Halting Islamic Immigration

Trumpby Leigh Bravo12/10/15
Politically Incorrect Or A Matter of Security?  •  Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.  Is this a smart security move or is it just plain politically incorrect as most on the left and the right have spent the last 2 days pontificating?

Trump’s comments have been called un-American, racist and bigoted. However, if radical Islamist extremists are calling for the destruction of the West, should we not be reviewing our immigration policies that are actually legally allowing radicals into our country? Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernadino terrorist,  entered into the United States on a “fiancee” visa in July of 2014, even though later investigations into her background revealed glaring red flags.  Some left leaning publications like the Huffington Post, suggest that terrorists gaining access through the refugee path is highly unlikely, however, the facts remain a stubborn thing.  We know that at least one of the Paris terrorists who killed over 120 people actually entered into the country as a  Syrian refugee while two others carried false Turkish passports.

The actual problem lies in our porous borders, our broken visa program and the seemingly non existent concern of our leaders as to who has actually entered into the United States. Yet with all these threats constantly being thrown at us, they continue to open the arms of our nation to refugees and an untold number of illegals, ignoring the potential threats that they may pose.

While Trump is supporting the temporary halt of all Muslim refugees and immigrants, and the political elite and their pundits are screaming that this is un-American and un-constitutional, we have to consider the legality of the move.  In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto, says the proposal by Trump is already a Congressional Act, Title 8, Section 1182of the U.S. Code, which says,

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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The article went further in asking whether this temporary ban would violate the First Amendment.  In response they wrote,

“That is a novel legal question; as far as we know Congress has never enacted, nor the executive branch practiced, such an exclusion. But the 1972 case Kleindienst v Mandel strongly suggests the Trump proposal would pass muster.

In the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government has the authority to set immigration policy, at least as applied to nonresident aliens outweighs any free-speech claim an alien may wish to assert.”

In the end, regardless of the responses by Republicans and Democrats, fearing backlash by their parties, the American people seem to be behind the idea of temporarily halting Muslim immigrants and refugees into the United States. After all, it is the American people who are on the front lines, in theatres, at Christmas parties and just going about their lives, waiting for the bombs to go off.

I think common sense is taking hold and temporarily banning Muslim Immigration is strictly a matter of security.

Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet. • (1389 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Halting Islamic Immigration

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    That point about the ordinary people being on the front lines is very important. As long as the aristos feel that they will not be targeted themselves, they don’t really care what happens to the peasants. It’s a measure of the fecklessness and moral corruption of Versailles-on-the-Potomac that their strongest argument against ISIS infiltration of the refugees is that they’d find it easier simply to take advantage of the porous border. It wouldn’t be so porous if the government did its job — but it has no intention of doing so, and therefore the thought of border security simply doesn’t occur to the elites.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The question of Muslim immigration goes beyond simple security. I believe a more important question is that of assimilation and acculturation.

    The Left has worked hard to destroy the unique American culture by bringing in large numbers of people from countries which have little in common with western value. The fact that foreigners come here is not, in itself, a problem. But when the flood of foreigners into the country is such that there is no need for them to assimilate, that is a problem.

    We need a break from mass immigration into the US in order for the millions who have come here over the last 2 or 3 decades to truly settle in to the country. This could take a decade or more.

    Never doubt that the Left is trying to destroy national boundaries, here and in Europe.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Assimilation and acculturation are related to security; it’s the failure of Muslims to do so that makes them such a threat. Very few Muslims are terrorists; but unfortunately, very few are willing to do anything about it — such as reporting what they know to the authorities. I’ve seen reports of Muslims complaining about the idea that they need to do anything about the extremists in their midst. Like their liberal enablers, they behave tribally, loyal to their Muslims rather than American society as a whole. And given what some of those they are loyal to will do, this is why there should be NO Muslim immigration at all until such time as Islam ceases to be incompatible with Western civilization.

  3. Anniel says:

    The last two posts about Trump on this site are excellent. I think very differently about money making now.


    • Rosalys says:

      Having just read this article, I thank you for the link. I must say that the more I hear from or about The Donald, the more I like him. Many reservations I have had about him are slowly but surely melting away.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


      All of the positive things which Trump has contributed to this campaign spring from the fact that he is extremely wealthy thus cannot be bought. Can you imagine anyone saying the things Trump has said if he had to rely on contributions from the big money people?

      • Anniel says:

        Rosalys and KFZ, I have to admit that the idea of making money, just for the sake of money has always been a bit of a bugbear for me. But hearing how the money has not really changed Trump and that he is using it for the rest of America left me with a whole different view. Perhaps the Lord has been leading Trump for a time such as this. I’m not at all certain how generous or caring I would be if I had scads of money. My hat is off to Trump.

  4. Steve Lancaster says:

    Not that Obama would do but the executive has the power Trump is talking about:
    8 US Code 1182
    Passed in 1952 by Dem House, Senate, signed by Dem
    Used by Carter vs Iranians in ’79
    “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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

  5. Rosalys says:

    One of my pet peeves is having some overly self important politician, public “servant,” or talking head, go on and on about why something sensible (such as banning all Muslim immigration for a while) sets a terrible precedent, is racist, will make the world hate us, is unChristian, is unAmerican, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, blah,blah, blah…

    because, “That’s not who we are!”

    Listen up real good you feckless, good-for-nothing, slime balls! Stop telling me who I am! Stop trying to drag me into your vile cesspit of “we!” I know who you are! You’re the enemy!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ask him (figuratively) if pedophilia (Mohammed married a 9-year-old girl, so that makes pedophila morally acceptable to Muslims), death for blaphemers and apostates, honor killings, forcing women to cover themselves (as one mean of male control over females), slavery, jihadist terrorism, taqiyya in defense of that terrorism, anti-Semitism, and tribal loyalty to the pre-medieval savages among them are “what America is”.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Great point, Rosalys. You should send that on to Donald Trump. Someone more public needs to say exactly that.

  6. Anniel says:

    Leigh, As I have said before, Trump seems to be the only person who is right before anyone else even thinks about it. The news today almost makes him a paranormal.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There was a blog post this morning at American Thinker about Trump canceling his planned trip to Israel because Bibi gave Trump some blow-back on his no-Muslims immigration polity (one that I fully support). I can’t find that post now. Oh well. That’s’ the nature of “news” these days. Who knows?

    Rush has thoroughly disrobed the disingenuous Establishment Republican crowd who bemoan Trump and think that all his supporters are deeply misguided. In essence, Rush brilliantly said, “If you Establishment guys don’t want Trump, then offer your own solutions to the issues Trump is addressing and that are the key to his popularity. That is, out-Trump Trump.”

    But they won’t do it. All they know how to do is lie. The moral vacuum enclosing this country is helped along by a lot of “proper” people in nicely-creased business suits who have come to think it highly improper, if not unconstitutional, to actually defend this country and execute its laws. One of those laws is that a president can indeed restrict who enters this country, whether by religious test, country of origin, or whatever, if he deems it in the interests of the country.

    Some think the election of Trump would be fatal to political correctness. It’s hard to predict the future. Could be. Could happen. But I think the only thing that could ever kill PC is when and if we find ourselves in a more intense shooting war with Islam. Maybe San Francisco is nuked. It seems logical to suppose that even with the PC types there could come a tipping point where just simple self-preservation trumps the vapid political slogans of the Left. One just hope it doesn’t take 9/11-times-12 to shake the girly-men and others propagandized into this “religion of peace” stuff to wake up to reality.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      ‘What are Little Girls Made Of?” A Star Trek episode in which a robot noted the principle, “Survival cancels programming.” John Ringo made use of this principle in one of his Posleen novels, in which a leftist confronted with a life or death situation rejects ideology in favor of survival.

    • Rosalys says:

      “All they know how to do is lie.

      Watching on TV tonight, what passes for news now-a-days, those in the know (or who think they are) are saying that Cruz is way out ahead in Iowa and that Trump has plummeted to around 20%, and all because of a backlash, by the American people, against Trump’s call for halting Muslim immigration. This isn’t passing the smell test. Why would an enthusiastic crowd, thrilled to have someone finally recognizing the problem and willing to speak out about it, suddenly turn about face and decide they don’t want anybody being mean to those poor ole Muzzies? The answer is that they probably won’t. I haven’t changed my mind. Heck, I’ve been in favor of a no Muslim immigration policy years before Trump even declared that he was running! In fact, I began to have some reservations about Cruz when he joined the establishment chorus. And I saw a poll yesterday that had Cruz’s numbers way down.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I certainly favored no Muslim immigration (and, ideally, virtually no immigration at all) for some time now. Nor does it seem to be at all unpopular with Republican voters. Poll results vary (and I prefer Cruz to Trump myself), but if Trump has indeed fallen (which most likely would be an outlier anyway), that very likely isn’t why.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Here is an interesting article discussing the the problems Muslim integration in Belgium.


    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Muslim integration into Europe societies is successful when Muslims are willing to give up the mental confinement of their home countries — countries, let’s not forget, which they left in search of a better life. For as long as they refuse to adapt to a European state of mind, they will perpetuate resentment and a culture of violence.

      I agree which most of what the writer said. But, good god, what a blinkered tautology. It should have been written: Muslims have no problem integrating in the West when they give up being Muslims. It’s not the “home countries” that is the problem. It’s Islam. Give up Islam, and that goes a long way to fixing this stuff.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, there are branches of Islam which may be compatible with modern civilization. But the Islam most grew up with certainly isn’t. Still, the writer didn’t blame the West for their attitude; he blamed the Muslim immigrants, if not Islam itself.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          My problem is that it is much to late for baby steps concerning the subject of the complete incompatibility of Islam with Western ways of life.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The problem is that the branches which are most likely compatible with modern civilization are considered heretical. For example the Ahmadiyya or Nizari Ismalis.

          And even if one accepts not all Sunni are Salafists/Wahabists, how does a massive bureaucracy differentiate between them? And that is not to say all Salafis are jihadists. But again, how does one determine who is and who isn’t?

          When a small amount of bacteria is found to have contaminated a large production run of food, the producer recalls the whole production run.

          The analogy may be hurtful, but it is not outrageous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *