Consequences of Bad People Among Us

  • 05/02/2016 12:00 AM
  • Douglas V. Gibbs
Early on in Donald Trump's campaign for President in the 2016 Racehe made a comment that claimed, "the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government."  According to Mr. Trump, Mexico is "sending people that have lots of problems" to America including rapists, drug runners, and other criminals.  Immediately, there was blow-back, and The Donald claimed the media was distorting what he said. Later, in an attempt to clarify, Donald Trump added in a written statement, "Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally.  I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it."  Trump also argued the Mexican government is "not our friend" and is taking advantage of the U.S. on "bad trade deals."


As a result of his statements the popularity of Donald Trump as a consideration for President of the United States skyrocketed.


That was June and July of 2015.


Half a year later, in December, Donald Trump thrust the media and the liberal left into a frenzy again, this time with a statement about the Muslim Migrants being shipped into the United States by the Obama administration. Mr. Trump called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. His statement included the following information:

According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from theCenter for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, told how he himself had been a leftist in his early career. He had been against McCarthy, but McCarthy’s speeches had made him think and start to read “evidence that I had avoided.” He described how all during his military career as a Marine officer and later in Japan with the U.S. occupation he had never hidden his leftist views and later had even been offered a job at the CIA. Irvine argued that real communists were only in the hundreds, but that thousands of leftists, such as he, all feared McCarthy and had wanted him discredited.

Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor Arthur Herman. His new book, “Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator,” and featured in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy’s charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian’s Western Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy’s charges “was no longer a matter of debate,” that they are “now accepted as fact.” However, the term “McCarthyism” still remains in the language.

Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn’t realized he’d be fighting against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said, and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared investigations of their past appointments and associations with people who turned out to be communists or sympathizers.

That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.

As the Trump Campaign continues to march forward in 2016, violence by protesters has not only become common, but the Latino protesters are promising more violence, and more agitation.  Is this violence and hate towards a Republican Party candidate who says, essentially, that he intends to enforce American immigration law, being brought upon our country by good people who want a better America?


My wife was born in Mexico, immigrated here legally as a child, and naturalized in 2007.  She had the idea to build a wall long before Trump emerged on the political scene with his call for a wall.  My wife, however, wants to add a mote full of alligators, and gun turrets.  Is she being racist against Mexicans?  Or does she understand the importance of protecting the American System from an invasion of people who reject our culture of freedom?


Violence has been one of the consequences of our nation being filled with bad people, and more specifically letting bad people who hate this country into our country with a blessing, and a whole list of entitlements they never paid for.  Is all of the violence at the Trump rallies being caused by illegal aliens?  Not necessarily.  Those who aren't illegal, however, who are acting violent at these rallies, support policies that let bad people into our country.


In the first clause of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, Congress is given the authority to "prohibit" the importation of slaves, and to prohibit the "migration" of people they believe should be prohibited from entering the country.  The part about slavery outlawed the Atlantic Slave Trade as of 1808, a move that the Founding Fathers hoped would begin the journey towards ending slavery in America.  Most of the signers of the Constitution were abolitionists, and they believed slavery would end in America during their lifetimes.  The part in Article I, Section 9 about the "migration of such persons" addresses immigration, and was designed to protect the country from allowing bad people to enter the country and reside among us.


Understand that immigration was a big deal, back then.  The United States was growing by leaps and bounds.  We needed all of the immigrants we could get.  The Western Frontier was beginning to expand westward, and as a developing nation we needed to increase our workforce, and increase our population.  So, if we needed more immigrants so badly, why would the Founding Fathers enable Congress to limit who could come into the country?


There were those out there who wished to destroy the American System before it could get off the ground.  The British Empire, after the American Revolution, didn't even officially recognize the United States as a sovereign country.  Those loyal to The Empire figured the experiment would fail, and the Americans would go crawling back into the arms of the monarchy.  The United States, however, refused to cry "uncle."  We even fought a second revolution against Great Britain in The War of 1812, during which Americans holding high position were often captured, and then hung for treason against The Empire.


During the early years of the existence of the United States the Tories, who were loyalists to The Crown, mostly departed from the American Shores, and went back to England.  Some, however, remained.  They attempted to infiltrate the American System, to bring it down from within.  During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the delegates in Philadelphia were aware of the attempt to destroy our new country from within, and realized that there were undesirable persons out there who were immigrating into the country.  Yes, the United States needed to allow in many immigrants to fill the Western Frontier, but we didn't need people coming into this country who would prefer its system of freedom is destroyed.  So, in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution the U.S. Congress was given the authority to prohibit certain persons from immigrating into the United States.  These groups may consist of persons sick with disease, persons who have no skills, or persons from countries that considered themselves enemies of the United States.  In the last case, though there may be good people among those potential immigrants in question, the reality was (and remains) that among their ranks were people who could be damaging to the American System.  If the risk is high that a particular population has among their migrant population coming to America bad people who wish to do America harm, or be disruptive to our American System, we simply don't need them in our country, and Congress has every constitutional authority to pass law prohibiting such persons from immigrating to the United States.


Which brings us back to Donald Trump.  Is he racist and insensitive when he says he's prepared to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, and that he's prepared to stop the Muslim migration into the United States?  Or is he being more like the Founding Fathers by determining that among these populations are bad people, and we simply can't tell the good from the bad, so we need to have policies limiting, if not prohibiting, these folks from entering our country?


Mr. Trump may be a lot of positive and negative things, but when it comes to the consequences of letting bad people into our country, he has it exactly right.


The consequences of having bad people among us are already manifesting in our cities, in our government, and at Trump rallies. . . violence, the burning of the American Flag, and a population of people among us who do not wish to assimilate into our culture, but wish to change our system into the one they departed from, are among the illegal aliens and Muslim migrants.  It is logical, knowing this, to prohibit them from entering the country in the first place.


JavaScript is off. Please enable to view full site.