Why would "moderate" muslims have a problem with pausing muslim immigration? Watch
if 25% of muslims polled in the US, for example, said that violence against infidels is okay, and 51% said that they would want sharia law (remember, this is the system whereby women are stoned for being raped, thieves have their arms cut off, people get hanged for homosexuality, there is no freedom of speech/religion, very limited happiness and openness, and generally, it represents the dark ages and theocratic despotisms), then is *that* not something to be concerned about regarding a group whereby although perhaps most of them are fine and reasonable, some of them *really* are not and potentially threatening?
if we let in *some* (proven to be potentially) dangerous muslims from the middle east, this means we *still* don't have an effective filter to stop the dangerous muslims regardless of what numbers we allow for, suggesting that, merely for the sake of not hurting muslims' feelings, we are accepting a risk to ourselves.
let's compare this to having a bowl of candy, and we're told that 1% of the candy is poisonous - do we risk our lives and eat the candy, trying to guess which ones are safe and which ones aren't, or are we going to *not* eat any of the candy, in the knowledge that we could be seriously harmed by doing so?
so, "moderate muslims", from these facts, must concede to the fact that *some* muslims, perhaps not them, but some, are radicals and islamists/sharia law authoritarians, or even jihadists. but, surely, they understand that *some* even as a small number, is enough to poison the well of muslim immigration. even if they know that most muslims from the middle east, perhaps, are reasonable, the fact that a significant proportion are *not*, and even, perhaps, like the paris bombers, the recently stopped swiss bombers, the belgian trade jihadist, the stabber in the london underground, etc, means that they *must* honestly recognise that although, like I said, they aren't necessarily a problem, their group is, and unfortunately, that means that they must be generalised to be in this group, or else we will suffer. this is not racist, unfair, etc - this is rationally protecting ourselves from a group known to be a threat, while we are recognising that not all of them are *actually* bad. it is irrational to trade political correctness for self-destruction (potential).
let's compare this to another example: let's say that I'm a communist wanting to immigrate to america in the 1950s - and let's say that 50%~ (or 25% - whenever you prefer) of communists in my country/continent want to impose a violent marxist revolution to overthrow capitalism (and the state as it stands, etc). BUT, let's say I'm a "moderate" communist, who believes in the values of freedom, equality, justice, etc, and I didn't let my communism (my "liberal democratic" interpretation of marxist-leninist communism, or whatever) cause me to hate the west or want to change the capitalist system of america through violence (perhaps with my similarly communist immigrant friends). SURELY, I must understand that, although *I* am not going to be violent in my new country, if there are studies that show that my political demographic, by a considerable or significant proportion, WILL, then how am I honestly going to say "this isn't a problem, let my demographic in" when there is evidence that this will endanger that country? if I am a reasonable and moderate person, surely I am not going to resort to privileging my own group for the sake of my incredibly selfish pride and self-importance? surely I recognise that by doing this incredibly entitled and egotistical act of demanding that the government treats my problemtatic group as if it's not a problem is going to seem *extremely* unreasonable and unmoderate when it is increasing the danger towards that society I'm wanting to move to or stay in? how could I possibly be so defiant of reality that I am saying that just because one person (me) in a dangerous group is reasonable and liberal, this means that I can generalise my entire group to also be not a problem - I don't understand how somebody could be so stupid. it's like saying that japanese immigration was okay in the 1940s in america - obviously - america paused japanese immigration during this time. but our international relations today is *characterised* by combating terrorism and jihad, so this is the new phase, like the cold war and the world wars. so moderate muslims should acknowledge that, if they were, say, middle easterners today, while this crisis was occurring for us in the west, they would say "you know what? fair enough - they are trying to protect themselves from the group that has consistently proven itself to be problematic - and just because I am a sensible member of this group doesn't change the fact that my group is still populated by some dangerous individuals - I don't blame them for barring me for being a member of this group, because I realise that it is going to protect them from the worst case scenario!"
so I have come to the conclusion that stopping muslim immigration *temporarily* (at least) is *not* unfair. the statistics prove that middle eastern muslims are going to threaten our security, by the fact that many of their self-expressed opinions are horrific and dangerous, so allowing and encouraging them to come here, when they hate the values of the west (although enjoy the economic benefits of it), is, like I suggested, eating a bowl of candies when we *know* that some of the candy is poisonous. eventually, we are going to eat the poison and we'll be telling ourselves "we *knew* this might happen, but we stupidly did it anyway!"
TL;DR - if moderate muslims know that many in their group might commit terrorism, even though that many in their group wouldn't, surely they, therefore, must realise that their group is dangerous, and this must mean that we have no other option, regarding our policy of security, to generalise their group for the sake of safety; 1% of their group, even, being jihadist, is enough, perhaps, to cause another terrorist incident, because 1% is still a figure that represents a potential terrorist.
(I probably shouldn't put in a TLDR because it means that most people will simply read this and ignore everything else I've said...oh well.)