One more try and then I’m finished with this for now
During this most recent Trump immigration flap, I’ve noticed an enormous amount of misunderstanding of my positions on the subject. So here’s another attempt to make it crystal clear, and then I’ll leave the subject for a while. Go on the Trump wagon, as it were. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Luckily, Andrew C. McCarthy has summarized the basic position I was trying to explain in this post of mine. So read McCarthy’s article, and you’ll have the background for what I’m about to add.
My objections to what Trump said were basically twofold: he seemed to include citizens, which is unconstitutional (later he walked that back, so that objection is no longer applicable), and religion itself is not a good criteria for making the cuts.
I agree that there is no right to immigrate here. I’m for limiting immigration from what it is now in terms of numbers, and for completely revamping the system to do away with the automatic preference for family members, and to change the process of vetting to a more rigorous one the includes questions about political beliefs that are antithetical to liberty. I’ve written in more detail about these things recently in other posts and comments, so please go back and take a look because I’m not going to make this post book-length by setting it out all over again.
But fortunately, McCarthy has done it for me. I hadn’t read his article until just now, but I am pretty much in total agreement with the following statements of his:
That program of Islamic supremacism is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, and we should strive to minimize the number of people living in our country who hold such beliefs…
The narrowest solution would be to restore the principle of “ideological exclusion” to U.S. immigration law. With the end of the Cold War ”” which too many imagined to be the End of History ”” we eliminated the legal bar to enemies of America who were not actual members of terrorist organizations or card-carrying members of totalitarian political parties. Specifically, the law says the State Department is prohibited from keeping a foreigner out “because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.” In other words, since 1990 we have applied the First Amendment to all foreigners abroad seeking admission to our country…
At the very least, we should be asking things [of immigrants] like whether they support freedom of religion and speech, regardless of content, even if it is insulting to other faiths. Of course people could, and would, lie, but the very fact that such a question is asked would send a message about what we expect of people hoping to live among us…
But large-scale immigration of non-violent Islamic supremacists also facilitates violence, by forming and sustaining neighborhoods that serve as cover and incubators for jihad attacks, however unintentionally…
And many of those recruits are native-born, having grown up steeped in Islamic supremacism and alienated from the values of their native land…Even with our smaller [than in Europe] Muslim population, we have trouble keeping track…
There’s really no way around it: Continuing to admit 1 million Muslim immigrants per decade will translate into more attacks. We need to cut Muslim immigration. But limiting the cuts to Muslim-majority countries would exclude Christians and other non-Muslims and also ignore Muslim immigration from non-Muslim countries such as India, Russia, France, and England…
So alongside ideological screening we need to cut immigration overall, focusing on the categories most likely to cause problems. That means eliminating the visa lottery, an absurd program in its own right but also the source of a disproportionate share of Muslim immigration; limiting family immigration to the closest relations, to prevent a cascading chain of relatives; dramatically curbing refugee resettlement, allowing us to help many more people while keeping the potential security threats off shore; and reducing the number of foreign-student admissions, the feeder program for a large share of new permanent immigration from the Islamic world. None of these measures is a magic solution. Efforts to screen out Islamic supremacists will often fail. Limiting family migration to spouses would still permit the immigration of people like San Bernardino jihadist Tashfeen Malik. Full assimilation of existing Muslim communities, even if new inflows were reduced to a trickle, would still take time, if it’s possible at all. But if we just keep doing what we’re doing now, we can’t expect a different result. Trump’s sweeping call to stop all Muslim travel to the U.S. will resonate with people rightly frustrated with our rulers’ insouciant approach to the threat we face. Rather than simply point in outrage at Trump’s crude prescription, responsible policymakers should offer a grown-up alternative.
Thank you Andrew McCarthy—for saying much of what I was trying to say, only much better.
A couple of small disagreements/additions, though. Trump’s prescription was crude, but not in the way many people indicated. It was crude because he used the wrong criteria and left out things like ideological screening, a better criteria. Also, if better and more restrictive screening had been applied to the fiance visa program, I believe that Farook’s wife-to-be Malik probably would not have been allowed into this country, because her false address would have been discovered and red-flagged, and some of her extremist history would have been discovered as well, even if she had lied about her belief system. As it was, she wasn’t even allowed to be questioned about her belief system, and her history wasn’t studied for evidence of extremist viewpoints. Present-day screening for Islamist extremism antithetical to our liberties appears to only involve matching names to lists of known terrorists, which is not nearly enough.
McCarthy for AG or Homeland Security in the Cruz-Fiorina administration.
Also in that McCarthy piece:
One reason lists of known terrorists consulted are not nearly enough is simply that one preeminent list of known terrorists — the Islamist jihadists held at the Guantanamo detention facility — is consulted for the purposes of releasing these same men back into the wild where they rejoin their comrades in arms, frequently enough to be found in the lead in their jihad against America.
Good. I didn’t like the convolutions of the past few posts.
War is war. Equivocators are de-facto collaborationists.
As to Islam, it wouldn’t be much of a problem here if the womyn truly objected.
They don’t.
I for one am quite clear on where you stand neo and the prescriptions you advocate are certainly well reasoned, constitutional and arguably, fair.
Unfortunately, they are insufficient to the threat.
That is because even if they were all implemented and not one jihadist got through the new procedures, it would only temporarily lessen future jihadist attacks. Attacks that are certain to increase in severity.
Even if we could also round up and imprison/deport every jihadist in America today… plus deport the 20% of Muslim Americans who support violent jihad it would not be enough.
That is because Islam’s most fundamental tenets ensure that every generation of Muslims will produce violent jihadists. It’s what Islam does… 1400 years of history testifies to that assertion.
The ‘tell’ is that 51% of Muslim Americans admit that they support Sharia Law. Which as we all know is antithetical to American principles. Which in turn proves that 51% of Muslim Americans do NOT embrace the American Constitution.
Plus, the percentage of violence inclined Muslim Americans will rise because both recent history (European rape, etc) and demographic birth rates guarantee it.
Eventually, Islam will drive you to the very solutions that you currently deplore.
Geoffrey Britain:
I repeat what I wrote yesterday—ALL prescriptions at this point, including most definitely Trump’s, are insufficient. The cancer of Islamic jihadism has already metastasized to the West. But my suggestion (and McCarthy’s) is the best and most realistic one at present, I believe.
If it all fails and a larger conflagration happens, that would be horrific. But I have yet to find a suggestion that is feasible and would prevent it.
I have written this several times recently so I’m not sure why we’re having this same argument again.
As others have pointed out, Islam is a political system with a veneer of religion. It is an absolutist dictatorial system of government to which everybody must submit. Banning Muslims is no different than banning communists or Nazis.
Ray and Geoffrey Britain:
I assume you think McCarthy doesn’t have a clue re Muslims based on what he wrote:
…it is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society. They have varying rationales for taking this position: Some believe sharia mandates that immigrants accept their host country’s laws; some believe sharia’s troublesome elements are confined to the historical time and place where they arose and are no longer applicable; some think sharia can evolve; some simply ignore sharia altogether but deem themselves devout Muslims because they remain Islamic spiritually and – within the strictures of American law – culturally.
The smaller we can keep any enclaves, the more chance we have of assimilating Muslims to some extent. Radicals are able to bully those Muslims that can accept our principles. This is why the Fench outlawed headscarves in schools. Girls not wearing them were bullied and raped. Their families were threatened. You have to break through the power of these people to control other Muslims. This is obviously easier with smaller groups, which can only happen when the total numbers are lower. It would also be a good idea not to give space for CAIR to pretend to be the voice of all Muslims. Ignore them.
Ann:
Following paragraph:
If we continue mindlessly treating Islam as if it were merely a religion, if we continue ignoring the salient differences between constitutional and sharia principles – thoughtlessly assuming these antithetical systems are compatible – we will never have a sensible immigration policy.
The wimps at NRO probably forced in your quote…
After all, they forced out the great John Derbyshire.
Too many wimps …
This is why the Fench outlawed headscarves in schools. Girls not wearing them were bullied and raped. Their families were threatened.
Yup, and not just their own:
Woman’s Bikini Outing Going Just Fine…Then Muslims Show Up
No Mooslimes!
Woman’s Bikini Outing Going Just Fine…Then Muslims Show Up
For those who haven’t seen it, here’s an article by David French about Trump’s smashing of the Overton window (H/T ace.mu.nu):
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428200/donald-trump-overton-window-american-political-debate
Although neither a big Trump fan nor an apologist, I have always found his presence in the campaign useful. Having read French, I might even say necessary.
Ace pointed out that until Trump, the national dialogue (bounded by the Overton Window) was shaped primarily by the left and that conservative arguments (think RINOs) boiled down to “our’ conservative’ policies will build a better liberal world than liberal policies.” Again this goes back to my respect for Newt Gingrich (and now Ted Cruz) who simply refused to accept the playing field defined by liberal parameters. Again, as Ace pointed out, Trump has made it okay to speak outside of those limitations; it’s a sad fact that so many of the Republican candidates reveal their progressive indoctrination by their failure to grasp that.
I wish I had never heard of Islam. The Muslims need to stay in their own countries and leave us alone.
The definition of pathology is this insane Sunni v Shia war that’s been going on for centuries.
Trust me when I say we could be North America energy independent today with the right government policies. Then we could mostly ignore those lunatics and let them kill themselves.
And don’t forget. Hillary and Barack created the disaster that is Syria, Iraq and Libya.
It would also be a good idea not to give space for CAIR to pretend to be the voice of all Muslims. Ignore them.
At WSJ, a different Muslim voice — Our Duty as American Muslims:
Neo has wondered, as have here reders, why doesn’t VDH get Obama right?
Perhaps the NRO piece linked at Drudge today by Victor Davis Hansen on Trump (as the anti-Obama), a rulling class creation, goes some way to remedy that gap?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428256/donald-trump-muslims-political-correctness
Ann:
In other words, as commenter “Eric” would say, Muslims who oppose jihadist Muslim extremism have to learn the activist game in order to counter its propaganda.
This is my favorite thread on the subject.
Geoffrey, I think we are all where you are.
Trump’s crassness is sure to not help. All people who support hims should divest their interest in him. They should all speak like Neo. 🙂
Ann,
No one holds McCarthy in higher regard than do I.
That said,
“…it is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society.”
“51% of U.S. Muslims Admit to Wanting Sharia”
Which means that half of Muslims admit that they do NOT accept our constitutional principles and do seek (as a theological imperative) to impose sharia on our society. How many of the other 49% are lying? How many will change their minds as Muslims increase their numbers?
25% Admit They Are Okay with Violence Against Americans
U.S. Annually Admits A Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants
“One in five Syrians say Islamic State is a good thing, poll says, 82 percent said that they believe the Islamic State was created by the United States and its allies.”
In a 2007 poll of Syrians,
74% believed it was very important to provide “financial support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah”.
78% supported financial assistance to Hezbollah terrorists.
77% supported financial aid to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
77% supported financial assistance to “Iraqi fighters”, a group that was then heavily Al Qaeda.
Consider those facts and only by living in denial can you remain complacent.
It comes down to being pursuasive
neo,
No disagreement that “The cancer of Islamic jihadism has already metastasized to the West.”
But while your suggestion (and McCarthy’s) is, given current conditions, the most pragmatic, it is IMO not the best because as denial is extended, so too will the butcher’s bill be increased.
When a cancer metastasizes, you cut out as much as needed. My assessment is that considerably more surgery will be required, than you currently are willing to act upon.
I hope you’re right and I in the wrong.
I think I should paint this picture.
You have a crowd of armed Islamists surrounding you. All you have is you and your family and a pistol.
You can’t shoot your way out of that situation because when you run out of bullets – they will behead you and your family.
You can’t expect the government to help.
You can’t espect a new religious test policy to help.
What you can do is hard. What you can do has been done in situations before. Use your words. HOw will you figure your way out of this tough situation which is the worst situation you can be in.
Trump isn’t the answer.
Ben Carson figured out what they want and wants to provide them their welcome mat back home.
Obama wants the crowd of armed Islamists to swell into the millions.
Cruz seems to understand it and says similar things to Ben Carson.
Rubio has been all over the board in the past trying to strike deals with Obama.
Trump is building a furor and not helping the debate. Many people will die because of him. I”m sure of it.
Many people will die because of Obama also.
This is THE worst situation for the idiots in Eurpope and the U.S. and Canada and you have to figure out how to be pursuasive. Period.
A little history from a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:
Has anything changed since then?
No.
Nothing has changed.
So let’s take the pistol and start shooting ?
Or. Figure a legitimate way out of the problem which is complex and tough?
I found the above quote at Jerry Pournelle’s website. The rest of his essay is excellent: The Caliphate and other nightmares. Grief and recovery. Just a sample:
McCarthy wrote:
Apparently, McCarthy is suggesting limiting immigration from certain countries and suggesting it is not the way to go, though his alternatives are not clear.
Surely Christians from the ME could be allowed in as refugees from genocide. The test should be adherence to Sharia law, no matter where potential immigrants come from. Adherence to Sharia is incompatible with pledging allegiance to the United States flag and the Constitution, and should be grounds for rejection. Calling for Sharia law to be applied in the United States should be regarded as treason. I would equate it to German immigrants in the 1930s and 1940s promoting Nazi ideology.
Folks we are looking straight past REALITY.
FAKE documents are milled out by the thousand in the MENA even at this time.
ALL of the above nostrums rest on the keystone of knowable facts — of honest testimony.
Neither is even remotely in prospect during the international civil war between the Muslim factions — and they are many.
%%%
neo…
Your reasoning is so “Westphalian.”
It does NOT compute with Muslims.
&&&
Countless thousands of Americans have had dealings with Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unpublished — unadmittable — facts:
Muslims over there lie with aplomb — even when it is a certainty that their lies will be soon exposed.
The Ten Comandments have NOT clicked in over there.
Swearing on a Koran ? ‘Tis to laugh.
‘Tis as if one swore on Mein Kampf.
BTW jihad translates as kampf in German.
And, as we all know, it’s a best seller across the MENA… usually second only to the Koran.
GB has it right.
With your modest proposal — we may be left with Ripley’s solution: “Nuke’em from orbit — It’s the only way to be sure.”
We need nothing less than a US Constitutional amendment that specifically targets Islam — and the other totalitarian collectivisms.
Otherwise, we have a house divided against itself. It didn’t work out too well back then, either.
Baklava Says:
December 10th, 2015 at 8:23 pm
No.
Nothing has changed.
So let’s take the pistol and start shooting ?
Or. Figure a legitimate way out of the problem which is complex and tough?
TX Imam Forced To Resign After Supporting Trump Muslim Ban…
Baklava is a honey dripping fluffy pastry …
yes sir. and nutty also
secretly i support muslims from entering the country. wouldn’t it be great if we had a president, senate and house that would just do it with 100% support, explain why, show article after article for hours to the american people.
What we have instead is a very divided country with a million or so muslims, a passport generating machine in the hands of ISIS, no stomach to even stop or put on hold the fiance visa’s.
Easy things are easy. yet they are hard. We just stopped people from 4 countries but yet that stopped Christians as well. And I’m not even sure the Senate passed that bill yet.
Yup! Nutty pastry much favored in the middle-east.
Why read fiction …
Churchill saw it coming then and was reviled:
Clattering Train
Death and his brother sleep
The enemy is within and the enemy is us, those who won’t fight that is….
We can’t just shoot the pistol.
The problem is bigger than that.
PatD: “The test should be adherence to Sharia law, no matter where potential immigrants come from. Adherence to Sharia is incompatible with pledging allegiance to the United States flag and the Constitution, and should be grounds for rejection. Calling for Sharia law to be applied in the United States should be regarded as treason.”
Just so. A religion that brooks no separation between mosque and state is completely incompatible with our government and our justice system.
Muslims who want to be devout in the way they dress, eat, pray, etc. and still be good American citizens have an example they can follow. It is the Amish. The Amish hold themselves apart from all other faith groups by their practices, but they give allegiance to the Constitution and pose no threat to their fellow citizens.
It is the Wahhabist doctrine of literal translation of the Quran, which turns Islam into a governmental system (Sharia) with religious trappings that has become the main problem in Islam. This teaching has been steadily gaining ground in the Muslim world since Saudi Arabia began using petrodollars to finance madrassas and imams worldwide. A first step would be to outlaw Wahhabi Islam (also called Salafi or political Islam) as being a threat to our Constitution. We could then refuse to let Wahhabis into the country and deport those who are already here. That would include making the preaching of Wahhabi doctrine an act of sedition.
The inconvenient fact about all this is that Saudi Arabia is the fountainhead of Wahhabi Doctrine. We must isolate them insofar as possible. Yes, the world (not the West so much anymore) still needs their oil, but we don’t need the murderous poison that is emanating from their sand box. A way must be found to keep them and their cult in their box while still buying their oil.
I know many here disagree with this point of view. But I ask, is it not better to encourage a reformation – (A return to the Islamic school of thought which considered the Quran as a constructed work [Much like the Bible], that allows for deductive reasoning to interpret the Quran in light of changes in the world since the time of Mohammad.) before we turn to the other alternative, which is a War against all Muslims – all 1.5 billion of them?