Diary

One more time: Trump's proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States is legal, constitutional and necessary.

Rush Limbaugh the other day provided listeners with a bit of information that bears directly on the controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s recent statements about placing a temporary ban on all Muslims seeking to enter the United States.

The information Limbaugh provided was important.

Not surprisingly, however, not only did the major news outlets ignore it, but the so called “fair and balanced” FOX commentators, some guests, including Trump himself, seemed to be oblivious to the fact that federal law very much provided exactly what Trump proposed.

The law is 8 U.S.C.,  Aliens and Nationality. This law specifically contains within it a lengthy and somewhat convoluted section, sect. 1182 titled: Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president

That lengthy section reads in relevant part: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

8 U.S.C. is a comprehensive law — you know, one of those comprehensive bills liberals are eager to pass, like comprehensive immigration reform and comprehensive health care reform, but not so eager to enforce when the language prevents them from pursuing their ideological pipe dreams.

The American public knows that liberals in both parties have steadfastly balked at enforcing our nation’s immigration laws on the one hand while professing fidelity to the law on the other, but only if the law is made more “comprehensive.”

This is a technique employed by politicians to escape having to address a problem they are confronted with and which they don’t want to support. Their argument goes something like this: Look, the law is broken (you know like our health care system, which just happened to be the best health delivery system in the world until liberals — all democrats — decided to fundamentally change it. ) We want a new tougher law, they say, one with penalties, fines, borders, stricter enforcement, blah, blah, blah. Oh yeah, like they want what we conservatives want.

Americans aren’t buying it, at least not yet. We are a cautious people, slow to act especially when we are being told something that just doesn’t seem right. We are not stupid. Experience has taught us that neither party seems willing to do what they say they will do, since we already know that neither party has been willing to faithfully execute the laws that are already on the books which they don’t support.

Trump, however, is a different story and Americans intuitively sense this. Interestingly, when it come to Trump people love and hate him for the very same reason: they believe he will do exactly as he says. And on the question of border security, Trump says he wants the laws enforced and loose standards for entry tightened up before moving on, which brings us back to 8 U.S.C. sect. 1182.

All this talk from critics about whether it is legal is so much uninformed hot air. It is legal! It is the law of the land, enacted pursuant to the Constitution, and for a very good reason — and there’s the rub. Liberals hate it because it says that America has a right to control and regulate who enters this country, just as every other country does The very notion, however, that America has a right to screen applicants seeking entry into our country, or for a certain period bar them from entry outright, is anathema to the liberal ideology. Hence, the outcry of foul play.

What gives us the right? they ask.

Our enemies will hate us, they say.

Our friends will abandon us, they warn.

It’s not who we are, says — you know who.

It’s not who we are? Really? It happens to be the law of the land and has been who we are for decades.

If those criticizing Trump actually took the time to be informed about what the law actually says, maybe they would be more measured in their criticisms. But then, this is not about what the law says, is it? It’s about changing the law by vilifying those who dare point out the reasons we have laws in the first place.

Like the Dark Ages: liberals figure all they need to do is point a finger and in a loud, shrill voice shout SORCERER, and by claiming such, the accused will go up in flames. It’s not the dark ages Bill, Megyn, Paul, JEB et. all. It’s the Age of Enlightenment. We’re on to your tactics. A new day is dawning.