When GOP front-runner Donald Trump announced his idea of temporarily banning the immigration of Muslims to the Untied States, his idea was condemned by virtually the entire Republican Party.
Jeb Bush responded, “Seriously?”
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan addressed the nation to condemn it.
Even Ted Cruz wouldn’t support it.
But there’s one massive group of people that overwhelmingly backs Trump’s proposal: Republican primary voters.
A poll taken soon after Trump announced his plan in December showed almost two-thirds of Republican voters in favor of it. And as the votes are cast in state after state, support for Trump’s proposal is actually higher in some areas.
In the Northeastern primaries held earlier this week, exit polls showed almost 70 percent of voters in New York and Pennsylvania supported Trump’s proposed ban. This narrowly exceeds the support expressed for the policy in supposedly more conservative Southern states.
G.M. Davis, who earned his doctorate in political science from Stanford University and is author of “House of War: Islam’s Jihad against the World,” said the widespread popular support for Trump’s policy shouldn’t be a shock to Republican leaders.
“It is an eminently reasonable and moderate proposal, which one hopes will set the tone for more sweeping proposals as the campaign progresses,” he said.
“It demonstrates that Mr. Trump understands the danger posed by Muslim immigration as well as the slanted politics of the issue, which routinely cast such proposals as his own as ‘extreme,’ ‘racist,’ etcetera and which requires special handling from figures such as himself.”
Davis argued Republican leaders are committed to an agenda of globalization, which leads them to put political correctness ahead of national security.
“On the issue of Muslim immigration, perhaps more than any other, ordinary voters and the establishment of both parties are divided,” Davis said. “Really, the establishment is happy to give voters whatever they like as long as the general program of globalization continues to move forward. That program entails the continued demolition of national borders, the mixing of national, religious and ethnic populations, and the general dissolution of local and regional distinctions of all sorts around which ordinary people can rally to defend their traditional freedoms.
“Ongoing immigration, especially Muslim immigration, is central to the general plan of eroding national integrity and identity, which is exactly why the establishment loves it and ordinary voters hate it.”
In fact, support for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration far exceeds support for Trump himself.
Large majorities support the policy even in states that voted against Trump. In Texas, which backed his Republican rival Cruz, 67 percent of GOP voters supported Trump’s policy proposal. In Wisconsin, where Trump also lost to Cruz, 69 percent agreed with Trump on banning Muslim entry into the country. Sixty-five percent of Republican primary voters in Ohio also supported Trump’s idea, even though the state went to Gov. John Kasich.
Pamela Geller, an activist who speaks out against extremist Islam and the author of “Stop the Islamization of America,” is one of those voters who supports Trump’s policy while not supporting Trump himself.
Geller, who has endorsed Cruz, called Trump “questionable on the free speech issue” after Trump criticized her for hosting a contest featuring images of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. However, she called Trump’s idea “a common-sense solution.”
Make YOUR voice heard! Sign the petition to impose a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration to our country.
“There is no way to vet for jihadis or distinguish them from peaceful Muslims,” Geller told WND. “Trump’s idea is so popular because people see the problem of jihad and see how our leaders are not dealing with it adequately. No one who had denounced Trump for suggesting this has come up with an alternate plan.”
Davis also said the whole issue of Muslim immigration and entry into the United States is bigger than Trump himself.
“Even a mere political opportunist ought to be able to see the vote-winning potential on the issue,” claimed Davis. “Westerners, Europeans and Americans are increasingly waking up to the nightmare of having their lands invaded by a hostile ideology that recognizes nothing of their own as sacred: not Christianity, not women’s rights, not freedom of speech, not responsible, secular government. Regardless of how the 2016 election turns out, the issue of Muslim immigration will persist, either as a focus of policy in a Trump (or possibly Cruz) administration or as an ever-growing elephant in the room of a Clinton administration.”
The issue is likely to increase in importance as investigations continue into the Dec. 2, 2015, terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. On Thursday, the brother of Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the San Bernardino attackers, was arrested and charged with marriage fraud, conspiracy and lying under oath. Two other individuals related to Farook were also arrested.
Philip Haney, a former Customs and Border Protection officer who won numerous awards and commendations during his long career for analyzing intelligence and identifying terrorists, argued in December the San Bernardino attacks could have been prevented if the federal government hadn’t shut down his investigation for fear of profiling Muslims. He chronicles his experiences in the upcoming book “See Something, Say Nothing.”
Haney told WND there is a lack of political will to carry out the laws needed to protect the American people.
“I support enforcement of our constitutionally mandated immigration laws, so that we can more effectively protect our country from threats both foreign and domestic,” he said. “The flaws in our current vetting system are well documented. They are fixable, but only if there is concerted effort.”
However, Haney expressed some doubts about Trump’s plan, arguing it was too vague.
“He needs to clearly define ‘temporary’ and define exactly what he hopes to accomplish during the halt,” he said.
Regardless, Haney argues both Republicans and Democrats need to start taking the threat of terrorism seriously because the American people won’t settle for anything less.
“This is not just a partisan issue but a national security issue,” the former intelligence analyst warned. “The primary responsibility of our elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation, is to do their utmost to protect American citizens from those who seek to enter our country in order to do us harm.”
Haney concluded: “For almost eight years, the Obama administration has supposedly been advising the American people if they ‘see something,’ they need to ‘say something.’ Well, what the American people are seeing today is very disturbing, and the support for Trump’s idea shows they are saying something, too.”