Closing the potential loopholes on the Muslim immigration ban

Reuters, whose polling data is so biased in favor of liberal viewpoints as to be an affront to any real standards in this "profession" -- assuming there are any, has conveniently updated its ongoing survey of whether or not Americans want to "temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States."

Before looking at the data, and adding some other considerations, it is now safe to say that any media outlet from here on that reports Reuters data without acknowledging the existence of, and at least trying to correct for, the massive bias is simply not a credible outlet exercising due diligence in journalism. That applies whether the outlet is a polling aggregrator such as RealClearPolitics or HuffPost Pollster, or any site across the spectrum.

In its latest five-day rolling average released June 24, Reuters wants us to believe that 47.2% of all Americans disagree with a Muslim ban, whereas just 44.2% agree. Some might argue that it is impressive -- from the conservative perspective -- that the survey results are so close. One might expect that after decades of political correctness indoctrination, even the most diehard conservatives would be so intellectually neutered as to oppose the ban.

But when we drill into the data, and unravel the ridiculously large liberal bias, reality emerges. And that reality shows a large majority of the public supports the ban, with just a small minority in opposition.

Of the 1,638 respondents, 780 (48%) are Democrats while only 526 (32%) are Republicans. Of those surveyed, 41% voted Obama in 2012 compared to just 24% who chose Romney. Consequently, we are looking at a liberal bias of, at least, 13-15% in the data. Remove that bias, and the corrected polling data -- since Republicans and Romney 2012 supporters overwhelmingly support the ban, whereas Democrats and Obama 2012 voters do not -- suggests that those in favor of the ban probably hold a minimum 10-12% lead over the opponents.

In an article published Saturday, John F. Banzhaf III -- a law professor at George Washington University -- confirmed the position I took last Sunday in stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that any and all grounds for immigration bans are constitutional, including and especially a ban on Muslim immigration. This is settled science among the legal profession.

But one of the core problems is how to avoid a porous national security net when it comes to imposing a Muslim entry ban, either for immigration alone or for both immigration and temporary visits. Word has obviously leaked out that many in the West may want to restrict entry to Muslims and/or deport them if they are already present. This has led, predictability, to mass purported conversions of Muslims to Christianity in Europe, to which a few have at least raised some concerns, albeit far too weak.

This supposed mass conversion is a fraud (taqiyya) designed to fool the public and circumvent any future national security policies targeting those of the Islamic faith.

Senator Ted Cruz's proposal to accept Christian refugees, but not Muslims, demonstrates a surprising level of naivety by an otherwise skeptical politician. How exactly are we to reliably differentiate between Muslims and Christians coming from the same region? What sort of specific test would we be able to accurately give, and how onerous in terms of administrative time and costs would this be? Any conceivable test of faith could be easily gamed, particularly given the corrupt nature of the homelands from which these refugees are arriving, what with no reliable church or government records, etc., not to mention the historical commonalities in the two faiths which can facilitate a false conversion from Islam to Christianity.

In addition to the Muslim faith ban, Donald Trump has suggested that he "will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."

If we interpret Trump's statement in the broadest sense possible, he has wisely closed the loophole that Cruz and others had left open. Trump's policy could be construed to apply not only to those emigrating directly from Middle Eastern and similarly dominant Muslim areas, but also those individuals whose heritage derives from such regions. Otherwise, we are left with a flawed policy whereby a Muslim from, say, the Middle East could emigrate to Europe, fake a conversion to Christianity, and thereby escape the national security wall by claiming to be a European Christian.

Based on the views of credible legal commentators, this type of broadly restrictive immigration policy is not only constitutional, but has widespread bipartisan support among the voters.

Reuters, whose polling data is so biased in favor of liberal viewpoints as to be an affront to any real standards in this "profession" -- assuming there are any, has conveniently updated its ongoing survey of whether or not Americans want to "temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States."

Before looking at the data, and adding some other considerations, it is now safe to say that any media outlet from here on that reports Reuters data without acknowledging the existence of, and at least trying to correct for, the massive bias is simply not a credible outlet exercising due diligence in journalism. That applies whether the outlet is a polling aggregrator such as RealClearPolitics or HuffPost Pollster, or any site across the spectrum.

In its latest five-day rolling average released June 24, Reuters wants us to believe that 47.2% of all Americans disagree with a Muslim ban, whereas just 44.2% agree. Some might argue that it is impressive -- from the conservative perspective -- that the survey results are so close. One might expect that after decades of political correctness indoctrination, even the most diehard conservatives would be so intellectually neutered as to oppose the ban.

But when we drill into the data, and unravel the ridiculously large liberal bias, reality emerges. And that reality shows a large majority of the public supports the ban, with just a small minority in opposition.

Of the 1,638 respondents, 780 (48%) are Democrats while only 526 (32%) are Republicans. Of those surveyed, 41% voted Obama in 2012 compared to just 24% who chose Romney. Consequently, we are looking at a liberal bias of, at least, 13-15% in the data. Remove that bias, and the corrected polling data -- since Republicans and Romney 2012 supporters overwhelmingly support the ban, whereas Democrats and Obama 2012 voters do not -- suggests that those in favor of the ban probably hold a minimum 10-12% lead over the opponents.

In an article published Saturday, John F. Banzhaf III -- a law professor at George Washington University -- confirmed the position I took last Sunday in stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that any and all grounds for immigration bans are constitutional, including and especially a ban on Muslim immigration. This is settled science among the legal profession.

But one of the core problems is how to avoid a porous national security net when it comes to imposing a Muslim entry ban, either for immigration alone or for both immigration and temporary visits. Word has obviously leaked out that many in the West may want to restrict entry to Muslims and/or deport them if they are already present. This has led, predictability, to mass purported conversions of Muslims to Christianity in Europe, to which a few have at least raised some concerns, albeit far too weak.

This supposed mass conversion is a fraud (taqiyya) designed to fool the public and circumvent any future national security policies targeting those of the Islamic faith.

Senator Ted Cruz's proposal to accept Christian refugees, but not Muslims, demonstrates a surprising level of naivety by an otherwise skeptical politician. How exactly are we to reliably differentiate between Muslims and Christians coming from the same region? What sort of specific test would we be able to accurately give, and how onerous in terms of administrative time and costs would this be? Any conceivable test of faith could be easily gamed, particularly given the corrupt nature of the homelands from which these refugees are arriving, what with no reliable church or government records, etc., not to mention the historical commonalities in the two faiths which can facilitate a false conversion from Islam to Christianity.

In addition to the Muslim faith ban, Donald Trump has suggested that he "will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."

If we interpret Trump's statement in the broadest sense possible, he has wisely closed the loophole that Cruz and others had left open. Trump's policy could be construed to apply not only to those emigrating directly from Middle Eastern and similarly dominant Muslim areas, but also those individuals whose heritage derives from such regions. Otherwise, we are left with a flawed policy whereby a Muslim from, say, the Middle East could emigrate to Europe, fake a conversion to Christianity, and thereby escape the national security wall by claiming to be a European Christian.

Based on the views of credible legal commentators, this type of broadly restrictive immigration policy is not only constitutional, but has widespread bipartisan support among the voters.