- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

What Trump Gets Right on Immigration

I am surely not the only one noticing the extent to which the corporate media worldwide are damning Donald Trump. In the wake of Brexit, his supporters were repeatedly likened to the Brits who voted Leave, both groups being characterized as “white and less well educated.” And over the past week, the Washington Post has been examining and damning nearly everything The Donald has said and done, hammering the presumptive GOP nominee with an average of six heavily editorialized news articles daily, plus op-eds.

To be sure, Trump has earned much of the opprobrium, with his often contradictory and scattershot presentations of the policies he intends to pursue, as well as the provocative language that has left him legitimately open to charges of racism and sexism. Trump’s racially flavored warnings about homegrown terrorists certainly have considerable popular appeal in the wake of San Bernardino and Orlando, but the reality is that Muslim Americans as a group exhibit low crime rates, achieve higher-than-average levels of education, and are financially successful. Police sources reveal that they frequently cooperate [1] with law enforcement regarding members of their community who are flirting with militancy.

Trump is also presumed guilty of several other Democratic Party-defined capital crimes, including failing to enthusiastically embrace diversity and multiculturalism. But at the core of his appeal to voters is the one issue that he largely gets right, and that is immigration, both as a cultural phenomenon and as a law-and-order issue.

His up-front condemnation of illegal immigration can be seen as the launching pad for his successful campaign for the GOP nomination. From a rule-of-law and national-security perspective, many Americans have long been dismayed by the federal government’s unwillingness to control the nation’s borders, and many blue-collar workers have a more personal stake in the issue, being appalled by the impact of mass illegal immigration on their communities.

While Trump’s proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is rigorously screening travelers and immigrants—but it has provided little to no evidence that its procedures are effective.

The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a serious threat. Shi’a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi’as as heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni.

It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant groups.

U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists. Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably “catch” more innocent people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for additional review.

For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 “visa waiver” countries [2], mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor’s visa, called a B-2. At that point, the consulate’s objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud relates to overstaying one’s visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S. The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts, employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision.

In some countries, documentary evidence can be supplemented by police reports if the local government is cooperative. Some consulates employ investigators, generally ex-policemen, who are able to examine public records if there is any doubt about an applicant’s profile or intentions, but most governments do not permit access to official documents. Recently, background investigations have sometimes been supplemented by an examination of the applicant’s presence on the internet to determine whether he or she is frequenting militant sites or discussing political issues online. If the visa applicant is seeking to become a U.S. resident, the process is, of course, much more rigorous.

Both travel and immigrant visas are nevertheless a somewhat subjective process. I knew a visa officer in Turkey who delighted in turning down Iranian applicants “on principle.” It was a seemingly arbitrary act—but this was shortly after the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, and it was plausibly based on the fact that there was no embassy any longer in Iran and documents presented in Turkey would be impossible to verify.

Most of those convicted in terrorism-related cases in the U.S. are foreign-born [3]. The real issue that Trump should be addressing is the federal government’s inability to vet visa applicants to a level that could be considered sufficient from a national-security perspective, a failure that has led some conservatives to complain [4] that White House policy is to “invade the world, invite the world.”

In many places, official documents are easy to forge or can even be obtained in genuine form from corrupt bureaucrats. If one is unable to go the source of the document for verification, papers submitted in support of a visa application are frequently impossible to authenticate. So what does one do when applicants from countries in the throes of civil war—like Iraq, Syria, or Yemen—show up at a visa window, some of them with no documents at all? Or when such applicants constitute not a trickle but a flood? It gets complicated, and Trump has a point in saying we should deny visas to all of them until procedures can be established for making those judgments in a more coherent fashion.

Another steady stream of immigrants into the U.S. comes from the refugee-resettlement process; Washington is a signatory to the United Nations-administered agreements to resettle refugees. Much of the background vetting is carried out by the UN in a not-completely-transparent fashion, and the resettlement of the refugees in various places is done by quota—with the U.S. being the largest recipient country, expected to receive 100,000 refugees [5] in 2017. But does the Obama administration have a clue regarding the reliability of the information it gets on the new would-be Americans? If it does, it is not letting on.

The mostly Saudi attackers on 9/11 used temporary or tourist visas to enter the country, so the threat from that source should be clear to everyone involved in the entry process, and consulates are acutely aware of the danger. But beyond that, the Obama administration has been complacent. It would no doubt point to the fact that no refugee to the United States has carried out an act of terror once admitted to the country, which would be true but somewhat misleading: The estimated 77,000 Somali refugees [6] who have somehow wound up in Minnesota have included a substantial number of younger men and women who have returned home [7] to join the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab. And it would in any event be prudent to be cautious when relying on past behavior models, as groups like ISIS have indicated their desire to hit the United States and have proven to be highly adaptable in their tactics.

Trump’s demands to block many visitors and would-be residents might seem an overreaction, but until a broken immigration system is fixed, he is more right than wrong.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

31 Comments (Open | Close)

31 Comments To "What Trump Gets Right on Immigration"

#1 Comment By mohammad On June 29, 2016 @ 1:49 am

However, if and when there is any legislation in the congress which aims to provide such prohibitions, you can be 100% sure that the name of Iran will be included (even though no Iranian has done any terrorist act in the USA, nor there is any evidence that there might be any Iranian plot to do such a thing), and the name of Saudi Arabia will be dropped (even though most of the terrorist attacks in the USA done by Muslims were linked one way or another to Saudi Arabia). In a corrupt system such as one that the American congress has become, no such think can passed properly and in the right way.

#2 Comment By Clint On June 29, 2016 @ 6:57 am

And over the past week, the Washington Post has been examining and damning nearly everything The Donald has said and done, hammering the presumptive GOP nominee with an average of six heavily editorialized news articles daily, plus op-eds.

This environment of media corruption is quite dangerous to Americans and our country,if we’re relying on a free press for truth, and an understanding of the events going on around us.

The Media appears once again to be attempting to orchestrate the outcome of another American election and marginalize and smear up Trump,in order to carry out their agenda and get their candidate elected.

#3 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 29, 2016 @ 8:47 am

This is one of the fairest, most helpful assessments of the current US immigration mess – and of Donald Trump’s recent immigration recommendations – that it has been my pleasure to read. You, Philip, as a retired CIA officer with years of experience in the field – some of it actually involved in attempting to vet would-be immigrants — bring to these discussions a hundred times more credibility than most others who write on these matters:

“…[Trump’s] demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a limited ability to vet people from those countries…Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia…What does one do when applicants from countries in the throes of civil war—like Iraq, Syria, or Yemen—show up at a visa window, some of them with no documents at all?…Trump has a point in saying we should deny visas to all of them until procedures can be established for making those judgments in a more coherent fashion…”

#4 Comment By John On June 29, 2016 @ 9:13 am

The problem is that these are not the words coming out of Trump’s mouth. I’m not sure he could read these off a teleprompter and sound credible. It’s almost certain that he hasn’t thought about immigration policy in this much detail, nor anyone close to him at the campaign management level.

This is the guy who wants to build a wall stretching from Baja to Brownsville, and hire a Gestapo for undocumented immigrants so that they can be “humanely” rounded up and deported by mid-2018. He is also the guy who thinks that a judge born to Mexican immigrant parents in Indiana is also Mexican, and ipso facto unfit to hear a case involving a white loudmouth racist such as himself. You say that he’s “more right than wrong.” At best, he’s right in the way that a broken clock is, and about as often.

#5 Comment By Janwaar Bibi On June 29, 2016 @ 9:50 am

Whether or not banning Muslims is fair, can the author explain to us why banning Muslim immigrants is unconstitutional? Foreigners do not have a right to move to the US nor do they have First Amendment rights. In fact admitting people to the US is done at the discretion of the President of the US, as far as I know.

#6 Comment By Indiana Jacquet On June 29, 2016 @ 11:35 am

A complete immigration halt or moratorium is the best, most workable solution. A halt is simple and impartial. It requires only that we withdraw from the relevant parts of international treaties and agreements.

Simply, we don’t need any more immigrants, we have already taken in more than the rest of the world combined (over-fulfilling any “moral obligation”), and we have failed to assimilate those already here. We need many decades to secure our borders and address the staggering economic and cultural consequences, not to mention the ongoing national security risks, caused by the past few decades of uncontrolled migration.

#7 Comment By Sanf On June 29, 2016 @ 1:01 pm

This a sensible, intelligent,balanced, and nuanced discussion rarely written or presented. I hope more Democrats take this kind of logic to heart and work toward passage of the kind of legislation proposed here. Trump and his ilk are a lost cause and,so are the Bernie Bros.(for entirely different reasons, of course) It’s likely too much to ask of Hillary to endorse this right now when she’d like to solidify her left flank for the general election, but I really think there are plenty (OK, some) of moderate Dems like me who would strongly support these kinds of initiatives.

#8 Comment By Rossbach On June 29, 2016 @ 2:22 pm

The US is already overpopulated. We don’t need any more mass immigration and the American people emphatically don’t want it. All that is necessary is for the US government to reduce immigration back to traditional levels (pre-1965) and this problem goes away. We would recover our ability to carefully screen potential immigrants so that we are not importing poverty, terror, or cultural imperialism.

However, considering that special interest groups are now in complete control of our nation’s immigration policy, any rational control of immigration in the near term is probably a pipe dream.

#9 Comment By Chris Travers On June 29, 2016 @ 2:31 pm

It seems to me there is one country where we really need to rethink policy. Given the number of terrorist plots in the US and elsewhere that have a connection to the UK, we really need to take them off the visa waiver program…..

#10 Comment By The The On June 29, 2016 @ 2:49 pm

We also need, aside from a temporary pause of 10 years or until these nations mature, an absolute reduction in immigration to under 300,000/year of any type and for any reason for at least 30 years if not forever.

The current 1.1+ million immigrants a year is unsustainable.

#11 Comment By Sally Snyder On June 29, 2016 @ 3:11 pm

Here is an article that looks at how much it would cost American taxpayers to deport all illegal aliens from the United States:

[8]

With nearly $20 trillion in debt, the odds of actually enforcing the nation’s immigration laws are very, very low.

#12 Comment By Philip Giraldi On June 29, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

Janwaar-Banning Muslims would require an immigration law that discriminates based on religion, which I believe the Supreme Court would consider to be unconstitutional.

#13 Comment By Junior On June 29, 2016 @ 5:01 pm

Great article and I completely agree. A great look into the Visa process from someone that has first-hand knowledge.

I am a Trump supporter but have always been against his unconstitutional views on banning a religion. It disgusted me and had me questioning my support for him. I’ve always ascribed it to him falling for the media propaganda against Muslims. Needless to say, his focusing on troubled regions instead of religion has me doing cartwheels. It is not a “flip-flop” as so many have smeared him with. It’s a smart narrowing of focus to solve a problem.

#14 Comment By Clint On June 29, 2016 @ 5:46 pm

It’s almost certain that he hasn’t thought about immigration policy in this much detail, nor anyone close to him at the campaign management level.

Actually, President Hoover ordered the deportation of aLL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens. Truman deported over two million Illegals after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans; then Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican Nationals!.

Trump is doing what these former American Presidents did.

#15 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 29, 2016 @ 5:57 pm

This article in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (Jacob Gershman, Dec. 8, 2015) entitled “Is Trump’s Proposed Ban on Muslim Entry Unconstitutional?”quotes constitutional scholars on both sides of the debate:

“Donald Trump’s plan for a ‘total and complete shutdown’ of Muslims entering the U.S. was swiftly condemned by many Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. But legal experts aren’t of one mind about whether the incendiary plan floated by the GOP candidate would survive judicial review. Mr. Trump said Monday that, if elected, he would bar all Muslims from entering the country with very limited exceptions, such as allowing Muslims serving in the U.S. military to return home. He said he would lift the restriction when more is known about the security threat posed by Islamic terrorism.

“Some constitutional scholars say there’s no debate. ‘Aside from being outrageous, it would be unconstitutional,’ said William Banks, a constitutional law scholar at the Syracuse College of Law, pointing to guarantees of due process under law.

“’I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,’ said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, according to NBC News. He said it would also conflict with the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Other scholars who spoke to Law Blog were more hesitant to pronounce the Muslim immigration ban unconstitutional, at least as it applied to non-U.S. citizens. (Denying entry to American citizens, they said, would definitely not hold up in court.)

“Constitutional challenges to immigration restrictions ‘face unusually tough hurdles,’ Stephen H. Legomsky, of Washington University School of Law, who was chief counsel at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency under President Barack Obama from 2011 to 2013. Most recently the professor served briefly as senior counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security on immigration issues. The hurdle he referred to is in the form of the so-called plenary power doctrine, a legal concept articulated by the Supreme Court giving Congress tremendous power over immigration laws. It was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the late 1880s when justices upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act, a federal law that suspended immigration of Chinese laborers. Repealed during World War II, it was the first major immigration restriction enacted into law and the first exclusion based on ethnicity. The plenary power doctrine ‘states that the courts should show exceptional deference to Congress when it legislates in the field of immigration,’ Mr. Legomsky told Law Blog. ‘Whether modern courts would uphold a racial or religious immigration restriction is difficult to predict.’ The high court has reaffirmed the doctrine in a 1972 ruling denying entry to a self-described ‘revolutionary Marxist’ from Belgium who sought a temporary visa.

“UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Law Blog that Mr. Trump’s plan ‘may be a very bad idea, but under the plenary power doctrine it may very well be constitutional’.

“Mr. Legomsky noted that courts have recognized exceptions to the doctrine. Deportation proceedings, for instance, may not be stripped of due-process protections.

“It doesn’t appear that Mr. Trump would have to get congressional approval before advancing the Muslim ban, said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. Congress has already given the president broad powers to suspend the entry of ‘any class of aliens as immigrants’ if their entry would ‘be detrimental’ to the nation’s interests. Congress, Mr. Spiro said, could still block the plan by changing the law and stripping away that exclusion power delegated to the president. Mr. Volokh said it’s also possible that the Trump plan could violate treaty agreements with American allies.

“Clarification: Mr. Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban would not likely require congressional approval. A previous version of this post concluded that Mr. Trump’s plan would require authorization from Congress.”

[9]

#16 Comment By Ralph Raico On June 29, 2016 @ 6:30 pm

The passage Clint cites from Phil’s excellent essay also caught my eye: “Over the past week, the Washington Post has been examining and damning nearly everything The Donald has said and done, hammering the presumptive GOP nominee with an average of six heavily editorialized news articles daily, plus op-eds.” It was said of the later German Historical
School of economists that they formed the Praetorian Guard of the House of Hohenzollern. Similarly, on a much lower intellectual level, the whole of the Establishment media, including the Post, forms the Praetorian Guard of the Queen of Chaos. Her fathomless corruption and the misdeeds of the Clinton Crime Family are never addressed. Instead, day in day out, we are indeed hammered with every one of Trump’s relatively trivial flaws. This is so blatant that I believe even the great American public is beginning to see what’s going on.

#17 Comment By RMThoughts On June 29, 2016 @ 7:00 pm

Borders do not make a people. People make borders. All human social and political organization requires a unifying origin or narrative. Ours has been the American Dream, the Constitution , the Land of the Free and home of the Brave, type platitudes.
Our national identity and culture have been systematically undermined in favor of a “multicultural” open borders dissolution that better serves the interests of globally oriented corporations and concomitant ruling class that us as a nation.
Regionalism, localism, within a defined nation is the solution to unchecked greed, and it encourages people to be helpful and more generous to other people we identify with. Until people get brave enough to start creating exclusive communities with segregated, clearly defined identities, Americans and Westerners in general will remain mere consumers, strangers in our own land, lost among strangers. We will feel no loyalty to each other, and keep screwing each other over to get a little more money to buy a little more stuff.

#18 Comment By Sandra On June 29, 2016 @ 9:15 pm

Following the attack on the World Trade Center in 2011 the US declared war on two Muslim countries spending billions of dollars and killing thousands of innocent civilians and yet a ban on immigration for Muslim countries that support terrorists is seen as a step too far and those that support the ban are labeled as racist and xenophobic. Prevention certainly seems like a better tactic than revenge.

#19 Comment By Janwaar Bibi On June 29, 2016 @ 9:16 pm

Dear Mr.Giraldi, Thank you for your reply to my question about whether banning Muslim immigration would violate the constitution. Many constitutional experts disagree with your position: please see the link below.

[10]

On the other hand, we live at a time when constitutional rights are apparently growing in the penumbra of the constitution. Who knows what other rights Ruth Bader Ginsburg and co. might find there?

#20 Comment By John On June 29, 2016 @ 10:15 pm

@Clint/5:46 p.m.:

Not quite.

[11]

Center for Immigration Study thinks that Census data points to a total undocumented population of 10.9 million to 15.7 million. Pew thinks it’s around 11 million. We have fewer than 700,000 law enforcement officers in America, and 52 immigration courts. How this is supposed to happen, just as a matter of logistics, I have no idea. And neither does Trump.

#21 Comment By Chris Travers On June 30, 2016 @ 12:07 am

Janwaar:

There is another problem too. Not only do you have discrimination on religion and free exercise problems, but you have establishment clause problems too. This is generally interpreted as preventing the courts from, among other things, deciding what Islam is.

Surely Trump can order the USCIS and State Department to deny visas to everyone with Arabic naming conventions. But saying “no Muslims” would be a bit more problematic and that would both be underinclusive and overinclusive.

#22 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 30, 2016 @ 1:34 am

There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution that prevents by what means foreigners may be denied entry into the US. And I suspect that the patriot Act would fully support such limitations on the grounds of national security.

“The problem is that these are not the words coming out of Trump’s mouth. I’m not sure he could . . . nor anyone close to him at the campaign management level.”

I am not sure one needs a detailed education on something as simple as making sure we have ensured the security by vetting those who com into the country. There’s a reason why the State Dept. issues travel warnings.

Developing a more effective means of checking who’s coming into the country is a logical step, even if it is not simple. One that includes tracking guests for their saftey and ours. If someone continuously breaks into your home, consulting an expert to hear you need a new security protocol is redundant to the obvious.

I think there should have been a moratorium the day of 9/11

________________

This is the guy who wants to build a wall stretching from Baja . . . “humanely” rounded up and deported by mid-2018. He is also the guy who thinks that a judge born to Mexican immigrant parents in Indiana is also Mexican, and ipso facto unfit to hear a case involving a white loudmouth racist such as himself. You say that he’s “more right than wrong.” At best, he’s right in the way that a broken clock is, and about as often.”

We have a wall across the border. It’s a reinforced fence. In some places that fence is a wall. Makes sense if has a wall or a fence it should actually do what it was intended for — to prevent entry into the country illegally. Absolutely a wall high and deep.

As for rounding people up, I can only respond that you are wholly unfamiliar with our border patrol risk life and limb to do.

My comments are not intended as an insult to anyone’s knowledge base.

#23 Comment By Andrew Smethers On June 30, 2016 @ 8:20 am

In this article Mr Giraldi persistently ascribes policies and inaction to, “The Obama administration”. I find this odd considering the pivotal act of terrorism was at the beginning of the eight year Bush II administration. How can Mr Giraldi ignore seven years “inactivity” in this sphere and then blame the current administration for all the current ills.
Basically I do not disagree with his premise. I wish Angela Merkel had consulted him before opening the floodgates in Europe. It will be interesting to see what the Germans think of this in their upcoming election.

#24 Comment By mightywhig On June 30, 2016 @ 9:50 am

Good article. State Department counselor officers have a lot of discretionary authority over who gets a visa. They should use it. The bigger question is: how is immigration policy serving the nation’s interest? Do we even have a coherent policy?

#25 Comment By questions questions On June 30, 2016 @ 1:42 pm

“The bigger question is: how is immigration policy serving the nation’s interest?”

The even bigger question is whether there should be any immigration at all. I think the answer is “no, we have quite enough of them.”

It is nowhere written that a country must have immigrants, and most of the world’s countries effectively don’t. Think of it: no immigrants, no monster bureaucracy trying and failing to implement byzantine immigration laws and policy, immigration off the table, off the political agenda, nothing to demagogue, etc.

#26 Comment By Clint On June 30, 2016 @ 8:47 pm

John,

You’re link states that according to their “official”numbers President Hoover deported or “induced” 121,000 illegal aliens to leave,President Truman:3.4 Million deported or left voluntarily,President Eisenhauer’s “Operation Wetback” deported or left under threat of deportation 2.1 Million illegal aliens.

So,Trump intends to do just what these three former Democrat and Republican Presidents did before him.

Are you sayin’ that President Hoover,President Truman and President Eisenhauer also “hired Gestapo” so they could “humanely” round up illegal aliens?

Also, you didn’t tell us how many law enforcement officers and immigration courts were around when these Presidents were doing the deporting of illegal aliens.

#27 Comment By bt On July 1, 2016 @ 9:45 am

“I wish Angela Merkel had consulted him before opening the floodgates in Europe.”

—————-

I have read that German demographics are much worse than UK demographics, in terms of birth rate.

The implication of the article was the one reason the German government did it was that they need / will need more workers at some point to keep the wheels turning. And immigrants have a well-known tendency to have children.

I’m always fond of the view that things happen for many different reasons, rarely because of just on thing.

#28 Comment By Harry Ryan On July 1, 2016 @ 8:59 pm

“In the wake of Brexit, his supporters were repeatedly likened to the Brits who voted Leave, both groups being characterized as white and less well educated.”

As opposed to the black citizens in this country, who are better-educated and more rational and intellectual?? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

#29 Comment By Frances Howard On July 2, 2016 @ 5:08 am

In the UK reports of no- go areas are worrying.
It cannot good for a tiny island to be unable to police the whole country fairly.
The cultural left have homes in the better parts of the country.
Unlike the unemployed and social housing families. Violence in these areas are unfairly condemned as racist and bigoted.

#30 Comment By Frances Howard On July 2, 2016 @ 10:17 am

The poor English towns in the UK voted for Brexit. London voted Remain in the EU.
The surrounding London towns voted for Brexit.
Capital cities in the West are no longer interested In their indigenous populations. This is the democratic deficit of global capitalism

#31 Comment By David A On July 29, 2016 @ 2:27 am

Above I read this comment,
=========================
“I am a Trump supporter but have always been against his unconstitutional views on banning a religion.
=========================
Study Islam more, the last empire religion of antiquity. Study sharia Law and Islamic jurisprudence as taught and legislated in dozens of Islamic nations.

Specifically you will note many tenants of Islam which are seditious against the US and European nations. Lower class citizenship for women and non-muslims. Legalized murder and rape. (Really) No separation of church and state. FGM, and honor killings just to name a few.

These are not protected by the label “religion” So yes, if a Muslim reject centuries of Islamic jurisprudence, sharia law, and only attends a Mosque that does likewise, then I have no problem.

That “Muslim” will have a problem however as they will then be apostates, and legally killed in some instances.

Also study the history of Islam as the Islamic population percentage increases. It is atrocious and convinces any rational person that they violently try to take over politics and laws. (See many parts of India as an example, and now, many parts of Europe as well.

Finally study the demographics f bringing in large numbers of Muslims. In short, many areas of Europe will lose their culture. completely.