Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Malkin? No wonder...
He doesn't leave out the reason for the test, in fact he goes to great lengths to demonstrate how absurd the idea is.
|
The Obama speech is, as you would say, a lot of Bull @#@#@#@#it. "Only" Christians is a straw man. Restricting Muslims from the area in question and allowing Christians from there would not restrict other immigrants. And the "recruitment tool for ISIS" meme is a flimsy talking point. The biggest recruitment tool for ISIS is its success and its strict, pure, adherence to the fundamental nature of Islam to expand its power and control. ISIS has been recruiting, as was al Qaeda before it, as well as other splinter affiliates, well before Trump. And a fundamentalist Muslim would be insulted at being accused of becoming one because of who the U.S. chooses to allow as immigrants, or anything else the U.S. or anybody else does or says. A true follower of Mohammad holds non Muslims in contempt simply for not being a Muslim. And it is the will of Allah for Muslims to subjugate or kill infidels. I used to go on various more militant Muslim blogs and sites, and saw this superior haughtiness, and the ridicule of Westerners who tried to suggest an equality or to broach attempts at getting along.
As long as ISIS appears to be strong and gaining ground, it will be successful in recruitment. And U.S. immigration policy will having nothing to do with it.
And the vetting process is not as relevant in this case as he makes it out to be. It is not infallible. And if it takes so long, the better route would be to destroy ISIS in the two plus years required to vet and then release the refugees to their homeland. And if the destruction of ISIS does not make their return home feasible, there must be something bigger than ISIS going on there. And that would mean even more refugees. Better to spend the money it costs to vet and immigrate them on giving the males weapons and sending them from their camps back home. Take care of your own problem folks, rather than importing it here. Your wives and kids can join you after you've killed ISIS. And Obama is really helping you to kill it. Be strong. That would be a sort of anti-ISIS recruitment.
But what's more relevant in terms of my post is the communities of refugees created here, not how they were vetted to get here. That is the thrust of whether Trumps suggestion is anti-American or unconstitutional. And that is the point of Malkin's article. Her quoting of various key Founders shows that the suggestion is in line with American values, at least what used to be American values.
Hamilton said that those who are here as a result "of incorporating
large number of foreigners" can promote "different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others," and can serve "very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, it has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another." And, once they are here, Hamilton said "the
permanent [not the migration but the resident] effect of such a policy will be that in times of great public danger there will always be a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust, the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."
And, with what the other Founders said about assimilation and welcoming those with special desirable qualities rather than merely "to swell the catalogue of people," Malkin's "track" was that Trumps suggestion is not un-American or unconstitutional. THAT was the "track" of the question I asked, but which you, once again, totally evaded, and then switched the discussion on a different, rather bogus, track.
Trumps suggestion may be "offensive" to some with delicate tastes, but it is not un-American or unconstitutional. And so I asked if those, some on this forum, who have said that it is not us, is anti-American, knew what they were talking about. Doesn't look like they do.