Posted on 11/23/2015 9:17:27 AM PST by Isara
Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz has proposed legislation that would bar the entry into the United States of Syrian Muslim refugees, while allowing a safe American haven to fleeing Syrian Christians. President Obama has already announced his intention to veto this bill.
It is always regrettable when legislation must be passed to bar the immigration of a certain religious or ethnic group. In this case, however, America has no choice. America is at war with ISIS, and the large scale immigration of Syrian Muslim refugees provides a gateway for ISIS terrorist infiltrators to enter the United States.
If there was a reliable vetting process regarding Syrian Muslim immigrants to screen out potential ISIS infiltrators, I would oppose the Cruz bill. Obama administration intelligence and law enforcement officials admit, however, the futility of trying to implement such a system. They confirm that screening Syrian refugees is impossible, since the FBI and Homeland Security Department have no data on Syrians - no fingerprints, arrest records, travel data - to indicate what these people did in Syria, or even whether they are who they claim to be.
FBI Director James Comey forthrightly stated to Congress, “There won't be anything in our database. So I can't sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."
By contrast, there is no risk to our national security in allowing the immigration of Syrian Christians, a community which has been subject to horrific violent widespread persecution by ISIS and is indeed threatened with genocide. As Cruz noted, “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror. If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation.”
Thus, passage of the Cruz bill is not a matter of policy discretion but one of absolute national security necessity to prevent ISIS infiltrators from creating American catastrophes such as the Paris murders and the tragedy of the Boston Marathon. Those who object to the legislation on civil rights grounds must keep in mind that the first civil right of Americans is to be free from violence, whether from foreign or domestic sources.
Various advocates have asserted that the legislation runs contrary to the purpose and intent, if not the letter, of the United States Constitution “Religious Test” and Equal Protection clauses. Both these objections are without merit.
The religious test, set forth in Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, states the following:
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The religious test applies to offices and positions of public trust. It does not apply to the status of prospective immigrants who live outside the United States.
The Equal Protection Clause, set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”. It does not apply to inhabitants of nations outside the United States.
Finally, there is a personal point which I must make, having lost a substantial number of extended family members in the Holocaust.
There is nothing I find more obscene and offensive than the comparison between the situation of Syrian Muslim refugee children and the deadly plight of Jewish children in the Holocaust. Over the last seven decades, Muslim clerics throughout the Middle East have preached a message of war against the State of Israel and extermination of its Jewish inhabitants – all in the name of concern and caring for their Palestinian Arab kinsmen. If Arabs and Muslims care so much about their Palestinian kinsmen and co-religionists, why cannot they provide succor and shelter for these Syrian Muslim children and their families? Why does America have to jeopardize its security and provide a gateway to the infiltration of ISIS terrorists by facilitating the entry of Syrian Muslim refugees?
The Jewish children in Eastern Europe and their parents had no place to find refuge. Their fate was extermination by the Nazis in the gas chambers and crematoria of the Holocaust. Any comparison between their fate and the situation of Syrian Muslim refugees is contemptible and despicable.
In a time of national trauma after the Paris ISIS terrorist massacres, Americans fear for their personal safety more than at any time since 9-11. President Obama’s response regarding fears of ISIS infiltration among Syrian Muslim refugees was to say the following:
“The idea that somehow they pose a more significant threat than all the tourists who pour into the United States every single day just doesn't jive with reality.”
Such a response, coupled with Obama’s previous labeling of ISIS as a “JV squad” and the Paris massacres as a “setback” reinforces the image of the President as being out of touch with the fears and concerns of the American public. There are two responses candidates for president can make.
One is the Donald Trump approach, which requires a system to register and track Muslims in the United States. This would constitute the worst American civil liberties violation of any ethnic constituency since the internment camps for Japanese-Americans residing on the Pacific Coast during World War II.
The Ted Cruz approach is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, focusing on the main priority of national security. He has expressly rejected the Trump Muslim registration and tracking proposal. He also has refrained from any proposal to bar Muslim immigration from other Middle East Muslim nations, such as Jordan and Egypt. His Syrian Muslim proposal is one simply to prevent ISIS terrorists' entry into the United States under the cover of being Syrian Muslim refugees. By his proposed legislation, Ted Cruz has taken the leadership role on the major American public concern in the war against ISIS, namely, proving safety and security for the homeland without resorting to anti-Islamic bigotry. President Obama's anticipated veto of this legislation will only increase support for this measure and enhance the chances of Ted Cruz being elected as the 45th President of the United States.
“President Obama has already announced his intention to veto this bill.”
Go ahead.
in 1912 my great grandfather had to swear to God that he wasn’t an anarchist, polygamist, or believer in the practice of polygamy.
Sounded to me like a political and religious test for immigration.
Groan another chart to be posted 1000000000000 times.
I want a simple plan of no Syrians. Screw the soft spot because someone says they love Jesus.
Let Syrians fix there own nation.
I remember reading about Reagan issuing vetoes he knew would be overridden by congress. He basically said he needed to draw a clear distinction regardless of whether he won or lost.
Go Ted GO! Show America that they have been sold out by the establishment and their enablers and then defeat them!
Yup.
People should be outraged that the most radical progressive to ever sit in the white house has only issued 5 vetoes during his entire administration.
As much as I respect and admire Senator Cruz I’m disappointed in this bit of electioneering showmanship. Because ISIS terrorists are not going to enter this country as refugees. They’ll enter on tourist visas or student visas. And they’re not going to be flashing Syrian passports. They’ll be carrying British or Saudi or Pakistani or Belgian or French ones. This is not a solution to the problem or even a partial one. We can keep out all the Syrians but what do we do about the other ones?
This or >>>>> this...
Whoops... I meant this. ( = :^) )
It looked to me like they sand-bagged the guy with that photo. Not flattering at all...
As for that graphic, yet another one above your intellect.
Of what value is that graphic if Trump leads by eight points?
What that tells you is that folks didn’t really believe what they stated on this topic, or if they did, they have discounted it so much it’s meaningless.
Other issues are more important to them.
Trump is absolutely ready to lead, and they instinctively know it.
They give him higher support.
His charts have become tiresome. The one with the multi colored dots is BS.
Of course it is. He knows it too. Notice his little disclaimer that has been there for months. He knows it’s pack of lies, but he doesn’t want to be held accountable.
So he continues to post it for mileage while deferring any responsibility to be truthful.
This behavior on behalf of his supporters has cost my support of Cruz. The folks using these tactics are trying to tell me he is the most principled person in the race.
I’m looking at at least some of his supporters and seeing massive disconnect.
"Trump has an inconsistent record when it comes to civil liberties. He supported the NSA mass surveillance program but did not weigh in on the recently passed reforms. Overall, he has avoided commenting on religious freedom, but says he would be an advocate for Christians. Trump supports an individual’s right to make unlimited campaign contributions, but advocates for an end to soft money in politics. Most concerning is Trump’s belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property for economic benefit for others."
Trump supports the NSA’s metadata collection program, saying, “I support legislation which allows the NSA to hold the bulk metadata. For oversight, I propose that a court, which is available any time on any day, is created to issue individual rulings on when this metadata can be accessed.” This position was identical to the NSA’s mass surveillance program before being reformed by the USA Freedom Act. (Newsweek)
Trump has avoided commenting on religious freedom since Indiana passed its Religious Freedom and Restoration Act into law. Instead, he has said that he will be the “greatest representative of the Christians they've had in a long time” if elected president. (Christian Today) (Breitbart)
Trump believes political soft money should be banned, while individuals should be allowed to make unlimited contributions. "If I were drawing a political cartoon to represent the situation, it would include a very large guy with a huge bag of money. On that bag would be written one word: soft. Soft money is the bane of the current system and we need to get rid of it." (The America We Deserve)
Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors. Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review)
Trump highlighted his support for prosecuting "hate crimes" against homosexuals in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve. “Hate Crime” is a term used to extend special protections for a specific classes and in essence elevates the importance of these classes above others. For example, murder of homosexual or heterosexual should be viewed equally under the law and punished equally. Creating special classes is a liberal tactic used to divide and segment society.(Google Books)
Trump said that Kim Davis should not have been jailed for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses. He also said that she should allow her deputy clerks to do so, but also said that 30 miles away you can get a license so people should do that. He added, "The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land." (CNN)
Much like his stance on eminent domain, Donald Trump has shown a troubling tendency to want to use the power of government to stifle political speech. When the conservative Club for Growth released an advertisement regarding Trump's changing positions on taxation, Trump responded with a legal letter calling for them to cease and desist the advertisements. A chilling move towards the silencing of political speech. (Politico)
Donald Trump attacked SuperPACs (political action committees) in the third Republican debate. By suggesting they should be outlawed he came out against the First Amendment protection of speech, and echoed progressive talking points. (Time) 
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.