Coulter advocates profiling of Arab "aliens," deportation (BIG BARF ALERT)

spincity ^ | 9/21/2001 | Bryan Keefer

[TLBSHOW]

Coulter advocates profiling of Arab "aliens," deportation

The last time we heard from Ann Coulter she was arguing that the US should invade countries in which people cheered the recent terrorist attacks and convert them to Christianity, leading to widespread criticism and a public semi-apology from National Review editor Rich Lowry. Now, her latest column advocates disparate treatment of people at airports based on their complexions.

Coulter begins with a legitimate criticism of new security restrictions on air travel, arguing that they will not prevent future hijackings. About two-thirds of the way through, though, she tells us sarcastically that "the rash of hijackings by Connecticut WASP girls surely explains the time-consuming -- but still somehow completely useless -- examination of my personal effects." This begins a racial theme she carries into the column's conclusion, where she makes this suggestion:

We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males. It will be a minor hassle, but it's better than national ID cards.

Of course, not all terrorists are "swarthy-looking males" - Timothy McVeigh is an obvious counter-example - nor are all swarthy-looking men terrorists. But this doesn't stop Coulter:

All 19 hijackers in last week's attack appear to have been aliens. As far as the Constitution is concerned, visitors to this country are here at the nation's pleasure. Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave. (More on that next week.) Congress could certainly pass a law requiring all aliens to get approval from the INS before boarding an airplane in the United States.

While she attempts to deflect responsibility by framing her policy prescriptions with the slippery construction "Congress could . . ." the implication is clear. Coulter is rhetorically implicating "all aliens from Arabic countries" in the recent tragedies, and suggesting that the same group is likely to strike again, even though the vast majority are peaceful and have no connection to terrorism. Moreover, Coulter's use of the term "aliens" implies an incredibly broad set of people, ranging from legal immigrants to resident aliens to tourists.

Coulter continues to fan the flames of racial animosity, making sweeping statements implicating all Arabs and Arab Americans for the actions of a lunatic few. This sort of attack is not only irresponsible, it is unconscionable.

[ContentiousObjector]

for the first time in my life I have been ashamed to be an American, what happened in New York was an act of war, but was Americans have treated their fellow citizens in this mater is a discrace

There is an arab family that lives three houses down, they are Palistinian, they are also Christians and Americans

And since the 11th have faced constant harrasment.

There is no justifacation for harasment and threats based upon religion let alone race, if Americans cave in and fight one another, the terrorists win

Muslims come in all differant races, if we start terrorizing arabs as national policy, the terrorists will send over europeans or asians, there are no shortage of fanatics in Malaysia or the Balkans to recruit

This is a time for Americans to unite behind the president, it isn't a time for Americans to fight one another because of religion or race.

Personally, I think most of Annies rantings deserve the Barf Alert caption, as do most of your responces.

[peegravel]

Deportation of those violating our immigration laws should be automatic! Deportation of those found to support terrorism in our country should be halfway back to their home country! God bless America.

[HENRYADAMS]

When someone comes up with a damn good test discriminating between a "Good Moslem"and a "Bad Moslem" then I'll listen to the PC nonsense. Lenin and Co. conquered Czarist Russia with about 200,000, The American Revolution was successful with about 100,000, The French Revolution had no more than 200,000 out of a then population of 30,000,000. It ain't numbers alone!

[TLBSHOW]

You are either for us or against us. Bush says!

[AndyJackson]

I have repeatedly on this forum condemned the rampant racial prejudice that has wrapped itself in the cloak of patriotism. At the same time, it is pretty overwhelming evidence that radical islamics are at the core of our terrorist problems. Therefore, turning one's scrutiny towards those of Middle East origin rather than asking Wesport Connecticut girls whether they have packed a nuclear bomb in their compact case that morning would be the height of sensibility.

Anne's ridicule of this idiotic procedure is right on target. We got these questions from the security agents for El Al. But they don't just ask these questions. They give anyone suspicious a 2 hr grilling at the gate, looking for signs of nervousness and inconsistency. They know what they are doing and know what is at stake. It is a whole lot more sophisticate than these idiotic "is that a nuke in your pocket or are you just happy to see me" kinds of questions?

If we were inundated by a hoard of Scandanavian terrorists it would be legitimate to scrutinise closely the actions of those with Scandanavian backgrounds - and my family would be in those cross hairs. Guess what - I would stand up and denounce radical Scandanavian terrorism [ok ok, we Vikings committed our share in times of yore] and would dedicate myself to rooting out this blight on my heritage.

[_Jim]

Muslims come in all differant races, if we start terrorizing arabs as national policy

Who is seriously proposing this as policy?

Or did you just use that term for effect (hyperbole)?

[powerdump]

But what about Mr. Bush? He seems to be on the right path so far and he has visited a mosque and repeatedly asked Americans not to blindly lash out at Middle Easterners living in this country. I wasn't sure about Bush before his speech Thursday night, but now I think he is on to something. Is he just pretending to be PC? What is going on?

[armourup]

You sir are a liberal. I may be fat but in the morning I will still be fat and you will still be liberal!

[DugwayDuke]

Let me see if I understand this. Mr. Keefer wants us to avoid using religion or national origin in our search for Islamic fundamentalist terrorist from Arabic countries. And he thinks Ms. Couler is dumb? Quite frankly, a "golden retriver" has more sense than this. After all, a "golden retriver" does have the good sense to look for ducks while on a duck hunt.

[_Jim]

Well said Andy ...

[TLBSHOW]

Personally, I think most of Annies rantings deserve the Barf Alert caption, as do most of your responces.

I am sure I don't care what you think about me and Ann I know doesn't even read what her commie/socialist readers say about her.

GO ANN YOU ARE SMOKING THEM ALL OUT.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[_Jim]

You sir are a liberal.

I take it you are addressing this to Mr. Keefer and not Mr TLBSHOW ...

[xzins]

Alan Keyes says it's ridiculous not to take into account distinguishing characteristics of those who commit crimes and terror. He's right. Coulter is right, to a degree. I believe that a well-heeled terrorist can purchase the suicide of an already unstable person if the reward is high enough and dedicated to enriching the family of the unstable person. That includes female blonds.

Check everybody. Check some more.

The passport idea is a good one.

[The_Media_never_lie]

In WWII we would never have harbored in our country Nazis who kept swastikas and pictures of Hitler on their walls.

Yet today, we are told by ACLU types that we should respect the "constitutional rights" of non-Americans to have pictures of our enemy Bin Laden on their walls. Is this obtuse or what?

[TLBSHOW]

I am a liberal because?

I don't read the martian language well.

[Right Wing Professor]

There's a fallacy here. While it is true that all Moslems from the Middle-East are terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists that have attacked the US in the last 10 years have been Moslem middle-easterners. So, while by targeting all Moslems you'll inconvenience a lot of innocent Moslems, you'll also discourage almost all terrorists.

So how much inconvenience are 7000 lives worth? Surely all those loyal Moslems out there won't mind a small sacrifice, since they abhor terrorism so much?

[Flyer]

My two Golden Retrievers say "Woof, woof!"

(translation: This man knows his stuff!)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

What struck me about her "convert them all to Christianity" article was that she offered no argument -- nothing of the form, "Here's how ..., here's why ..., here's the opportunity cost of not doing so ..." That's the minimum standard for any sort of honest, intellectually responsible policy analysis. So whatever one things about the policy she favors, one can't conceive of her as being engaged in any kind of honest and responsible analysis. So how should one conceive of her?