Hypocrisy over the Muslim Ban

The inconvenient hypocrisy of the left’s attacks on the “Muslim ban”

Readability

The inconvenient hypocrisy of the left's attacks on the "Muslim ban"

I can be crit­i­cal of Don­ald Trump because I’m fair. When he does well (and in a short time, he’s done more to help Amer­ica than Barack Obama did in eight years), I praise his actions. When he messes up, I’ll call him out. As a Fed­er­al­ist, the abil­ity to assess appro­pri­ately is impor­tant. The same can­not be said about a vast major­ity in lead­er­ship or media roles on the left. Trump has them com­pletely unhinged and their argu­ments are start­ing to betray the real­ity that they don’t think about sub­jects beyond the sur­face emo­tional response.

Attacks against Trump’s so-​called “Mus­lim ban” have been a mixed bag. There are some valid com­plaints com­ing mostly from the right; the coun­tries banned have had zero immi­grants com­mit fatal acts of ter­ror­ism on U.S. soil while coun­tries like Saudi Ara­bia, Egypt, and Afghanistan are con­spic­u­ously left off the list. How­ever, the major­ity of com­plaints have been extremely hyp­o­crit­i­cal. Let’s look at some.

The ban puts Amer­i­cans abroad at greater risk”

To be fair, this is actu­ally a poten­tially true state­ment. Why would I call it hyp­o­crit­i­cal? Because it goes against their stan­dard “reli­gion of peace” nar­ra­tive. In many ways, it makes the case for Trump’s ban. If Amer­i­cans are in dan­ger because rad­i­cal Islamists will be more likely to attack them now that the ban is in place, why would we argue for bring­ing them into the United States? The left’s argu­ment is basi­cally say­ing that rad­i­cal Islamists are a dan­ger to Amer­i­cans if we keep them out of the coun­try, but if we let them in they’ll be less likely to com­mit the ter­ror­ist acts they are cur­rently com­mit­ting abroad.

If that sounds ludi­crous, you’ve gone beyond the sur­face emo­tional reac­tion and started think­ing about the sit­u­a­tion thor­oughly. Con­grat­u­la­tions. You’re prob­a­bly not a liberal.

Pres­i­dent Obama wouldn’t have done such a thing”

Except he did.

Folks, this is the real world. There are cir­cum­stances that demand actions that won’t be pop­u­lar with every­one. Part of being a sov­er­eign nation and con­tin­u­ing to exist involves mak­ing those tough deci­sions. Pres­i­dent Trump isn’t the first to make such a deci­sion and won’t be the last.

The Amer­i­can peo­ple don’t want this”

Except they do.

This isn’t some­thing that Trump pulled out of his hat to shock every­one. He’s been talk­ing about this in dif­fer­ent forms for over a year. If any­thing, this is more aligned with the Cruz/​Paul rec­om­men­da­tions when they were on the cam­paign trail instead of Trump’s ini­tial pol­icy pro­posal of a total tem­po­rary Mus­lim ban.

Amer­i­cans knew Trump intended to do this and they voted him into the White House any­way. Did they think he was bluff­ing? Were the con­vinced that he was just a stan­dard politi­cian who makes promises on the cam­paign trail only to back­track once he’s in office? On that last point, time will tell, but in these early days he’s been doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

More­over, this polit­i­cally incor­rect per­spec­tive on immi­gra­tion is one that allows for a vocal oppo­si­tion, but it’s very likely a pop­u­lar con­cept. While there’s no way to test the the­ory, I would say it’s a like­li­hood that deep down a major­ity of Amer­i­cans want some vari­a­tion of dra­mat­i­cally improved vet­ting to occur to pre­vent poten­tial ter­ror­ists from enter­ing the country.

It’s ille­gal and/​or unconstitutional”

On social media, everyone’s a lawyer. With access to Wikipedia, every­one is able to pass legal judgments.

For­tu­nately, the law doesn’t oper­ate through social media and judges don’t refer to Wikipedia. We will, in the com­ing weeks, find out just how legal and con­sti­tu­tional Trump’s exec­u­tive order really is. I won’t be shocked if it’s struck down entirely nor would I be shocked if it’s vin­di­cated in court. That’s the unfor­tu­nate nature of our fed­eral legal sys­tem. Activist judges are every­where, so the legal­ity and/​or con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the exec­u­tive order will be deter­mined more by who hears the case rather than whether or not it’s valid.

This brings me to a minor con­spir­acy the­ory. I’d like to believe that the admin­is­tra­tion is gen­er­ally com­pe­tent. With that said, this roll out has been exceed­ingly sloppy:

To call it ama­teur would be giv­ing it too much credit. They announced on Holo­caust Remem­brance Day, an event noto­ri­ous for the last time peo­ple were killed after being denied as refugees by Amer­ica. Staff at air­ports were con­fused and often mis­in­formed. Known pos­i­tive con­trib­u­tors from inter­preters help­ing U.S. armed ser­vices to sci­en­tists invited for med­ical research were turned away. The administration’s legal depart­ment embar­rassed itself by being unpre­pared. The optics were the worst to come from the White House since Benghazi.

Con­spir­acy the­ory: What if Trump wants this exec­u­tive order to be shot down in the courts or restricted by Con­gress so he can rally his base and begin the process of con­sol­i­dat­ing power to the exec­u­tive branch? Okay, so it’s much more likely that they sim­ply rushed it all through and made mis­takes along the way, but to dis­miss Trump’s abil­ity to con­trol sit­u­a­tions and spin them to his favor would be a huge mis­take. All I’m say­ing is that it’s pos­si­ble this is an immac­u­lately designed ploy. We’ll leave it at that.

World lead­ers are against it”

Of all the silly lib­eral argu­ments against the exec­u­tive order, this is my favorite. It’s even bet­ter when they invoke that the U.N. is against it. To those who make this argu­ment, I have one word for you: “Good.”

We’ve done enough inter­fer­ing in the rest of the world and we’ve received plenty of inter­fer­ence as a result. If there’s one aspect of Trump’s ide­ol­ogy that I embrace, it’s that the glob­al­ist men­tal­ity must be addressed appro­pri­ately. We are a sov­er­eign nation. How we defend our bor­ders and pro­tect our cit­i­zens is our business.

That’s not to say that the world’s opin­ion is irrel­e­vant. We are the cen­ter­piece of the world econ­omy which means that we need free trade just as badly as they need us to freely trade with them. How­ever, this is a secu­rity issue. It should be very tightly han­dled between us, the nations on the list, and nations that are directly affected by our actions.

Other nations don’t ban based upon nation of origin”

Except they do.

The United States isn’t banned by other coun­tries because they need our money. That’s it. Do you think that if we weren’t an impor­tant part of their economies that they wouldn’t ban us? To answer that ques­tion, we sim­ply need to look at Israel.

There are 16 nations that ban entry from any­one with an Israeli pass­port. Let’s be clear: Israeli ter­ror­ists do not go around the world com­mit­ting acts of ter­ror­ism like rad­i­cal Islamic ter­ror­ists often do. It’s just not part of their stan­dard oper­at­ing pro­ce­dure. It should be noted that of the seven coun­tries on Trump’s list, Soma­lia is the only one that doesn’t ban Israelis.

Trump’s exec­u­tive order has prob­lems, but not the ones you’re hear­ing from main­stream media or lib­eral politi­cians. The echo cham­ber of left­ist anti-​Trump dis­sent is falling fur­ther into hypocrisy. It’s get­ting to the point that their mes­sages are being drowned out by the laugh­ter of those hear­ing them.

I can be critical of Donald Trump because I’m fair. When he does well (and in a short time, he’s done more to help America than Barack Obama did in eight years), I praise his actions. When he messes up, I’ll call him out. As a Federalist, the ability to assess appropriately is important. The same cannot be said about a vast majority in leadership or media roles on the left. Trump has them completely unhinged and their arguments are starting to betray the reality that they don’t think about subjects beyond the surface emotional response.

Attacks against Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” have been a mixed bag. There are some valid complaints coming mostly from the right; the countries banned have had zero immigrants commit fatal acts of terrorism on U.S. soil while countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Afghanistan are conspicuously left off the list. However, the majority of complaints have been extremely hypocritical. Let’s look at some.

“The ban puts Americans abroad at greater risk”

To be fair, this is actually a potentially true statement. Why would I call it hypocritical? Because it goes against their standard “religion of peace” narrative. In many ways, it makes the case for Trump’s ban. If Americans are in danger because radical Islamists will be more likely to attack them now that the ban is in place, why would we argue for bringing them into the United States? The left’s argument is basically saying that radical Islamists are a danger to Americans if we keep them out of the country, but if we let them in they’ll be less likely to commit the terrorist acts they are currently committing abroad.

If that sounds ludicrous, you’ve gone beyond the surface emotional reaction and started thinking about the situation thoroughly. Congratulations. You’re probably not a liberal.

“President Obama wouldn’t have done such a thing”

Except he did.

Folks, this is the real world. There are circumstances that demand actions that won’t be popular with everyone. Part of being a sovereign nation and continuing to exist involves making those tough decisions. President Trump isn’t the first to make such a decision and won’t be the last.

“The American people don’t want this”

Except they do.

This isn’t something that Trump pulled out of his hat to shock everyone. He’s been talking about this in different forms for over a year. If anything, this is more aligned with the Cruz/Paul recommendations when they were on the campaign trail instead of Trump’s initial policy proposal of a total temporary Muslim ban.

Americans knew Trump intended to do this and they voted him into the White House anyway. Did they think he was bluffing? Were the convinced that he was just a standard politician who makes promises on the campaign trail only to backtrack once he’s in office? On that last point, time will tell, but in these early days he’s been doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Moreover, this politically incorrect perspective on immigration is one that allows for a vocal opposition, but it’s very likely a popular concept. While there’s no way to test the theory, I would say it’s a likelihood that deep down a majority of Americans want some variation of dramatically improved vetting to occur to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country.

“It’s illegal and/or unconstitutional”

On social media, everyone’s a lawyer. With access to Wikipedia, everyone is able to pass legal judgments.

Fortunately, the law doesn’t operate through social media and judges don’t refer to Wikipedia. We will, in the coming weeks, find out just how legal and constitutional Trump’s executive order really is. I won’t be shocked if it’s struck down entirely nor would I be shocked if it’s vindicated in court. That’s the unfortunate nature of our federal legal system. Activist judges are everywhere, so the legality and/or constitutionality of the executive order will be determined more by who hears the case rather than whether or not it’s valid.

This brings me to a minor conspiracy theory. I’d like to believe that the administration is generally competent. With that said, this roll out has been exceedingly sloppy:

To call it amateur would be giving it too much credit. They announced on Holocaust Remembrance Day, an event notorious for the last time people were killed after being denied as refugees by America. Staff at airports were confused and often misinformed. Known positive contributors from interpreters helping U.S. armed services to scientists invited for medical research were turned away. The administration’s legal department embarrassed itself by being unprepared. The optics were the worst to come from the White House since Benghazi.

Conspiracy theory: What if Trump wants this executive order to be shot down in the courts or restricted by Congress so he can rally his base and begin the process of consolidating power to the executive branch? Okay, so it’s much more likely that they simply rushed it all through and made mistakes along the way, but to dismiss Trump’s ability to control situations and spin them to his favor would be a huge mistake. All I’m saying is that it’s possible this is an immaculately designed ploy. We’ll leave it at that.

“World leaders are against it”

Of all the silly liberal arguments against the executive order, this is my favorite. It’s even better when they invoke that the U.N. is against it. To those who make this argument, I have one word for you: “Good.”

We’ve done enough interfering in the rest of the world and we’ve received plenty of interference as a result. If there’s one aspect of Trump’s ideology that I embrace, it’s that the globalist mentality must be addressed appropriately. We are a sovereign nation. How we defend our borders and protect our citizens is our business.

That’s not to say that the world’s opinion is irrelevant. We are the centerpiece of the world economy which means that we need free trade just as badly as they need us to freely trade with them. However, this is a security issue. It should be very tightly handled between us, the nations on the list, and nations that are directly affected by our actions.

“Other nations don’t ban based upon nation of origin”

Except they do.

The United States isn’t banned by other countries because they need our money. That’s it. Do you think that if we weren’t an important part of their economies that they wouldn’t ban us? To answer that question, we simply need to look at Israel.

There are 16 nations that ban entry from anyone with an Israeli passport. Let’s be clear: Israeli terrorists do not go around the world committing acts of terrorism like radical Islamic terrorists often do. It’s just not part of their standard operating procedure. It should be noted that of the seven countries on Trump’s list, Somalia is the only one that doesn’t ban Israelis.

Trump’s executive order has problems, but not the ones you’re hearing from mainstream media or liberal politicians. The echo chamber of leftist anti-Trump dissent is falling further into hypocrisy. It’s getting to the point that their messages are being drowned out by the laughter of those hearing them.