Of course it's constitutional and acceptable!

Submitted by Malcolm (Australia), Dec 16, 2015 at 01:59

A total ban on Muslims coming into the country is probably unworkable, but it is perfectly workable to refuse immigration from Muslim countries - unless the prospective immigrant can prove that he belongs to another religion. But, in any case, why would America want to take immigrants from (say) Egypt or Pakistan when there are plenty of potential immigrants from (say) Europe? As for the other objections:

Unconstitutional. Wrong! Your constitution says that Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say you cannot use it in the selection of immigrants.

Unacceptable. Only to the secularists. Secularism should not represent a core Western belief. Secularism is immoral by definition.

Conversions of convenience. If any of those Muslims have made false conversions for impure reasons, at least they have burned their bridges behind them. They cannot go back to even the Muslim sub-culture in the host country. They will have to assimilate. Hopefully, some of them will drift into a genuine relationaship with Christ. In any case, they are the ones least likely to indulge in acts of terror or to give aid or comfort to those who do.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".