Why Franklin Graham says Donald Trump is right about stopping Muslim immigration - Washington Post


**Why Franklin Graham says Donald Trump is right about stopping Muslim immigration **

Amid an outcry over Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country, prominent evangelist Franklin Graham has come out in support of the Republican presidential candidate’s plan, saying that he has been advocating a similar stance for months.

“For some time I have been saying that Muslim immigration into the United States should be stopped until we can properly vet them or until the war with Islam is over,” Graham wrote on Facebook on Wednesday. “Donald J. Trump has been criticized by some for saying something similar. The new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said yesterday that he disagrees — saying that ‘such views are not what this party stands for and more importantly it’s not what this country stands for.’

“Politicians in Washington seem to be totally disconnected with reality.”


Trump’s exact words:

Trump’s proposal came in a statement issued Monday calling for a** “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.**”



I agree with Trump. I don’t like the fact that refugees are coming from anywhere without being properly vetted, but especially considering the current situation - Muslims. I am sure there are many fine Muslims who are refugees just like there have been fine people from Mexico and Central America, but there have already been a lot of bad people that have come in. I don’t know if there is a full proof way to assure which refugees are safe to let in. For one, you have another government agency with unqualified employees.


I agree with Trump and agree 100% with what 7 Sorrows wrote above.


“Properly vetted” has become the mantra, but what does it mean? Many claim the only concern is vetting, but never offer what proper vetting would be, which leads me to believe it’s just a catch phrase to justify the simple fact that they don’t want muslims in their country.


Have all Americans been vetted in the last 200 odd years?


This is a really poorly worded poll so there’s no way for me to respond to it. “No, I disagree with Trump, there is no need to properly vet Muslim immigrants.” :confused: Disagreeing with Trump doesn’t ipso facto mean one doesn’t want vetting of immigrants – Muslim or otherwise.


Vetting? Does that mean taking them to a vet and getting them micro- chipped? I’ll admit I’ve never heard that word before.


There have been times of vetting that I know of right off the top of my head: for several decades in the 1900s, we would not allow in Communists, and when people were coming through Ellis Island, they, too, were vetted: definitely for disease, and Maria von Trapp, in her autobiography, said they had to stay there for longer and were almost not allowed in because she said she hoped they could always stay when they were coming in on a temporary visa permitting them to tour in the US and then leave.

I believe that a nation has a complete right to restrict immigration, in any way they want. Yes, people have a civil right to choose their religion, but that does not mean that other nations lose their right to chose who joins the national community.

I do think there is a problem both here and very potentially, as we saw last week, with people coming in. I do think it’s a good idea to sort that out before we let more people in.


It’s the logic of the false choice.

Ah well done, I see a third choice has been added to avoid this kind of binary thinking.


That os a real slander against people who are concerned for the safety of their countrymen and expect the government to also be concerned about our safety! We just had a “thoroughly vetted” person work on a team which killed 14 people and injured 27 more.

We are pointing out a problem. We think that people from a region filled with people who want to kill should not be allowed here. How will an effective vetting process work? This is why we have experts in the government, who have just had an example of spectacular failure.

Proper vetting would be that people come in and do not attempt to kill Americans.

Most Americans have no personal problem with immigrants whom they come into contact with. But if we cannot be sure of heir intentions, maybe it will he harder for us to maintain our usual openness. The man who shot the people had worked with them for several years and they had thrown a baby shower for him. They trusted him and treated him well, and yet he did that to them.


Pity they could have stopped the sound of music then,I think the problem has already been proved on both sides of the Atlantic to be with those with right to remain or indigenous born.Clean skins you will never be safe from,however, the Uk has been castigated for only taking those from UN camps.We will be happy to take those with complex medical needs and those who have patiently and legally awaited entry.NOT the queue jumpers of the Med. and Calais


I feel as you do. I have no problem with the immigrants I know personally. I was even “almost” engaged to a Muslim physician from Canada in my early 20s. I did not marry him because he insisted I convert to Islam and raise our would-be children as Muslims. I could not and will not abandon Christianity and Catholicism. Anyway, he was a very nice and kind person. I do not think he would ever commit a violent act, but of course the people who knew the terrorist in CA felt the same way.

However, I do have a problem with tens of thousands or even hundreds of Muslims coming here when ISIS is extant and recruiting. Obama says we have nothing to fear from women and children, but apparently we do. A Muslim-American was radicalized, and his wife was probably radicalized prior to coming here. She is a woman. Their child, who I presume is still with her grandmother, could grow up to be like her mother.

Jews aren’t killing us on a large scale. Christians aren’t killing us on a large scale. Hindus aren’t killing us on a large scale. Muslims are. Once ISIS is eliminated, if it is eliminated, maybe I will feel differently.

One cannot properly vet anyone who is coming from a war-torn country like Syria. The records just aren’t available. And many Muslims become radicalized once they are here and have more access to the Internet, etc.

I don’t like to be uncharitable or inhospitable. I’m an immigrant myself. However, until the problem is eliminated or proper vetting can be conducted, I’m with Trump on this one even if I don’t want him as president.


I feel the same way when people talk about “common sense gun control”.


I do, too.

CNN was saying that no one asked the female terrorist during an initial interview if she had any Jihadist sympathies. Well, who, if he or she wants to get into the US would answer truthfully, “yes?” I don’t think any terrorist would. The question itself seems inane.


The USAs vetting process of immigrants and refugees is among the best if not the best in the world.

There are already 2000 Syrian refugees here in the USA, a # of whom are Muslims. These folks are a net benefit to the county, from the numerous interviews around the country the Syrians that are here are working and are a benefit to the economy. Some are wealthy successful doctors that are fleeing from a war torn country. For example,

Donohoe said many of the refugees living in camps in Lesbos, Greece – one of the most popular arrival points for refugees and migrants – had smartphones. At least a few people could speak English on every boat arriving to Lesbos, meaning that many of them likely had a formal education or came from an upper middle-class background, he said.

Doctors, bankers and Syrians from other high-paying professions have been among the arrivals. Several of the refugees interviewed by the International Business Times had university educations, and one pair of brothers had worked in investment banking in Syria and were looking to do the same in Europe.

On the eve of the civil war in early 2011, Syrian GDP per capita was as high as $5,000, more than double what it was in neighboring Pakistan and Yemen, and five times as much as the average GDP per capita in Afghanistan. By 2013, Syria’s GDP dropped by 20.6 percent. World Bank authorities have not been able to collect economic data in Syria since 2014 because of the chaos in the region, and experts estimate that the GDP has continued to plummet.

For refugees like Doctor Ali, Europe’s strong economy and stable security are part of the lure that has seen so many risk their lives to leave Syria. Ali had successful arrived in Germany by Wednesday and said he looked forward to building a life in his new home and contributing to his community by saving the lives of others through medicine.*


Pope Francis has been clear on this issue and has requested Catholics to provide assistance to the refugees.


*Pope Francis has called on every religious community across Europe to do their part to stem the refugee crisis and offer sanctuary to migrant families.

In front of a crowd of thousands of people in St Peter’s Square, the Roman Catholic leader said it was not enough to simply encourage the refugees with calls for courage and patience. Instead, he suggested, tangible demonstrations of help were required.

“May every parish, every religious community, every monastery, every sanctuary of Europe, take in one family,” he said.*



How do you know? Do you have some special experience in the vetting of immigrants on which to base your opinion or is the some objective comparison between the vetting processes of the various countries that you can share?

Saying people are a “net benefit” is something that should be easily quantifiable. Where are the numbers that show each Syrian refugee has been a “net benefit”?


that is the point I was trying to make in my post. is there a full proof way to properly vet refugees wanting to come into our country?
it is not just a catch phrase, but a real problem that needs to be addressed.


I am sure there has been a process of some kind put in place of vetting immigrants. Perhaps at Ellis Island or before they boarded ships to come to America. Of course, many have come illegally. And some immigrants do not want to become American citizens.


Good post St. Francis! :thumbsup:


“Muslims” are not monolithic (just like Christians are not monolithic).

Proper vetting would mean that we do our best to keep people out who believe in Sharia law, or that women should be circumcised, or that non-Muslims should be converted, subjugated or killed,etc. Not all Muslims believe those things…but for the ones who do, I don’t want them in. Do you?

I don’t know how to accomplish that (I’m open to suggestions), but the idea that people who want “proper vetting” is somehow a way to hide their bigotry is weak.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.