Left Protests While Trump Junks Obama’s Global Immigration Plan
Polls taken in 2016 show the American public strongly backs Donald Trump’s dramatic immigration policy change, which says the United States will revive the traditional practice of excluding migrants hostile to Americans’ civic society and constitutional traditions.
That’s the dramatic policy change — not Trump’s other curbs on Muslim refugee inflow — which has caused a dramatic wave of TV-magnified protests by left-wing, Islamic and Latino groups.
Trump is doing what American voters prefer. In June 2015, for example, a poll showed that 56 percent of Americans want to exclude migrants who believe in Islam’s sharia law, which requires that democracy and civic norms by subordinated the Islamic scriptures. In contrast, only about 20 percent of Americans told the pollster that they did not oppose the immigration of people who believe in sharia law.
Trump’s support for American culture is the centerpiece of his Friday order on immigration, but the policy’s importance has been overlooked by the TV-magnified protests.
Trump’s American-first declaration is a huge reform because it directly rejects the claim by globalist progressives — including former President Barack Obama — that foreign people have the same rights as Americans, including the right to live in the United States, regardless of who Americans prefer to invite into their home.
Here’s the critical passage from Trump’s Friday order:
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Obama described the prior globalist policy in a Nov. 2014 speech to Democratic supporters in Chicago:
Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently. And that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration. If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave, there have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks’ — even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.
Obama made the same diversity-first claim in September 2015:
When I hear folks talking as if somehow these [foreign] kids are different than my kids or less worthy in the eyes of God, that somehow that they are less worthy of our respect and consideration and care, I think that’s un-American. I don’t believe that, I think it is wrong and I think we should do better, because that’s how America was made.
Obama’s outside policy is expressed more crudely by the alliance of Islamic and left-wing groups which is now protesting Trump’s pro-America immigration policy at airports.
On Sunday evening, a senior administration official briefed reporters on Trump’s American-first migration policy.
“The reality, though, is that the situation [of large Islamic populations] that exists today in parts of France, in parts of Germany, in Belgium, etcetera, is not a situation we want replicated inside the United States,” the official said.
The kind of large and permanent domestic terror threat that becomes multi-dimensional and multi-generational and becomes sort of a permanent feature, in case this, becomes a permanent feature of American life. We don’t want a situation where, 20 to 30 years from now, it’s just like a given thing that on a fairly regular basis there is domestic terror strikes, stores are shut up or that airports have explosive devices planted, or people are mowed down in the street by cars and automobiles and things of that nature…
The United States is sovereign country. It is under no obligation to admit any particular person and we have a right to develop a system in which we’re selecting immigrants that we think will be able to make positive contributions to U.S. society.
This pro-American policy is a huge threat to many advocacy groups, such as the orthodox Islamist groups now pushing to increase the inflow of Muslims into Americans society, the Latino advocacy groups who want more Latino voters, and the elitist Democratic Party, which expects to win national power by collecting votes from diverse immigrant voters.
But Trump’s huge shift to pro-American immigration policy was welcomed by opponents of political Islam, including best-selling author Robert Spencer, an expert on Islam. The new policy, he wrote:
indicates that they know exactly what they’re doing. This isn’t something they put together in a week; this is evidence of their entire thinking on Islam and the defence of the west. They’re going to treat Islam as a hostile political ideology. That is what has been needed for decades. It is the reversal of the “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine set in place by Bush on September 17, 2001.
Many polls show that majorities of Americans are skeptical of immigrants’ impact on American society, worry about imported jihad terrorism, oppose any increase above the current level of million immigrants per year — that is roughly one new immigrant for every four American births — and also oppose the continued inflow of cheap labor and unskilled refugees.
For example, a September 2015 poll by Ipsos showed that:
only 22 percent of Ipsos’ respondents want the United States to accept 10,000 or more migrants [per year]. That number includes 10 percent who want the country to accept 500,000 or more migrants. Another 26 percent of Americans said they would accept up to 10,000 refugees. The survey did not say that the country already accepts 70,000 refugees per year. Twenty-four percent said they want no additional refugees above the 1,500, and 29 percent declined to answer the poll, indicating quiet opposition to greater inflows.
An August 2016 poll of 2,061 adults showed that:
three in ten Americans overall (36%) support taking in refugees from Syria. A majority of Democrats (56%) support admitting Syrian refugees; in contrast only minorities of Republicans (18%) and Independents (32%) agree.
These skeptical attitudes however, are balanced with Americans’ decent emotional welcome for most individual immigrants, and with their gratitude for the nation’s generous history of immigration and support for constitutional rights. A December 2015 poll of 1,140 registered voters by Quinnipiac showed that:
most voters said Syrian refugees should not be allowed to come to the U.S., [but] most voters opposed banning all Muslims from coming to the U.S., with 66 percent of voters opposing the idea and 27 percent supporting a ban. A majority of Republicans, however, 51 – 41 percent, approved of a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. Democrats largely opposed a ban, 79-18 percent, as did independent voters, 67-22 percent.
So the polling data suggests that Americans want their freedoms shared with Muslims now living in the United States — but they don’t want more Muslims to come live in the United States.
A February 2016 poll of Republicans in South Carolina showed that:
When the poll asked “Would you support or oppose banning Muslims from entering the United States?” 60 percent of the state’s GOP voters said they would support a ban. But only 29 percent of respondents said they would “support … shutting down mosques” in the United States, and only 25 percent said the disliked Islamic doctrines [of sharia] should be illegal.
In June 2016, a poll of 803 registered voters was conducted by OpinionSavvy, via telephone, using automated questions, and with a margin of error at 3.5 percent.
First, the poll asked whether tourists and immigrants should be screened to check for their possible support of Islamic sharia. Seventy percent of respondents approved of the screening. The poll then asked the 70 percent; “Do you believe that individuals who support the practice of [Islamic] Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?” No, responded four-fifths of the 70 percent. That translates into 56 percent of total respondents preferring to exclude additional sharia-supporting Muslims. The overall opposition to the exclusion of sharia supporters added up to just 20 percent, with the rest undecided.
The push and pull of these rival emotions, however, is overwhelmingly subordinated to Americans’ lopsided desire that companies hire Americans first before importing more foreign immigrations or foreign contract workers. Polls shows that roughly 80 percent of Americans say companies should hire of young Americans before hiring migrants.
A July 2016 poll shows that roughly three out of four voters— including nearly three out of four Democrat voters— believe that “instead of giving jobs and healthcare to millions of refugees from around the world, we should rebuild our inner cities and put Americans back to work.” The view was shared by almost 90 percent of African-Americans and almost 70 percent of Hispanics.
In 2016, Trump’s focus on jobs for Americans — instead of additional immigration championed by Hillary Clinton — helped him win critical majority in the so-called “Blue Wall” states of Wisconsin Pennsylvania and Michigan. So now he is implementing the voters’ preferences, amid a growing roar of protest from the elite-led coalition of immigrant and ethnic-minority political activists.