Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $990 To Go!! Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's FReepathon
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 12/08/2015 9:13:36 PM PST by conservative98
On Tuesday night’s radio program, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin addressed the media’s outrage over Donald Trump’s proposal to halt all Muslim immigration to the United States.
Levin cut through all the attacks on Mr. Trump to point out that limiting immigration from certain places or for certain people is a perfectly legal, constitutional, and just policy for a sovereign nation to adopt. The United States has done it in the past, and if it’s in America's national security interest, the United States should have a discussion about immigration from the Middle East. Our government's obligation is to American citizens, not to foreign nationals.
When the media attacks Trump or attacks any other GOP candidate, when they denounce conservatives as bigots, or racists, or xenophobes, they do it because they don’t want to talk about the issues.
Because when the American people have a debate about the issues, the left loses.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
The ‘RATS always want a plan and I’ve got one. We stay on this side of the planet and the Muzzies and their goats stay on the other side of the planet. Works for me.
Levin confirmed that Trump was right....again :)
Why are we letting any immigrants into this country for about 5 years at least.
Terrorist costs this country Trillions and lost of lives and we can thank Bush/Cheney for the Muslim 2005 program
Works for the rest of us too.
Levin basically agreed what Trump said is for all legal debates constitutional but Levin firmly disagreed with Trumps approach saying it was wrong and he supported Rand Paul’s (also Cruz) methods at dealing with the problem. Then he laid into Rubio for voting against Rand’s amendment and for using sleazy tactics against Cruz like a Democrat would.
Basically though Levin said we should have a national debate on Islam and Sharia.
Levin cut through all the attacks on Mr. Trump to point out that limiting immigration from certain places or for certain people is a perfectly legal, constitutional, and just policy for a sovereign nation to adopt. The United States has done it in the past, and if it is in America’s national security interest, the United States should have a discussion about immigration from the Middle East. Our government’s obligation is to American citizens, not to foreign nationals.
All those fools just unknowingly backed Obama’s refusal to use his existing Constitutional power to shut down muslim aliens entering the country until they can be properly vetted.
Per existing federal law at 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to appropriate.
Current laws banning admission to the US, and not requiring new laws. Just need someone like Trump to have them enforced:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
gpo~government printing office:
No admission for any alien for Security and related grounds
(3) Security and related grounds
(A) In general
Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other unlawful activity, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm Security and related grounds:
Trump is right...again.
The thoughtful conversation should be about Islam in general!
Today we are having a new kind of war, and ISIS admitted it would blend with the refugees. What general in any kind of war would allow the enemy to sneak in to kill us?
Harry Potter’s JK Rowling piles on:
Some of these people aren’t connected to reality.
= :^)
Add free transportation for the ‘RATS to join
the Muzzies and their goats.
>>>>Our government's obligation is to American citizens, not to foreign nationals.<<<<
Levin cut through all the attacks on Mr. Trump to point out that limiting immigration from certain places or for certain people is a perfectly legal, constitutional, and just policy for a sovereign nation to adopt. - The United States has done it in the past, and if it is in America's national security interest, the United States should have a discussion about immigration from the Middle East. Our government's obligation is to American citizens, not to foreign nationals.
All those fools just unknowingly backed Obama’s refusal to use his existing Constitutional power to shut down muslim aliens entering the country until they can be properly vetted.
Amen....Sister!
First let’s have a rational discussion about whether Islam is a legitimate religion. I take the position that it is demonstrably not.
+1
see #17
I agree with you, but we’re in the minority and that train left the proverbial station many Moon Rocks ago.
I don’t think the world has had this discussion yet and this seems like an opportune time to me to press the issue. It might be quite a while before it gains momentum, depending on how many people have the courage to push it, but the world needs to decide if they want to accept psychotic murder and terror as a legitimate basis of religion and confront muslims with their conclusions about that.
I’ve made my decision. I don’t think that murder, war and
terror can be legitimate tenets of religion.
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.
