Trifkovic’s insufficient response to the enemy within, modified in response to criticism

Writing at Chronicles, Serge Trifkovic has a good article on the Islamic menace inside America. Especially useful is his summary of the typical pattern of events—protests by the Moslem community, handwringing apologies and outreach efforts by the local officials—that ensues whenever a suspected terrorist is arrested in some American city. However, after building up the dread danger represented by the ever-growing Moslem population in this country, Trifkovic offers a “solution” that is wholly inadequate:

The application of ideological and political criteria in determining the eligibility of prospective visitors or immigrants has been and remains an essential ingredient of any anti-terrorist strategy, whereby Islamic activism would be treated as eminently political rather than “religious” activity.

In other words, we keep out prospective immigrants and visitors if we can determine that they have had explicit involvement with jihadist activism. Other Moslems would continue to be allowed in. But, as Trifkovic himself points out, some of the worst jihadists in America were born here, and others become jihadists after they arrive. And as a final irony, in this article entitled “The Enemy Inside the Gates,” Trifkovic doesn’t suggest doing anything about the Moslems who are already here, such as deporting jihadists. He doesn’t even call for closing down anti-American Wahhabi mosques.

This is further evidence of how, despite their reputation for being hardline, when it comes to things that really matter the paleocons aren’t hardline at all.

However (I’m writing this several hours after the initial post), I’m glad to see that in response to readers’ comments about his article, Trifkovic indicates that he favors deportations of Moslems as well, and, even better, he would cast the net widely. He notes a promising approach by which such deportations could be carried out under the Constitution:

Sending them back en masse will become possible if and when one’s adherence to an Islamic world outlook becomes excludable on strictly POLITICAL, rather than “religious” grounds. The model is provided by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the McCarran-Walter Act). It is possible that the “affiliation” thus defined will affect a number of people who do not actively identify with the goals and methods of the Jihadist core. That may be unfortunate but it is inevitable. Personal assurances by individuals thus affected certainly cannot be taken at face value: Islam not only allows, but mandates lying to “infidels” in order to gain political or any other advantage (i.e. Taqiyya, the concealment of one’s Islamic beliefs to non-Muslims).

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 23, 2005 12:10 PM | Send