Four Bogus Defenses of Unfettered Muslim Immigration

It is the Era Of Political Correctness and honesty has taken a header.  We now hear claims, assertions and truisms spouted daily by the talking heads that seem oblivious to logic or common sense and bloggers/ideologues line up to parrot the same bogus talking points. There are many voices echoing this nonsense but let’s try to get a little perspective.

Argument 1: “Turning away Muslims is not who we are.  We are betraying our heritage of welcoming the refugee, the fearful, the persecuted.” Response: we have always had a policy of being selective and still do.  Prior to 1965, quotas favored European immigrants; now the majority of immigrants come from Asia and Latin America.  During the Iran hostage crisis, President Carter suspended Iranian immigration and instructed American students from Iran to be deported if in violation of their visas.  We have every right to choose who to admit to the United States and if someone may be dangerous, then it would be reckless in the extreme to admit that person.

Argument 2: “Turning Muslims away would violate our belief in freedom of religion.” This argument is incredibly hypocritical when put forward by those who approve of putting county clerks in jail for observing a key tenet of her faith.  And when the person pronouncing this judgment claims to be Christian, it is important to point out that: A. religious freedom is enshrined in the American Constitution and is meant to protect American citizens, not every human on earth. If the speaker wants to extend that protection to the world, then let’s get the U.S. government started by recognizing the murder of Christians as genocide in the Middle East, something Obama’s folks do not want to do.  B. Islam is more than a religion.  It is a political, economic and cultural governance system.  Worshiping Allah is the heart of Islam but not its limits.  Inherent in the faith is a drive to extend Sharia law to all aspects of life,  This legal and political drive compels growth, defeat and replacement of other forms of government and extension to the whole world.  There is no “live and let live” component to this faith.  Claiming otherwise requires Argument 3.

Argument 3. “…the vast, vast, vast majority of whom (Muslims) are peaceful, who believe in pluralism and freedom, democracy and individual rights.”  When [mc_name name=’Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’R000570′ ], alleged conservative, said this, he demonstrated a woeful disregard for the evidence and a certain fantastical view of the world.  A recent poll (see here) indicates only 39% of Muslims polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts (51% believe they should be governed by Sharia law and courts) and 25% agreed that “Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”  Now maybe Mr. Ryan sees 25% as a negligible number but most citizens of this country are deeply fearful of that number.  And where exactly does the alleged leader of the GOP Congress get the idea these immigrants believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy and individual rights?  Where are the wellsprings of these views refugees hold?  Were they taught pluralism in Syria?  Were their mosques preaching freedom or democracy?  Were the Sharia courts proclaiming individual rights in their judicial judgments?  Mr. Ryan, alleged realist, must be a sucker for 2 a.m. TV hucksters.

Argument 4: “If you are a Christian, you should extend the love of our Savior to refugees.” This argument assumes either a cold heart or religious bigotry if religion sometimes plays a part in immigration policy.  No real Christian would turn his back on a genuinely persecuted refugee seeking to enter the US and begin a new, free life.  Ours is a nation of immigrants and even now, I do not see resistance to Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs (unless their admission is part of the plan of the Establishment to replace American workers with lower cost immigrants).  But if Islam is a theocratic religion, then it is a political calculation that is being made.  And a security calculation. How much risk do we want to take (are 20 deaths a year from terror acceptable?  100?  500?)  And who will be those victims? As a Christian, I feel acutely uncomfortable suggesting that we have to risk violence and death as part of our loving attitude, because I know those victims are most likely to be strangers to me.  I do not want to risk their deaths by my ideals.

So a pause in immigration? It is not bigotry or xenophobia to approve of this. Since this administration is governed by a pro-Muslim, liberal mindset, our caution is justified.  We are not deluded that Speaker Ryan, alleged realist, has hit upon the magic formula to increase security by requiring three signatures on immigrants, in his American Safe act. Vetting will be made more bureaucratic by this measure but likely little beyond that.  (All the certifications in the world will not work if the guy at the top wants things moved along quickly, and according to politically correct measurements.)

So we need to stand our ground, fight for our security and focus on reality, remembering that our children and grandchildren will live, or not, by the calculations and decisions we make now.