In other countries, there is a great deal of casual atheism, or, lack of continuing belief in islam. I’ve heard this is becoming common in Iran. Thus, many.young people will present as nominally moslem, but who will claim (and some, rightly so) agnosticism, atheism, or a general belief in the deity that is no longer tied to acceptance of islam.
Then there are folks who come from parts of the world with large mixed populations. Non-ideological moslems live in large numbers among Hindus and other folks. A quick look into the question will promote lying, but a zealous effort to weed out the lying moslems from the real non-moslems might be difficult, or even fruitless. It is difficult to imagine a bureaucracy doing this well.
An immigration policy that excludes moslems is fairly spongy. Either it will be over-enforced, and we will keep from coming to the US folks we should take, or it will be a meaningless filter that will only screen out the poorly-inforned.
Sen. Cruz’ policy of halting immigration from specific countries known to be terrorist hotspots seems a little better defined. It is inherently easier to enforce and inherently fairer. A moratorium on immigrants from countries with a large terrorist organization presence, or large majorities who are sympathetic to political islam, might better screen out the ones that are dangerous to America.
Yep, and guess what, we don't need to take in immigrants. Some people want to stop all immigration. If we end up taking a lot less immigrants but keeping out most Muslims, then that could be two good things.
The problem with basing it on countries with active terrorism is that you block Christian refugees who need help the most because they're in the midst of the jihad. That's unconscionable. If there's one kind of immigrant we should take it's someone in a peaceful religion who is helplessly under assault from terrorists.
