Donald J. Trump is 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. Is this a smart security move or is it just plain politically incorrect as most on the left and the right have spent the last two days pontificating?

Trump’s comments have been called un-American, racist and bigoted. However, if radical Islamist extremists are calling for the destruction of the West, should we not be reviewing our immigration policies that are actually legally allowing radicals into our country? Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernadino terrorist, entered into the United States on a “fiancee” visa in July of 2014, even though later investigations into her background revealed glaring red flags. Some left leaning publications, like the Huffington Post, suggest that terrorists gaining access through the refugee path is highly unlikely; however, the facts remain a stubborn thing. We know that at least one of the Paris terrorists who killed over 120 people actually entered into the country as a Syrian refugee while two others carried false Turkish passports.

The actual problem lies in our porous borders, our broken visa program and the seemingly nonexistent concern of our leaders as to who has actually entered into the United States. Yet, with all these threats constantly being thrown at us, they continue to open the arms of our nation to refugees and an untold number of illegals, ignoring the potential threats that they may pose.

While Trump is supporting the temporary halt of all Muslim refugees and immigrants, and the political elite and their pundits are screaming that this is un-American and unconstitutional, we have to consider the legality of the move. In a recent column in The Wall Street Journal, James Taranto says the proposal by Trump is already a congressional act — Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, which says, “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.”

The article went further in asking whether this temporary ban would violate the First Amendment. In response, Taranto wrote, “That is a novel legal question; as far as we know Congress has never enacted, nor the executive branch practiced, such an exclusion. But the 1972 case Kleindienst v Mandel strongly suggests the Trump proposal would pass muster.” In the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court ruled that “the government’s authority to set immigration policy, at least as applied to nonresident aliens, outweighs any free-speech claim an alien may wish to assert.”

In the end, regardless of the responses by Republicans and Democrats, fearing backlash by their parties, the American people seem to be behind the idea of temporarily halting Muslim immigrants and refugees into the United States. After all, it is the American people who are on the front lines, in theaters, at Christmas parties and just going about their lives, waiting for the bombs to go off.

I think common sense is taking hold and temporarily banning Muslim Immigration is strictly a matter of security.