I feel the need to address this because there’s a lot of misinformation being propagated without actually reading the executive order. This is not a Muslim ban. It’s not even a ban. It’s a temporary moratorium on people coming in from several countries as recommended during the Obama administration. The only country mentioned in Trump’s order is Syria. The Department of Homeland Security cited the countries mentioned as countries of concern over the last few years. Continuing the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, it added Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries. Now I want to address the argument for allowing migrants coming from Syria, mainly that these are like the Jewish refugees in the 1930’s. Muslims are not facing genocide like the Jews were. In fact, the people who are facing extermination in the region are Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities. These get little to no mention in the mainstream media nor is the Left protesting for their human rights. These are the people we should take in first if any. Furthermore, Jews had nowhere to go. There were no Jewish States to take in refugees and Palestine was still under British Mandate. According to UNHCR, there were no refugee camps in 1934 unlike Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon housing over 4 million refugees from Syria and Iraq today. There are many more Arab states that are better suited and capable of taking in refugees but are doing little to nothing. Why don’t we hold them to the same expectations? If families are in refugee camps in Turkey, they are no longer fleeing danger. They no longer need to come here or any other Western nation.
Obviously, we have a rich tradition of helping the poor and receiving those who want the freedoms we have--it comes from our Judeo-Christian ethic. But nowhere are we mandated to take in anyone and everyone. There are reasonable questions to ask. For example: What are the short and long term financial and social costs associated with taking in a large number of people from these regions? What is the result of bringing in a religious culture that practices gender segregation, polygamy, not to mention may be sympathetic to terror organizations? Believes a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s? That gays should be killed? That violent jihad is justified? That harbor antisemitic views? These views are contrary to our American values and yet has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, academia and politicians. There have been polls taken on Muslim opinion by Pew Research, BBC, World Public Opinion, ICM Polls, Palestinian Center for Political Research, and others (Here’s a list of polls taken). But we can just look to Germany, Sweden, UK, Norway, Belgium, or France to see the result of such migration. Mass sexual assault of European women. Sex grooming of young British girls. “No Go” zones where not even police and ambulances can enter. Increasing number of terrorist attacks. Which brings me to the subject of Islamic terrorism. Every time a Muslim enters a scene screaming “allah hu akbar” and murdering people, the talking heads do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious. Why aren’t we allowed to ask questions and take precautions? Are we to just accept occasional bloodshed for fear of offending Muslims? The reality is that there is a problem with Islamic terrorism and it has everything to do with Islam. I thought the same as you several years ago until I started examining Islam--a set of beliefs--not a race. I am a product of liberal indoctrination at college and my eyes were opened to Islamic history, theology and aims as stated from it’s doctrine and the mouths of clerics. Because of this, I have strong reservations about bringing them here. I encourage you to read the Quran for yourself, to examine the evidence I’ve given here and not just go with an emotional response.