...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.
But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.
Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.
As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?
But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.
Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.
As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?