While we do not have sufficient data to thoroughly vet these people in terms of their detailed activities, I believe we can determine with some degree of certainty whether they adhere to Islam.
For example, the woman who came in on the VISA to be Syed’s wife, not only indicated she was, but Pakistan had the data that she had been a member of the Red Mosque.
There are relatives that can be asked. There are acquaintances that can be asked. They can be observed. In many places there is basic boirth data.
Such data is not enough to determine if they are radicalized perhaps (though in that woman’s case it most certainly should have been IMH).
Finally, if we find that that is too difficult, we can do exactly what others have done...no Iranians, No Syrians, etc. from nations that are by far and away predominantly Islamic. I have a feeling this data point will be the initial deciding one.
I have no issue with banning people from suspect countries or regions. I believe this was Cruz’s idea before Trump came out with his.
I just don’t see how determining one’s religion would be as effective. There probably are records for some but not all, or even most. Or even as many as simple demographic records such as where they hail from and where they have visited. I submit those latter kinds of records are more commonly available. After all, in these countries we’re talking about the majority are already Muslim, so there’s no need for any record to exist stating Muhammed or Ali is a Muslim. That’s just a given. If anything, records exist to indicate one is a Christian.
Speaking of that fact, that there are Christians from the same area, it would be perfectly plausible for a terrorist to lie, say he was a Christian refugee from Syria, and boom he’s in under the Trump plan. Sure, let’s say we “surveil” them all, (a daunting and financially costly task to say the least) it kind of doesn’t matter really. They have already achieved their goal under this scenario, they are already in, and there’s no way 100 people (much less thousands) can be under surveillance 24/7.
So what do they care if eventually they may be kicked out. They will be sure to commit any act of barbarism before the slow wheels of justice are even close to deporting them. And they’ll have plenty of warning too that this is about to happen, as they are notified of their “rights” including a right to appear in court (which they never will just ask the illegal Mexicans). That’s assuming the surveillance lasts that long which it probably won’t.
Speaking of the lie they will inevitably tell, namely that they aren’t Muslim, to get through the door so to speak, the system Trump seems to be proposing will apparently have the opposite effect than what it intends. Consider: terrorist A gets asked “Are you a Muslim?” At the border or airport or wherever these screenings will take place. He lies, says “No sir I’m not a Muslim I reject Islam!”, because they are allowed to do that under their perverse religion, they are allowed to lie about anything, including whether or not Islam is true, while on “jihad”. So he’s in. The terrorist is in, under surveillance maybe, but he’s in! He wins.
Innocent refugee B, and yes there are some, gets asked and answers truthfully: yes I’m a Muslim. So he’s out.
So what we’ve done here, under the Trump proposal is actually reward the liars (i.e. The probable terrorists) and punish the truthful. So we will actually create a situation where we have MORE terrorists coming in, as a percentage of the immigrant population as a whole, than we do now.
I’m sorry, and I’m not a Trump basher I’ll vote for him if it comes to that in the general, but this idea is, to put it simply < Brooklyn accent > Moronic < /Brooklyn Accent >