FAIR’s Statement on Donald Trump’s Muslim Immigration Comments


The following statement was issued by Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in response to comments made by Donald Trump.

“Donald Trump’s assertion that we categorically bar admission to people based solely on their religious identities is one that runs counter to American values, but is rooted in a grim reality that the Americans can no longer trust the government’s vetting process and its ability to screen out those susceptible to beliefs and actions inconsistent with life in a modern, Western-style democracy.  Certainly this is true at today’s all-time high levels of immigration and non-immigrant entry.  Failure to come to grips with this reality has the potential to radically alter the American way of life and undermine our national freedoms as the U.S. faces a threat of truly unprecedented dimensions.

FAIR does not support immigration restrictions based solely on religious faith in the absence of other factors that indicate an inability to support our constitutional framework.  Yet every nation has the right to exclude people when the manifestation of their religious, political, or ideological beliefs threaten public safety or is fundamentally at odds with the values and freedoms set forth in our Constitution. Moreover, the President retains a statutory authority to suspend any class of aliens he/she deems a threat to the vital security interest of the nation.”

Continue reading the statement here.


  1. avatar Patrick says:

    Altho there is a law that covers all this, Obama wants to make his own Laws to cover every thing. At present our borders are wide open to allow any one from any country to enter the USA without any check of any kind to stop these people. Then on top of all this Obama wants to legalize millions that are already here Illegaly. So just what do we do?

  2. avatar Not Politically Correct says:

    It wasn’t radicalized atheists or Hindus that killed 14 people in San Bernadino on December 2 or flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or set off bombs at the Boston Marathon.

  3. avatar LAPhil says:

    I agree with FAIR’s position on this. Trump’s proposal is over the top. It’s fine to restrict immigration from any country in which the security of the country could be jeopardized, but it’s unfair to restrict it on the basis of one’s religion. If we made a blanket policy of no Muslim immigration we would potentially exclude the King of Jordan, the King of Saudi Arabia, and about 100 million Indonesians who as far as I can tell never posed any harm to this country.

    • avatar A Reader says:

      And how do you know that they will not pose a danger when they come here?

      How do you know they will not follow footsteps of San Bernardino shooters?

      Well, you don’t.

    • avatar John Tate says:

      LaPhil, or is that LandPhil. Why would the king of Jordan want to emigrate to the USA? Or the Saudi inbred? Why would anyone but Ovomit want 10^7 Indonesians to come here?
      If a stranger handed you a bag of popcorn and said “Its delicious, but two or three are laced with a deadly poison”, would you eat it?

  4. avatar 11th Gen American says:

    Since 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 originally came from Saudi Arabia, all immigration from that Wahabi Islamic country should have permanently ceased in 2001! We’ve been taking in Muslim students, teaching them high-level computer skills at our prestigious universities, and those Muslim students have gone home to begin their criminal careers as hackers against the Western World! Same thing with thousands of Chinese computer students, who go home to work for the Chinese government, hacking into our systems, and stealing billions in intellectual property yearly. Under our pathetic present leadership structure, the United States no longer demonstrates the ability to operate in its own best interests, and we haven’t done so for decades! It’s time to return to common sense! Impeach Barack Obama, AG Loretta *****, Homeland Insecurity Secretary Jeh Johnson, and the totally incompetent Director of USCIS, Leon Rodriguez, whose recent pathetic performance in front of Trey Gowdy’s Immigration hearing should have shaken the confidence of every American who might still harbor any belief that our government is actively trying to keep violent jihadists terrorists from our shores!

  5. Msgt Dale Refers to the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the Act became Law 414 of June 27, 1952

    Chapter 2 Section 212 (28) (f)

    This law also refers to members of the Communist Pary. The President of the USA, is in violation of this law.

    One more time, our do nothing senators let him violates the existing law. Mr. Trump is correct, and liberals are

    affraid someone start to show laws that are in the book but senators don’t enforce them.

  6. avatar A Reader says:

    As much as I am grateful to Dan Stein for his outstanding contributions to this country and his proven support of immigration and border enforcement, I part with him when he says (quote):

    “FAIR does not support immigration restrictions based solely on religious faith in the absence of other factors that indicate an inability to support our constitutional framework.”

    It has been known for more than 100 years now (cf. Max Weber: “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, 1905) that emergence of Western modern capitalism is due, among few other factors, to Protestant work ethics. It appears highly unlikely that if Protestants were not the prevailing group among those who founded, populated, and built America then the result would be equally amazing and exceptional as it has been.

    What is wrong with asking what are likely effects of proliferation of certain religions in our country? Why would it not be appropriate to evaluate how their mainstream believes affect their faithful’s attitudes to work, self-restraint, respect of other individuals’ liberties, rationality, and open mindedness to ideas and arrangements that have functioned well? Why would we oppose shaping our immigration policy in line with such evaluation? If a religion encourages prospective immigrants to intolerance to the prevailing religion of their host nation and discourages them from assimilation then that in itself seems like a good reason to impose some serious “restrictions based solely on religious faith”.

    If we now ignore that fact and jump into the sort of religious egalitarianism (under the slogan “all religions are equal”) that Dan Stein seems to have in mind, in an abstract exercise of the “propositional nation” dogma, then we are likely to waste what the Protestants have accomplished and turn America into a dysfunctional society similar to those preaching religion or religions that Donald Trump would like to scrutinize.

  7. avatar Legal Immigrant says:

    The world is changing very rapidly; should the “American Values” not change to keep up with it? Let’s face it, it is not the same world that our founding fathers knew.

    • avatar 11th Gen American says:

      That’s certainly true! Due to our pathetically stupid immigration policies, our Middle Class is disappearing, a permanent class of pathetically-poor peasants is rapidly increasing, our public education system has gone to hell because teachers are expected to educate foreign students even when 110 languages other than English are spoken, our manufacturing base is disappearing overseasa because our stupid anti-American leaders support free trade with Third World slave-labor countries, and our military is deliberately being so weakened, we can’t even defeat a raghead group of jihadis who want the world to be turned back to the 7th Century! We should drop a few Neutron bombs on those savage bastards, take them all out in one flash of light, rather than risking our soldiers! If we don’t, we’ll be battling those Muslim savages till hell freezes, not just in the Middle East, but here at home! We’ve put up with the threat of radical jihadists since 1972! Forty-three years is long enough! Kill them all, oust the Muslims from Western nations, back to the Middle East, then oust the 48 million illegals from our country, and then let’s return to sanity in America, building our country back up to what it used to be!

  8. avatar Legal Immigrant says:

    His statement included the word “UNTIL”, which meant it was a TEMPORARY measure. It was aimed at visitors and which means it does not apply to Muslim citizens. Why does 99% of the media not get this?

  9. avatar Paul Alexander says:

    If there are any folks from anywhere trying to enter this country, and they cannot be properly vetted then they should remain on the outside. As Muslims are part of a number of religious states, that have the Koran or Shariah instead of a constitution or Bill of Rights, their positions should be understood in advance of their coming into this country. If they cannot give up the idea of Shariah as a form of government to live by, then they should stay in those countries which welcome that point of view. If they cannot sign a declarative statement condemning the concepts espoused in Shariah law, then they once again, should not be allowed to migrate into USA. And if they sign off and are later discovered to have become a supporter of Shariah, it would lead to immediate deportation for them and their immediate family. Regardless of whom you may be, if you cannot enter this country and swear allegiance to the laws of this country, then we do not need your presence!

    • avatar A Reader says:

      It is not just a matter of vetting. You may have an individual who has never broken any law, yet his mindset or genetic tendencies can turn him into a danger or a burden for our society. How can one possibly “vet” that?

      It is the issue of burden of proof. Those who wish to come here need to proof that their presence in America will contribute to our well-being and happiness. Not the other way around. We do not have to proof that they may be harmful to our country and can bar them from coming just because of a lack of credible evidence that they will not.

  10. avatar David Smith says:

    If ten Muslims are coming over to your house and two want to kill you and the other eight won’t tell you who they are, you can’t let any of them in.

  11. avatar fletch92131 says:

    I think that Concerned Citizen has it correct, reasonable and well-balanced.

  12. Trump Starts the Bandwagon

    And to argue with his logic means you don’t believe we’re a sovereign nation that can lawfully protect its country from those that hate and want to kill us…..a spineless fool IOWs. The Democrat solution: “take away all our guns?” I see, only the “bad guys” get the guns….

    • avatar A Reader says:

      You are right on target.

      First, they tried to take away our nuclear weapons, when SU was already capable of levelling the US with theirs. Then they tried to take away our firearms, when bad guys were trying to kill as many of us as possible. And now they try to take away our immigration protections, when incompatible aliens are flooding our country and demand more and more of the fruits of our work.

      It’s time we say summarily “No” to all those deceitful tricks.

  13. avatar SecBorders says:

    So a lot of politicians from both parties are coming out against what Trump said about temporarily banning immigration from Muslim countries to defend ourselves from being attacked by terrorists. A lot of these same politicians support the current bombing campaign in Muslim countries to defend us from being attacked by terrorists, and have supported the wars and bombing campaigns over the past couple of decades in the Middle East. All of these military actions have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians, and continue to result in their deaths, because that is what happens in war, it doesn’t matter how many smart bombs are used.

    So these politicians are OK with the inevitable killing of Muslim civilians that is the result of waging war in Muslim countries to defend ourselves from being attacked from terrorists, but we can’t put even a temporary ban on immigration from the Muslim world in order to protect ourselves from being attacked because this would be prejudiced against Muslims? This logic does not make sense.

    • avatar huite says:

      You want to discuss history? The USA’s first international war was against ISLAMISTS. The Founding Fathers didn’t even know what their problem was and had to get a KORAN to understand their cray.

      • avatar SecBorders says:

        I am not stating a position one way or the other regarding the wars in the Middle East in recent years and the current bombing campaign against ISIS/ISIL. I am simply pointing out the fact that despite modern technology dramatically reducing the amount of “collateral damage” when wars are fought, civilians are inevitably killed, whether it is intentional or not. If politicians feel that it is necessary to wage war in Muslim countries to prevent terrorist attacks, why do they consider it “un-American” to temporarily ban all immigration from the Muslim world in order to prevent attacks here at home? It seems much less severe an action to take than carrying out a bombing campaign. And I am for bombing ISIS by the way.

  14. avatar Concerned Citizen says:

    This is a fine, well-reasoned statement from Dan Stein and the FAIR Media Team.

  15. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prevents entry to anyone seeking to overthrow the US government by “force of violence or other unconstitutional means.” In other words, anyone who professes belief in the Koran and the Hadiths.

    In other words – The Donald is simply seeking to apply an already existing law!

    Seems our current Chief Executive once again ignores the law and hie oath of office!