they'll always remain "INS" to me, I don't care how they got renamed after I was done with them :) – user5341 Feb 03 '17 at 17:47
  • I just came back to this because it popped up in the active questions list, and it occurs to me that "forever" in "have been registered forever" might mean *since the beginning of time.* If so, that's only true if you count the beginning of time as the second world war, when the immediate predecessor of the current alien registration legislation was enacted. From my earlier comments it looks as though I thought "forever" meant "for the rest of their lives (or possibly until they leave the US)." – phoog Mar 03 '19 at 18:48
  • @phoog - it's an interesting question (whether the INS files go away after naturalization). I suspect not but don't have any evidence either way. – user5341 Mar 04 '19 at 00:59
  • @user5341 I'd be shocked if they didn't retain the files. But after naturalization it's no longer necessary to keep the registration current. In fact they must retain them; how else would they be able to revoke naturalization of those who lied on their applications? – phoog Mar 04 '19 at 05:05
  • i looked into US immigration and, as in my country, fully expected to be retained for a significant period and perhaps the whole of my life. It is a wise precaution. If a host country allows you entry it is on the understanding that you follow their laws and don't act against their interest; its not unreasonable to keep that nation informed, or allow it to stay informed of your general whereabouts and broad adherence to the terms of entry – bigbadmouse Jun 29 '22 at 08:29