Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

[flowers]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here's Jimmy "Hitler" Carter saying it back in 1980.

    Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against "our values" after all. It may even be "who we are". Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

Meanwhile here's how the Iranian students in the US were treated.

    Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

In November 1979, the Attorney General had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found in violation of their visas. Around 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the US.

Meanwhile any Iranians entering the US were forced to undergo secondary screening.

Interestingly enough, Carter did this by invoking the Nationality Act of 1952. A law originally opposed by Democrats for its attempt to restrict Communist immigration to the United States.

“If this oasis of the world should be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished,” Senator McCarran said of the law. He was a Democrat.

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump's proposal is far more legitimate than Carter's action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump's proposal does so by ideology.

[mystery-ak]

Glad I checked..just getting ready to post this...

[sinkspur]

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump's proposal is far more legitimate than Carter's action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump's proposal does so by ideology.

Are all Muslims supportive of terrorism? One would get the idea from this piece that they are.

But, the most glaring error here is that, in 1980, Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country.  Khomenei led the Iranian revolution in 1979 and was installed at the leader of the country in that year.

Trump's proposal would never happen, as Congress would stop him dead, by veto-proof majorities.

[Scottftlc]

"Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation."

Can you imagine the outcry if Trump suggested such a thing today?

Whether now or in a few years after many more attacks, America is going to have an even more difficult hurdle to deal with.  First Amendment religious protection for a religion that is doubling as a political movement that is openly working for the destruction of the nation, from within the nation and from without.  Most Americans, almost all I would venture to guess, would not agree to the Constitution as a suicide pact.  Most who are arguing in favor of it now are merely arguing against a candidate that they hate - for whatever reasons they hate him.  I hope that when this far tougher, more difficult issue is faced, that we are past all this Trump stuff - derangement or madness or justified hatred - whatever position you are occupying today.  Because the fate of America may well depend on unity.

[Scottftlc]

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump's proposal is far more legitimate than Carter's action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump's proposal does so by ideology.

Are all Muslims supportive of terrorism? One would get the idea from this piece that they are.

Perhaps not all - but that is too high a test for reason.  The problem is that there are enough that do, and enough that will go along with those that do, to make it a fundamental aspect of the religion itself - which also doubles as an aggressive political movement.

[GourmetDan]

 
Imagine that... conservatives of today suggesting things that failed liberals of the past did and the pols of both parties today will have none of it...   

[sinkspur]

"Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation."

Can you imagine the outcry if Trump suggested such a thing today?

Whether now or in a few years after many more attacks, America is going to have an even more difficult hurdle to deal with.  First Amendment religious protection for a religion that is doubling as a political movement that is openly working for the destruction of the nation, from within the nation and from without.  Most Americans, almost all I would venture to guess, would not agree to the Constitution as a suicide pact.  Most who are arguing in favor of it now are merely arguing against a candidate that they hate - for whatever reasons they hate him.  I hope that when this far tougher, more difficult issue is faced, that we are past all this Trump stuff - derangement or madness or justified hatred - whatever position you are occupying today.  Because the fate of America may well depend on unity.

Well, then you better get your butt in gear to take a religious test out of the First Amendment.  Or would you just limit it to Islam? 

Most Americans are not going to agree to single out a particular religion for special treatment.  And there representatives are damned sure not going to change the Constitution on such a flimsy excuse.

[flowers]

Imagine that... conservatives of today suggesting things that failed liberals of the past did and the pols of both parties today will have none of it...   

Wild times.

[jmyrlefuller]

"Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation."

Can you imagine the outcry if Trump suggested such a thing today?

Yeah. Why is a Republican going back to a failed Democrat's policy?

[mrclose]

Well, then you better get your butt in gear to take a religious test out of the First Amendment.  Or would you just limit it to Islam? 

Most Americans are not going to agree to single out a particular religion for special treatment.  And there representatives are damned sure not going to change the Constitution on such a flimsy excuse.

Again .. misinformed.

Islam is in direct conflict with our constitution.
Why?

Islam is a Theocracy, a form of government based upon a religious belief!

Funny how libs, and apparently you are bent out of shape if someone says our country is based on Christian values but have no problem with an invading foreign government invasion?

As far as congress, the people or the constitution is concerned when it comes to blocking immigration .. for any reason?

Here:

Immigration and Nationality Act INA § 212(f):

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


This power is universal, enforceable at the will of the president, and applies any time for any circumstance.

[sinkspur]

Again .. misinformed.

Islam is in direct conflict with our constitution.
Why?

Islam is a Theocracy, a form of government based upon a religious belief!

Funny how libs, and apparently you are bent out of shape if someone says our country is based on Christian values but have no problem with an invading foreign government invasion?

As far as congress, the people or the constitution is concerned when it comes to blocking immigration .. for any reason?

Here:

First of all, you don't know me so stop putting words in my mouth.

Second, it would take the Congress about five minutes to pass a law overturning an order by Trump to exclude Muslims from the US, with a veto proof majority.

[Scottftlc]

Well, then you better get your butt in gear to take a religious test out of the First Amendment.  Or would you just limit it to Islam? 

Most Americans are not going to agree to single out a particular religion for special treatment.  And there representatives are damned sure not going to change the Constitution on such a flimsy excuse.

The destruction of the nation is a flimsy excuse? Or not believing that could ever happen (I do happen to believe it could, but no matter), the death of thousands of citizens would be a flimsy excuse?  I would support singling out Islam as something other than a true religion. I don't believe a religion should get to self-designate.  It's an "you'll know them by their works" line of reasoning.  I think, personally, that Islam is an excuse for a religion and is used merely to subjugate people and destroy those who will not comply.  That is a "you know it when you see it" sort of subjectivity.  But at some point in the future we will be faced, I am certain, with needing to make that kind of discriminative judgment to survive.

[sinkspur]

The destruction of the nation is a flimsy excuse? Or not believing that could ever happen (I do happen to believe it could, but no matter), the death of thousands of citizens would be a flimsy excuse?  I would support singling out Islam as something other than a true religion. I don't believe a religion should get to self-designate.  It's an "you'll know them by their works" line of reasoning.  I think, personally, that Islam is an excuse for a religion and is used merely to subjugate people and destroy those who will not comply.  That is a "you know it when you see it" sort of subjectivity.  But at some point in the future we will be faced, I am certain, with needing to make that kind of discriminative judgment to survive.

You're way too cynical and pessimistic.  I choose not to live that way.

[Scottftlc]

Yeah. Why is a Republican going back to a failed Democrat's policy?

To answer I will refer you to the classic Greek story of the Trojan Horse.

[Scottftlc]

You're way too cynical and pessimistic.  I choose not to live that way.

Yes, that is certainly it - very different perspectives. 

[mrclose]

First of all, you don't know me so stop putting words in my mouth.

Second, it would take the Congress about five minutes to pass a law overturning an order by Trump to exclude Muslims from the US, with a veto proof majority.

First: I have read enough of your comments to get a pretty good idea of who you are.

Second: Trump (or Cruz) will have a phone and a pen and Congress will be .. as they are now, neutered!

[GourmetDan]

Yeah. Why is a Republican going back to a failed Democrat's policy?

The policy was fine then and is fine now... it's just funny how knee-jerk both Democrats and Republicans are today over a policy that even a failed Democrat had the guts to implement in 1980...

Watching people misunderstand ideas is kinda funny...   

[sinkspur]

First: I have read enough of your comments to get a pretty good idea of who you are.

Second: Trump (or Cruz) will have a phone and a pen and Congress will be .. as they are now, neutered!

Absolutely not.  A law passed by Congress trumps an EO. 

And your "guess" as to how I see the nation are completely wrong.

[aligncare]

"Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation."

Can you imagine the outcry if Trump suggested such a thing today?

Whether now or in a few years after many more attacks, America is going to have an even more difficult hurdle to deal with.  First Amendment religious protection for a religion that is doubling as a political movement that is openly working for the destruction of the nation, from within the nation and from without.  Most Americans, almost all I would venture to guess, would not agree to the Constitution as a suicide pact.  Most who are arguing in favor of it now are merely arguing against a candidate that they hate - for whatever reasons they hate him.  I hope that when this far tougher, more difficult issue is faced, that we are past all this Trump stuff - derangement or madness or justified hatred - whatever position you are occupying today.  Because the fate of America may well depend on unity.

Righteous insight, dude. You nailed it: TDS. It has some posters doing an imitation of Obama, and even, Hillary Clinton!

[NavyCanDo]

Imagine that - all in the same day, Donald Trump is compared to FDR and Jimmy Carter. And not by his opposition.

In any case Jimmy carter invoking the Nationality Act of 1952 did not ban all Iranians from entering the country. To do so would have sentenced many moderate Muslims and Shaw supporters, and Iranian Christian to their death.   Per that Act Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency. My own co-worker came to the United States during this time.    And there is a huge difference between putting travel restrictions between countries at the brink of war, and banning entry from people of a religion.

[truth_seeker]

Well, then you better get your butt in gear to take a religious test out of the First Amendment.  Or would you just limit it to Islam? 

Most Americans are not going to agree to single out a particular religion for special treatment.  And there representatives are damned sure not going to change the Constitution on such a flimsy excuse.

Iran was not a religion in 1979. Carter's inability to resolve the hostage episode favorably by the election, was a major factor in his defeat.

Trump could say block or delay all refugees from named countries, with exception to those that are believed to be in most danger, e.g. Christians, Jews, Druze, Kurds, etc.

Doing so with precision, requires getting into the wonky details, and Trump stays well clear of that as I see him.

[sinkspur]

Iran was not a religion in 1979. Carter's inability to resolve the hostage episode favorably by the election, was a major factor in his defeat.

Trump could say block or delay all refugees from named countries, with exception to those that are believed to be in most danger, e.g. Christians, Jews, Druze, Kurds, etc.

Doing so with precision, requires getting into the wonky details, and Trump stays well clear of that as I see him.

Of course Iran was not a religion in 1979.  It's not now, either.

Trump will not get into the details because he has no idea how to make something like this work.

Which means, most likely, it's just for the consumption of his chumps.

[Bigun]

"Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation."

3 actually appeared and 0 deported!

[raml]

It is not unconstitutional to ban a group of people regardless of religion that may bring destruction and harm on it's citizens the people trying to come in are not CITIZENS and have no rights till they are legally allowed here not one minute before. They are not a religion no matter what you say it is a cult and their God is not the God of Jews and Christians. If you think our Constitution allows the citizens to be put on a back burner and let refugees and people who want to immigrate to this country come first and allow them to bring to this country death and a Quran that wants to kill all infidels and all Muslims believe it that is what a Muslims is why don't people look at their history. Why do you talk out of the side of your mouths like the congress is going to get away with ignoring the citizens just because Trump will be president if he wins. Trump right now is th eonly one who is making sense certainly not most of you and sinkspur is not a conservative not even a moderate.