All errors should be reported to

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

In defense of Trump's proposal

Barack Obama on Sunday night seized the Muslim attack on more than 30 people in San Bernardino, California, to push his political agenda.

Donald Trump on Monday afternoon seized on the attack to offer a solution: Stop the immigration of Muslims. His proposal makes perfect sense. Muslim terrorist organizations are abusing the West's passive immigration laws in order to infiltrate our nations.

There is nothing illegal, immoral or unconstitutional about his proposal to put national security ahead of liberal feelings. The United States of America is under no obligation to accept refugees. The nation has a long history of restricting the number of people we accept from other countries.

In the the past half-century, we have tried open borders and have wound up with 11 million illegal boarders, many of whom sponge off our welfare programs. The open border with Mexico now supplies 65% of the illegal drugs in this country. Liberals have lulled America into a false sense of security, which on 9-11 proved fatal for nearly 3,000 people.

In the 14 years since then, Americans have shown great restraint in holding other Muslims accountable for the actions of a few.

The reward has been the refusal to assimilate and the growth of terror cells.

Screw it.

We can ban foreign Muslims from entry if we want to.

We can also restrict travel to Saudi Arabia and other terrorist-friendly nations.

The best way to protect Muslim Americans from any backlash is to reduce the terrorism that may trigger such actions.

From Dick Cheney to (I suppose) Jane Fonda, people blast the Trump plan.

But what is their plan?

Another half-hearted ground war?

More bombings?

Accepting another 10,000 Syrian refugees?

Continuing to allow Chicago-born Islamic State soldiers to fly to Saudi Arabia for instructions and training?

Letting mail order terrorist brides in from Pakistan to assist their "radicalized" husbands in destruction and mayhem?

As Justice Robert H. Jackson said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Trump's critics say he is just saying this to get elected president. If so, may I suggest they are objecting only because they want to be part of the cool kids.


  1. We excluded the Chinese for many years. See this

    1. The Chinese weren't terrorists.

  2. "There is nothing illegal, immoral or unconstitutional about his proposal to put national security ahead of liberal feelings."

    "Liberal feelings"?? You realize that includes every Republican presidential candidate who has strongly denounced Trump over this statement. Ditto for your hero Dick Cheney; state GOP chairs in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire; GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan and many other Rs. Today is the day Trump handed the White House to the Democrats.

    I'm still waiting on details on how Trump would legally implement this without decree violating the Constitution or a host of international treaties and agreements that prevent one's religion from being the basis of rejection into this country.

    1. As Don as noted, you may wait on details but denying certain groups immigration is not unheard of. Don't act so shocked. It is only "liberal feelings" that is driving this - not the Constitution. There are no "International Treaties" in violation here and denial on the basis of an ideology (Islam is not a religion) is not unusual. You seem arrogant is your attitude. I'm "feeling" arrogant about the security of America. What other solution has been offered? If the critics want to discuss, put up or shut up.

    2. "Islam is not a religion." According to whom? Islam - which I would never subscribe - is recognized as a religion (again, not one I agree with) by oh 99 percent of the world. Dumb Statement of the Day award.

      This morning on ABC, three times Trump was asked "how" will he implement this policy as president and three times he never answered. I could overrun this post with all sorts of stories from news sites citing legal scholars detailing how Trump's plan is most likely illegal and unconstitutional. Tom, can you provide one - just one - credible source who says Trump's plan would not violate the Constitution, international law or any treaties the U.S. has with other countries?

      As for "denying certain groups immigration is not unheard of." OK, please provide instances in U.S. history when this was done on the scale that Trump proposes.

      I agree with you Tom. Let's discuss other ideas. But let's hear exacts also from Trump. Not just a press release.

    3. And can you provide one - just one - credible source who says Trump's plan WOULD violate the Constitution?

      Religion is mentioned twice in the Constitution, in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, of course, and also in Article VI, which prohibits the use of religious tests as a qualification to hold public office. There may be LAWS or STATUTES that currently prevent the use of religious affiliation as a test for immigration purposes, but laws and statutes and regulations can always be changed if Congress chooses to do so.

      As for immigration, the Constitution does not speak to the issue at all. The right of the Federal government to control entry into the country and to regulate immigration was created by the US Supreme Court, less than 40 years ago. The Constitution does not use the word immigration; it only refers to the government's power to pass laws regulating the naturalization of citizens.

    4. Iapetus - First, numerous examples/arguments are to be found. Try looking. But it is hard to argue the exacts because Trump offers zero details about his statement. Thus, provide this:

      The specifics of Trump's plan to stop the immigration of all Muslims to the U.S. All we have is a one-page press release. Where's the beef (and while you are at it, can you provide specific details of how Trump is going to build a wall along the US_Mexico border and make Mexico pay for it).

      Once the specifics are provided, there is no doubt sound legal arguments will be brought forth. In the meantime, you can find numerous sound arguments from legal scholars at how Trump's proposal at face value violates the Constitution and/or current treaties and international laws. I cannot find one that supports what he proposes as legal.

    5. "In the meantime, you can find numerous sound arguments from legal scholars at how Trump's proposal at face value violates the Constitution"

      Repeating a false statement (otherwise known as a lie) does not make it true. You are pi$$ing up wind and telling me it's raining out.

      Go read Instapundit's blog today. After I posted here, he posted a link to an article by Chicago law professor Eric Posner, who explains how the SCOTUS has historically and consistently accepted various limits on immigration as being within the Constitutional "plenary powers" of the government.

  3. The closest you can get to a threat like this is WWII where anyone who had been in an Axis country was held in custody until they could be vetted.

    Damned straight what he says makes sense.

  4. I'd like one of these ‘scholars’ to show me where the US Constitution bans or restricts immigration controls...As I see/read it, the US government has the ability to restrict access to the country in any manner designed and signed off on by Congress and the President (though we know this Congress and Pres would only restrict high income Christians, not the dirt poor jihadists with surprisingly large bank accounts).

    Given that the Religion of Death to Unbelievers (just ask them—even the moderates) has stated their case multiple times, from Indonesia to Morocco, from Paris to San Bernardino, I think it’s time we take them at their word. Jihadists wish to destroy all that is not Muslim/Islamic enough for them; Shias kill Sunnis, Sunnis kill Shias—and that’s the faithful, not the jihadists-- and most Muslims hate what Western Civilization stands for: freedom of thought, religion, self-defense and expression. Note that many polls in the USA show Muslims (by a majority) wish to implement Sharia law…that’s a bigger statement on their unwillingness to blend into our society and exposes their wish to turn our country into the same hell-hole they fled.

    As an aside, that sounds like Democrats abandoning their coastal enclaves to live in more free states with better prospects…only to demand that Texas or Oklahoma or Colorado adopt the same political hellish administrative state they abandoned…

    When was the last time CAIR jumped on a press podium to announce the building of a new cancer hospital, or that the victims of a natural disaster are being supported by donations from any Muslim community (not the deep pockets of the Saud empire, but from the pockets of Muslims believers)? Certainly not in the last 20 years….

    So cut them off, stop the flow now. Put in a real vetting process that takes weeks to verify before they even leave for America, let alone stand on our soil. But that takes conviction and desire…not traits that the Democrats or Chamber of Commerce Republicans can show.

  5. Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religion. Mohammed (Piss Be Upon Him) wanted to unite the Arab tribes so he stole parts of the Old and New Testaments and elevated a minor moon god Allah into a supreme being. Voila! Islam.

  6. The courts have stated again and again that Congress has the absolute right to set immigration laws. If they want to exclude any one or any group for any reason they can. HOWEVER< the government does not have the right to void the Second Amendment by Presidential or bureaucratic fiat on a no-fly list.

    1. Specific cases please? Please cite the exact laws.

  7. Replies
    1. Good answer. These jerks seem to think asking for a reference is a Trump card, so to speak. Then they go on to make unsubstantiated blanket statements themselves. I just saw a discussion of the laws in question on another forum. I'm not in the business of looking stuff up for ignoramuses that don't want to take the time to read anything.

    2. Hilarious TimothyJ - when your "The courts have stated again and again ..." statement was called BS and you were given an opportunity to refute the BS claim, you just dole out more BS. Thanks for proving my point that you can't back up your talk.

    3. Please see Larry Sheldon's post below. And please stop trying to appear as though you know everything - the idea that we- as a country - can limit the damage of our own government ideology by restricting an ideology that is fundamentally opposite our own makes sense to more than a few people. Requiring us to commit suicide because of our beliefs is not what anyone has in mind. As Patton once said - " make the other son of bitch die for his country". I'm good with that.

    4. Tom - I am fine and dandy with Larry's post below. I have no issue with it. However, it is not in concert though with Trump's proposal and a legal basis for saying Trump's proposal is 100 percent legal. Try again.

  8. Trump keeps saying that, he's very likely to be elected.

  9. Obama has proven that anything can be done by executive fiat. What is to stop the next president from doing what he wants to do?

  10. Please see PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952 Title 2 Chapter II Sec 212 (a) (28) (F):

    SEC. 212. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, tile following
    classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded:
    (28) Aliens who are, or at any time have been, members of any of
    the following classes:
    (F) Aliens who advocate or teach or who are members of or
    affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (i) the
    overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of
    the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or
    (ii) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting
    or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals
    or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States
    or of any other organized government, because of his or their
    official character; or (iii) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction
    of property; or (iv) sabotage;