Thank you for that excellent post. ONLY because of the volume of reading it would require vs. the fact that a few well-read, reasonable people who’ve already done that have provided excellent information, I’m not inclined to take that kind of time any time soon. Some may call that lazy or narrow-minded thinking. I would disagree. Your posts here have been sufficient to show your attitudes (appropriately opinionated while also fair and objective), your obvious intelligence level, and the fact that you’ve not only studied the issues but also reasoned them out. When I add that to similar statements from others I have met and talked with, and particularly to author of the article I posted above, I think I’ve got enough to know that adequate care is NOT being taken by our government, that at least right now it’s potentially suicidal to allow any Muslim immigrant into this country without adequate background checks, etc. And since adequate background checks aren’t even possible in probably a large majority of such cases, I can only draw one conclusion – that at least for the present, we’re in serious danger in allowing people we know nothing about except their religion, when we also know that their religion has a significant propensity toward the exclusion of any not of that religion.
If we conclusively knew that one or two out of every 100,000 immigrants of a specific immigrant category carried a deadly disease for which there was no cure, but we had no adequate test for the disease, and that there was a near 100% probability of infection of others by those one or two, we would have no hesitancy to exclude that specific immigrant category unless or until a fully verified test could be developed for identification of those carrying the deadly disease. I see no difference. We either guarantee that the “disease” of terroristic death will be inflicted on a certain number of Americans, or we exclude those that potentially harbor the disease until we can rule it out. We’re being subjected to arguments that if only one gun death can be prevented by deleting the 2nd Amendment, even though law abiding citizens are actually stopping criminals because those law abiding citizens are exercising concealed carry rights. Yet those same people that would deny all of us the right to protect ourselves against criminals (to include our government as intended by the 2nd Amendment), argue that we can’t discriminate against the majority of potentially “safe” immigrants because of a minority that would do us harm.
I’m convinced. I just therefore choose to use my time in more positive pursuits because of those such as you that have taken the time to do the research and provide the results to others. I happen to have a quite close relative by marriage (for several decades now) who also happens to be Muslim, and who was born in a region that would potentially cause suspicion. That relative holds dual citizenship. That relative’s spouse (my quite close blood relative) converted to Islam just prior to the marriage partly to keep peace with the other side’s family. I take serious offense to the idea that my relatives (both blood and in-law) deserve to be dead. That relative and blood-related spouse both understand my concerns about entry without thorough background checks – and neither of them argue with me at all over the issue. I hope they’re both exercising their 2nd Amendment rights so they can protect themselves against those (here and in the general population) that would prefer them dead.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."