I don't care how they look. If there is a high percentage of individuals from a particular region of world; regardless of religion, color, sex, or heritage, and these individuals have a higher percentage probability of a terror attack, these individuals should be excluded.
Little is known of the immigration policies during the Ellis Island days. They most definitely segregated individuals; in their case, those that might hold the probability of becoming a public charge.
The nationalist hate wave you speak of is the sound of individuals stating we don't need another "most popular flavor" of extremism to take root on our shores. Muslim anti-pluralism is the antithesis of what America stands for, and their penchant to use violence is something we would do best without.
So you're an apologist for a bigoted misogynistic religion bent on censorship and suicide-assassination by admitting less than similar examples from other religions?
Dismissing the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy; and those that defend these people need to be called out.
Don't kid yourself. The most toxic form of religion is the Islamist form with the horrible idea to end up with a religion based Sharia law, with the best means of getting there is jihad. They feel they have a specific right to feel aggrieved and use all means necessary to achieve their ends.
Islam was founded by a marginally literate warlord from divine revelation and proclaim it as the last and final. Gods last word. Straight away this a temptation toward violence and intolerance. A temptation they have proven all too willing to comply with. This violent approach to achieve their ends is most definitely fascism.