American Values vs Middle East Refugees

Recently some have questioned what exactly are American values. . American values are based in our founding documents; there is probably not an American that at one time has not said "this is a free country". We are also a country of indivual rights; that all men are created equal (endowed with rights that can not be taken away by a government). We are a country of laws, not men and of course what has been coined the Protestant work ethic; in our free country self generated hard work, discipline, frugality and delayed gratification is the key to success and godliness. Like any moral code we often fall short, but as long as we strive toward such lofty goals, we will continue to get closer.

The vast majority of those coming from middle east countries are not immigrants; they are refugees, with no desire to assimilate into American jurisprudence . When the Syrian and Libyan refugees (most are military aged men that don't want to be forced into service with ISIS) are questioned, about a quarter back the mission of ISIS and over 95% prefer Sharia law over the American Criminal Justice system. Many of these refugees, when they settle in non-Muslim countries want to live in segregated communities ruled by Sharia law, and while other countries are welcome to do what they want, this is not possible in America, as it is in direct contradiction to the Constitution and our system of Criminal Justice. Further. "these seven nations were not chosen at random. They were all singled out as exceptional security risks in the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015 and its 2016 extension. In fact, President Trump’s order does not even name the seven countries. It merely refers to the sections of U.S. Code that were changed by the Terrorist Prevention Act". The fact is there is a reason these countries were named as provocateurs of terrorism and just becasue they have not yet murdered anyone in the US yet, does not mean the terrorists from these countries have not wreaked havoc and murdered in other countries. And while some have questioned the nature of the roll out of President Trumps "extreme vetting", US intelligence, ICE and Homeland Security have said that this type vetting has been too long over due.

Speaking of Criminal Justice, there is nothing that President Trump has done that is in any way illegal. It was Obama that continually talked with contempt about the Constitutional restrictions of the Executive Branch, including the separation of powers. The reason President Trump can so easily strike down the legacy of Obama is becasue he never used the rule of law to create his policies, rather he attempted to rule by fiat with Executive Actions; and what was created by Presidential decree, can just as easily be revoked by Presidential decree. As a matter of fact, much of what President Trump has done is to demand by EA that currently laws be enforced, rather than be ignored as was done by Obama's EA. Yet you have Democrats that will insist that any policy they don't like must be illegal, and even more absurd, that the enforcement of current law is unconstitutional; you just can't make stuff like this up! No one would believe such things would occur in the real world (until it does).

There (is) an Undeniable Nexus Between Islamic Doctrine and Terrorism Committed by Muslims

No one I know believes that all Muslims are terrorists; however anyone with a good knowledge of Islam can not help to come to the conclusion that the terrorism perpetrated by Muslims, that we see in the world today, is legitimized in Islamic scripture; it is also false that there are "There was no justification in the Koran" for Islamic terrorism", there are also other holy books of Islam that has the same fiery language. As Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, has written in his book, he first thought he would be prosecuting a terrorists that was using some bastardized version of Islam to justify his terrorism. However as he studied the Koran and other Islamic holy books, he discovered the opposite.

"As I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims. The Blind Sheikh, the jury was allowed to learn, was not a fringe lunatic; he was a globally renowned scholar of sharia whose influence over a spate of international jihadist organizations was based on his doctorate from al-Azhar University, the world’s most influential center of Islamic thought. And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award. Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind". http://www.terrorismanalysts.c....

Further most of the Muslim refugees coming to European countries are men; "About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women. http://time.com/4122186/syrian...  It is also true that only half are from Syria. It would surely make sense to put a temporary hold on Muslim refugees coming into the US until Homeland Security and/or the FBI can properly vet them (the FBI was said they have no basis to vet most of the refugees). While the registering of Muslim US citizens would be highly problematic, a hold on new refugees and closer scrutiny of those already here is well within the scope and authority given to a US President from the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" (this is what President Carter used to stop Iranians from entering the country during the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981). It should also be noted that all refugees are asked their religion as it is a major component of refugee status when coming to the US.

Finally it should be noted that President Obama has instructed DHS not to use social media to vet Muslim immigrants and/or refugees seeking visas; this is rationalized by the President saying social media is more based on religious beliefs and believes that "actions" are the only thing that counts as far as vetting Muslim, not the posting of violent Islamic extremism or a disdain for America and Democracy for fear of a "civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations"" with the Muslim community at large. http://abcnews.go.com/US/secre...