Skip to comments.Denying Muslims Visas
Posted on 01/04/2008 7:52:54 PM PST by dcwusmc
Immigration: Ron Paul may be a fringe presidential candidate, but Muslim student visas is no fringe topic. It threatens homeland security, and the Republican gadfly deserves credit for raising the issue.
In a controversial ad that's sending his libertarian fans into orbit, Paul proposes tough new immigration policies, including denying visas to Muslim students from terrorist states.
Paul, a congressman from south Texas, also proposes ending "birthright citizenship," which allows the children of Middle Eastern and other illegal immigrants to stay in America. Such anchor babies now include the offspring of jailed or deported terrorists.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
I agree with him, and I think it should be taken further. I’m for deporting all muslims who come from a terrorist nation or anyone with ties to CAIR or any other organization that supports terrorism.
What stops the muslims from lying and claiming to be Christians? Lying is proscribed in Islam if it promotes the religion.
Also, ending the birthright is unconstitutional, we may need a CA for it. I do agree with both on principle.
I don’t think a blanket yes or no policy is best, but how to decide who gets student visas and who doesn’t? Much of our tech industry is populated by foreign students who end up staying. How to just keep the troublemakers out?
Ron Paul may be nutty as a 10 dollar fruitcake, but he’s right on both these counts!
But it`ll give our people even more ammo to deport them when they do get caught lying,stake out their mosques for proof.
I can think of several “tests” to give a Muslim applicant....
I'm not so sure about that. IIRC, the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee citizenship to any and all who just happen to be downloaded on American soil. That's just the way it has been interpreted by liberal judges over the past few decades. Perhaps a Congressional "clarification" of the true meaning of the 14th amendment is in order.
There are some Muslims who are actually on our side. Such as the guy in my tagline and on my Freeper page.
“Birthright” citizenship was, according to the discussion at the time of the 14th amendment, never intended to be as it is today. It was not within the meaning of the amendment at all so a simple clarifying law should do it...
I’m not sure how a law excluding muslims from terrorist-supporting nations, such as Saudi Arabia, could work, but it sure is worthy of a try!!!
Those who ARE on our side need to speak out... lest CAIR and the other slimeballs drown them out... and our own MSM should start carrying their words... (like THAT’LL ever happen, I know!!!)
“..denying visas to Muslim students from terrorist states”
Denying visas AND entry to ANY Muslims makes more sense to me.
I have no problems with that one...
and now... I’m off to the showers... check in later. Y’all behave now, hear???
That's why when you read;(One in four college-age Muslims in America support suicide bombings, a Pew poll found.)
If taqiyya is involved, maybe 3 out of 4 college-age Muslims in America approve suicide bombings.
Asking a Muslim about suicide bombers or religious questions , and expecting a straight answer, as if you asked "what time is it", only shows he naiveness of the Infidel asking the question. - tom
Do any of them involve this?
This is the best thing about the Paul candidacy and the money that gets put into it. Without a man standing up like he does these issues would never get addressed.
Think what Ross Perot did to raise the issue of the national deficit during the 1990 campaign that led directly to the Republican “Contract with America” which ended 40 years of Democratic domination of the House and Senate.
_That_ is the importance of the Ron Paul candidacy.
He’s sounding saner by the year.
We don’t need immigration anymore. We can have our own kids thank you. Immigration for a young nation made sense, not any more.
I agree with Ron Paul on this one.
“Without a man standing up like he does these issues would never get addressed.”
Somebody has been all along and his name is Duncan Hunter. And he doesn’t have to consort with kooks to make a point.
He must have been standing in the back room facing the wall.
I don’t know about this policy. First, I don’t think one could specifically ban Muslims, even assuming there were a way to acurately determine someone’s faith. I think you’d just have to end all visas to students from radical Muslim countries.
On the one hand, I think it’s a fine idea to keep radical Islamists out of our country. On the other hand, exposing the youth to Western society is one of the best ways possible to prevent radicalism and show them that we’re not a ‘’Great Satan’’ but an open and free society that can accept their culture as long as it doesn’t involve killing people.
I don’t know what the answer is, and I certainly don’t oppose at least a moratorium on visas for people from radical Muslim nations. But I would like to find a way to export our culture to the youth of those nations before they’ve been completely brainwashed by Wahabbism.
“He must have been standing in the back room facing the wall.”
Don’t get out much do you? I’ve been following Hunter for a number of years now.
I’m guessing Paul probably doesn’t like in-state tuition for the Mohammedans either
That may be true, but it's really irelevant- Islam is not only a religion, but it is also a system of government that believes in (A) Overruning their adopted land by unchecked breeding; or (B) VIOLENT overthrow of their adopted country. As such, they are constitutionally excludable.
Feed ‘em a ham sandwich laced with laxatives, and the only toilet paper is printed with the Koran.
It’s graphic, but perhaps one of the few ways one can determine whether they are a Muslim or not.
So could I.
We agree totally. No more in- and those who are in, OUT!
I’d deny Muslims a helluva lot more than a visa.
Still-Paul doesn’t get my vote.
This election scares the hooties off of me.
I remember reading that 60% of our illegal alien population comes in via a visa. Paul is correct on this. We should also not be allowing 80,000 Muslims a year to immigrate here. Nothing against them personally, but this is not a wise decision by our government with a terror war going on.
I suspect you're identifying a distinction without a difference. What happens to a jihadi amongst his fellow travelers if he ends up compromising their plans because he didn't lie when it was allowed?
No I’m pointing out the poster doesn’t know the definition of the word “proscribed”.
I am the poster and I do know the definition. And my follow up post was to point out that it's unlikely a jihadi would see a difference between proscribed and allowed if it came down to promoting Islam.
Except lying isn’t proscribed. Under Taqiyah muslims are encouraged to lie if necessary to gain advantage over an enemy.
But then the universities would scream. Not that I care but you know they would.
I just went to a university graduation and it was amazing how many foreign names there were. I think a lot of Indians and a lot of names that sounded Thai along with many, many Muslim sounding names.
This would seem to point to Paul’s fidelity to a strong national defense that starts at home rather than protecting the U.S. with ill-considered band-aids as an afterthought, which seems to be our present policy.
Libertarians aren’t pleased but I never felt like Paul was really a libertarian anyway. I think an ideologically pure libertarian would dismantle the military entirely awaiting only a declaration only of war only from Congress to even mobilize. That’s NOT Paul OR his voting record.
His oft-stated goal of reducing the role of government has always, as far as I can tell, referred ONLY to the federal government. True libertarianism, as I understand it, would strip away power at all levels of government. The 10th amendment, however, restores power to the level closest to we-the-people, which is what Paul seems to be about.
Under a Paul presidency, oily, drug-saturated maggots can still be sent out to the back forty for stun gun practice by your local magistrate, a pleasant notion I don’t think the radical civil liberty types have considered in supporting Paul. Are these pro-marijuana types mainly useful idiots for those of us who think of ourselves as conservative? Maybe.
I don’t like it when they and the David Duke miscreants are on the same side of anything with me—sharing the air we breathe, for example; but I feel that way about Sean Hannity and Ted Kennedy, too.
So Paul has alloyed into his bloc some bona fides that suggest he is serious about protecting America at the very fount of freedom? I say merge him with Duncan Hunter and watch the fur fly.
We might not win but it will be the most fun you can have with the MSM and RINO’s and genuine reform of the GOP can be the happy outcome.
You must have some serious mojo or something, as this is the first post I've seen in months that mention Ron Paul that didn't have people screaming in and frothing at the mouth with their bumper sticker slogans.
Good post, Dcw.