Such approach already is, but that is no guarantee of anything.

We have no less than 15 million US persons with roots in "muslim majority" countries who have a history of traveling within the US, and the numbers of them convicted for going after US aviation targets in or from the US doesn't even reach .0005% of said group. Does that mean the the US approach to visas has a long history of being a big success or not? To get a US visa is quite ordinarily a headache of sorts and for those who would be religious minorities in the US and come from non-OECD countries, it's even more of a headache.

Checks to issue a visa really is no guarantee of anything, which is part of why these domestically applied "trusted traveler" concepts ought not to inspire any confidence in accomplishing anything useful unless the idea of useful is to create a country with a near-permanent underclass that will create more and more massive turmoil than is the case currently.

All true.

But not only that, (go back and read the WaPo article carefully) the benefit being proposed for "trusted travelers" is that you can leave your shoes and coat on. That's it. That's all. You still have to get scanned (by the mysteriously labeled "explosives-detection device"). Your bag will still be x-rayed. There's no hint that you will be allowed water or coffee or yogurt in quantities greater than 3.4 ounces. They can still grope inside your pants with their grubby blue gloves, and then dig into your carry-on looking for loose $100 bills.

You get to keep your shoes on in the Nude-o-Scope. That's it.

Here's the similar vision put forward by Stewart Baker, him as made an appearance at the TSA hearing this week:
Got that? He believes that the most aggravating procedures are having your Kippie checked or ("perhaps" :rolleyes:) taking your shoes off. He has completely missed (or willfully chooses to ignore) the rising tide of anger about groping, x-ray exposure, 4th amendment infringements, and the rest. :td::td::td:

But you can keep your shoes on. :mad:

Explain why that is necessary. The tendency is to look at the status quo as if it is divinely determined. I don't think any number of anybody moving around my country is "necessary". Happens to be a gift. Letting anybody not a citizen is a gift the USA gives to humanity. I don't see why we need feel any guilt in reducing the gift in some measure to achieve greater safety for the inhabitants of the country. That's merely doing the job for which a government is created.

If some measure to achieve statistically significant greater safety for the inhabitants of the US was your objective, banning driving of automobiles domestically may achieve that which your wildest dreams involving travel restrictions on "people from Muslim countries" may not.

I thought the right of travel (as a constitutional issue) applies to anyone
legally in the US, not just citizens. I don't think the US should go down the
route where some are 'more equal' than others, citizens or otherwise.

What you're suggesting is depriving legal citiziens of rights and privileges. I'm not suggesting any such thing. The country will never be perfectly safe. But risks attached to foreigners is not something that there is some need to protect. Maybe a few among us are actually making money from their movement within our borders, but maximizing that opportunity by minimizing safety isn't what I'd call a rational policy. I'd say a rational person would look at balancing the good and the bad. And I don't think there's any balancing at all right now. Somehow or other, free travel for foreigners is treated as a sacrosanct thing. Like its somehow uniquely "American".

I say lets eliminate some of these bogus "sacred cows". The Declaration of Independence may be sacrosanct. But the tourism industry is not. American freedom is NOT about foreigners experiencing greater freedom here. It is about fighting against attempts to circumscribe the freedom of citizens. If it is necessary for foreigners to have less freedom for citizens to have the most, the choice isn't hard for me.

Right now, our "security" protocol is based on taking freedom away from Americans in order to protect freedom for visitors. That turns the American government into an enemy.

GUWonder made the point that Muslims are no more likely to commit criminal acts than anyone else. Why on earth would you want to curtail the rights of Muslims to travel freely?

And the point is only more pointed when focused on travel, as the targeted population (subject to growing bigotry being granted expanded cover) is less likely to commit a crime that endangers lives of those traveling than the average American is to commit a crime that endangers lives of those traveling.

The ignorance of everyone on this count is absolutely astounding. By everyone I mean...

1. Politicians, who frequently throw the Muslim population under the bus in the name of politics.
2. The media, who has cemented the impression of Muslims being more violent than other Americans (an absolutely incorrect analysis).
3. Law Enforcement leadership, who regularly contract with known anti-Muslim groups who advocate the curtailment of Muslim rights, to teach their officers about Muslims and how to deal with them.
4. Civic Leaders, who often support anti-Muslim bigots who attempt to prevent any kind of service, commercial or otherwise that benefits Muslims (watch what happens if a grocery store starts selling Halal products, or a restaurant starts serving Halal food).
5. People like our very own Luvairfrance, who have essentially written on these fora that Muslims should be treated differently to everyone else, and much worse.

Were any of these people around in mid-1930's Germany, you can well imagine what their positions might have been re/ the German, nay global population of Jewry.

Oh, it's much worse than that now. LuvAirFrance is suggesting that all non-US citizens ("foreigners") be restricted in their ability to travel. Australian students, German back-packers, a retired couple from Scotland, Japanese businessmen, visiting foreign Heads of State: they all need to jump through extra hoops and accept "restrictions" so that LuvAirFrance can feel safer in HIS country.

Emphasis mine:

Maybe GUWonder didn't write the Bible I use?

No doubt that I didn't and wouldn't want to -- that would be a nightmare with selection bias-based reading and false characterizations applied by those inclined to not let go of xenophobic dispositions that existed before and independently from any such text being written.