FURY, NOT FEAR: THE SIMPLE SANITY OF LIMITS ON MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

               SR has been silent for several months for a disturbing reason:  Each time he is ready to write on the most recent hideous outrage in our dismal era, an even more ghastly development occurs that supersedes the previous, and so on almost ad infinitum. 

                But the depths of ignorance, hypocrisy, and cowardice to which the media and political left have descended in their rabid response to Donald Trump's proposal for a temporary halt in Muslim immigration summons SR from the sidelines to join this critical debate.

                In response to overwhelming evidence that the proliferation of Sharia-compliant Muslim aliens presents an imminent threat to public safety, Trump proposes a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until the crisis can be thoroughly evaluated and understood.  Good.

                Unfettered Muslim infiltration of Europe has caused an epidemic of violence and barbarism, corrupted European civilization and culture, and exploited EU public services to the breaking point.   In the face of this disgusting catastrophe, basic considerations of self-preservation demand that America take necessary measures to avoid similar disaster.  Trump's proposal is a straightforward effort to do just that.  SR staunchly defends Trump's proposal, moreover, even though we recognize that Trump is not a genuine conservative and we do not presently support him for the GOP nomination.

                                                         

                               Where is Charles Martel when we need him?

                Given the subversive fallacy of the attacks on Mr. Trump's proposal, it is important to tabulate the most important points that refute the orgy of falsehood, fraud, and treachery that is spreading  through  the corrupt American media.  Let's call them the Seven Pillars of Opposition to Islamist Immigration.  Here they are. 

                1.  Limits on Immigration by Designated Groups is Normal American Practice and is expressly authorized by law.  The hysterical opponents of Trump's proposal declare that it is a blatant violation of American traditions, and an affront to "who we are as a nation."  This is utter nonsense.  Recent and past American history is rife with sweeping laws, orders, and Presidential actions not only limiting immigration by designated groups but even placing them in detention camps -- as the revered Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt did with the Japanese in World War II.  Iranians, Syrians, Chinese, Japanese, and many others have all been targeted by strict bars on their entry to the U.S.  That is the American tradition and the American way.  More recently, the ultra-liberal Jimmy Carter ordered the near total exclusion of immigration from Iran – and he was plainly targeting Iranian Shiite Muslims, not Christians – as a response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  As Carter stated in 1979: 

   

             "[T]he Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly." 

                Such alien exclusion orders are expressly authorized by federal law (11 U.S.C. 1182(f), which states:

                "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

                Even the invertebrate Obama has ordered the exclusion of Syrians and Iranians who have committed "human rights abuses" no worse than the actions that all Muslims are obligated to take by the Koran.  When the Nation's security and welfare are threatened by identifiable foreign groups, our traditions and principles dictate that we exclude them, not welcome them.  That is exactly what Trump is proposing.

                2.  Trump's proposal is constitutional and lawful.  Having practiced constitutional law as Senior Counsel at the highest level of the Justice Department – the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) --  SR is well qualified to judge the constitutionality of Trump's exclusion proposal.  Various network legal buffoons – political hacks who would not survive the first round of interviews for a position at OLC -- smugly and instantly declared that the proposal was unconstitutional.  They are wrong.  As long as the exclusion measure includes the necessary exceptions that Trump has since clarified that he would adopt – such as an exception for existing Muslim-American citizens returning to the U.S. – it is clearly constitutional under the long-recognized "plenary principle" governing immigration by foreign persons.  Under that  standard, aliens seeking admission to the United States may be excluded for any reason, and they may not invoke the constitutional provisions (such as the equal protection clause or the First Amendment) that apply to U.S. citizens to support their efforts to gain entry.  Foreign persons simply have no constitutional right to enter the U.S., and the Constitution may not be invoked by them to force their way in.  Indeed, the above-quoted statute authorizes the President to order the exclusion of any alien categories whose entry would be inimical to U.S. interests.  That is exactly what Trump's proposal would do – exercising statutory authority given to the President by Congress to protect the nation from harmful immigration.

                3.  Muslim Immigration is not beneficial to the U.S.; it is demonstrably harmful.   Just as in the case of the illegal immigration invasion from Mexico, unhinged Democrats, "moderate" Republicans, and their media allies reflexively subordinate the interests of American citizens to the interests of undesirable and hostile foreign elements in connection with the Muslim immigration issue.  This is irrational and treacherous. The U.S. already has more Muslim immigrants than it needs, and some cities and towns (like Dearborn, Michigan) are so overrun by Muslims that their American character and cultures have been supplanted by an oppressive Islamic weltanschauung.  Indeed, in Hamtramck, Michigan, Muslims have seized a majority in the city council.  Sharia enclaves cannot be far behind (they have already been established in parts of Europe).  The U.S. simply does not need any more undereducated, non-English- speaking, combative Muslim refugees who are hostile to American culture and tradition, and who are largely incapable of supporting themselves and their families.  They place an oppressive burden on American citizens, with virtually no offsetting benefit.   And this entirely apart from the enormous risk of terrorist attacks and other violence posed by Muslim immigration.

                4.  Muslim Immigration is inherently low quality immigration.  Attempts to justify the entry of hordes of undesirables by highlighting the negligible percentage of Muslims aliens (e.g., physicians) who might bring a useful credential are fraudulent for the obvious reason that it is the net impact that matters.  The overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants will cause a massive drain of U.S. resources – as Europe is now experiencing to its great cost -- with no countervailing benefit.  Hordes of Muslims have entered as self-selecting refugees, and Obama is poised to open the gates to legions more.  Others enter solely by virtue of their relationship to other Muslims who are already here.  Unlike traditional immigration based on preference qualifications, these refugees and dependents are not required to meet any standard for job skill and self-sufficiency as any sane immigration system would demand.  Moreover, the certainty that a significant number of Muslim immigrants will be Sharia-compliant fanatics who are prepared either to support, or actually commit, hostile actions against Americans overwhelmingly outweighs the pathetic attempts to justify Muslim immigration with maudlin and misleading pictures of hapless children and weeping widows.

                5.  Follow Japan, not Europe.  At least one other industrialized and highly civilized democracy virtually excludes all Muslims from its borders, let alone its accepted society.  An article in the Jewish Press blog, see http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-land-without-muslims/2013/05/19/, explains how Japan is able to avoid Islamic terrorism as a "land without muslims."  Mordechai Kedar, The Land Without Muslims, Jewish Press.com (May 19, 2013).  Although Japan does not expressly ban the immigration of Muslims, its laws, regulations, social norms, traditions, and national policies render it negligible as a practical matter.  Simply put, Muslims are not welcome in Japan.  With a total population of some 130 million people, Japan has only about 30,000 to 70,000 total Muslims at the upside; the actual number is probably much lower.   And when one of the rare Muslims in Japan commits a crime, the response is ruthless and unrestrained by political correctness:  "Police stationed agents at mosques, followed individuals to their homes, obtained their names and addresses from alien registration records, and compiled databases profiling hundreds of individuals,” according to an article in the Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus.  See also "Japan Close to Muslim Immigration," http://newsl.org/2015/06/japan-closed-to-muslim-immigration-shields-culture-from-islamic-influence/.

                In brief, Mr. Trump is proposing that the United States temporarily adopt a restrictive policy that has been successfully applied in practice by the super-civilized Japanese – a country from whom the U.S. could learn much indeed with respect to maintaining law-and-order and preventing terrorism.  Japan does not have recurrent terrorist attacks; Japanese sidewalks are not blighted by oppressed women in burqas that look like walking black tents; Japanese cities are not darkened and degraded by the shadow of looming mosques and minarets; and Japan will not subordinate the interests of its own citizens and its own culture to some perverse and twisted notion that a nation is obliged to welcome and subsidize whole classes of alien immigrants whose beliefs and practices are incompatible with those of the host country.

                6.  It's all about the Koran and Sharia.  The delusional Quislings who defend increased Islamic immigration by claiming that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims" are peace-loving, civic Americans perversely ignore the most unambiguous and readily available evidence on this question.  The plain text of the Koran and the unambiguously barbaric doctrines of Sharia are the core sources of doctrine for Muslims.  They advocate violence against non-Muslims; extreme and oppressive misogyny; unrelenting intolerance; and a system of "cruel and unusual punishments" that make our penal system look like the kind of discipline inflicted by Mary Poppins or Mr. Rogers.  The mandatory Muslim doctrines of the Koran and Sharia are simply incompatible with a civilized, constitutional, democratic republic.  Admitting additional hordes of persons who, by definition, adhere to those destructive doctrines is simply inimical to the interests of the United States and its people.

                7.  It's Fury, not Fear.  The most insulting and fraudulent  argument against restricting or barring Muslim immigration is the bogus canard that Americans "should not give in to fear."  The underlying implication of this canard is that opposition to unfettered immigration by hordes of undesirable Muslim aliens is driven by an irrational and un-American fear of terrorism and violence --which, of course, is not shared by those brave leftists and liberals who support open-ended immigration. 

                Like so many mantras of the left and their media mouthpieces, this is the absolute opposite of the truth. 

               SR can personally attest that the opposition to expansive Muslim immigration he shares with many millions of Americans is based on fury, not fear.  We are furious that hordes of aliens hostile to our constitution, our civilization, and our way of life are not only being welcomed into our country, but subsidized, indulged, and accommodated as though they were deserving patriots rather than parasitic intruders.  And we are paying for it!

               On the other hand, the angry citizens of the right are the least fearful element of the population, precisely because they are well-armed, know how to use their firearms, and united by a firm resistance to any threat to the safety and security of their families.

                In fact, it is the advocates of appeasement and accommodation of the Muslim invasion who are dominated by fear and cowardice.  They are so afraid of offending or angering the Islamic movement and its transnational supporters that they abandon their most fundamental principles – like equal rights for women and homosexuals – to embrace and defend a religion that is unambiguously hostile to those principles.  Just as the poltroons of the left are afraid even to acknowledge the existence of widespread anti-white criminal violence by rampant black felons, let alone to expose and resist it, they perversely ignore Islam's hostility to the principles they purport to cherish so they will not have to muster the courage to engage it.

                                                                                                * * * *

                As these Seven Pillars demonstrate, the debate over limiting Muslim immigration to the United States should not be confused by whether one supports the candidacy of Donald Trump -- although he deserves much credit for his courage in forcefully placing the issue front and center.  Rather, straightforward considerations of national, cultural, societal, and moral self-interest demonstrate the simple sanity of halting this injurious invasion until a suitably restrictive standard can be identified and enacted.