(National Sentinel)Â Immigration time-out:Â Most people are unaware that from the nation’s founding in the 1780s through 1965, the U.S. either banned or placed very strict limits on immigration, a major point of consideration for anyone mindlessly opposed to President Donald J. Trump’s current efforts – in the name of national security – to restrict immigration and resettlement from certain terrorist-infested countries.
Some want the president to return to the days of yesteryear, when rational politicians understood that flooding the country with people who did not share traditional American values and principles of life, liberty, freedom, equality and democracy should not be given carte blanche to enter the country.
One of them is lawyer, conservative pundit and author Ann Coulter, who toldÂ Fox Business Networkâ€™s â€œVarney & Co.” on Monday that Trump ought to return to his initial immigration plan of temporarily banningÂ all immigration.
She said ifÂ everyone is banned, there is no way federal courts and far-Left immigration activist groups could claim the president was singling people out based on their [Muslim] religion.
â€œI mean, what Trump, for example, suggested in his immigration policy paper, the greatest document since the Magna Carta, was a temporary ban on all immigration,â€ Coulter, author of Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, said. â€œYou have no religious problem then. Why doesnâ€™t he go back to that? Itâ€™s both more aggressive â€“ be very careful. Let in a few a year. Weâ€™re letting in 2 million people a year â€“ illegal, legal, guest workers. Probably more than 2 million. And The New York Times writes, â€˜Well, itâ€™s just impossible to vet that many people coming in.â€™ Well, donâ€™t let in that many people then. Itâ€™s not that hard.â€
â€œAnd as for the detention, I would say yes, there are ways to be aggressive. Iâ€™d think in some ways Iâ€™d be more aggressive. But I donâ€™t think it would raise as many hackles because it looks nothing like an internment. I mean, Europe as an easier time than we do. They donâ€™t have a First Amendment. In Germany, itâ€™s a crime to support the Nazi Party. Are you worried about the Nazis today? No, but we are worried about ISIS. We are worried about Islamic terrorism. It ought to be a crime not merely to communicate, but to advocate that ideology and they ought to be thrown out of the country.â€
She has a point in that a universal immigration ban, temporarily, would be difficult to challenge on legal grounds that it was some sort ofÂ religious test – which in and of itself is laughable for the Left to assert given their historic hostility toward American religious freedom.
But for now, first things first: Trump will have to win a challenge to one of his executive orders banning travel from some terrorism-infested countries that could come before the U.S. Supreme Court this summer before moving on.