Isn’t it religious discrimination for Trump to implement the Muslim Ban?

This is not a “Muslim Ban“! Trump’s ban is not for all Muslims. It’s only for 7 countries and it’s only temporary (4 months). The ban is based on terrorism and not on religion. Muslims in more than 185 other countries are not affected.

Also, note that other countries such as Kuwait, obviously a Muslim country, has banned, since 2011, people from five Muslim countries – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Why 2011? That’s when Arab Spring started and terrorism became a major issue in Libya, Syria etc.

As for refugees, none of the rich Gulf States – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc. – has taken a single Syrian refugee. All of those countries are pragmatists and realists, unlike Americans and Europeans.

Did Trump come up with the list of those 7 countries because he doesn’t do any business there? Shouldn’t he have include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt etc.?

Trump doesn’t even mention those 7 countries explicitly. You can read this Executive order. Trump simply refers to a law passed by the Congress and passed by Obama. That law refers to 7 most dangerous countries that are hotbeds of terrorism.

The argument about Saudi Arabia etc. is totally disingenuous. It’s not as if the opposition would have been fine with banning 10 countries rather than 7.

Isn’t it illegal or unconstitutional to ban people based on origin of country?

Not necessarily. Yes, there was a law passed in 1965 to end the national origins quota system, but it’s more complicated. Plus, this is a temporary pause based on national security reasons.  Remember when Obama temporarily stopped refugees from Iraq for six months in 2011?

If we don’t let in the refugees, won’t those children and people turn into terrorists?

This is a ridiculous logic that says, “If we don’t let them into our homes, they will kill us.” Why would you want to let people in who are potential terrorists? Why would you want to be blackmailed like this? And where will this blackmail stop? What if someone says, “If you don’t let 10 million Muslims in, we will kill you”? No refugee system should be based on fear and blackmail.

It’s America’s moral obligation to help the refugees!

Why does the burden fall only on America or Europe? Why not 100 other countries in the world? Why haven’t the richest Muslim nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states – taken a single refugee? Do you hear China, Japan, Mexico or Brazil, for example, debating this hot issue?

We are a rich nation. We must help!

Each refugee costs more than $60,000 per person for the first five years. Vetting each person alone can cost up to $20,000. When they come here, they get welfare, housing, food, healthcare, public schooling, English lessons etc. … ALL FOR FREE. They get these benefits for 5 years, after which they can become U.S. citizens and continue welfare forever. How many American citizens can get that kind of benefits? Think about how we can’t even provide clean water for Flint. (See picture at the end of the article for details on welfare assistance for refugees)

The refugees are properly vetted. They are safe!

Read the other blog post to see how 1) ISIS comes in refugees 2) Refugees get recruited by ISIS after they (refugees) get admitted into US/Europe 3) It is impossible to properly vet all the refugees, as admitted by the FBI, CIA and European intelligence. Just two weeks ago, the U.S. admitted there was a “lapse” in vetting Syrian refugees.

Did you know that the Boston Marathon terrorists came in as refugees? Or the recent OSU terrorist from Somalia was a refugee? Worse, Obama’s DHS knew he was a potential terrorist recruit and still admitted him. In Europe, it was Muslim refugees/migrants who committed multiple atrocious terrorist attacks in Paris, Germany, Brussels etc.

The number of Americans killed by Islamic terrorists is less than the number of people who die falling from their own beds!

This is a ridiculous logic. It’s not like comparing the statistics between, say, two similar cars of different models. What will people compare next – fewer people died from nuclear bombs than swimming pools?

The death due to terrorism is small:
– NOT because terrorism by itself is harmless;
– NOT because there are very few terrorists out there;
– NOT because the terrorists don’t want to harm us;
– NOT because they are not actively trying to strike a huge blow to America

The number of Americans killed by Americans is small in spite of all the dangers and risks of Islamic terrorism. We are safe only because of numerous laws and regulations – think how airline security screens people and baggage for bombs and guns; or how a person in a foreign country needs a valid visa to even board a plane to come to the U.S. We spend billions of dollars monitoring, catching, neutralizing and killing terrorists and their plans. America’s law enforcement – cops, FBI, CIA, NSA, border security agents, prosecutors, judges etc. – has to work 24×7 to keep the rest of us safe.

There are numerous terrorists and the threat of terrorism is real. Sadly, many Americans are like deer in a petting zoo that think tigers may not be so dangerous.

But we have been relatively safe so far. So why not continue?

1. To be safe, we are spending way too much money vetting the refugees and then monitoring them here to prevent terrorist attacks. Not to mention all the welfare cost – each refugee gets up to 9 years of housing, food stamps, healthcare etc., all paid by U.S. taxpayers.

2. The past statistics is not a predictor of future. On Sept. 10th 2001, one would have said, “we have never had planes crashing into tall buildings in New York City.” We are just playing with fire by bringing people from these hotbeds of terrorism. Look at Europe who had their own justification for letting in people without a lot of vetting.

3. The fact is that, statistically, people from these regions are high-risk for terrorism and even crimes.

• If you had no vetting, the U.S. would be crawling with ISIS who would bring the economy to a halt with a few big attacks.
• If you had some vetting, it will be like Europe – terrorist attacks, exploding crimes etc.
• If you had thorough vetting – which means a lot of efforts and money – all you’re doing is reducing the risk, but it’s still unnecessary risk.

But we need to help the refugees!

Rather than spending $250,000 on a single refugee family of 4 in the U.S., you can help 100 people back in Syria/Iraq with that same amount.

The best way to help them is to help end the war. Obama armed terrorists (“moderate rebels”) in Syria for five years and destroyed Syria. Now wanting to help the refugees is purely shedding crocodile tears.

Let’s help Russia and Turkey destroy ISIS which can be done by capturing just a handful of cities (Deir Ezzor, Al Bab, Manbij and Raqqa). This can be done in a month or two. Then we can help Syria rebuild their own country.

Here is a summary of reasons why we must ban, at least temporarily, influx of people from those 7 countries:

Welfare Benefits for Refugees in the U.S.

P.S. If you want detailed info on who is behind the war in Syria and how it all started, read my two articles:

Chaos in Syria: Three Motives and Seven Countries

Chaos in Syria: Destruction, ISIS and Beyond

(Pictures of before and after the proxy war waged by other countries on Syria)