Posted on 12/08/2015 1:10:06 PM PST by Velveeta
Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.
During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.
Here's Jimmy "Hitler" Carter saying it back in 1980.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against "our values" after all. It may even be "who we are". Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
I used to think that about Carter, but I’m not so sure any more. He has consistently sided with dictators too many times.
Then so are the Japanese who have a zero immigration threshold with muslim countries and so does Korea. What Trump is accused of is not being politically correct. Everything he said is legally possible and has precedence in American, Canadian and European history.
I think you're missing the more important point. Carter placed a specific religious condition as a qualifier. This is YUGE.
The parallels are tenuous at best.
It’s relatively easy to determine if someone was from Iran simply by looking at their passport. Passports were much more difficult to counterfeit then. Determining whether someone is a Muslim is much more tricky.
I suspect (though I haven’t done the research to verify) that it wasn’t simply a matter of an Iranian declaring in front of the appropriate US official that he opposed the Khomeini regime. Usually documentation is necessary for these sorts of exceptions.
The same would hold true if there were to be any Muslim exceptions. Every good Muslim knows that in order to further the advancement of Islam, lying is acceptable. One can lie about being Muslim, lie about support of Sharia, lie about support of ISIS, lie about liking Jews, etc.
Simply asking people before they are admitted to the USA if they’re Muslim and whether they support Sharia is a waste of time. Those who want to get in will lie. Knowing that they need to lie, they’ll prepare. They’ll fake a conversion to Christianity as is happening in Germany and they’ll present a nice pretty certificate of baptism as proof. They’ll claim to be atheists or agnostics and say anything we ask because Islam allows this.
The devil is in the details. IDing Muslims simply isn’t that easy if they don’t want to be IDed.
This, or variations of it, have been widely argued. I tend to agree with some of those arguments. But how do you make it official? Pass a statue then have it upheld by the Supreme Court? Ratify an amendment to exclude Islam from the First? Short of something on those lines, any policy or laws treating Islam as other than a 'religion' would be on shaky legal grounds. For that matter, if we are to roll back Islam on the basis of it NOT being a religion more than US law needs to be reframed. EU law, UN law, etc. would need to be changed before it could be REALLY rolled back.
It should not be based merely on taking their word. Any recent conversions would not be accepted either. There would have to be a relationship with an existing church and vouching from there as well as other people. Fox had a report on organizations with heavily documented Christians applying to be refugees. There are solid ways to prove it and anyone who is lacking solid proof would not be accepted.
So, this would be necessary for any person entering from any country? India? Germany? South Africa? Argentina?
What if the person just said “no” to “Are you a Muslim?” How does one prove one isn’t a Muslim?
It should be easy to document that you’ve been a longstanding member of a church, temple, etc. If that place provides records, you’re in. And it should be easy enough for our authorities to validate that it’s a real church that’s been around a while. If you’re an atheist/agnostic it might be more difficult to prove you’re not a Muslim. But if they get filtered out too, no big loss.
Every person who wants a visa/entry in to the US will need to be able to prove they’re sufficiently religiously non-Muslim? If a person from Argentina happens to be agnostic and can’t prove they’re not Muslim, too bad? If a person is marginally “Christian”, but doesn’t attend church or belongs to a church or sect that doesn’t believe in any sort of official documented church membership or is in an area where nothing like that is officially recorded in any sort of documented way, then we can exclude them without further consideration.
Our government will need to check each set of documentation to verify that their proof isn’t a forgery. Given that there’s no standard for how church attendance, baptism, church membership, etc. is recorded or documented there will be thousands of different ways this could be “proven”. We’ll need to keep track of what kind of documentation comes from where and what a valid copy looks like, of course this kind of proof may change over time, so we’ll need samples of the various forms used over at least the last half century. Maybe we’ll create a form that needs to be filled out by some official from the church and signed. Either way, we’ll need to vet every religious organization around the world once a person gives a reference from that org to verify that it isn’t a front. We’ll also need to check on each piece of church-supplied documentation, too, calling to get a verbal verification from some sort of church official. We’ll need some sort of database of names of who the official contact is and an administration to keep track of when that official contact person changes. We may need to do a background check on the church officials, too.
Since most records of baptism, church memberships, church attendance don’t have a photo we’ll also need to take pictures and send to the appropriate organization to make sure the person applying with the paperwork is actually the person in question and not an imposter. Europe’s already had big troubles with forged documents and multiple people using the same documentation to get their credentials.
OK, that’s for Christians. Now what about Buddhists? Hindus? Sihks? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses do baptisms? Church membership rolls? What about pagans? Wiccans? What sort of proof can they provide? I don’t know enough about any of those. Sounds like a new section of an administration is needed to handle each major religion. So whenever anyone wants to come to the USA, they first need to declare their religious preference so we can send their info to the correct bureau to process it for sufficient proof.
Of course this ignores a person who has joined a religious organization and then converted to Islam. A church/temple/synagogue/whatever might not know if the person wasn’t a regular attender, or perhaps moved, that the person is no longer an adherent to Christianity/Judiasm/Buddhism/Hindi/Sihkism/whatever.
All of this comes down to trying to prove a negative (person is not Muslim). Proving what a person does or does not believe is a wild guess without getting to know a person, and even then it’s not always easy.
Banning Muslims sounds good. The trouble is in the details. ID’ing Muslims, especially when they may not want to be ID’ed is not straight-forward.
In other countries, there is a great deal of casual atheism, or, lack of continuing belief in islam. I’ve heard this is becoming common in Iran. Thus, many.young people will present as nominally moslem, but who will claim (and some, rightly so) agnosticism, atheism, or a general belief in the deity that is no longer tied to acceptance of islam.
Then there are folks who come from parts of the world with large mixed populations. Non-ideological moslems live in large numbers among Hindus and other folks. A quick look into the question will promote lying, but a zealous effort to weed out the lying moslems from the real non-moslems might be difficult, or even fruitless. It is difficult to imagine a bureaucracy doing this well.
An immigration policy that excludes moslems is fairly spongy. Either it will be over-enforced, and we will keep from coming to the US folks we should take, or it will be a meaningless filter that will only screen out the poorly-inforned.
Sen. Cruz’ policy of halting immigration from specific countries known to be terrorist hotspots seems a little better defined. It is inherently easier to enforce and inherently fairer. A moratorium on immigrants from countries with a large terrorist organization presence, or large majorities who are sympathetic to political islam, might better screen out the ones that are dangerous to America.
Yep, and guess what, we don't need to take in immigrants. Some people want to stop all immigration. If we end up taking a lot less immigrants but keeping out most Muslims, then that could be two good things.
The problem with basing it on countries with active terrorism is that you block Christian refugees who need help the most because they're in the midst of the jihad. That's unconscionable. If there's one kind of immigrant we should take it's someone in a peaceful religion who is helplessly under assault from terrorists.
Then, the policy should be to reduce or end immigration, period. Then, all these other issues become moot.
But currently, we have, as a nation, a very low birth rate. History has so far been unkind to countries with declining populations.
Oh but Carter was one of them— a Democrat— who had helped depose the shah of Iran freeing the Muslim to wage Terrorist Jihad.
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.
