Selwyn Duke
December 15, 2015
Where Trump is wrong on Muslim immigration
Facebook Twitter Google+
By Selwyn Duke

Donald Trump proved again why he's the man the Establishment loves to hate, suggesting early last week that we ban Muslim immigration "until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." In response, the powers-that-be, fearing becoming the powers-that-were, have roundly condemned him, in one case saying he should "go to hell." And I could fault Trump, too:

His proposal doesn't go far enough.

We should halt all immigration, as I've recommended for years.

Yet in the least and as Trump suggests, Muslim immigration should be suspended immediately.

The apocryphal saying informs, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." America has become balkanized. People are now hyphenated, not assimilated; Americans are being displaced by foreign workers; we're pressing one for English; political ethnic and racial warfare is the norm; and we're so fractured, not merely divided, that all the Establishment can do to justify the insanity is repeat the Big Lie, "Our strength lies in our diversity," a proposition for which there's no proof whatsoever.

How's that immigrationism workin' for ya'?

"Immigrationism," mind you, is the belief that immigration is always beneficial, always necessary and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. Hope and change? Not when it comes to immigration.

In fact, despite our descent into national disunity, the Establishment insists on yet more immigration. It doesn't matter that 1965's Immigration Reform and Nationality Act created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. It doesn't matter that the historical norm is to keep unassimilable foreign elements out of your land, not invite them in. Those who recommend even a temporary return to this norm must be called names. Racist! Fascist! Hitler! Immigration über alles!

And who is the radical here?

The case of Muslim immigration is particularly interesting. As I pointed out in an airtight defense of profiling, "'Muslim' is now the most relevant factor in the terrorist profile." This is a fact. It may be an uncomfortable fact for multiculturalists, immigrationists and internationalists, but a fact doesn't cease to be a fact because it becomes unfashionable.

Speaking of the fashion-makers and nation-breakers, in late August CNN called the 1970s "the golden age of terrorism," pointing out that there were more terrorist acts during that decade than in the 14 years following 9/11 (of course, the 14 years following 9/10 aren't quite as reassuring). The message was clear: there's nothing to see here with Muslim terrorism. Move along.

Except for more than one thing. The '70s terrorists CNN cited – such as the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) and anti-Vietnam War protesters – were never going to be anything but flashes in the ideological pan. Islam has been around, continually attended by jihad, for 1400 years. Even more to the point here, however, let's say we knew that certain groups of foreigners shared the SLA's or other terrorist groups' ideology. Would it have been a good idea to let them immigrate to the U.S.? Even if the particular foreigners hadn't yet committed violence, allowing them entry would have been criminal negligence at best on public officials' part – treason at worst.

And, today, treason is the Establishment norm. For proposing a common-sense measure to protect the homeland, Trump (and by extension his millions of supporters) has been called "fascist." But targeted immigration controls are nothing new in America. From 1924 until 1965, immigration was governed by the National Origins Act, which mandated that a given group of immigrants couldn't represent a higher percentage of a year's total immigrants than its group's overall percentage of the U.S. population. This not only secured demographic stability and preserved nationhood, but as Pat Buchanan recently put it, ensured that ours would "remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia." Buchanan then continued, "Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land. Did this represent 40 years of fascism? ...[And] Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?"

Note also that fascism founding father Benito Mussolini (the ideology originated in Italy) defined fascism thus: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Does this better describe Trump and his traditionalist brethren or statists who want to import people who'll support all-encompassing government (70 to 90 percent of our new immigrants vote for socialistic Democrats upon being naturalized)? This, not to mention that Adolf Hitler was quite the fan of Islam – and that some Muslim figures have returned that affection.

As for Muslim immigration, here are some more facts:
  • Da'esh (ISIS) has revealed that it's using the "refugee" program to sneak refujihadis into the West.

  • Intelligence officials including the FBI director, the Greek government, a N.Y.C. Syrian community leader and others have warned that the migrants billed as "Syrian" entering our nation cannot be vetted.

  • This is because Syria doesn't have the necessary information databases for vetting and because in Syria, you can bribe public officials and obtain government documents stating you're whoever you want to be.
Conclusion: terrorists are, without a doubt, intermingled among our Muslim im/migrants.

Given this, who, again, are the radicals? Trump and others who propose a common-sense national-security measure? Or those who'd do the same insane thing over and over again?

As for the bigger picture, I'm aware of no historical example of large numbers of Muslims ever assimilating into a non-Muslim culture. Moreover, studies have shown that younger Muslims in Europe are more jihadist-minded than their elders, meaning that we're unlikely to see the first example of it anytime soon. Not surprisingly, Western European nations now have Muslim enclaves known as "no-go zones," where the enforcement of European civil law is spotty at best. And the same lslamist mentality may be evident in the U.S., with a recent poll showing that a slim majority of Muslims prefer Sharia law to American civil law and that nearly 25 percent agree that it "is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam."

Pat Buchanan added even more perspective, writing, "In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone? With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?"

Why, indeed, especially since there is already a "genuine problem with Muslims in Europe." This quoted sentiment, please note, wasn't expressed by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán or Geert Wilders, but by one Dr. Mudar Zahran. A Jordanian opposition leader, self-described "devout Muslim" and a refugee living in Europe, he called the current Muslim migrant crisis "the soft Islamic conquest of the West" in an October interview. Zahran also said of the migration, "You read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, 'Good job! Now we're going to conquest [sic] Europe.' So it's not even a secret."

The aforementioned are all good reasons to halt Muslim immigration. And where are the good arguments to continue it at this time?

Foreigners have no inherent right to immigrate to our country. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If in future we determine that Muslim immigration offers unparalleled benefits, it can always be resumed. But once an alien nation within your nation is established, only desperate measures can provide remedy, if the matter is remediable at all. Trump has been called an unserious candidate given to name-calling by the very people now hurling names, as they throw tantrums and react to a most serious issue in a most unserious way. They claim to not want another Fort Hood or San Bernardino, but then propose that the desired different result can be achieved by doing the same thing over and over again.

They're not just radical. They're radically insane.

© Selwyn Duke

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)