Some good news
By Paul J Cella Posted in Immigration | the Jihad | War — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Two pieces of good news:
(1) Phoenix, Arizona, has repudiated its “sanctuary city” policy and is now authorizing the police to inquire into the immigration status on anyone arrested. Moreover, “Police Chief Jack F. Harris, who has been outspoken in warning of the dangers of major police involvement in immigration enforcement, said he endorsed the policy, would write regulations for it and put it into place within three months.” This latter fact is important because occasionally we hear arguments from immigration enthusiasts to the effect that the local police oppose measures to involve them in immigration enforcement.
(2) At least someone in Europe has got some guts. And yes, yes: I know there have been long and tedious arraignments, generally cobbled together with the ever-expedient adhesive of guilt-by-association, laid out against European politicians who oppose the Islamization of Europe. If only the same industry were evident in the press for investigating the history of prominent Islamic spokesman.
In my judgment the history of the Jihad offers a certain banality in its malignity on this point. So wicked an institution and doctrine as this, is bound to corrupt even those who oppose it. Putting down the revolts of the Moriscos in early modern Spain was a crucial component to the expansion of the Inquisition as an agency of the Spainish monarchy. The intrigues of the Byzantines were made more brutal and treacherous by the participation of the Turks. Even in our country, the mere beginnings of our struggle with the Jihad have augmented the security apparatus of the state, usually in sensible ways, but also in perverse ways. Once the Jihad has a foothold in your country, you will not escape its depredations without dirtying your hands.
Which is why, of course, our policy should be strictly tailored toward minimizing our exposure to its depredations. Jihad, Sharia and Dhimmia — all three doctrines should be summarily proscribed from promulgation; to promote any should be made legally tantamount to sedition. Immigration from Muslim nations should end, virtually without exception. In sum, we the people of the United States should make plain our republican judgment that until Islamdom ceases churning out terrorists, subversives and brigands, we will (so far as possible) cease interaction with it.
The alternative is the continued expansion of the Security State, the diminution of privacy and personal liberty, and the corruption of our security agencies under constant strain; not to mention gradual increase in Jihadist aggression and agitation.
« Lou Barletta for Congress — Comments (6) | Against America the abstraction. — Comments (54) »
Some good news 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
GREAT for Europe on this small triumph. I love to see a guy (especially in politics) with some nards on him. They are so far and few between. Europe better heed what he is saying, before it is too late. The statistics of Muslim immigration into their countries is staggering. They seem to procreate on much greater levels than Europeans. This will become a HUGE problem and they will see Sharia Law guiding public policy before you know it.
America should also take note...
MelZ
...unless they actually ask everybody the question about immigration status rather than just the brownies.
However, I think that the new stricter legislation here in Arizona regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants is already having a positive effect on sending our problem out to other states (hey, it's your duty, those of you in other states to pass similar legislation) and I would hate to see our police force over burdened with this additional administrative responsibility when they should be concentrating their efforts more fully on fighting crime.
I think they are a junior Girl Scout group.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
handling illegals & he's responsible for booking and incarceration not the City of Phoenix. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't pass off the immigration enforcement to him and just check immigration status on booking.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
TSJ
The police are only asking the immigration status criminals, those arrested or detained for a serious crime. The new approach leads to very little exposure of charges of racism, unless there is a charge of racism in application of justice. Police are not free to just for s***s and grins stop people and ask them their immigration status.
You might try reading a bit more before opening mouth and inserting foot.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
But will they only ask the brown criminals, or all criminals this question?
TSJ
I'm not quite sure what to make of you.
I see no one inserting the issue or race into this, except you. Is this a gorilla in the mist sort of question whereby you prove that Republicans are racists, or are you just that thick?
A criminal is a criminal, with race playing very little in that statement, along with the DOJ monitoring most police departments for any hint of racial based policing.
There's a real smell to your postings here on RS, and I do hope one of the moderators has the time to follow that smell to the rot.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Immigration from Muslim nations should end, virtually without exception
We both know you and I will continue to disagree on our view both of Islam and of (legal) immigration, but I couldn't let this pass without comment. I'm tossing aside my visceral reaction against this statement, but let's go with a logical question: what are you defining as a Muslim nation? There are numerous nations that are majority Muslim but with generally secular government: Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey. Are you including those? Are you only including nations that have "Islamic Republic" in the title? Are you only looking at those that have some nod to shariah law in its stature? I am assuming you mean all, from your other statements, but I just was curious.
I also just want to register, publically, my complete disagreement on the second "good news" of the day, but I don't want to rehash the immigration fights of 2006 :-)
Just few examples (very, very few) of the 'open and welcoming' brand of islam as practiced by There are numerous nations that are majority Muslim but with generally secular government: Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey."
Other examples from more islamic countries are incredibaly worse and are more illustrative of an islamic society. But here ya go.
Bangladesh elderly Christian convert dies of burns
http://acanadianguy.blogspot.com/2008/02/bangladesh-elderly-convert-dies...
A Baptist pastor and evangelist was found beheaded in Jalalpur, ... south-western Bangladesh
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bangladesh.baptist.pastor.killed.b...
Nun shot dead as Pope fails to calm militant Muslims -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article642421.ece
3 killed in attack on Christian publishing house in Turkey ...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Bible-Att...
INDONESIA. ACEH HAS FIRST CANINGS UNDER MUSLIM LAW
http://www.handsoffcain.info/archivio_news/200506.php?iddocumento=710619...
And these are the places you are holding up as an example of...exactly what? Transpose ANY of these stories to a Western country and imagine the repercussions if the victims were, oh I don't know, say muslim.
Islam is incompatible with Western values and society. Look at what is happening in Canada right now. A publisher and writer are being sued in court for offending islam. Muslims wage jihad in every available format, legal (CAIR etc.), cultural (publically financed footbaths in MN colleges), workplace (muslims checkpout person not being required to handle bacon products, muslim cabbies refusing to serve blind with seeing eye dogs or alcohol packages), and religious (muslim student organizations co-opting non-denominational prayer rooms because of thier strict needs and excluding all others). Every one of these examples forces the host society to conform to some aspect of islam - to become subservient to the dictates of islam. Sorry, not going to play that game. If a muslim wants to live in the US, they are welcome to worship as they wish, as long as thier religion conforms to our societal norms. If they are offended by pork products, don't expose upourself to them, but don't expect me to work around your problem. Of course there are many muslims who live in the US who are successful and fit well into our society. They choose to by how they integrate themselves. Sorry to be so politically incorrect, but I have reached the end my tolerance.
Paul is exctly right.
I know better than most people the violence that can be found against Christians in many countries, including secular Muslim countries. Was there anywhere in my post where I held them up as examples?
Look. I completely disagree with Paul on this, especially considering I was raised Muslim and am not exactly prone to violent attacks against my Christian husband. But, we've hashed that out before and I'm more into kumbiyah-conservatism at the moment after the divisive primary we just had. I was just asking him a simple question.
Just one note. Over months of debate, I finally conceded that as it stands, a strict following of Islam is incompatible with Western society. This I will agree to despite the numerous fully-practicing Muslims I know who don't ask for special treatment despite their personal religious issues against some of the stuff they are asked to do (ex: handle pork). In that sense, they're not totally fully practicing because they comprimise their religious values for the sake of living in a Western society.
What bothers me most about any discussion of wholesale banning of Muslim immigrants (and there's a lot that bothers me), is that there are numerous, numerous Muslims who do have a basic belief in God and if asked will say they believe Muhammad was the last prophet, but who do not have a deep enough reading of Islam to even start to debate the religion. Secular Muslims, if you will. Or, people who may read the Qu'ran and note some major issues with it, but choose to ignore them and pick out the parts that are instead compatible with their lives. Cafeteria Muslims, if you will. They exist, we just don't hear about them because they're of course not the type to make the news. They're Muslims because that's how they were raised, and even if they don't totally 100% buy in to their religion, they're not about to just convert to Christianity. They decide they believe in God, and they like the powerful contendedness faith gives them. Just like the numbers of secular or cafeteria Christians all over America.
That was more than a quick comment, but you're forgetting the normal people when you screed against the extremists or those who want special treatment.
"Fred's my conservative guru, but McCain's my President."
It's a very bad idea to see the current conflicts as a battle between the Westerners and Muslims, if for no other reason than that's exactly how OBN likes to look at it. Furthermore you lose the focus from the jihadi-islamicist ideology, that one is right to oppose, to an entire religion which is taking a rather collectivist view rather than treating people as individuals, which is surely a conservative principal.
My proposals for proscription of certain doctrines would leave unmolested your Secular and Cafeteria Muslims. As you describe them, neither is likely to begin promulgating tracts promoting Jihad, or developing legal argument by which to incorporate Sharia into the US Code, or calling at protests or on placards for JIM CROW FOR INFIDELS, i.e., the Dhimmma.
Whether our Liberals like it or not, it is well within the compass of the American political tradition to restrict the circulation of doctrines characterized by a particularly malignant political tendency.
I'm also looking into the future -- much nearer now in Europe, but on the horizon of possibility even here -- of increased strife, bitterness, and treachery as the Jihad gains a foothold. In the lifetime of this website alone the Jihad has pushed the ball down the field for a first down or two already. From the perspective of the Jihad, much progress has been made in the West since 2001.
How many crises are they from civil strife in Europe? How will the Secular and Cafeteria Muslims fair under conditions of civil strife? The Jihad desires that strife, and may soon have it.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
-- with no perfect answer. On one hand you could just go with "majority Islamic nations," and leave it at that. But I think we are capable of a bit more subtlety. On the more lenient side, we could stipulate that any potential immigrant professing the Islamic religion must swear an Oath or Affirmation, on pain of immediate detention and deportation, to renounce the doctrines of Jihad, Sharia and Dhimma. On the harsher side, it could be a blanket negative on anyone professing the Islamic religion. Doctrine or religion, not national origin, would be the point of leverage.
Perhaps our best model was first brought to my attention by Josh Trevino: the proscription on the doctrine of polygamy in the Utah territory.
Using the instrument of law to attack a certain doctrine is not unprecedented in our history. And that Mormon example had an emphatically good ending. The wicked doctrine was repudiated, and Mormonism by and large integrated into the American mainstream.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
What does former Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have in common besides being Islamic?
A few adjectives will sum it up. They are anti-democratic, intolerant, repressive, brutal, despotic, violent, militaristic, fascist, and criminal, they are states of terror and a real threat to world peace.
The West and these elites form a partnership, an alliance of evil, against freedom. The sticking glue of this partnership is oil, and as long as there is some oil left their cooperation will continue. These forces prevent real change and real progress in the region.
What I have learned is the U.S. Government doles out BILLIONS of taxpayers money, food, weapons, aircraft, material, machinery and technology annually to every foreign country that produces oil.
It seems almost all of them are muslim, communist or sociialist countries and the United States creates a relationship with these countries in order to maintain a degree of control over the oil they produce.
The USA was not getting any oil from Iraq before or after Saddam was captured and hanged. We had to remove Saddam who was in a race with Iran for a nuclear weapon to control all the oil in the ME.
It was in the "VITAL INTERESTS" of the United States and perhaps the rest of the free world that Saddam was removed from control of Iraq and his scam of food for oil program.
This is the insane results of our situation of dependency on oil from these countries, the United States, in essence, finances Islamic Jihads round the world with $billions of dollars we pay for their oil.
The muslims continue to spread Islam and Sharia Law , build Islamic schools, Mosques and purchase Korans for distribution round the world with oil money while the U.S. does nothing toward drilling for oil and building refineries.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&tab=wm#compose
"Whatever evolves was first, created" - Jason Leverette, Patriot
We had to remove Saddam who was in a race with Iran for a nuclear weapon...
...actually didn't find much evidence of that now did we?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Democratic talking points have no place here. I'd say begone to Daily Kos, but why go to that New Democratic Network guy's place when we all know he's pro-Clinton?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Great post, Paul. Count me in -- hook, line, and sinker.
We should fight the cancer, not invite it to live amongst us.
OK, so I sorta stopped reading to comment after #1, but even as the liberal I am, I'm not a big fan of sanctuary cities. While I believe I have some substantial disagreements with lots of people here on the handling of illegal immigration, I absolutely believe that you throw any of that out the window when someone commits a crime. Assuming the police aren't just arresting all the brown folks they see, I've got no problem with an inquiry about immigration status.