Disneyland 'Taliban supervisor' shows that Trump is right on Muslim Immigration

With the news that a British Muslim family was denied access to the United States, for a "wholesome family trip to Disneyland," because one of the family members had set up a Facebook page proclaiming himself a "Taliban supervisor" and sympathetic to al-Qaeda, it's a good time to rethink the immigration policies of the United States.  There are three alternatives:

1) The current system, embraced by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most of the Republican candidates for president.  Under this system, we have a watch list, and only if a name shows up on the watch list, like this one, would the person be barred from entering the United States.  The problem with the current system is that not all potential terrorists can be expected to post their political views on Facebook.  Many of them from Syria and Iraq have never even shown up on our radar at all.  It's great that the system caught the "Disney Taliban," but for every goofy Taliban supporter we catch, there are ten others we don't.

2) The system embraced by Ted Cruz, which would bar people from countries with significant ISIS or al-Qaeda presence, like Iraq and Syria.  Cruz's idea, which would be a significant improvement over what we have now, would not deal with radicalized Muslims from European countries.  Did you know that 7% of British citizens and 16% of French citizens are sympathetic to ISIS?  Given that probably 99% of these are Muslims, and Muslims are a minority in both countries, the percentage of British and French Muslims who support radical Islam must be substantial.  Meanwhile, Canada has announced it is taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees, who will be impossible to vet if they want to enter America from Canada.

3) Then there is Donald Trump's proposal to end all Muslim immigration, at least for a time.  This makes the most sense, because we simply don't know what is in the mind of every Muslim who wants to come to America, but we know in the aggregate that some of them mean us harm.  It would not be a very difficult system to implement.

Customs officials could ask individuals their religion.  Would members of ISIS feel comfortable lying and claiming they are Christian when they are not?  I think the mere question itself would deter some terrorists.  We can also exclude European citizens of Middle Eastern origin, which shouldn't require truth serums or mind-reading devices to implement.

There is a civil war going on inside the Islamic community, and as with all civil wars, we don't know who is on whose side.  That's why to be safe, and to guard our citizens, we have to stop Muslim immigration, even if it produces stories about hurt feelings day after day on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

With the news that a British Muslim family was denied access to the United States, for a "wholesome family trip to Disneyland," because one of the family members had set up a Facebook page proclaiming himself a "Taliban supervisor" and sympathetic to al-Qaeda, it's a good time to rethink the immigration policies of the United States.  There are three alternatives:

1) The current system, embraced by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most of the Republican candidates for president.  Under this system, we have a watch list, and only if a name shows up on the watch list, like this one, would the person be barred from entering the United States.  The problem with the current system is that not all potential terrorists can be expected to post their political views on Facebook.  Many of them from Syria and Iraq have never even shown up on our radar at all.  It's great that the system caught the "Disney Taliban," but for every goofy Taliban supporter we catch, there are ten others we don't.

2) The system embraced by Ted Cruz, which would bar people from countries with significant ISIS or al-Qaeda presence, like Iraq and Syria.  Cruz's idea, which would be a significant improvement over what we have now, would not deal with radicalized Muslims from European countries.  Did you know that 7% of British citizens and 16% of French citizens are sympathetic to ISIS?  Given that probably 99% of these are Muslims, and Muslims are a minority in both countries, the percentage of British and French Muslims who support radical Islam must be substantial.  Meanwhile, Canada has announced it is taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees, who will be impossible to vet if they want to enter America from Canada.

3) Then there is Donald Trump's proposal to end all Muslim immigration, at least for a time.  This makes the most sense, because we simply don't know what is in the mind of every Muslim who wants to come to America, but we know in the aggregate that some of them mean us harm.  It would not be a very difficult system to implement.

Customs officials could ask individuals their religion.  Would members of ISIS feel comfortable lying and claiming they are Christian when they are not?  I think the mere question itself would deter some terrorists.  We can also exclude European citizens of Middle Eastern origin, which shouldn't require truth serums or mind-reading devices to implement.

There is a civil war going on inside the Islamic community, and as with all civil wars, we don't know who is on whose side.  That's why to be safe, and to guard our citizens, we have to stop Muslim immigration, even if it produces stories about hurt feelings day after day on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.