On the Refugee “Ban” by President Trump

  • 25
0427isisrefugees01

On the Refugee “Ban” by President Trump

After seeing a lot of the posts about the refugee ban I felt it was time for a little fact checking and clarity about this issue:

Let’s look at the FACTS:

  1. The 90 day ban does not extend to Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, or (inexplicably) Pakistan. These are the largest Islamic population centers in the world. I’m not exactly sure how the connection could be made about Muslims being targeted by Trump but if you read the actual executive order (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees) there is no mention of any faith or for that matter any country, other than Syria. More on this later…
  2. Obama implemented a SIX MONTH BAN from Iraqi refugees in 2011. Here’s the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 No outcry there by the media, of course, because it was Obama doing it and not Trump. By the way, Jimmy Carter banned Iranian refugees during his administration, too… a specifically targeted country by an American President (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233). Again, no media outcry there. People are acting as if this is the first time something so egregious has ever been done in modern American history. I’m sorry, but that just isn’t true.
  3. The seven countries being reported by the mainstream media as affected by the ban are: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Funny thing, though, you can’t find a mention of any of those countries (except Syria) in Trump’s Executive Order. It isn’t there. None of them.
    So how did those particular countries get singled out?
    Hold on to your hats here. It was done in the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and signed into law in December of 2015 as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act by… President Barack Obama. That’s right. These countries that Trump is being castigated for “singling out” were originally singled out by an act that was signed into law by the Obama Administration. Read it for yourself: (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/18/460281572/congress-sends-1-8-trillion-tax-and-spending-bill-to-president-obama) This so called “Muslim ban” was actually implemented by the Obama Administration but nobody said a word (again) because… well… it was the Obama Administration and he is a media darling. The bias of this is staggering.
    And why is Syria singled out? Here’s an article from a liberal magazine talking about how ISIS has used Syrian refugees coming to America as opportunities to smuggle in terrorist: http://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-smuggles-terrorists-among-syrian-refugees-453039 
  1. But is it actually a Muslim ban? Nope. In the 2015 Terrorist Travel Prevention Act that Obama signed and nor in Trump’s Executive Order is there one mention of the Muslim faith. Read it for yourself. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text) It isn’t there. It is the liberal media blowing this up into an anti Muslim ban and many are willingly feeding on the frenzy.
  2. It’s for 90 days. This is to let the US border security breathe and better vet all people coming into this country. I’m all for immigrants coming to our country… LEGALLY. But if they’ve had ties to terrorist organizations then they shouldn’t be allowed. Where is the common sense among us? Shouldn’t this TEMPORARY ban be in place to make certain we’re all safe? Isn’t it worth vetting these immigrants to keep out radical Islamists who are hell bent on blowing us up and taking over the world? And what about refugees? I agree they should be able to come… again… LEGALLY.
  3. The slowing of immigrants to the U.S. has been going on since the 1980’s. When Reagan took office, the number of annual immigrants was at about 210,000. (This is according to the Migration Policy Institute if you’re interested in researching it for yourself).  Look at the graph below:Migration Policy

    It dropped to about 100,000 during his administration. Under Bush 41 and Clinton it climbed again to 122,000 but declined to 70,000 before Clinton left office in 2000. It dropped dramatically in 2001 (for obvious reasons) to 25,000 and has slowly but steadily climbed since then but has ALWAYS remained low (60,000 or less). It took its greatest jump in the last 2 years of Obama’s administration and (it’s interesting to note) the vast majority were from Muslim controlled countries. Trump’s proposal TEMPORARILY caps it at 50,000. That’s hardly a dramatic cut and not nearly what was implemented in previous administrations. With the threats to the United States it seems perfectly acceptable to me.

  4. “But the ones who committed terrorist acts in the US weren’t immigrants!” That’s not exactly correct. Many of them (including the shooter in the often ignored massacre in my hometown of Chattanooga) were children of immigrants from these countries. There is also strong evidence that many of them traveled to these countries to receive their indoctrination and training. The Boston Bombers Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who were widely reported as from Massachusetts (they actually just lived in Cambridge) were both Muslim refugees from Russia who came to America for asylum and then eventually perpetrated the Boston bombing.
  5. “But Trump is giving preferential treatment to Christians”. Here is where my view is admittedly biased. According to a January, 2017 report by a Research Firm in Massachusetts, over 900,000 Christians have been martyred worldwide in the last 10 years, many of those in Muslim controlled countries. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-900000-christians-martyred-for-their-faith-in-last-10-years-report-173045) They are fleeing for their lives and for the right to freely practice their religion, which many cannot do in their home countries for fear of death. Do you hear or read about that in the media? No. All that we hear reported is “All Muslims are peaceful people”. I’m sorry, that’s just not true. Radical Islam is a reality and, contrary to the previous administration’s assertion, is the most dangerous enemy the world is facing today.
    And if you’re going to cite the Crusades as evidence of violent Christians, please spare me. That was in the Middle Ages and few of those Christians read nor knew what the Bible actually said. If you’re going to cite others today who supposedly are Christians but commit violence against abortion clinics and other people spare me as well. Here is the difference: When a “Christian” commits violence they are acting in a way that is diametrically opposed to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. When a radical Muslim commits Jihad they are acting in a way that is precisely in line with what is commanded in the Koran and they feel zero remorse for it.
    Are there peaceful Muslims? Sure. There are unorthodox believers in every religion. Are peaceful Muslims unorthodox? Not necessarily but here’s the incontrovertible fact: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the VAST majority of terrorist attacks in the last 20 years have been perpetrated by Muslims. Radical Islamic Muslims. Radical Islamics have but one mission: to take over the world and convert every person to the Muslim faith or kill the ones who refuse to convert. They feel justified in lying (It’s called “Taqiya”. You can read about it here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya), stealing, cheating, murdering, subjugating women (I’m consistently amazed when a feminist defends Islam- you can read about some of the horrors perpetrated against them here: http://www.newenglishreview.org/Ankur_Betageri/Terror_beneath_the_Veil:_The_Subjugation_of_Muslim_Women_in_India), and sending their own children in as suicide bombers (again, cited here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/child-suicide-bombings_us_57bb87aae4b00d9c3a19a62f). This is what we’re fighting against. Negotiation will not work as they teach lying is perfectly acceptable if it accomplishes its purpose of converting infidels or eradicating them from existence. Toleration is not in their creed.
  1. Last of all, It has been astounding to the point of ludicrous to hear some the same people who applauded when our country was declared a secular country now call for us to act more “compassionately Christian.” Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.
    Those who are saying it is the Christian thing to do to allow these refugees into our country and cite Scriptures of “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” and “suffer not the little children to come unto me”, let’s look at those.
    First of all, to apply these Scriptures to the refugees is way out of context. “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not” was Jesus reaching out to the children for faith in Him. It would be more applicable to sharing Christ in public forums to children than to these refugees. And neither Scripture is talking about a country inviting refugees into it. It’s talking about Christians inviting them into their homes. I dare say many of the people decrying the plight of these refugees would change their convictions if it meant inviting people into their homes. Secondly, the mandate of Christ is not “allow people not like you into your country”. It is “Go make disciples of all nations.” The mandate of Christ is clearly for Christians to GO into the world and make disciples.

If all these refugees were allowed in… 100% of them…. actually… let’s double that: 200% of them, it still wouldn’t scratch the surface of poverty in the world. America can do so much more by being a safe, strong, prosperous nation and rendering assistance through financial means and missionary work than we can by simply opening our borders to everyone. That is insanity. I thought this video was incredibly insightful in explaining this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y4jrxRL808) It’s only about 7 minutes long and worth your time if you’re really interested in helping with the immigration problem and our world as a whole.

This temporary ban will ensure America is safer. It is the right thing to do until our vetting process is in place. Nancy Pelosi said the Statue of Liberty is shedding tears today. I would say she’s not shedding nearly as many as she did on 9/11. Legal immigration is fine as long as there is screening and vetting in place. I’m all for people coming to America legally. Illegal immigration is not ok. We are a nation of freedom but we are also a nation of laws and those laws must be abided by.

 


25 Comments

Brenda Ellison

January 31, 2017 at 2:35 am

Bro. Ken,

Thanks so much for this article. I wish everyone would read it and follow the links you provided so they would know the truth and stop being pulled into the media lies and deceit. Satan is fighting so hard to tear this nation apart. He is working through the liberal media to do it. I, for one will post this on my Facebook page and maybe it will enlighten some to the real truth.

Brenda Ellison

    Molly smith

    February 2, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    Great article thank you

M. BArfield

January 31, 2017 at 9:22 am

Wish you could get the news media to present this on their news show

Judi Williamson

January 31, 2017 at 3:38 pm

So glad you posted the above article. It helped me so much I have been very confused as to what was going on. Thank you so much.
Judi

Betty Covington

January 31, 2017 at 4:38 pm

Thanks so much for all the information. If only we could get the idiots out there to read a little of that or watch the videos. Everybody has it out for Trump and how we are going to dig out from under, I don’t know . When the billionairs are paying for all the riots and distruction and nothing is being done to stop it and them, how are we to come up for air.???

George Gambill

January 31, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Great information. Wish all would read this. Clears up lots of misinformation the media is cooking. Pray that people will read and pass on

Eric

January 31, 2017 at 9:36 pm

Ken

1. Only minority religions are possibly excepted. In a Muslim majority that means anybody but Muslim. Thats a Muslim ban from those 7 countries.
2. Obama implemented a 6 month ban on CERTAIN refugees from ONE country, not flat-out all of them from SEVEN countries. Furthermore, he did that because there was a CREDIBLE threat. Not because his advisers Miller and Bannon are anti immigrant. There is no credible threat from any of these countries, so it surely comes across as hurried and willy nilly.
3. Trump’s not called out for ‘singling out’ these 7 countries of concern. Everybody knew about that law. He’s questioned why he is NOT including Arab Emirates, Qatar or Saudi Arabia, countries from which 9-11 hijackers came from – and are KNOWN terrorist breeding grounds. He was questioned because he happens to have major business interests in those countries and none in the 7 others. Thats why he was questioned. But that is conveniently dismissed by the right.
4. And 5. It is not temporary. Read the Order text: Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate – I’ll break it down for you: After 120 days admissions MAY resume IF Secretary of so and so and bla bla department ALL determine it is OK. It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that isn’t happening. And voila, there’s the permanent ban. Surprise surprise. It also IS a Muslim ban. Why? Because if you talk about Muslim dominant countries, and you make an exception for minorities (provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion) THAT = Muslim ban. Don’t say it is red when you can clearly see it’s green, Ken. Come on.

7. Children of immigrants….Really Ken? You are a child of an immigrant too. We all are. Thats stretching it.

Bottom line: I’m a liberal. But i agree with the fact something needs to be done. I can even see the need to start with the previously targeted seven countries. What people are angry about is twofold: the hastiness, the sneakiness, and the bypassing of crucial legislative departments within Government, and secondly the initial deliberate inclusion of green card holders. Note diplomatic visa holders were specifically excluded, but not Green Card holders. That was done on purpose, to test the waters. THAT’s what caused people to protest. I think everybody agrees safety has been lax and can be improved upon. It’s the manner in which this has been done that is concerning.

    Ken Hartley

    January 31, 2017 at 11:37 pm

    Thanks for your response. I welcome civil debate.

    1. That’s simply not true. It singles out those with possible terrorist ties. You are saying Muslim for the reason you don’t want to say– the majority of the terrorists are Muslims. Again, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims. It’s an unfortunate truth. Peculiar thing too: Many of the Muslim controlled countries are also refusing Syrian refugees. I wonder why? Are they banning Muslims too?

    2. The 6 month ban was in 2011 against Iran in response to the terrorists captured in Kentucky. That is correct. The seven countries came from the 2015 Terrorist Travel Act. Four countries were in the original and 3 more were added. All done by the Obama Administration.

    3. The reason those other countries (and I agree, btw, they should be included) is because he is enforcing the 2015 act. I have a strong feeling others will be added. In the meantime, would you be so kind as to provide proof that Trump has “major business interests” in those countries?

    4-5. Yes it is temporary. The green card ban has already been lifted. They are increasing the regulations on the vetting process. It is not a permanent ban. I’ve read the order many times now. It’s a grand assumption on your part with absolutely no proof that they’ll never lift it. Your conclusion (again) that it is a Muslim ban is faulty. It’s a terrorist ban. The Muslim connection you’re making is for the aforementioned reason (#1). I understand you feel it’s “green” but I’m sorry… it isn’t. Your feelings may tell you it’s green but the current facts say otherwise. The rest is simply speculation based on bias on your part.

    7. (Where did 6 go?? :) ) It’s not a stretch. I live in Chattanooga. We had an immigrant family here whose son (NOT born in the US) along with the family became naturalized citizens. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed 5 unarmed soldiers on July 16, 2015. . When it happens less than 3 miles from your home, you take notice. The Tsarnaev brothers were from a family who came to the US in 2002 fleeing violence in Chechnya. They came to our country (reports are skewed here as to whether it was as refugees or not but the motivation seems to describe a refugee situation– they couldn’t return to their war torn home), lived in Massachusetts, benefited from our educational system, then detonated bombs during the Boston Marathon in 2014. That’s two home examples for you. I really don’t think it’s a stretch at all.

    Bottom line: I agree that the implementation wasn’t the best. Many things from the government aren’t (Remember the Obamacare website?). I agree it was too hasty. I agree it should’ve been handled better. But I also think many Americans would rather err on the side of safety than allow more possible terrorist threats on our home soil. Especially when they openly are on TV and the internet threatening to “blow us off the face of the earth” nearly every week.

    And green holders are now excluded. That took less than 24 hours. You do realize that over 300,000 foreigners were admitted that day and only 109 people were detained, don’t you?

    Thanks again for the civil conversation. Have a nice night.

      Jessica

      February 1, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      The problem with being vague or leaving things up to the descretion of specific people only (the timeline of the ban) means that there is no way to hold someone accountable, no way to measure what’s appropriate. Say they decide that after 120 days that the procedures are not adequate. What would make them adequate? Who gets to decide? What is the measure? And who could the public appeal to if the judges aren’t fair? Are you familiar with current vetting processes? What would finally make them acceptable? 5 years wait?

        Ken Hartley

        February 1, 2017 at 9:12 pm

        As I’ve said multiple times, I believe it’s better to err on the side of safety right now. You’re speculating on something that has not nor may ever happen.

          Jessica

          February 2, 2017 at 2:44 pm

          And so are you, since no acts of terrorism have been committed on US soil by refugees from these countries who have gone through the current vetting system. I am also trying to cautious by pointing out the very real flaws of this order. You put that much power and discretion in the hands of a select group of individuals who have not given us any specific details on what they will consider to be acceptable in terms of vetting and they have given us no way to hold them accountable for their timelines. And while you might blindly trust the government to do the right thing here, I and many others, do not. Especially since history has shown time and again that the government can and will do terrible things if allowed. That’s why we have checks and balances that need to be continually defended no matter what other kinds of threats we face.

          Ken Hartley

          February 2, 2017 at 3:48 pm

          As I clearly said in the article, the countries were chosen by the Obama Administration as viable terrorist threats. That decision was made in 2015. You should discuss that with him. I am allowing that perhaps our government intelligence knows more about the whereabouts of these terrorists than we do. Another fact that nobody wants to admit is that while the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the majority of terrorists are Muslims. In 2016 more Muslims were admitted into the United States than another time in history.

          Our system of checks and balances is firmly in place. The Supreme Court is there to overrule the President on anything unconstitutional. The Congress is there to override him if necessary. Trump has exactly the same power that Obama had.

      Rhonda Wier

      February 2, 2017 at 1:00 am

      I don’t necessarily agree with the way it was handled, it could have been discussed and looked at more closely to see what problems would arise, but I like that it happened quietly so as not to allow anyone the advantage to move quickly and make a strike at us for doing it.

    Debra

    February 1, 2017 at 7:55 am

    How is it a Muslim ban? Muslims from over 30 countries are allowed in

      Ken Hartley

      February 1, 2017 at 8:11 am

      It’s not. If you read the article, I clearly say why it isn’t a ban at all.

    Christie

    February 3, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    That was my understanding also. Thanks for really paying attention.

Audrey Schefers

February 1, 2017 at 11:03 am

Thank you for this. I appreciate the research you put into the article. Unfortunately, so many are so anti Trump that they will never evaluate the facts without bias.

Jim Butski

February 1, 2017 at 11:52 am

Fantastic info Ken. Thank you for putting the time and effort into spreading truth.

Mark Giesing

February 1, 2017 at 2:01 pm

Very strong article. I am opposed to the ban and as you speak from a Christian perspective I am surprised you are supportive of it. Remember the wrist bands kids were wearing a few years back “WWJD what wouldJ Jesus do?” I ask you to search your heart and ask if your Savior would likely support your position. I am having a hard time finding a passage in the Gospels to support your view. I do support strong vetting of all immigrants regardless of faith or nationality. As far as finding an example of recent Christian terror, I advise research into the 1990s war of genocide that occurred in Bosnia. Estimates of over 100,000 Muslim dead at the hands of a Christian Serb army intent on ethnic cleansing. Here in my community many of these Bosnian refugees have settled to become our neighbors and our friends. I have no doubt the same would occur with the case of Syria. My faith calls me to assist. May peace be with you.

    Ken Hartley

    February 1, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    https://www.hermancain.com/what-does-the-bible-really-say

    I would encourage you to read this article. It states very clearly and succinctly a Christian perspective on this issue.

    And as I said in my article, a “Christian” engaging in genocide is no Christian at all therefore the example is by definition faulty.

      Jessica

      February 1, 2017 at 7:51 pm

      A Muslim engaging in terrorist acts is no Muslim at all either Ken. But we often forget that part.

        Ken Hartley

        February 1, 2017 at 9:12 pm

        I beg to differ. If you read the Koran you’ll see it is very consistent with what is instructed in that book and in their belief system. The other thing nobody wants to talk about is whenever there is a terrorist attack, these radical Islamic groups take credit for it. How often do you hear the other Muslim countries condemn those attacks? You don’t.

        Ken Hartley

        February 2, 2017 at 10:34 am

        Here is an article that is annotated and backed up with factual links. See for yourself:

        http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/06/christians-most-persecuted-group-in-world-for-second-year-study.html

Jen Whitson

February 2, 2017 at 9:46 am

I’m curious why you believe there wasn’t a vetting process already in place.

    Ken Hartley

    February 2, 2017 at 10:08 am

    I didn’t say there wasn’t a vetting process in place. I am saying I don’t believe it’s good enough. The Chattanooga shooter and Boston bombers were both passed through our vetting process. It needs to be stronger. That’s what the new administration is trying to do.

Leave a Reply to Ken Hartley Cancel reply