Is it merely a matter of degree?
Donald Trump is being roundly criticized for daring to call for a temporary halt to allowing Muslims to enter the U.S. In his defense Trump cited Roosevelt’s classification of ethnic Japanese, Germans and Italians in the U.S. during World War II as “enemy aliens.”
But did anyone notice that Congress and the Obama administration are close to an agreement that would place travel restrictions on foreigners who have recently been to Syria, Iraq, Iran or Sudan?
Is the difference semantics?
Following the San Bernardino Christmas part massacre by an American born Muslim and his Pakistani wife, all kinds of proposals are being bandied about.
Currently visitors to the U.S. from 38 countries can enter visa-free, but the legislation being proposed would require those countries to provide information about past travels.
Oddly enough Trump followed up by saying his proposal would not apply to U.S. citizens. “If a person is a Muslim, goes overseas and comes back, they can come back,” he said. “They’re a citizen. That’s different. But we have to figure things out.”
Terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with his Muslim wife, who was given a fiancee visa. So, how would Trump’s plan have stopped anything?
Still in the oddly enough vein, the State Department is defending its fiancee vetting process.
How can the U.S. keep out terrorists but let in tourists?
The head of a tourism business organization noted that nearly 60 percent of the 20 million U.S. visitors each year come on the visa-waiver program, which allows 90-day stays. Restrictions would hurt tourism, he said.