Comments

About Jimmy Carter banning Iranians from coming here during the hostage crisis — 51 Comments

1. Okay, then please tell me *which* countries that are majority Muslim are the ‘safe’ ones? Even Saudi Arabia has shipped terrorists over here. Even some of countries from the former Soviet Union have shipped terrorists over here. There are Muslim terrorists in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

   How can you possibly make that distinction?

   Since Ms. Malik came here from Pakistan/Saudi Arabia, which are two countries that we have pretty decent relationships with, I cannot trust ANY muslim-majority country any more.

2. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somali, Yemen, Iraq etc, etc.

3. I am against accepting any of the Syrian refugees here (with a possible exception for Christians or others escaping religious persecution), but I support their resettlement in other Middle Eastern countries.

   No room in America for Christian refugees
   http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

   America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.
   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   The Christians would barely have to be vetted for ties to terror organizations, which by their very nature do not take Christians. Meanwhile, there is the uncomfortable issue that among the Sunni refugees there are some in league with the Sunni terror militias. And beyond that there is the equally uncomfortable question of the acculturation of segments of the Muslim community.

4. I don’t see how or why anyone would trust these demonstrably incompetent idiots to vet anyone with any degree of assurance/certitude to the public.

   …based upon recent events, the feds are either merely negligent or criminally negligent. Choose one.

5. IMHO, “folks” running for public office should not be expected to take a legalistic, detailed approach to public statements. They should paint with a broad brush. This of course sets them up as sniper targets for the legaloids, the dissecters, the minutia-lovers, the exception-finders. But what are they to do? If their remarks are detailed, they will get shot at just the same.

   So on the whole I prefer KISS.
   KISS means to hell with the charade called vetting.
   Trump is right.

6. US authorities have charged at least 66 men and women with ISIS-related terror plots on American soil — including a handful of refugees, Daily Mail Online can reveal.
   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

   The FBI admits that the vast majority of religious hate crimes are against Jews:

   56.8 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.

   16.1 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.

   Moreover, 19.6% of hate crimes were directed at religions outside of the Jewish and Muslim faiths.

   Muslims are far more often the perpetrators than the victims of hate crimes. In a country of close to 325 million people, there were 183 hate crimes committed against Muslims last year.

   Local Imam agrees with Trump: “It would be wise to stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants”

   Alsayyed told 12News exclusively, “I certainly see it to be wise (to) stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants (refugees and non-refugees) into the United States.”

   His justification, Alsayyed said, “is based on the fact that we can hardly distinguish who is Muslim and who is not. Islam is not about an ID card or last name or shouting ‘Allahu Akbar.'”

   Alsayyed said he does not believe there is anything unconstitutional about Trump’s proposal saying, “when it comes to peace and safety,” a ban would be acceptable.

   “We American Muslims need to be sincere in our religion and to the country we are living in. Peace comes before religion. We need to be truthful and transparent when we express a viewpoint or feedback. It does not matter whether Trump said it or anyone else,” said the imam.

   The cleric also said, “American Muslims need to say we are with this country,” and raise the American flag with patriotism.

   -=-=-=-=-=-=-

   how do you take over a nuclear state when you cant bomb them, invade them, or accept them?

   that is what this is about, and its about using our crazy morals againts us. you cant invade or have a open war with a nuclear state, so you have to play games with immigration, eugenics, abortion, education, moral games, etc.

   and you HAVE to do this through the women who will trust too much and be too soft, and so will not only foment the game but will protect it till its over. this is why you target them. get them to feel for the people that would kill them, then let the killers in.

   just note that these moralists are the ones who sell fetal parts, lie as a goodness, want post birth abortions, communism, etc..

   for people who quote saul alinsky i guess you missed he part to use the morals and rules against the enemy by forcing them to live up to crazy applications of them that lead to cultural as well as other forms of sucide as liberalism in the 1950s was discussed as the ideology of suicide, where a state comes up with ideas that over the long haul results in changing that state and bypassing the nuclear weapon problem.

7. It appears to me that a recurring (ever-present?) problem is that Westerners always seem to speak of, and conceive of various parts of the world in terms of, nation-states, which is pretty much a misconception when it comes to the Middle East. I don’t think Middle Eastern Muslims much see themselves as ‘Syrians or ‘Iraqis’ as such. My understanding (mainly derived from reading Bernard Lewis) is that their worldview is such that Tribe, Family/Clan and whatever brand of Islam they’ve submitted to are far, far more meaningful to them than any citizenship they may have as the result of the “Great Divvying Up” that took place after WWI and WWII. We need a better understanding of that world view so that we can more intelligently “separate the wheat from the chaff” when setting policy. I suppose identifying those “countries” from which the most dangerous people tend to come might be somewhat helpful when analyzing populations on a geographical basis, but I know in my bones that it’s very wrong to think that a “Syrian” (for example) conceives of his/her nationality like a European or American would.

8. Artfldgr:

   I will probably write a post in the next few days about the outrageous fact that we haven’t taken in many Syrian Christians, but till then I refer you to this article explaining what’s going on.

   A while back I came across a very lengthy article on the refugees from Syria. The author reported that in Turkey, most (almost all) of the Christian refugees had been taken in by the Christian community in Turkey and resettled there (same for Lebanon, I seem to recall). So although there had been many Christians fleeing Syria, there were not so many looking to come here.

   This seems somewhat relevant to that issue, but it’s almost a year old. This supports it, but its rather old as well.

   There are certainly very few Christians from Syria coming here, and we already know how very little Obama seems to care about the plight of Christians in the Middle East today. So it’s no stretch at alll to imagine that this administration would deliberately exclude them or discourage them in some way from coming here. However, it’s not clear that at least some of the lack of Christians among the refugees coming here isn’t a reflection of the way the system works vis a vis the UN doing the initial vetting—a system that, by the way, desperately needs changing.

9. Neo, what you have is what Michael Munger calls the Unicorn Theory of Governance. You think there is this fantasy world where immigrants can be properly vetted. This is impossible because those in power do not want it to happen.

   Ann Coulter documents in Adios, America! how every rule under the previous amnesty laws were quietly aside out by the bureaucracy without the people’s knowledge. It is why Coulter insists on a zero immigration policy. It is because the world you envision doesn’t exist.

10. boxty:

    Of course they can be properly vetted—as long as their numbers are severely limited, which I am also advocating. That doesn’t mean they can be perfectly vetted. But Trump’s suggestions are likewise, imperfect.

    Your saying my world is a fantasy world doesn’t make it so.

    And it’s no more a fantasy world than the idea that banning Muslims would solve the problem. Actually, both proposals (mine and Trump’s) would merely reduce the problem and make it more manageable. Why? Because someone could lie and get around Trump’s ban easily; if a person who’s assimilated into Western culture wants to hide religious affiliation with Islam (and degree of religiosity), it’s not so hard to do it. Banning “Muslims” would require a sort of “vetting” (how to determine a person’s religion) that could be circumvented by lies and secrecy, just as my suggestions could. Proper vetting depends on what you research and what questions you ask, and who asks the questions and how trained and aware they are, and we’re doing it very poorly at the moment and not even asking the right questions.

    The Trump system—if he excluded citizens from the travel ban, which he seems to have now done, although earlier it seemed he included them in the ban—would not have prevented someone such as Farook from committing his terrorist acts. Neither would my plan, by the way—but my point is that each plan contains loopholes that a determined jihadi could easily avoid.

    I don’t envision the world you think I envision, and I’m getting mighty sick of people imagining me to be saying and thinking things I’m neither saying nor thinking.

11. boxty

    Trump’s policy ideas are the real fantasy because it simply will not happen. It’s like those campaign promises where the politician says if I am elected everyone will have a job and every child will be clothed and fed and educated for free. It’s sounds appealing until you actually look at the reality and realize it’s just not possible. Same with Trump’s ideas on banning Muslims. Saying it gives him YUUUGE ratings but won’t actually be implemented.

12. MDL – I think even Trump knows that his idea cannot be 100% implemented. The whole point is to take the hardest right stance, and then give in only through negotiation. If you don’t start at the hard right and work down, you will only get leftist-type results. We MUST start at the hard right and FORCE the left to agree to *some* of what we ask for.

    Just like Trump’s stance on illegal immigrants…he wants to get rid of them all. Sure, that sound impossible and seems too expensive. But if he started with just those who are criminals, deporting them repeatedly until they stay away…then, more will self-deport. Especially if you cut off benefits…which could be easily done.

    We MUST take these very hard right stances in order to do anything useful at all.

13. I’ve come to the conclusion that Trump is a walking disaster. I sincerely hope someone like Cruz or Fiorina best him in the upcoming primaries.

    However, he is a master of marketing. He has the pulse of a large segment of the population who are mad as hell, and he knows just how to tap into that anger. He does it much better than any of the other candidates.

    I will now await the flames heading in my direction from many of the fellow contributors here.

14. Fourteen years after the Sept. 11 attacks and we still can’t vet immigrants to this country. Yet you still think it can somehow be made to work.

    “One change I would advocate in the immigrant-vetting process is to ask questions designed to get at whether people hold beliefs antithetical to our liberties (I will probably write a post with more details about that), which is not currently done.”

    1. People will lie about their beliefs. I believe Ann Coulter documents that in her book and gives a specific example.

    2. You have a third of the electorate (aka the Democrat party) that holds beliefs antithetical to our liberties. They control the bureaucracy. They will not vet the people the way you envision, even if enacted into law.

    I shouldn’t say you live in a fantasy world, but that you forget that your proposal would require a government that we don’t have in order to work.

    Brief page on unicorn governance: http://fee.org/freeman/unicorn-governance/

    Sorry if I added to your frustration since I do enjoy your blog and your comments very much.

15. @ carl in atlanta

    Exactly correct. The terrorists adhere to the religion of their tribe, not a nation. Blocking immigrants from individual nations would be nugatory.

16. Vetting costs money. Lots of it, actually. Why spend it on vetting? As opposed, for example, on developing a vaccine for Ebola. We do not need 99.99% of the migrants.
    It’s OK, though; it is just Other People’s Money.

17. Frog:

    All refugees and immigrants must be vetted. That’s true of people from all countries at this point, because the problem of Islamic terrorism (as well as other problems) has spread around the world and includes citizens of those countries.

    Now, if you’re talking about closing down immigration entirely, that’s certainly within your rights to support. I don’t suggest anything that extreme—not yet, anyway.

    But I do suggest limiting it drastically, which would cut down on the money expended.

18. snopercod:

    It would be effective if you included enough nations, and if you improved the screening in general for people outside those nations. This is separate from the issue of how the people themselves view their allegiances, because this has nothing to do with their allegiance (or lack thereof) to their respective nations. It is merely a recognition that certain nations contain high proportions of jihadis and their supporters.

19. Discrimination: 2,098 Syrian Muslim Refugees Allowed Into America, Only 53 Christians
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/17/discrimination-2098-syrian-muslim-refugees-allowed-into-america-only-53-christians/

    Christians are persecuted in those countries even when there isnt a refugee situation. i am related to more than one christian refugee from a muslim country.

    yeah, a syrian may have a bad time, or not, as they are part of the life there, and they are fleeing a conflict.

    but a christian? they can be set on fire alive, they can be crucified, beheaded, and so on.

    so what do we do? we decide to treat muslims and christians equally, and leave the christians to the muslims to be tortured, pay jizzya when not, and generally be put upon (coptics collect plastic garbage and live in horrid squalor to just survive and we wont let them into the US), and thats so we can treat the jihadis and their victims equally.

    good job
    the US and its leftist, even non leftist but leftist siding idiots, deserve what they will lose and get.

    at some point you lose all respect, and sympathy for such morons who would claim to be against the left but follow the lefts ideas and moral rules and so on, fulfilling alinsky and insuring the US will fall and become a dictatorship of sorts.

    i am at the point where you get what you deserve.. or as hitler put it: Jedem das Seine

    sadly, the ladies are leading the charge to the nations destruction and there is nothig one can do to even talk to them about not trusting those that should not be trusted. even the femnists are siding with wearing the chador and other things.

    yup… its suicide, and we are dying
    and nothing you can do because the ones doing the self extermination wont stop, cant be talked to, cant be convinced and have to complete the task of the betrayal of their own from biblical myths to other histories.

    a change story that neo ignores along with a lot of others who are more inconvenient in their knowlege than the kinds she covers. (like mamet)

    The son of a wealthy New York City railroad executive, he became a Trotskyite and a member of the inner circle of Partisan Review before breaking with the Left and devoting the remainder of his life to resisting the Communist assault on the West.

    Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism
    Burnham’s thesis is straightforward. “.Liberalism,” he writes, “is the ideology of western suicide.

    Ideology, by his definition, is “a more or less systematic and selfcontained set of ideas supposedly dealing with the nature of reality (usually social reality), or some segment of reality, and of man’s relation (attitude, conduct) toward it; and calling for a commitment [i.e agendum] independent of specific experience or events.”

    the salient connection is this
    The excessive rationalism of liberalism, moreover, commits it paradoxically to a relativistic theory of truth which holds that no objective truth exists-and that, if it does, we could never prove that objective truth was, in fact, what we had hold of. This reasoning amounts to a form of anti-intellectualism that is wholly unexpected from the premier intellectual tradition of modern intellectualism. It amounts also to what Burnham perceives as “an inescapable practical dilemma” for liberalism. “Either [it] must extend the [liberal] freedoms [of speech, conscience, association, etc.] to those who are not themselves liberals and even to those whose deliberate purpose is to destroy the liberal society.or liberalism must deny its own principles, restrict the freedoms, and practice discrimination.”

    rather than do something sane in terms of a real world, what is the point is to do what is intellectual and then apply morals in a way that leads to the doom of the society.

    this is the crux of what neo is doing and others as well… extending the rights and rules to people who dont belive in them, oppose them, wish the extenders harm, and doing so to feel intellectual ok with complete disregard for reality and being practical with survival as number 1

    in this case, neo does not care about survival
    she only cares that the great nothing sees that we died morally by extending morals to the immoral who would not play by the rules, will take advantage of it, and damn the outcome

    given most of the refugees are male, most are illiterate, and its now over 100,000 a year, with each getting over 50k in welfare, and who will have lots and lots of kids displacing the natives and replacing their moral idiocy with another amoral success.

    ie. bring a flower to a gun fight..

    Liberalism, though surely a rational system, is not by virtue of its rationality a reasonable one. Liberalism amounts to a fasces of propositions (Burnham lists nineteen) not all of which all liberals assent to. So logical is the structure of liberal ideology, however, that if certain of these liberal beliefs can be shown to be false or problematical, logical argument based upon the chain of logical propositions simply dissolves. And so, “The liberals, whether they like it or not, are stuck with liberalism.”

    and THAT is the point… they would rather die and be made slaves than admit that the house of cards be knocked down. but they are only choosing to wait till its knocked down later not now and by their own action. THAT is what Trump is doing, and we are reflexivly jumping back from

    ie. its a dirty fight and the liberals and neo want to maintain quensbury rules in a street fight.

    yeah, queensbury rules are moral, but only applicable when the opposition is using them too in a fair fight, when not, men know enough to drop the rules and meet things toe for toe

    if the islamics didnt want to be restricted they could just tattle on the jahadis and we would remove them and be done… just as good blacks suffer the ills of bad blacks that act out, lie, commit crimes, etc… bad islamics suffer the ills of good ones.

    as i said before, you can love the jellybeans all you want, but if your told one in the bag has cyanide in it, how many beans to you dare eat?

    the problem is that women dont see that this is about destruction as men do. ergo, they are targeted for their softspot and internal logic which would demand one does not negate the society, but the men are of the mind that if you do X your not part of the society and so dont afford its protections.

    if a person in a group has the plague, do you let them all in because its just not fair? neo would…

    its just that she dont want to see the plague of the few due to sympathy for the others – who will not show any sympathy to her!!!!

    i will put the last burnham quote in the next post as neo will cut this one down most likely

20. boxty:

    But, as I wrote in my earlier comment to you on this thread, the argument that people will lie about their beliefs is good both for my suggestions and for Trump’s. People would lie in either case, and in either case they would have to be vetted, and the vetting would never be perfect.

    So neither suggestion solves the problem.

    In addition, ever since 9/11 our vetting process has been terrible, both under Bush and especially under Obama (it was obviously bad before). PC has ruled the day, and I don’t think it should. I’m suggesting something different and nore stringent, more akin to the Israeli methods of vetting passengers.

    And yes, most liberals would object vociferously to all of this.

21. It’s easy to recognize exactly where neo is coming from, nor is it right to put words in her mouth.

    That said, IMHO neo is proposing half measures, which are indeed far better than what all democrats are offering and substantively better than what Bush and Rubio are offering.

    Unfortunately, no tragically, they will prove insufficient. As there are far too few American Muslims who place allegiance to American principles before their faith’s tenets.

    neo states, “Of course they can be properly vetted–as long as their numbers are severely limited, which I am also advocating.”

    I would ask, vet them exactly how?

    The doctrines of Taqiyya and Muruna ensure that no probability of validity can be placed upon assurances of sincerity.

    Then there is the fact that as a Muslim population increases, support for violence substantively increases among those who formerly advocated peace. That is because in general, ‘moderation’ among Muslims is directly proportional to the percentage of Muslims in a society. In Islam, the societal predominance of Muslims determines the degree of moderation allowed. In 1400 years that’s been the case because moderate Muslims know the truth as to Islam’s inherent violence.

    Many here realize how difficult a personal change in viewpoint is, how much harder when religion and someone’s entire world view is involved?

    Then I would ask neo to contrast her belief that a small percentage of Muslims can be vetted with her admission just a few paragraphs later that, my point is that each plan contains loopholes that a determined jihadi could easily avoid.”

    If anything less than banning Muslims from entrance and expelling all Muslims from America will allow determined jihadi(s) to avoid detection, then that position implicitly sacrifices innocent’s lives.

    Which of course is exactly what is going to happen.

    You cannot win a fight with an opponent that you refuse to recognize. At this point, anyone who thinks that radical Islam can be separated from Islam itself is living with their head firmly planted, where the sun don’t shine…

22. Geoffrey Britain:

    Of course my suggestions are imperfect, as are Trump’s, and for essentially the same reasons: people lie.

    My suggestions for vetting include a consideration of religion and belief system For example, refugees should be quizzed about their religious beliefs and in particular their support for sharia law, what they think of about the establishment of a state religion, the caliphate, liberty, etc. If their answers don’t indicate an ability to fit in with the values of this country they don’t come here. That would exclude many Muslims but not all, but it would not be strictly on the basis of what religion they ascribe to. It would also exclude some non-Muslims, by the way.

    I also believe we should more severely limit numbers (perhaps by a country-by-country quota, or perhaps a different system), and end the almost-automatic admission of family members.

    I also think visas should be severely limited and not issued as a matter of course. They should be exceptions rather than the rule, and a person should have a very good reason for coming, and lots of testimonials about their trustworthiness and non-fanaticism.

23. Oh neo. No offense intended but such naé¯veté.

    “include a consideration of religion and belief system For example, refugees should be quizzed about their religious beliefs and in particular their support for sharia law, what they think of about the establishment of a state religion, the caliphate, liberty, etc. If their answers don’t indicate an ability to fit in with the values of this country they don’t come here. That would exclude many Muslims “

    That would indeed exclude honest Muslims.

    ISIS can easily arrange for jihadis to enter from ‘safe’ countries. Easily arrange to give them documentation and a back story. Arrange for them to be carefully coached and drilled in what to say.

    They can and will deny personal support for Sharia. Claim to support separation of church and state, dismiss the need or even desirability of a Caliphate… They can say and act exactly as needed. Taqiyya is their ‘get out of jail card’ and go directly to paradise. And with Sunni Muruna, they can drink liquor, eat pork, pet a pig etc. and they are absolved from ‘sin’ before the act.

    Your prescription would bar honest, devout Muslims wishing to enter such as the 51% of American Muslims who support Sharia. But it would do nothing to stop jihadis. Nor would it do anything to detect the 25% of Muslim Americans who support violent retribution against all who defame Islam.

    The looming danger to America is far greater than simply ISIS jihadis seeking entrance. San Bernardino was the tip of the iceberg. What happens when they go after our water supplies? Key electrical grid transformer stations? And, they will, it’s a ‘cast iron cinch’. Millions are going to die because our PC principles prevent our effectively defending ourselves.

    Half measures make a suicide pact of the Constitution.

24. Geoffrey Britain:

    You continue to misunderstand my point.

    ISIS can foil any suggestion, including Trump’s. ISIS can use citizens. ISIS can provide people with false documentation about their religious affiliation.

    I am suggesting something more akin to police interrogation or what Israelis do to screen travelers and the like. Highly trained questioners, questioning a very finite number of already-selected applicants, and questioning them in depth. A highly trained person can tell pretty well if someone is lying or even suspected of lying. We can be quite selective if we cut back on numbers.

    It would have to be done the same way, anyway, if Trump’s religious criteria were to be used. Either way, there can be deception that has to be rooted out. Don’t forget that I am for banning immtgration and travel to the US from certain countries such as Syria, except for what I’ll call the Carter exception. I started to believe in the immediate post 9/11 days that we should cut back and change our immigration and visa process, so these are not new thoughts for me.

    The only alternative to this is closing all immigration from all countries, entirely. Because people can always lie.

    I am not naive. It may come to that. But I think the sort of restrictions I am suggesting preserve some immigration while keeping us safer.

    My true beliefs are far from naive at this point. I think the horse is already out of the barn.

    The dilemma is that all measures are half-measures at this point, including Trump’s, if you’re talking about preventing the sort of nightmare things you’re envisioning.

25. neo:

    “For example, refugees should be quizzed about their religious beliefs and in particular their support for sharia law, what they think of about the establishment of a state religion, the caliphate, liberty, etc.”

    Coulter covers this. They are already coached on the answers.

26. boxty:

    Actually, they are NOT quizzed about this at present.

    So I don’t know what Coulter could be referring to (plus, the current questioners are not trained in the way I’m talking about, and the interviews are relatively quick).

    Such questions are presently banned:

    U.S. law enforcement officials involved in screening Syrian refugees are forbidden from asking key questions about individuals’ religious affiliations or beliefs based on policy guidance created by the Obama administration, according to a recent report published at The Daily Caller.

    The piece notes that both Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) policies have increasingly restricted the ability of law enforcement to query individuals about their religious behaviors or associations.

    “These gradual but severe restrictions were coupled with a simultaneous reduction in accurate, fact-based training to address the nature of the threat we face, leaving us inadequately prepared for the challenges we face today,” The Daily Caller cites a “government source familiar with national security” as saying.

    Read the whole thing. It’s been going on for quite some time, too.

    And in a more general way, it goes further back than the Obama administration. I don’t have time to find the links on this right now, but I recall reading that this has long been an immigration policy (not to ask about belief systems). I am proposing a change there.

    So again, I don’t know what Coulter is referring to. As far as deception in general goes—as I’ve said many times now, a person can deceive about whether he/she is a Muslim just as easily as about belief systems. Even former membership in a mosque wouldn’t stop such lies; a person could just say that now he/she has renounced Islam and is an apostate.

27. “One change I would advocate in the immigrant-vetting process is to ask questions designed to get at whether people hold beliefs antithetical to our liberties (I will probably write a post with more details about that), which is not currently done.”

    Apologies for decontextualizing here neo-neocon, but is it not a sad truth that Americans could not be troubled to do this even in regard to the man they chose twice to make the highest executive officer of their own land? Moreover, in that instance the pool of candidates was quite small — and still the Americans couldn’t be troubled.

28. sdferr:

    The fact that I suggest something certainly doesn’t mean that this country will adopt it. But it’s what I think should be done.

29. It was not my object to suggest one way or the other that such a program will be adopted neo, nor even in fact to disagree with your idea, which I think wholly salutary — it was merely to observe that Americans fall short of themselves and their own “interests rightly understood,” as Tocqueville put it.

30. @ neo-neocon

    It is merely a recognition that certain nations contain high proportions of jihadis and their supporters.

    Don’t you mean a high proportion of Muslims?

    Aside: Since you’re obviously interested in the topic of immigration, how about a discussion of FDR sending a boatload of Jews to their deaths rather than allow them to emigrate America? See: SS St. Louis…

31. snopercod:

    Yes a high proportions of Muslims who are jihadis and their supporters.

    I said what I meant. I think that most human beings who haven’t been living under a rock for several decades are aware that jihadis are Muslims and their supporters tend to overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) be Muslims as well.

    One doesn’t have to say “Muslim” every time it might be used when it’s already inherent in the thought. I have shown absolutely no reluctance to use the word in describing either terrorists or their supporters. All Muslims are not jihadis or supporters, but virtually all jihadis (and almost all supporters) are Muslims.

32. snopercod:

    I wrote a rather long post on Jewish emigration from Germany during the 1930s and the problems the Jews faced. It doesn’t deal with that one incident (which I’m certainly aware of), but it mentions US policy in general, along with a lot more. You might want to look at it.

    Also, oddly enough, I have included a discussion of the SS St. Louis in a draft I haven’t finished yet and haven’t published, called “Why the Muslim Syrian refugees are nothing like the Jews in WWII.”

33. Might there be a range of Solomonic baby-splitting questions which, with proper care and due training, consular officers may be equipped to ease the culling of the liars from the forthright applicants? Like say, on the hypothetical: “here good person, will you hold this Koran in your left hand?” Or presented with some commonplace Arab propaganda photo of a gruesomely deceased Arab woman or child (generally falsely, of course) attributed by the consular officer (again, falsely) to the hateful dealings of the Israelis and with some subtle if slight encouragement from the consular officer to the applicant to denounce Israel and Israelis as abominations upon the earth, thus qualify this applicant for disqualification? For importing antisemites, as it seems to me, is also a bad idea for America. Despite that we have one such in the Oval Office.

34. sdferr:

    My guess is that you’re being sarcastic?

    But actually, interrogators learn how to do that or its equivalent. Right now we are barred from even trying to ask about beliefs; it’s absurd.

35. Yes, but only partially sarcastic — there remains a serious element to that. On account of: deadly.

36. C-span showed a panel discussion yesterday on improving security in the Federal government. The 5 panelists were all former, fairly highly placed Federales (e.g., Assistant Secretary of State for Something or Other) in their 60s. The lead-off was about how antique Federal security clearance processes are today. Today. And how much inertia there is in changing any Federal process; this, from people previously employed in generating and maintaining said inertia!
    You think we’re going to vet better?

37. I’ve been going over the comments of the last few days here and elsewhere, and it seems to me that the vast majority of the time, when people write in terms of barring “Muslim” immigration or taking measures against “Muslim” jihadis, they seem really to mean specifically Arab Muslims and their near neighbors (Persian Gulf, Pakistan, and so on). That is, people tend to equate Arabic Islam specifically with Islam globally in connection with active jihad, which I think is an error.

    I believe that if one were to consider most West African Muslims, for example, the threat posed by them would at least be less, in general. Yes, we have the Islamic State in West Africa (formerly known as Boko Haram), but of the West African Muslims I’ve known (from Mauritania, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal), I see less reason to expect active jihad from them than from people from the Arab regions.

    So I think that, rather than casting a big single blanket over every majority-Muslim country or ethnic group in this matter, at least a large chunk of the West African population need not be a source of existential angst for us. I might even go so far as to speculate that a regular level of immigration on their part could even have a salutary effect on the African-American community, in that the influence of the Nation of Islam, for example, might be somewhat reduced over time through the blending-in of ‘real’ African Muslims–even more so in combination with a bar on the import of Wahhabi imams and literature, for example.

    In short, I think that Islam in West Africa is, in the main, notably more laid-back and peaceful than other versions, and that this is underappreciated. I’m not familiar with Indonesians, Malaysians or Bangladeshis, so I can’t comment on those cases.

38. I do not think you are a naive person neo, so perhaps accusing you of naivete on this issue is somewhat inaccurate.

    I do think you are very reluctant to face the depth of the solution needed because in the long run, it threatens to be a potential case of “the cure being worse than the disease”.

    Tragically, this can be likened to a case of breast cancer with a full mastectomy the only cure. The patient may never be the same but left undone, there will be no patient.

    I pray I’m wrong but can find no factual rationale upon which to doubt the extent of the disease, nor the ‘solution’ required. I have reluctantly arrived at the solution I advocate because no other will address the nature of the issue.

    We will find out however if some lesser solution will suffice because too many in this nation are not yet accepting of the nature of the threat, much less the cure…

    Reality however will convince them for two determinant factors ensure that outcome. This feckless (and malicious) administration’s determination to do as little as possible and, the certainty of more and greater attacks. As fanatics and these are fanatics, ‘double down’ when their strategy proves insufficient. 9/11 was but a precursor.

    Once jihadists start attacking our water supplies. Attack key transformer stations needed to keep up the nation’s electrical grid, then the consequences of denial of reality will start to be undeniable.

    “Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.” C.S. Lewis

39. Geoffrey Britain:

    I think my comment to you earlier indicated I certainly understand the depth of the problem and what might happen.

    My point in writing about this for the last couple of days in terms of Trump’s suggestions is that his are not likely to be more effective than mine, and they are more draconian.

    The left is having a field day, because his recommendations are both draconian AND as ineffective as less draconian suggestions (such as mine, for example).

    I’m not only not naive about this, I’m very pessimistic. And I believe Donald Trump is going to ruin any chance of doing a thing to prevent it, because he’s going to drive people to Hillary Clinton who otherwise would not be going there.

40. “The Carter directive is…substantially different from what Trump has suggested.”

    Puh-LEASE!

    Tomato – tom-mato….

41. I mean, have the primaries started yet?

    Has Trump been seasoned” against the RINO ruling class evils yet?

    My point: lot’s of baking time to come before calling any prez prospect overdone, half-baked, or else beyond the pale…like Hitler.

42. I think everyone can agree ‘vetting’ will always have flaws and a certain percentage of those vetted and allowed entry will turn out to be people wishing to engage in death and destruction. So those who wish to allow entry with a more stringent vetting process are willing to accept some level of death and destruction. This is the exact position of those who believe we need gun free zones, they are willing to accept a level of death and destruction.

43. parker:

    Do you realize that quite a few of the Muslim terrorists in this country and Europe right now are citizens rather than immigrants? And there are apparently a great many of them. There is no way to avoid “accepting a certain level of death and destruction” unless you intend to deport every Muslim in America, and all the wannabees too.

    The question is what is the best way to handle reducing the number of jihadis entering this country (that’s where my suggestions on immigration, including cutting the numbers way back as well as better vetting, come in) and finding the ones who are already here, either as citizens or immigrants, and how best to accomplish both, considering that all suggestions so far (including Trump’s) will allow “a certain level of death and destruction.” Which things will do the least damage for the most reward?—that is the question.

    It is a battle with many parts and decisions, all with potential to reduce the level of death and destruction (which will almost certainly not become zero no matter what we do):

    (1) fight ISIS abroad
    (2) limit immigration from abroad
    (3) vet immigrants you allow in
    (4) limit visas
    (5) track those who come in on visas
    (6) reduce or if possible stop illegal immigration
    (7) reduce or stop terrorists’ access to money
    (8) monitor suspects within this country, including citizens who are suspects
    (9) monitor suspects abroad, including citizens who are suspects
    (10) try to get the public in this country behind your policies
    (11) broaden the rules of engagement for the military
    (12) mobilize the local Muslim community to help

    I’m sure there are more; that’s just a quick list.

44. Of course I realize the (up to now) current resident muslim population is the most likely vector for ‘jihad disease’. Give me credit for an IQ of at least 80. Unlike others who have posted comments in the last few days, I do not favor (currently) deporting resident muslims or putting them in FDR style interment camps. However, I do believe there needs to be a moratorium on entry from certain regions, and that includes American citizens returning from those regions. If that is viewed as islamophobic discrimination, then prevent all entry from anywhere on the globe.

    Yes, I know that is not practical. But even the most stringent vetting of those entering from jihad landia will never be anywhere near 75% effective. Thus, out of 10,000 so vetted 2,500 may or not be potential jihadists. Even 25, 20, 5, or 1 out of 10,000 is unacceptable to me. The barbarians in France were amateurs. If I wished to create mass murder I could enlist 10 family members to murder thousands in one fell swoop without flying airplanes into buildings or a wmd.

    Determined jihadists, with adequate training, who select the right targets at the right time, can and sooner or later will, murder thousands without sophisticated weapons. Its a given. It can not be prevented even if we become a police state. All I want us to do is reduce the eventual carnage. If that is alt-right (never heard the term before) then count me in.

45. parker:

    Then we are in basic agreement.

    I’ve also been in favor of a moratorium on travel back and forth from certain regions. Also in favor of revoking citizenship for those who helped the terrorist cause in Syria, and of trying them for treason. I started writing about that a year and a half ago, so it has nothing to do with Trump.

    One of the things that’s been frustrating the last few days is that many commenters here (I’m not including you, by the way, at least not as far as I recall) seem to have forgotten everything I’ve ever written about immigration and think I’ve been soft on these matters or naive about them—just because I don’t think Trump’s idea about vetting by religion is a good one. It doesn’t mean I don’t think we need to do a great deal to avoid making the problem worse, and also to deal with the problem of finding terrorists already here.

    There is something very disturbing about this kneejerk reaction of accusing people who don’t agree with Trump’s positions of being too soft on immigration—as though Trump’s position is the only possible one and the best one, and anyone who disagrees is in favor of just letting in a flow of terrorists.

46. neo,

    As I have stated many times, I view trump as a great danger, same as I viewed bho in 2008. But I also understand his appeal to his ‘reality’ fan base. I can feel the same tug of emotion, but I am immune to the populist emotive id. Yet, we face an implacable enemy. Such enemies must be fought and defeated with an implacable will. Cruz and Fiorina, IMO, have the fortitude of a Churchill, and that is exactly what we need.

    Dangerous days ahead, especially for those who live in urban areas. I wish everyone a happy, safe holiday; even if I may disagree with any of you from time to time.

47. parker:

    Well, I seem to be “immune to the populist emotive id,” too. 🙂

48. Why not ban them? The Japanese do, IIRC.

    Alternatively, there’s Neo’s list of actions, above, and I would say #12 needs a lot more attention. I believe there have been some moderate moslems who have offered to help this administration and Bush’s as well, but who have been rebuffed, largely by the State Dept. Much like they refuse to use Israeli Jewish translators of Arabic, preferring to trust the moslems to translate their co-religionists’ hate speech.

    But at bottom, we’re dealing with a Small World problem. In the founding fathers’ time, they didn’t have to worry about mohammedans or head-hunting cannibals coming to America in any numbers. Now, however, we do — and we need to stop treating islam, inter alia, like it’s just another branch of the Judeo-Christian moral universe.

49. FALSE documents from the Muslim world are ten-a-penny, neo.

    Erdogan is handing them out like Chicklets.

    He’s the patron of ISIS — and doesn’t Putin know it.

    Putin is not pulling that opinion out of his ear, either.

    Turkey is a gateway for ISIS.

    It needs to be expelled out of NATO.

    His shoot down of Russia’s plane was purely provocation — theater.

    The standard NATO drill — going back forever — is to escort the Russians// Soviets.

    The WORST terrorists are coming via Saudi Arabia.

    Trump was RIGHT.

50. This was posted ovr at Bring the Heat, Bring the Stupid, and is a good synopsis of the ISIS
    http://xbradtc.com/2015/12/09/know-your-enemy-the-islamic-state/

51. parker Says:
    December 10th, 2015 at 12:34 am

    neo,

    As I have stated many times, I view trump as a great danger, same as I viewed bho in 2008. But I also understand his appeal to his ‘reality’ fan base. I can feel the same tug of emotion, but I am immune to the populist emotive id. Yet, we face an implacable enemy. Such enemies must be fought and defeated with an implacable will. Cruz and Fiorina, IMO, have the …”

    Agree. I could be proven wrong, but that is how it looks now.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>