Posted on 12/09/2015 7:56:23 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather
Denunciation abounds in the analysis of Donald Trump’s call for a temporary suspension of immigration into the United States by Muslims. As I argued in a column yesterday, I am against a categorical ban on Muslim immigration, but I believe Muslim immigrants should be examined about Islamic supremacism and that adherents to that counter-constitutional ideology should be denied admission. Consequently, I am hearing one of the same objections lodged against Trump’s sweeping proposal, namely: It is impractical because immigrants will lie about their religious affiliation. This contention borders on the frivolous. I was sorry to see Charles Krauthammer rely on it last night – even if it was fodder for a few much needed laughs as Dr. K evoked the “George Washington cherry-tree standard of not telling a lie to an infidel immigration officer,†and Chris Stirewalt quipped that maybe, as an assurance that they were not Muslims, would-be immigrants could be forced to eat a ham sandwich. Funny … but also suggestive of basic misconceptions about immigration law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
So we’re supposed to let millions of liars into the country because they’ll lie?
“Stupid, stupid politicians in Washington.”
Just declare Trump President Elect and stick a fork in the whole expensive election charade cause it's done.
JMHo
2. “I contend, as do the editors and Mark Krikorian, that there is nothing unconstitutional about Trump’s proposal. (I’m referring to the proposal in its final form. As originally floated, the proposal of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” would have included Muslim American citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens. That would be lawless, and recklessly so). It is probably true, as Jim Geraghty suggested yesterday, that a majority of the Supreme Court would hold Trump’s proposal unconstitutional, but if so the justices would be doing politics, not law - something for which the Court has become notorious.”
So Andy because they will lie as ordered to by the Qua’ran, we shouldn’t try. Sit down Andy your safe at National Review for another month.
So I guess we shouldn’t bother with clearances for certain government jobs. After all the applicants may lie.
This doesn’t really, in a practical sense, answer the objection raised.
Let’s think about this realistically and ponder, in our supercharged politically correct environment, assuming such a question could even be asked in such an environment, could anyone reasonably state that an immigration official, at some airport or even at the southern border, would say, “I’m not convinced you’re not a Muslim”, if an immigrant answered “no” to the question?
I submit there is no way such a person would do so. Why? Because they would have to justify their disbelief on something. I understand that legally they wouldn’t have to justify their disbelief but this isn’t some thought experiment for some class in law. Just imagine the outcry from the left the first time some “poor refugee family” was denied entry JUST because a border agent or customs official THOUGHT they were Muslim, “just because”.
“Just because of what?” The question would be asked and then some “egregiously” politically incorrect reply would be given akin to “their skin was too brown”.
This is what it would come to and we all know it. It’s a great idea for red meat feasts, but it’s absolutely impossible to implement. I’d really like anyone to explain to me how it could be possible, because quite frankly I see such a proposal having the exact opposite effect of what it intends. Imagine the following:
Customs official asks terrorist A: Are you a Muslim? Answer “no”, he gets let in.
Custom official asks innocent refugee B who also happens to be Muslim (and honest): are you a Muslim? Answer “yes”.
So we would actually end up filtering out the ones who happen to be peaceful while letting ONLY the terrorists (who are willing to lie) IN.
Does the US have a right to exclude whoever it (we) want of course we do. But there’s no practical way to implement a “Ban on all Muslims”. It’s not like there’s a blood test for it.
If we had a real President he could stop Muslim immigration to our country today. And he would have full moral, constitutional, and legal authority to do so.
Obama seems to be able to screen out Christian refugees. So it can’t be that hard.
Thanks for posting that. I had seen it a few days ago and could not remember where.
but, to deny being a Muslim is to become apostate.
to be apostate is to be punished by death
But then, why is Obama still living?
Taqiyya?
Why do you concern trolls even bother? It's not like the 90s where people might have been fooled.
Here's how Trump's plan works: You're issued an immigration card. You lie about your religion. You're allowed entry to the country. For you (or to be more accurate, for whomever you work), that's a done deal.
But the way reality actually works is that all pre-citizenship papers are contingent. That means for the given grace period, say 5-7 years, at any point you are found to have lied on the original application (ie reported going to a mosque, having groups of Muslim "friends" aka foot soldiers over, etc, then there are a series of events that would take place to revoke whatever permit one may posses.
Under the current regime, of course none of this would happen, but in an enforcement minded administration, this would be straightforward government operations.
Seems to lay it out pretty well.
Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader
PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....
GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!
A permanent can be passed by Congress and the Pres signing it. Our founding fathers would roll over if they read what Ted Kennedy did in 1990 or before.
Yesterday we made the slam dunk moral, constitutional, legal, and political case that the President of the United States COULD shut down Muslim immigration to this country. The word has spread all over the country.
Today we must take it one step further and show why HE HAS THE DUTY TO DO SO.
Islam is a hostile political ideology, one that is contrary to every principle that the American republic is premised upon. You can adhere to the Koran, or you can adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution. You cannot do both.
The President’s job is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to provide physical security for the American people and their God-given rights.
It’s time for us to find leaders who understand these fundamental things, and who have a credible track record of not wavering.
This whole notion that we as a nation are impotent to defend ourselves from those interested in fomenting insurrection by using religious orders in which to act as fronts for their operations is ludicrous.
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.