VIDEO: Border Patrol Refuses To Let Muslim Into Country After Finding Dangerous Material On Her Cellphone

Border Agents Refuse To Let Woman In Because Of Dangerous Material Found On Cell Phone

A Muslim immigrant living in Canada claims that she was denied entrance into the United States on Saturday by Border Agents.

The woman, Fadwa Alaoui, born in Morocco, claims that the Border Agents refused to let her in because of videos they found on her cell phone of Muslims praying.

From CBC:

“I felt humiliated, treated as if I was less than nothing. It’s as if I wasn’t Canadian,” Alaoui told CBC News in an interview Wednesday.

“He said, ‘Do you practise? Which mosque do you go to? What is the name of the imam? How often do you go to the mosque? What kind of discussions do you hear in the mosque? Does the imam talk to you directly?'” Alaoui said.

Border agents also asked her about Arabic videos on her phone. She said they were videos of daily prayers.

Alaoui said after the questioning, she waited about another hour. The border agents returned and told her she was being denied entry.

“They said, ‘You’re not allowed to go to the United States because we found videos on your phone that are against us,”  Alaoui said.

There are several points that need to be made in reference to Alaoui’s claims.

#1. She claims that she was treated as if she was nothing, as if she wasn’t a Canadian. Just because she immigrated from Canada and was made a Canadian citizen doesn’t mean that she is somehow special and that she deserves special treatment from the United States.

#2. She claims that Border Patrol agents asked her about specific religious questions and that they targeted her because of her religion. Absolutely none of what she said has been proven to be true and Freedom Of Religion is only guaranteed to citizens of the United States, not citizens of foreign countries looking to enter the United States.

#3. Assuming that Border Patrol agents did in fact look through her cell phone and found materials that were against America what they found were most likely not videos of Muslims praying. It is extremely obvious when Muslims pray because they pray on special rugs or mats while on their knees. Border agents wouldn’t have asked about that because it would have been very obvious. Instead, border agents most likely found materials that were suspect.

#4. The Muslim faith promotes lying and says that it is okay to deceive non-Muslims, it’s called Taqiyya.

#5. Muslims have been caught making up dozens of ‘Fake Hate’ crimes in which they claim they were attacked because they were Muslim and they usually associate the attack somehow to President Trump. Fake Hate crimes are a serious criminal offense and have lead to the arrests of many Muslims.

The great news is that Border Patrol agents turned this woman away and refused to let her into the Country because they deemed her to be a threat after finding dangerous materials on her phone

Video

Follow Ryan Saavedra On Twitter @NewsRevoltRyan

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/video-border-patrol-agents-refuse-...

Image result for stop no entry to illegals

Views: 724

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Good call agents!

Very GOOD CALL... AGREED!

Absolutely!!  They are doing what they should - PROTECT AMERICA~

Keep all hard core Muslims out!

i can only imagine....speed dial to ISIS or WORSE

if she isn't up to being a part of terrorism then let her eat ham 

It's our country and not only do we have a right to say who gets to come in and who doesn't, we also have the right to give any excuse we want for not letting someone in. We will no longer be bullied into opening our borders for just anyone. We have a nation to protect. Deal with it.

Image result for thumbs up animation

Concerning activists judges point the illegals to their homes, let the illegals have their way with judges family and property and when they call our men and women in blue, stop for donuts and coffee before responding. If these judges think they can ignore citizen safety then dont expect courtesy or help from any of us. The 9th appellate judges can lay in the bed they made, they can go to hell.

I've got news for her.. she is worth less than nothing if she is a danger to America.. and in my boat and AMERICA.. she does not get a voice or vote.. .the Agents DID THE RIGHT THING!!!! Throw her OUT!!! and KEEP HER OUT!!!

The reason she was allowed to wear pink lipstick is so she would blend in better, the better to subvert or attack us. Muslim women do not wear lipstick, so how is she getting away with it?

Oh she wants to play the petty me  Card  I'm a poor oppressed muslim a tolerant peace loving religion it hurts my feelings Petty me,  oh boo hoo petty me !!!!!!! your allway's picking on us poor Muslims don't you remember the Crusades !!!!!!!! Oh me Oh my , I just think  I'm  Going to cry  or maybe  blow something up  !! .

 I'm so sick of hearing this Shit , stinking Lier Taqiyya

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service