It was a political mic-drop moment that caused reactions from both sides of the aisle in the extreme. On one side stand the supporters, cheering exuberantly as their chosen candidate makes yet another plan for firm action. On the other side stand the critics, booing their dismay at what they see as a bigoted, hateful response to a problem that surely must have a different, less drastic solution. The statement in question is, of course, the one recently made by presidential hopeful Donald Trump. The one that’s been flooding social media and mainstream media alike since the moment the following press release hit the newswires on December 7, 2015:
“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. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released dating showing ‘25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as part of the global jihad’ and 51% of those polled ‘agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.’ Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheading and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, ‘Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.’”
Trump’s press release caused understandable waves both in the media and throughout the nation. He certainly has his supporters among conservatives – although perhaps not as many as some believe – and his detractors are many as well. When the statement was met with fury, Trump was ready with a response, firmly backing his game plan of blocking Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. In fact, he appeared opposite Barbara Walters to defend his inflammatory press release. Walters was an interesting choice because, although she’s considered a pioneer for female television news anchors, she’s also a staunch liberal. (She did have a shining moment on Piers Morgan’s show back in 2013, though, when she said of Obama, “He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime, but – the next messiah. And the whole Obamacare or whatever you want to call it, that Affordable Health Act, it just hasn’t worked for him and he’s stumbled around on it, and people feel very disappointed because they expected more.”) So why did Trump choose Walters for his first on-camera interview discussing the press release? Because if there is one thing Donald Trump is, it’s a shrewd businessman.
“They’re sick people. They’re a group of people who are a risk.” (Donald Trump to Fox News regarding Islamic terrorists and potentially threatening Muslim immigrants.)
During his interview with Barbara Walters, Trump wasted no time defending his saying Muslim immigrants should be temporarily banned from entering the country. Walters opened by asking Trump whether he regretted his statement, adding that “some people” see his remarks as “un-American.” Trump’s response was swift: no, he does not regret it, and not only that, he thinks it is time for someone in this nation to do “what’s right.” And while he side-stepped the issue of what exactly a “short-term” ban means, he did make another definitive statement: “We have a President that doesn’t have a clue.”
“Wow, what a day. So many foolish people that refuse to acknowledge the tremendous danger and uncertainty of certain people coming into U.S.” (Donald Trump via Twitter, December 8, 2015)
The synchronized attacks by Islamic terrorists that took place in Paris this fall left no doubt that allowing Muslim immigrants into a country means taking an incredible risk. Some of the terrorists had gained entry to France by means of posing as Syrian refugees, and despite that knowledge Obama moved forward with his plans to bring the first 10,000 Syrian refugees into our borders. It looked like exactly what it was: a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of Americans for the purpose of our nation’s President getting his way. The cost of allowing those refugees into the United States – which may well be a price paid in the blood of Americans – is one Obama seems to ignore. Trump, however, does not want to pay that price, and he sees only one solution.
Obama responded to Trump’s plan to temporarily ban Muslim immigrants in a veiled yet unsubtle manner. The Wednesday following the release of Trump’s statement, Obama was giving a speech on Capitol Hill. The subject matter was supposed to revolve around a celebration of the constitutional amendment that ended slavery once and for all, and yet Obama had this to say: “Remember that our freedom is bound up with the freedom of others, regardless of what they look like or where they come from or what their last name is…or what faith they practice.” He also said that the American people are betraying their past if they don’t “push back against bigotry in all its forms.” Even the mainstream media could not deny a hefty portion of that day’s speech had nothing to do with slavery being abolished and everything to do with an attempt at publicly shaming Trump. Of course, Obama was not the only one in his administration to strike back.
White House press spokesman Josh Earnest wasted no time and minced no words while giving what was meant to be the administration’s official response to Trump’s proposed Muslim immigrant ban. “The first thing that a president does when he or she takes the oath of office is swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Earnest told the gathering of reporters. “And the fact is that what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from being president. And for Republican candidates to stand by their pledge to support Mr. Trump, that in and of itself is disqualifying.”
It is clear Earnest fails to see the irony in his statement. If it was true that the current administration is concerned with the president upholding the Constitution, let alone protecting it, they’d be in some hot water right about now. Not only has Obama repeatedly ignored and railed against the Constitution, he’s been clear he feels it is flawed. In October of 2008 he referred to it as a “remarkable document” then continued to say “…but I think it is an imperfect document and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the colonial culture, nascent at the time.” Furthermore, he said he feels “the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on to this day and the framers had that same blind spot. The two views are contradictory – to say it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” Barack Hussein Obama does not even respect our constitution, let alone uphold and defend it.
Whether or not you agree with Trump’s plan, there is legal precedent for its enforcement. That precedent is found within the Code of Laws of the United States of America, or U.S. Code/U.S.C.. The U.S. Code is a compilation of our nation’s federal statutes and is maintained and edited the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (LRC). The statutes are codified at the discretion of the LRC with a new edition being released every six years and are presented as a means of organizing existing bills and amendments for easier access since they’re otherwise stored chronologically. It’s 8 U.S. Code §1182, which is titled “Inadmissible Aliens” that applies to this particular hot-button issue. Through this statute every possible base is covered when it comes to these terrorists. The entire text is rather lengthy so for the sake of saving space we’ll stick to the applicable portions:
“(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission: Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:”
The first section discusses the ineligibility of aliens known or believed to have mental or physical issues that have caused or could cause harm to themselves or others. Next up is the barring of the criminal element or anyone guilty of or believed to be guilty of “moral turpitude” other than political. Prostitution, drug trafficking, money laundering, it’s all covered as just cause to refuse an alien entry into the United States. In section three terrorism is discussed at length; this is an excerpt:
“(3) Security and related grounds
- In general any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in –
- Any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
- Any other unlawful activity, or,
- Any activity of a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or unlawful means,
- Terrorist activities
- In general any alien who –
- Has engaged in a terrorist activity;
- a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.”
It is well worth reading through the entire statute. The point of this particular statute is that the United States government can, indeed, deny immigrants entry. And although former presidential hopeful Paul Ryan said “this is not conservatism…it’s not what this country stands for” and current presidential hopeful Ben Carson called it unconstitutional, Trump is sticking to his proverbial guns.
Is a ban on Muslim immigrants the way to go, temporary or not? Is Donald Trump right or is he being, as Republican Senator Lindsay Graham stated, “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot”? According to Ben Carson, “It’s just not who we are. We are not a people who react in a fearful way.” Is this a fear-based reaction or a solution arrived at based firmly on years of violent, bloody evidence?
You may or may not believe Donald Trump is the right man for the Oval Office in 2016. For a moment, set that aside. He has offered a plan of action, a method for protecting Americans from the kind of terrorism that took place in Paris – the kind of terrorism already being seen in this nation’s own “gun-free zones”, albeit in smaller doses. In 2006, Syria reported that 87% of its citizens practice Islam. As of September 2015 – prior to the horror of the Paris attacks – five major, wealthy Muslim countries were refusing to take on Syrian refugees. Why? They’re aware of the risk of terrorism and refuse to knowingly expose their people to it. Yes, there is some irony here given those countries are already rife with terrorism, but the cold hard truth is no laughing matter: even countries with existing violent populations won’t take these refugees. If that doesn’t get your attention, nothing will.
What do you think?
Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.
Latest posts by Katherine Ainsworth (see all)
- Preppers R Us: Social Media Wonders, ‘Is It Time?’ - 12 March, 2016
- ADs and NDs: A Curious Badge of Honor - 8 March, 2016
- Fake Friends: Facebook Encourages Snitches on Social Media - 1 March, 2016