Not really a fumble: there is a great precedent for singling out countries

Submitted by Michael S, Feb 8, 2017 at 04:27

Thank you for the video, Dr. Pipes.

I'm glad you noted that the executive order was "seen" as a fumble -- at that, I might add, only by the President's and, for the most part, America's, detractors.

Concerning singling out countries rather than individuals, there is a tremendous precedent for this sort of travel policy, both by the US and foreign countries. Many, many countries restrict travel for citizens of the very countries President Trump singled out; it is nothing new. What is also not new, is the courts interfering in foreign policy (This has happened recently in Egypt, concerning the proposed return of some islands to Saudi Arabia; and of course, in the Israeli High Court's many rulings against its Prime Ministers regarding matters of national security). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the court in Scalia's day also shot down some of Mr. Obama's executive orders, though I don't recall whether or not any of these were ones affecting border security.

No matter HOW President Trump worded his order, we can be certain that the same Left Coast justices that are obstructing him now would have obstructed him then. This is a purely political issue, involving Leftists attacking the US in its Executive branch. We conservatives have had a strong hand dealt us during the past election; so we can overcome these obstacles if God so wills.

I am personally glad that the order targeted the countries that it did. Otherwise, an open-ended "extreme vetting" order can be greatly misused. My own Chinese son-in-law, for instance, might have trouble getting into the US if the political situation turns sour towards that country (which it well might).

I have commented on another post of yours, that the main criterion to be used in vetting of this nature, should be whether or not the prospect is a Muslim. That is an obvious and essential triage element: Non-Muslims are HIGHLY unlikely to be or become radical Islamic terrorists (i.e. "Jihadis"); to a great saving of money and energy would be gained by this point.

Of course, the same people who are opposing Trump's executive order would also oppose such vetting; that is the world we have made for ourselves. It's not easy, being alive; but the alternative might be worse.

Shalom shalom :-)

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".