The “Wall Street Journal” is reporting that the Trump administration is considering the use of “extreme vetting” procedures in efforts to prevent the influx of terrorists into the United States.
“Extreme” vetting? Really? Why would the implementation of a significant and thorough inspection policy for foreigners be considered extreme? Thoughtful or reasonable individuals should not only welcome a profound and comprehensive security program, but they should be appreciative as well.
The inception of Roe V. Wade did not just legalize abortion in America. It was the kickoff of an era in which human life became accepted by many as an inconvenience. Roe v. Wade was the first in a series of events which damned the future of our children.
These days will be gazed upon by future historians as the astonishing and unforgivable period in history when Americans repudiated their own children for the sake of “women’s rights” and political correctness.
We no longer have to imagine a time when millions of Americans are more concerned with the inconveniences to foreign people, many of whom wish to bring us harm, than the security of their families and friends. We are living among those thoughtless Progressives, Globalists, and Liberals who condemn intense security screening of strangers.
According to the WSJ, disclosure of contacts on cell phones, financial transactions, and questions about ideology could become routine protocol for scrutinizing those who request admittance into the United States of America.
Normal-thinking Americans, which excludes Liberals, should want to know if a visitor from outside the country has connections to ISIS or al-Qaeda. A sudden large deposit of cash into the bank account of a non-citizen entering the states is a flagrant red flag. Or how about this question to would-be newcomers: “Should infidels be allowed to live?”
Should a man who believes in the tenets of honor killings and the inferiority of women be allowed to reside in the United States if he is a non-citizen? Should an unwillingness to assimilate be a valid reason for denying citizenship to migrants?
Do we not have an obligation to safeguard our children from unthinkable and irrational outlanders?
Asking questions and evaluating possible incoming threats to the masses are not radical concepts. They are judicious and cautious measures taken by prudent, levelheaded people.
But Hugh Handeyside, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security project objects and thus stated, “it could deprive American citizens the ability to interact and gain knowledge from the full spectrum of individuals and people who hold diverse beliefs worldwide.”
Oh for goodness sakes, Mr. Handeyside. The American people have tired of that non-argument. Not permitting criminals and would-be terrorists to just enter the United States carte blanche is certainly not a deprivation of substance. However, the Islamic extremists are certainly being deprived of a wholesale market from which to spread their hateful ideology.
Handeyside assumes that it is a worthwhile endeavor for Americans to interact and gain knowledge from those people who want to destroy our way of life, and/or kill us. Please tell me again, Mr. Muhammad, why you find it necessary to behead gays and throw acid on independent women. Inquiring minds want to know.
Where was Mr. Handeyside when the TSA agents were patting down little boys and girls? The Left doesn’t have a problem with children being groped by strangers, but how dare the United States government ask a foreigner if he or she cheered when the Twin Towers came crumbling down on 9-11.
The Left defends their egregious neglect to protect the citizens of the United States by countering that “just because they think it, doesn’t mean they will do it.”
And I say, “There is a greater chance they will do it if they think it than if they don’t think it. But more importantly, they will vote for someone who will introduce the policies which will create the environment for the radical thinkers to do what they have been thinking.”
The righteousness of a culture is a reflection of the value it places on the innocent members of the society; the children, the disabled, and the mentally challenged. And by those standards, this nation is drastically lacking in virtue.
If we are going to consider the inconvenience and rights of foreigners, who have no legal rights to a residence in America, to be more significant than the security of our children, we have already lost the battle of good versus evil.