Refugee Ban vs. Security?

So there are several thousand people that showed up at airports to protest Donald Trump’s temporary ban on refugees because it’s not the humane thing to do. Of course, these are the people that showed up to protest anything Donald Trump has done from the color of his tie, to the number of times he visits the oval office bathroom in the course of a day. The guy could give the Sermon on the Mount, and these people would protest.

Before we get started, let’s take a look at what was REALLY in that executive order. Trump has put a hold (not a ban) on refugees from seven countries for a specified time period while they sort out and improve the vetting process. The countries involved were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria. And the hold is for a minimum of 30 days and ranges up to indefinite periods for those refugees from Syria. The move has been used twice before in recent history. George W. Bush used it after the 9/11 attacks, and Barack Obama used it against Iraqi’s coming here before he sent troops back into Iraq (after pulling them out pre-maturely causing the current chaos).

So what really is the big deal? Well, simply put, it becomes a question of free movement of people vs. the safety and security of a nation. The current vetting process, while long, is not effective. Case in point, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) was on one of the cable news shows yesterday railing at how we need to improve vetting and she’s all for it, but not for “banning” refugees. That line works fine until you learn that Minnesota accepted 2,340 Syrian refugees in 2016. 13 of them turned out to be members of ISIS. Now, Klobuchar responded that “wasn’t a big number when you look at the overall total”. Of course, it only took 19 terrorists to bring us the 9/11 production! Thanks Amy! With a thought process like that, we ought to send YOU to Syria! Let’s take one more look at something. When the Syrian refugee problem erupted, it was Europe that ended up taking the brunt of the refugees. What happened after that? They had multiple terror attacks in the countries that were so “nice” to accept them. It’s almost cost Angela Merkel her job! Do we want the same thing here? I think not!

Move on to two more cases in point. Over the weekend, this effected a grand total of 109 people that were detained in airports either at their embarkation point or when they arrived in the US…not that many when you think of it. Second, in a recent Rasmussen Poll, 57% of the people surveyed agreed with a temporary halt to travel to this country from the seven countries listed. While yes, the number isn’t overwhelming (is there really a number that is in this country anymore?) the main problem isn’t that Trump called for a temporary halt to travel. The problem really is that these people don’t like him, never will like him, and he could become the biggest leftist in the world, and they still wouldn’t cheer him. After all, he took away Hillary Clinton’s last chance to become our first woman president. These idiots (and yes…they ARE idiots) are going to use any excuse to protest for the next four years. If they weren’t showing up at airports to protest the travel halt, they’d be showing up at the XL Keystone Pipeline site, or they’d be showing up at a hospital somewhere to protest the dismantling of Obamacare. Now all of this is their right. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be smart in order to have the right to “peaceably” assemble. The problem is, they aren’t smart enough to know what the word “peaceably” means.

Personally, I think the US government needs to take out a contract with Eli Lily to give these idiots Prozac. It’s one way to quiet their loud asses down!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!