If You’re Under The Impression The U.S. Is Banning All Muslims, Check Your Facts.
Last Friday, Executive Orders regarding immigration were enacted. And if you were watching the news, all hell broke loose. Let’s take a look at the immigration order and thoughtfully examine it on merits—not emotion—before drawing any conclusion.
You can read the full Executive Order on the DHS website, but specifically I seek to highlight a couple of common sense items that, perhaps if written here, will keep me from screaming at my television.
While Trump’s action on immigration is (mostly) a departure from the policies we’ve seen over the past eight years, it is not unprecedented—as many are claiming. In fact, Obama put a temporary hold on the Iraqi refugee program for six months in 2011. And Jimmy Carter issued a cancelation of all visas for Iranian citizens in 1980.
While this new order is more expansive than anything Obama enacted, here are a couple of items you will likely not hear the media explain in their so-called ‘analysis.’ Trump is putting a hold on the Syrian refugee program until the process can be revamped and security measures put in place. The order suspends refugee admissions for only four months and applies to citizens of seven countries, (deemed terrorists hot spots by Obama). Those hot spots are: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It is worth pointing out that Trump did not list those countries by name in his Executive Order. He simply adopted the Obama Administration’s list of “countries of concern.” It was Obama who highlighted them initially—while Trump is following up on his campaign promise to enact measures of ‘extreme vetting.’
Somalia, Syria and Libya are all failed states and are literal breeding grounds for terrorists. These are the most dangerous countries on our planet. Why would thoughtful people protest a temporary ban on letting people from these areas into our country when U.S. intelligence experts have clearly stated we don’t have a way to properly screen them?
This administration is not suggesting a permanent ban on refugees from these countries, but rather we take a brief hiatus to better determine how these people should be screened if we are to grant them refuge. How is following the advice of U.S. intelligence officers in order to safeguard the citizens of our nation anything other than practical? We need only look to Europe to see how blind, near-limitless policies of admitting refugees leads to unsatisfactory and dangerous outcomes.
Propaganda is defined as information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. When I hear this order described as a “Muslim ban” I cannot think of a more fitting description. By definition, a ban on Muslims would be a law which prevents Muslims from entering the U.S. simply because they are Muslim. No such law exists and the Executive Order we are discussing here has no such provision. This policy temporarily prevents citizens from seven countries from entering the U.S. There are another 43 Muslim majority countries that remain unaffected by this order, so calling it a “Muslim ban” is nothing more than a lie meant to further a particular agenda.
Let us not forget that a president’s sworn duty is to protect the homeland. The fact is, terrorism springs forth exclusively from predominantly Muslim nations*—in fact, the countries that appear on Obama’s list have proven to be a breeding ground for terrorism. To quote Matt Walsh,
“If there’s a link between the fact that these countries produce terrorists and the fact that these countries are majority Muslim, that’s something the Islamic community should take up with itself. In the meantime, all we can do is respond to the reality as it presents itself.”
The other issues that strike me as odd are all of the claims that this type of Executive Order will only inspire more terrorism. If the areas affected by the ban are not prone to violence, how would an Executive Order occurring in a far away land, insight violence in otherwise non-violent people?
Interestingly, in response to Trump’s Executive Order, Iran has announced it will ban U.S. citizens in retaliation. Is anyone worried this modification of Iran’s immigration policy will cause Americans to become terrorists who tirelessly focus on planting bombs in Iranian cafes and busses to target those citizens? No? Then why are those in the media clamoring about American policy “turning” Muslims into terrorists? Isn’t that the real bigotry? Or do they harbor an underlying belief that Muslims are more likely or easily converted to terrorists than people of other religions? And if so, why then, do they oppose this policy? It is hard to have it both ways.
The jihadists themselves have stated their intent to infiltrate the U.S. by all means—including disguising themselves as refugees. It would be a dereliction of duty to ignore this at the expense of American lives – period.
And let’s not fail to recognize the hypocritical aspect of it all. Where were the protesters when Obama issued his temporary suspension on immigrants from Iraq? Where were these guardians of human rights when Obama signed an order allowing drone strikes on U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism (an obvious lack in due process)? I am in no way opposed to protest, but I think true indignation is about principle alone.
Author’s note: While I agree with the decision to re-evaluate how the U.S. (who has the most generous immigration policy in the world) processes applicants, I concede the implementation of the policy (over the weekend) was mishandled.
*Before anyone writes an emotional, poorly-thought-out messages in the comment box below, the term springs forth refers to the practice of jihadists to take their fight out of their home country to attack the unarmed citizens of another country (and have the gall to call it a Holy War). So don’t tell me about Shining Path in Peru, FARC in Colombia, ETA in Spain or the IRA in Ireland since those groups have never tried to blow up a mall in Topeka.
Reference: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “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 be appropriate.”