Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Your author goes off the tracks in their very first sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
No, she puts the train back on the tracks from which it was derailed by Obama. Obama made a general statement about a religious test (allowing "only" Christians but not Muslims to immigrate here) being offensive and contrary to American values. But he got off the tracks initially by leaving out the reason for the "test," and then completely derailed the whole train when he claimed it was against American values.
Malkin got it all back on track by inserting the reason for the "test"--"in order to protect national security."
Then she corrected Obama's error re American values by quoting the Founder's thoughts on the purpose of immigration. They had definite "tests" for the kind of immigrants that should be allowed and welcomed. From what they said, it is clear that they would have been against importing thousands from a country whose culture, beliefs and view of government is contrary, even inimical, to ours, especially "in times of great public danger" and on "grounds of distrust."
As for importing Christians, they would be less adverse to that on grounds of ability to assimilate and with less of a threat in times of danger such as an ongoing war. But they would still have preferred to limit the number to those who would "increase the wealth and strength of the community."
Obama is wrong about a "test" being contrary to American values. And he is a consummate hypocrite to claim any attachment or fidelity to American values. He is about the fundamental transformation of America including the torching of its principles of government, and from the ashes creating a total reversal of the relation of the people to the government.
Not only did Obama get off the track in the first place, but you, as you are wont to do, got off the track of my post. I posted the article as a question: "When people criticize Trump for wanting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration by saying that's not who we are, or that it is un-American, or anti-constitutional, do they know what they are talking about? I'd think the Founders' opinion would be American, constitutional, and who we are."
And Malkin's article answered the question. But, as you often do, you avoided answering the question, and got off track.