Told Ya–64% of Likely GOP primary voters agree with Trump’s Ban on Muslim Immigration!!!
An Online Poll Found 37% of General Election Voters (includes Democrats) Favored Trump’s Proposal
It is comical to see the left and right come together every time Trump issues a fatwā, فتوى (just trying to keep things in context). This time Trump merely wants to suspend the entry into the United States anyone, other than US citizens, (Unless they went overseas to receive Jihadi training), who is a Muslim. The both sides are screaming Un-American, Fascists, Racists, unconstitutional, and a whole host of other superlatives and rhetorical hyperbole. It is always amusing when Dick Chaney ends up seated next to the current White House in condemning Trump’s proposals. Maybe when that happens, someone should call for a time out and revisit the proposal.
Trump Gets the Juices Flowing!
Whether you support Trump or not, you have to admit that he really knows how to create a discussion on whatever topic he deems critical to open debate. He does not put a fine edge on any of his points nor does he hide behind and PC rhetoric. He plainly stated: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
- Is this constitutional? Yes, non citizens have no protections under our Constitution.
- Would the President have statutory authority to enforce such a ban? Yes! 8 USC 1182: “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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”)
Here are a couple of examples of restrictions placed on immigration by our government in the past:
- 1882: Chinese Exclusion Act. First federal immigration law suspended Chinese immigration for 10 years and barred Chinese in U.S. from citizenship. Also barred convicts, lunatics, and others unable to care for themselves from entering. Head tax placed on immigrants.
- 1891: Bureau of Immigration established under the Treasury Department. More classes of aliens restricted including those who were monetarily assisted by others for their passage. Steamship companies were ordered to return ineligible immigrants to countries of origin.
- 1892: Ellis Island opened to screen immigrants entering on east coast. (Angel Island screened those on west coast.) Ellis Island officials reported that women traveling alone must be met by a man, or they were immediately deported. (Hillary would love this one)
- 1902: Chinese Exclusion Act renewed indefinitely. (See 1882 above)
- 1906: Procedural safeguards enacted for naturalization. Knowledge of English becomes a basic requirement. (Just thought I would add this one)
- 1917: Immigration Act provided for literacy tests for those over 16 and established an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which barred all immigrants from Asia.
- 1922: Japanese made ineligible for citizenship. (This was 19 years before Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese)
- 1924: 1921 Quotas changed to 2% of each nationality based on numbers in US in 1890. Based on surnames (many anglicized at Ellis Island) and not the census figures, 82% of all immigrants allowed in the country came from western and northern Europe, 16% from southern and eastern Europe, 2% from the rest of the world. As no distinctions were made between refugees and immigrants, this limited Jewish emigres during 1930s and 40s.
- 1948: (And here is another of those Un-American concepts) Displaced Persons Act allowed 205,000 refugees over two years; gave priority to Baltic States refugees; admitted as quota immigrants. Technical provisions discriminated against Catholics and Jews; those were dropped in 1953, and 205,000 refugees were accepted as non-quota immigrants.
- 2001: Patriot Act: Amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to broaden the scope of aliens ineligible for admission or deportable due to terrorist activities to include an alien who: (1) is a representative of a political, social, or similar group whose political endorsement of terrorist acts undermines U.S. antiterrorist efforts; (2) has used a position of prominence to endorse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support such activity in a way that undermines U.S. antiterrorist efforts (or the child or spouse of such an alien under specified circumstances); or (3) has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends to engage in threatening activities while in the United States.
So, apparently, we have been Un-American, Fascists, Racists, and constitutionally incorrect in the past! We have banned whole nationalities and indeed races, and stopped a group of Catholics via regulations, etc.
Why was and is all of this legal? Because our Constitution places the protection of our citizens as the primary duty of our government and any immigration or refugee restrictions the Congress and President deem necessary to protect the nation is not only Constitutional but required by those in our government.
Can and should followers of Islam be set up as a restricted class for immigration scrutiny? Yes.
Islam is not only a religion, but also establishes a code of laws for its adherents to live by commonly known as Sharia Law. When polled by the Center for Justice, 51% of the followers of Islam who are living in the U.S. believed that they should be able to choose to live by U.S. laws or Sharia Law.
So, before you succumb to the hyperbole of the media and other Democrat and Republican political types, stop and ask yourself, “if 2 out of a 1000 Muslim immigrants are or will become radicalized while in the US, should our government do more to screen out the 2?” Unfortunately the number is a lot highter than 2 out of 1000 which is only .2%.
The Center for Security Policy also released their online polling data that showed that “25% of those polled (Muslims living now in the U.S.), agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.”
So, rather than 2 out of 1,000, would you feel comfortable with 250 out of 1000 becoming radicalized and perpetrating another Paris or San Bernardino style attack or worse?
Just Sayin! Worth thinking about what Trump said and asking yourself what should we do to keep out elements who wish to destroy this nation?