patrick.net

Ah, so many good quotes in this piece. Simply too many migrants and not enough resources to check the social media of each applicant, even though they legally can.

The Multi Kultis will say "Pass them anyway". I say limit to the number of immigrants we can complete a total background check on, including Social Media.

NYT:

Social media comments, by themselves, however, are not always definitive evidence. In Pakistan — as in the United States — there is no shortage of crass and inflammatory language. And it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States. At the time Fehda Malik’s comment was posted, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was particularly high; four months earlier, American commandos had secretly entered Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden.

The NYT is actually saying that since Anti-American remarks might be made for non-religious political reasons, it may not be a reason to not allow them entry.

It's one thing to criticize, say, Gun Control Laws in the US. But if you write that "America is an imperialist villain that must be destroyed", you shouldn't be allowed to migrate, Islam or no Islam, whether you are from Pakistan or from Venezuela. Of course, in mainstream, much less fundamentalist, Islamic Theology there is no separation of religious and political spheres.

Also, OBL was a Muslim Radical, so if they're bitching about the US killing OBL, that is equally evidence that they are Islamist Symps as well as complaining about territorial integrity.

There is no debate here, it's legal, moral, and ethical for the US to deny entry, much less green cards, to those who have a history of Anti-American statements, and court after court has upheld these actions in the past.