Posted on 12/13/2015 7:05:40 PM PST by Kaslin
Donald Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, called on Dec. 7 for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Replace one word in this formulation and it goes from outrageous to brilliant.
Reacting to massacres by Muslims in Paris and San Bernardino, Trump pointed to a Muslim hatred "beyond comprehension" for the West. Therefore, he concluded, "Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad."
The negative responses, domestic and international, Muslim and non-Muslim, came in fast and furious and rightly so, as Trump's crude blast is unconstitutional, unacceptable, unworkable, and unstrategic.
Unconstitutional: Every Western basic law is secular, disallowing a religious test for immigration, rendering Trump's statement less an exercise in practical policy making than a gadfly provocation.
Unacceptable: Beyond legalities, secularism represents a Western core value, up there with freedom of speech, a value hardly anyone accepts gutting for reasons of momentary expediency.
Unworkable: Islam is not a permanent identity like skin color. Nothing prevents Muslims from renouncing Islam or converting to another religion. Unless Trump extends his "total and complete shutdown" to former Muslims which is even more unconstitutional he just encourages the already-existing phenomenon of Muslim conversions of convenience (as symbolized by a church in Berlin).
Unstrategic: Trump's presidential campaign once again is counterproductive; he simultaneously makes conservatives look like idiots and brings adoring attention to those who oppose his views, in this case radical Muslim groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (widely known as CAIR), which has enjoyed an unprecedented cornucopia of media coverage to spread its deceitful message.
That said, Trump has raised a critical and urgent issue that all Westerners must face, as symbolized by the recent tsunami of illegal immigration to Europe and the huge strains it has created. Simply put, Muslims present a disproportionately large source of problems, as becomes clear when they are compared with Hindu immigrants, who are roughly the same in number but generally fit quietly into the West.
Violence is the headline topic relating to Muslims, whether large-scale plots (Paris) or sudden jihad syndrome lone wolves (San Bernardino), but violence is hardly the whole problem. Muslim hostility toward non-Muslims takes many other forms, such as teaching Islamic supremacism in mosques, spewing antisemitism in the streets, and threatening anyone who dares publicly to criticize Islam. Issues concerning women include female genital mutilation, honor killings, polygyny, and forced marriages. Islamic mores lead to strong antipathies against seeing-eye dogs, mixed swimming pool usage, and homosexuals.
Polls show widespread and legitimate concern about these issues as well as growing impatience with governmental dismissal of those concerns. When Germany's Angela Merkel welcomes an unlimited number of illegal immigrants or Barack Obama ridicules concerns about Syrian immigrants, populist voices like that of Donald Trump inevitably find followers.
Indeed, he is just the latest anti-immigrant figure to find a message that increasingly resonates.Geert Wilders' PVV in the Netherlands wins 39 out of 150 seats in parliament in a recent survey, up from his current 15 and almost twice that of any other party. In the French regional elections a week ago, Marine le Pen's National Front led in 6 out of 13 districts. This upward trend will continue until one of these ostracized insurgent parties gains over 50 percent of the vote and enters office. In this sense, Trump stands at the cutting edge.
How to deal with Muslim immigration in a responsible and uncontroversial manner? I offer two suggestions. First, replace the "Muslims entering the United States" in Trump's formulation with "Islamists entering the United States." Islamists are those Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law, oppress women and non-Muslims, and establish a worldwide caliphate. They make up about 10-15 percent of the Muslim population; they, not Muslims in general, are the barbarians who "believe only in Jihad."
Second, engage in serious research intoallwould-be visitors and immigrants, not the pro-formareview that prevails these days. Doing so requires money and time, as well as creative inquiries to smoke out ideological proclivities, but each person entering the country must be checked to make sure no Islamists are allowed in, ever, at all, even for brief visits, thereby increasing our common security.
He’s backtracking, just like a typical politician.
Now how are we supposed to decide who is an Islamist, and who just goes to mosque on Fridays and comes out and burns cars in France?
There is so much visceral irrational hatred of Trump by the GOPe that they can’t present a cogent argument against him. Their emotions clouds their thinking.
I don’t believe most radical extremist muzzies carry I.D. cards identifying themselves as “radical extremist muzzie.” Liberals don’t get that.
Don’t usually find so much to disagree with Pipes about, but the most immediately glaring is:
“Violence is the headline topic relating to Muslims, ... “sudden jihad syndrome” lone wolves (San Bernardino)”
ALL the evidence so far points to there being absolutely nothing ‘sudden’ about Farook and Malik. Nothing.
And what other factor beyond being Muslim brings each and every one of these terror groups together? What other attraction is there? Not country. Not race. Not ethnicity. Just religion. We have to use that to winnow out those among the group who would kill us and destroy our way of life. Nothing else will work at all.
Muzzies are muzzies are muzzies, black, white, brown or yellow.
Stopped reading after saying plan is unconstitutional. Article 6 prohibition on religious test is for holding public office.
Same-o same-o...
I still don’t see what’s wrong with muslims living in muslim countries. Seems to me that works out better for everyone.
I read today the Saudis are refusing Syrian refugees because of the risk. Saudi Arabia is a strict Muslim run country, am I right? So if they are a risk to a strict Muslim country WTF does this POTUS think they are to the USA? If there is ONE more terror attack on US soil by foreign Muslims, every last citizen should take that as a declaration of war against the people by the US government. Why? Because that’s EXACTLY what it is! There is NO reason for these animals to be in this country otherwise.
Islam is not a religion. It is a world system.
ISLAM: RELIGION OF PEACE OR WAR
http://www.cbn.com/noindex/PCC/Islam-Religion-of-Peace-or-War-b.pdf
THE QUEST FOR GOD - ISLAM
Excellent documentary by Gordon Robertson
http://www1.cbn.com/video/the-quest-for-god-islam
Why is Trump back peddling on this ?
Why is he retreating on this ?
Makes him look weak now.
The doctrine divides humanity into the house of war, and the house of submission. Muslims are enjoined to “strive” against non-muslims to extend their empire and establish
sharia law.
All muslims adhere to these tenants, else they are not muslims .
Nazis believed fervently in their superiority and right to subjugate the rest of humanity and cull out the inferior genetic strains. This was a religious obligation, supplemented by a revival of Nordic religions.
I doubt that anyone would allow Nazis to immigrate without requiring they renounce their belief in genocide, world domination, etc. I see no difference with muslims.
Moreover, this country has banned anarchists and communists in the past. What about Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Assembly? Well, they didn't apply to non-citizens, therefore we could bar them.
2. Many Islamists start out as Moderate Muslims. They get recruited, they get... activated, I guess. Islam lays the foundation, then the Imam comes in and does a little tweaking. Next thing you know, the kid who was into anime and Xbox when he was 14 is tick-tick-boom.
Nah, he’s doing fine.
3.) If it’s unconstitutional to bar Muslims, how is it constitutional to bar one particular denomination of Muslims? It’s still a religion (allegedly.)
Forget that Islam is a religion for a minute. It is a world view, an encompassing way of life. It prescribes a form of government. It prescribes relations with non-Muslims.
Now if that world view is hostile to the essence of our nation, it is self-destructive folly to admit Muslims.
Take the deity and the super-natural out of it, and why shouldn’t we deny people with a hostile philosophy?
And what rights under our Constitution could foreign citizens in a foreign land possibly have?
Article VI, paragraph 3, states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
1) Becoming an immigrant is not being accepted for "an office or public trust under the United States."
2) Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian political organization with religious claims. Further, the jihad and totalitarian political aspects cannot be separated from the religious aspects. Which means that accepting Islam is counter to the professed and declared purpose of the Constitution. Thus for the Constitution to be invoked to protect Islamic immigration, is to argue that the Constitution contains its own self-destruct mechanism, and protects that which would openly, deliberately and purposefully destroy it. This is completely illogical, goes against the existence of the Constitution itself, and thus cannot be accepted as a proper interpretation of Constitutional power regarding Muslims. Islam is the enemy of the United States of America and its Constitution, by its own declarations, teachings and acts. Period. And enemies should not be allowed into this country, and deported if they are found here, because they are enemies. Period.
3) You can use this info, Mr. Trump. The bottom line is inescapable - Islam is NOT a 1st Amendment religion. It can't be, because it's teachings go against the Constitution, and command the rejection of the country's founding ideals. Just remember to cite Talisker, and make a donation to FR.
Why is it unconstitutional to prohibit Muslims from entering the country? NO ONE has a “right” to enter our country. In fact your constitutional rights end at our border.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.