A newsy bit from today’s foreign policy speech. I like the idea a lot in principle. I wonder how easy it’d be to enforce.
“As he laid out in his Orlando remarks, Mr. Trump will describe the need to temporarily suspend visa issuances to geographic regions with a history of exporting terrorism and where adequate checks and background vetting cannot occur,” Miller said.
Trump is also expected to propose creating a new, ideological test for admission to the country that would assess a candidate’s stances on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. Through questionnaires, searching social media, interviewing friends and family or other means, applicants would be vetted to see whether they support American values like tolerance and pluralism.
Once the word is out overseas that you need to at least pretend to believe in tolerance and pluralism to enter the United States, would-be immigrants will wise up and make sure that they (and any acquaintances who might be interviewed about their application) pretend to believe. It’s the same problem at bottom that Trump’s Muslim ban had. If you’re determined to get in, it’s easy enough to lie on the key question. We needn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good, though, especially since this tighter individual scrutiny is Trump’s answer to criticism that his original Muslim ban was wildly overbroad. Some applicants will get weeded out this way either because they’re stupid or too principled to misrepresent their beliefs on their application. The net effect, I’d guess, is that immigrants from more liberal countries like those in Europe and South America will have an easier time getting in while immigrants from the Middle East and Africa will have a harder time. Republicans will be fine with that result.
Explain to me, though, how, say, the questions about “gay rights” are going to go. What’s the criteria for exclusion? If you believe that gays should be imprisoned? If you believe that they should be shunned? If you believe that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Because a lot of American evangelicals still hold that last position. This isn’t an academic question either: Any statutory change in policy would need to pass the Republican House, which isn’t going to sign off on an ideological test that might undermine some of its own base’s beliefs. (One of the most fascinating wrinkles of Trump’s populist nationalist takeover of the GOP is watching him soften the party’s line on gays.) Also, what happens to this policy once a liberal successor inherits it? “Intolerance” might be redefined to include an immigrant who opposes punishment for gays but believes that he himself shouldn’t be forced to cater a gay wedding on religious grounds. There’s a separate question too involving implementation. Questionnaires, interviews, social-media searches and other vetting take time and cost money. Is Trump imagining this sort of scrutiny only for select visitors from terror hot spots or otherwise intolerant cultures or is this going to be part of the standard review for anyone who wants a visa? He’s willing to pay big bucks to tighten the borders. I don’t know how many congressional Democrats or Republicans are.
I see where Joe the Schmoe Biden says Trump would have loved Stalin Yeah Biden you stupid mindless jackass were getting tired of your mindless braying so why dont you just hipppity hop to the Barber Shop the barbers gives out special suckers to idiots
Sounds like Allah (the one at Hot Air, not the Muslims’ one) just discovered that criminals sing the National Anthem loudest and make the showiest display of doing the Pledge of Allegiance.
I’m also sure Donald Trump understands how people will say anything.
But the Dutch created a test that is so well-crafted that Muslims cannot help but be honest.
It involves being watched (one-on-one) while being shown photos.
Yes, men kissing, unaccompanied women in bikinis, etc.
The response to these photos is unmistakable.
The difference between being OK with such legal behavior while wishing it were not so is vastly different from the attitude that such behavior deserves a beat down or rape.
Sadly, many Somalis had been well assimilated for some time before Obama imported a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood leaders who took over all their local mosques in Minnesota.
Under the sway of the MB those Somalis regressed.
We all saw it.
The double-parked taxis at ”prayer time,” the broken mens’ room sinks used for ”foot bathing,” the refusal to taxi women alone, people with alcohol, women not completely covered, seeing eye dogs, etc.
What is to be done?
Under Trump who should be punished?
Who should be deported?
Hopefully, the lesson we saw this week in Raqqa where, once liberated by the Kurds, the beards were shaved off and the burkhas were burned, will be heeded.
Oppressive leaders in Islam push their meek Muslims around here and abroad.
If anyone is up to the task of figuring out how to winnow through this field of weeds, it includes Trump’s advisers like Walid Phares and Yudi Jassar.
Those same oppressive leaders are the ones spitting out jihadis and ”lone wolf attackers.
It is the oppressive leadership who must be deported or silenced.
We’re going to have to monitor the mosques.
Much better than Allah’s take is Milo’s: