Rand Paul: Restrict Immigration from Muslim Countries

[fr33]

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Anyway, the economic illiteracy of some of its supporters notwithstanding, Rand's position works nicely.

He's not, evidently, calling for restricted immigration for its own sake, nor for economic reasons (which would be asinine).

But rather for national security reasons, which is at least plausible.

....which is to say he's found a way of joining in the media-generated Know-Nothing orgy without violating his principles.

Very good.

 

[Free Radical]

Terrorists don't immigrate and fill out applications legally. They just cross the Mexico/US border. Restricting immigration for those doing it the correct way, only serves to punish the law abiding people. Much like gun control, punishes only those who wish to obey the law, whereas the criminals will always have illegal guns.

Um...that's not true. Name one terrorist that has crossed over the US-Mexican border.


9/11 Hijackers:
Khalid al-Mhdhar - Received US visa at the Jeddah Embassy in Saudi Arabia. Entered the US legally via LAX.
Nawaf al-Hazma - Received US visa at the Jeddah Embassy in Saudi Arabia. Entered the US legally via LAX.
Mohamed Atta - Received US visa at the Berlin Embassy in Germany. Entered the US legally via Newark.
Ziad Jarrah - Received US visa at the Berlin Embassy in Germany. Entered the US legally via Atlanta.
Hani Hasan Hajour - Received US student visa at the Jeddah Embassy in Saudi Arabia. Entered the US legally.
The other hijackers also all came in legally...

Boston Marathon Bombers
Moved to the US legally after their parents applied for asylum.

Attempted Shoe Bomber
Flew from Paris to Miami.

Underwear Bomber
Obtained a US visa in London. Was flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I stand with Rand on this one. While this is not an economic concern, there is a lunacy from the globalist neoconservatives who want open borders and at the same time want to "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here". In reality, the neocons want permanent war, so having them come over here to fight us here is a good thing to them. Anything to spread fear and grow the security/Police/MIC state.

 

[chronicaust]

This plan is genius. It makes so much sense that it scares me no one has done this yet xD

 

[puppetmaster]

Limit all until we get control of the welfare system...yes that is an economic reason.

 

[LawnWake]

What about people from Christian nations? Plenty of Christians commited acts of terrorrism in the US.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

For god sake. Just take all the money, effort and technology we put towards spying on Americans and screen the applicants for visas and citizenship thoroughly.

 

[Chieppa1]

My pure libertarian views are against this. But I have no real issue with it in the context of time & place. Rand always says the only real responsibility of the federal government is to protect the nation. We should have a strong immigration policy towards countries which mean to harm us. Of course, if he doesn't also push to stop bombing the hell out of the Muslim world for imperialist ambitions than I will quickly roll my eyes at this. Still waiting for Rand to explain to the American people what his father did. They don't "hate us for our freedom".

 

[Created4]

As far as barring Muslim immigration...it just makes sense. Simple logic.

And what "logic" would that be?

Here are the top 10 Muslim Countries by population:

Rank - Country/capital - Population - Percentage of world's Muslims

1 Indonesia Jakarta 209,120,000 13.1
2 India New Delhi 176,190,000 11
3 Pakistan Islamabad 167,410,000 10.5
4 Bangladesh Dhaka 133,540,000 8.4
5 Nigeria Abuja 77,300,000 4.8
6 Egypt Cairo 76,990,000 4.8
7 Iran Teheran 73,570,000 4.6
8 Turkey Ankara 71,330,000 4.5
9 Algeria Algiers 34,730,000 2.2
10 Morocco Rabat 31,940,000 2

Notice that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. - do not even make the list, and comprise less than 2% of the world's Muslims.

I think that perhaps Mr. Rand Paul forgot about Turkey, a Muslim NATO country where the U.S. has a huge military base.

Banning immigration from certain countries might make some sense, but banning about a billion people due to their religious preference? Yeah, great "logic".....

 

[Occam's Banana]

Waiting for a "scientific" definition of "terrorist" ... (or hell, even just a "non-political" one ...)

 

[Ronin Truth]

Waiting for a "scientific" definition of "terrorist" ... (or hell, even just a "non-political" one ...)

Terror is the poor man's war.

 

[LawnWake]

Waiting for a "scientific" definition of "terrorist" ... (or hell, even just a "non-political" one ...)

Yep, there's no academic or legal definition of terrorist.

 

[AuH20]

Very strange people from Palestine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-wanted-second-wife-allowed-Islamic-law.html

EXCLUSIVE: Muslim Marine murderer's father 'sexually assaulted wife and beat his son' - and wanted to take second wife 'because it was allowed under Islamic law'

Divorce papers obtained by Daily Mail Online reveal Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez's father beat his wife - and his murderous son

Youssuf Saed Abdulazeez also told his wife of 28 years he was going to take a second wife in their native Palestine - as it was permitted under Islamic law

Papers show that his wife, Rasmia, made a series of allegations including that the father of five was sexually abusive

She wanted a restraining order against her husband, according to papers filed in Tennessee in 2009

Papers disclose that family were originally from Palestine and other relatives' posted 'Free Palestine' messages on social media

 

[AuH20]

If we had only listened to one of the most brilliant men in our history.

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And what "logic" would that be?

Here are the top 10 Muslim Countries by population:

Rank - Country/capital - Population - Percentage of world's Muslims

1 Indonesia Jakarta 209,120,000 13.1
2 India New Delhi 176,190,000 11
3 Pakistan Islamabad 167,410,000 10.5
4 Bangladesh Dhaka 133,540,000 8.4
5 Nigeria Abuja 77,300,000 4.8
6 Egypt Cairo 76,990,000 4.8
7 Iran Teheran 73,570,000 4.6
8 Turkey Ankara 71,330,000 4.5
9 Algeria Algiers 34,730,000 2.2
10 Morocco Rabat 31,940,000 2

Notice that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. - do not even make the list, and comprise less than 2% of the world's Muslims.

I think that perhaps Mr. Rand Paul forgot about Turkey, a Muslim NATO country where the U.S. has a huge military base.

Banning immigration from certain countries might make some sense, but banning about a billion people due to their religious preference? Yeah, great "logic".....

Rand did not say all Muslims. He was more specific about places that are hotbeds of jihadism.

"I’m very concerned about immigration to this country from countries that have hotbeds of jihadism and hotbeds of this Islamism.*

 

[Carlybee]

Except that all the attacks and failed attacks in the US thus far have been from legal immigrants or visa holders, and none of them have been by people who just crossed the border illegally. At some point you have to go on the data provided by reality rather than the gut feelings provided by emotion.

Agreed...most of them attended college here on visas or came to work here on HB1 visas. Many are professionals.

 

[Jan2017]

Agreed...most of them attended college here on visas or came to work here on HB1 visas. Many are professionals.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/rand-paul-is-not-in-favor-of-restricting-muslim-immigration/
an excerpt . . .

Peaceful Muslim countries which have been able to contain their extremist elements will not be affected.

These proposed actions are certainly not novel, and in fact, a similar bill was proposed by Ron Paul in 2003.
Entitled the Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003, the elder Paul’s proposal was created “to limit the issuance of
student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism,
or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.”

Ron Paul introduced this twice in fact - both in 2003, and then again in 2007.

H.R. 488 (108th Congress): Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488

H.R. 3217 (110th Congress): Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2007
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217

 

[Foreigner]

Waiting for a "scientific" definition of "terrorist" ... (or hell, even just a "non-political" one ...)

Somebody not formally employed in the army of another country - who is engaged in combat or bombings against a recognized government.

The level of violence or savagery doesn't count as far as the definition goes.

BTW, the American freedom fighters where terrorists too, but I am not sure if they had started to use the term back then.

 

[Valli6]

We have a right to self-preservation.

Rand isn't talking about about excluding muslims. He's talking about "increased scrutiny" of those coming from countries with a lot of anti-American sentiment.

Filling out the proper forms should not be enough to guarantee someone entry into this country!

If I chose to move to a middle eastern country, I would have the the humility to respect the culture of the natives without any expectation of special treatment! I would not push for more churches to be built, expect schools to teach a course covering the wonderful culture of european christians, suggest they really ought to remove their religious symbols from public view, or create a political organization who's main function is to promote my own cultural values while accusing the natives of be being vile people.

If they can't tolerate free speech, if a drawing of muhammad sends them over the edge, if they can't denounce the terroristic acts already carried out in the name of islam, if their future plans revolve around utilizing social programs & welfare benefits, if they demand special treatment of any sort - then the have no business coming to this country, much less becoming citizens!

Ultimately, this must go for all persons who want to come here, regardless of origin.
It's been to our own detriment that we've avoided stating this reality.