After Brussels … should we ban Muslim immigration?

brussels2.jpgSome have said such a ban would be Islamophobic.

“Islamohobic” … is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

Possibly said by Christopher Hitchens, the word “Islamophobic” is invoked to attack anyone critical of Islam or Muslims, as after a terrorist attack or an incident of sharia excess. The word is used to cower opposition into silence. But the word “phobia” means a persistent irrational fear. A fear that is grounded in reality is not phobia. Such a fear is healthy and when acted upon, perhaps enables the person to survive what is feared.  Immigration bans have been implemented in the past, for good reason.

After the Brussels attacks by ISIS that killed at least 34 people and wounded many others, the candidates responded as follows:

Donald Trump
We have to be very careful in the US … very vigilant as to who we let in this country.
Immigration policies barring Muslims would already be in place.
He also endorsed the use of torture for people who have information on terrorists.
Immigrant communities that do not inform police about suspicious behavior share blame.

Ted Cruz
Police forces should monitor isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods in US cities.
The attacks are a result of “a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists.
Suspend accepting refugees from Islamic State/Al-Qaeda control territories.

Hilary Clinton … responding to Cruz and Trump
These kinds of proposals are dangerous, hateful, and beneath us.
Closing borders is no answer. Continue the “dream of a whole, free Europe”.
Security officials “do not need to resort to torture, but they are going to need more help”.

President Obama, said this November 15 2015 after the Paris attacks:
“When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”  

A religious test for immigrants is required by law; it is neither “hateful” nor “shameful”

There is no right to immigrate to the United States. America accepts immigrants when it is in our interests to do so. If “compassion” alone compelled us, we would necessarily accept hundreds of millions of poor throughout the world. Far from it being unconstitutional or “shameful” to consider religion, Federal law insists the executive branch does exactly that.  See Section 1158, Title 8, U.S. Code:
“The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee … the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”

The state of war in a country does not necessarily make one an asylum candidate. Persecution is essential to qualify as a refugee. In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians.  Those ISIS does not kill, it persecutes under sharia with rape and sexual slavery. Muslims on the other hand, ISIS seeks to rule rather than kill or persecute. Unlike Christians, not all Muslims face the threat of persecution. Only some do.

Meanwhile, as thousands of Muslims enter unscreened a group of 27 Iraqi Christians fleeing genuine persecution from ISIS/Al Quada and seeking religious asylum, face deportation by U.S. authorities allegedly due to “technicalities”.

A temporary ban on immigration has legal precedent. It is not “hateful” but serves our interests.

The precedent occurred when President Carter in December 1979 deported about 15,000 Iranians, required extra border screening, and cancelled many existing visas. Then in April, 1980, Carter directed the Attorney General to invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons, including religious or political persecution or where the national interest of our own country requires. Carter based his order on the Nationality Act of 1952.

Carter’s action was based on “nationality”. Trump’s call is based on “religion”.  Both criteria are permitted under the same Act.  Carter’s action served America’s security interest from a hostile national source. Trump’s action serves America’s security interest from a hostile religious source. Given the European experience, it is almost certain that ISIS elements intent on killing Americans will enter undetected with other immigrants.

Trump’s call makes sense. American security is unable to verify large numbers of Muslim immigrants

According to the FBI director James Comey:

… the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S. … If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”


Immigration has been temporarily stopped in the past to allow assimilation

America has never believed itself to be obligated to accept immigrants.  That said, it has been the most generous country on earth to do so. After accepting multiple waves of immigrants for decades, America suspended all regular immigration from 1924 to 1965 to allow assimilation. Exceptions were made for refugees.  Assimilation is a desired American value since it is necessary to safeguard traditional American culture and values. It has been a prerequisite for immigration in the past and has strengthened American culture.

The non-assimilation of Islamic immigrants creates a destructive society

The examples of France, Scandinavia, England, and other European countries show the conflict and violence arising from unassimilated Islamic immigrants. According to the Pew Research study that interviewed 38,000 Muslim throughout the Muslim world … 91% of Iraqis, 74% of Egyptian, and 71% of Jordanians favor making sharia the official law in their country.

Sharia law is completely incompatible with American law in significant areas, one example being that women in sharia do not share the same fundamental rights as men. It is likely many will continue to have this belief should they come to America as immigrants and seek to impose sharia here.  Such an incompatibility has created tension, violence, riots, danger zones, and even death in Europe and is likely to do so here.

Non-assimilation increases the threat from terror in a second way. Trump and Cruz both spoke of the danger of Islamic communities in shielding ISIS terrorists from police detection. The longer it takes to apprehend suspects, the more likely Americans will die in terrorist acts.

Assimilation is made impossible by the fact that Islamic children are taught to hate Jews

The very act of teaching the next generation to hate American citizens creates permanent hostility in American culture.

All over the Middle East, hatred for Jews and Zionists can be found in textbooks for children as young as 3, complete with illustrations of Jews with monster-like qualities. Mainstream educational television programs are consistently anti-Semitic. In songs, books, newspaper articles, and blogs, Jews are variously compared to pigs, donkeys, rats, and cockroaches, and also to vampires and a host of other imaginary creatures.

“In 2011, a Pew survey found that in Turkey, just 4 percent of those surveyed held a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of Jews; in Indonesia, 10 percent; in Pakistan, 2 percent. In addition, 95 percent of Jordanians, 94 percent of Egyptians, and 95 percent of Lebanese hold a “very unfavorable” view of Jews”  … Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Christ once said that “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.  

We see this timeless principle at work in Europe today. The European experience shows Islamic immigration weakens a nation; assimilation is neither desired by immigrants nor achievable. The strategic aim of Muslim immigration is the domination of Europe. Brussels is the headquarters of Europe. The attack there hit the heart of European culture. It spat in the soft,collective faces of  Eurocratic leaders who believe “cooperation and appeasement” can substitute for strength and will.  They are wrong.

Osama Bin Laden once said:   “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse”.  
The one billion plus Muslims of the world “see” a pathetic Europe made weak by socialism and secularism. And they see a weakening, apologetic United States.  Bin Laden predicted these “people” would eventually support a powerful, resurgent Islam, in its attempt to destroying western culture and establish the new caliphate.

Final questions:  Leaders are weak because they cling to premises based on ideology rather than evidence.  Unlike Europe, is America smart enough to reject further Muslim immigration?
Is American still capable of electing  a strong leader?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s