The hideous dilemma of Muslim immigration
David G. looks into the abyss of the Muslim problem:
The lack of a solution to the burgeoning Islamic immigration nightmare in America is one of consequences of the nation’s embrace of radical egalitarianism. As in Bob Dylan’s “To Ramona,” the Zeitgeist of liberalism whispers to us
That you’re better than no one
And no one is better than you.
Amendment 1 to the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And because religion, per se, holds this exalted position in our history (and in the psyche of most Americans), it would be necessary—in order to stop Muslim immigration— to understand and define Islam as something other than a religion. I really cannot see that happening.
Short of that, we would need to have a president capable of stating that because we are incapable of knowing when, and how, a Muslim might turn into a jihadist the U.S. will have to impose a moratorium on all Muslim immigration. This step would probably have to be preceded by extreme and ongoing destruction within the borders of America by jihadists. Even then, it probably wouldn’t prompt such a moratorium.
But to indulge my fancy, the thought of barring Muslims from the U.S. is a delicious one. Once barred from the U.S. perhaps the emigrating Muslims would force some type of change in the Muslim world. I doubt it though. They would in all likelihood just end up in Europe, Australia or some other Western nation that is philosophically stymied when it comes to self-preservation.
Practically speaking, and I say this with remorse, the Muslim immigration problem will have to be dealt with as a subset to the larger issue of worldwide immigration to America. I don’t think that we can isolate the Muslims and win politically, even if we are correct in wanting to do so—and we surely are. I am highly pessimistic at this point of my life. I think that the myriad of problems that Muslim immigration brings such as airport security, terror cells, random acts of murder and criminality, sharia taxis, burka rights, Islamic schools, fear of cartoons (!) and crazed imams (read Fawaz Damra, the Blind Sheik, et al.), will indeed be with us for a long, long time. There are 30,000—I repeat 30,000!—Somali Bantus in Columbus, Ohio alone. That population would constitute a major town in states such as South Dakota or Wyoming. How and why they are there is a study in modern liberalism. Just assimilating that group alone will be a monumental challenge to the city for decades to come.
Could it be that most Americans just don’t care that a way of life is passing before their eyes?
LA replies:
David has laid out three scenarios.
1. We determine that Islam is not a generic religion but a political faith aimed at power, and on that basis remove it from the protections of the First Amendment. If Muslims could not practice their religion here, they would leave. This is the most desirable. David cannot see this happening. I can see it happening.
2. If we don’t come to that understanding, then we could stop Muslim immigration, but perhaps only terrible terrorist attacks would move us that far.
3. Most likely is that we will not have the will to deal with the Muslim problem per se, and must subsume it under the general immigration issue. This also happens to be Mark Krikorian’s preferred scenario. The only thing is to reduce all immigration drastically.
On one hand, Scenario 3 is obviously the best. On the other hand, how long will it take to bring about? The thing with Muslim immigration is that it is in a different class of badness from all other immigration, and so brings people much closer to grasping what is wrong with the anti-discrimination orthodoxy that controls our society. I have always seen Muslim immigration both as inherently the most unassimilable and dangerous in itself (leaving aside the question of the much greater numbers of Hispanic immigrants), and, because of its inherent unassimilability, as the biggest chink in the armor of liberalism. Once the anti-discrimination orthodoxy was broken with regard to Muslims, it would perhaps be broken vis ŕ vis other groups as well. That has been my idea. But if we must let the Islamic population keep increasing while we wait for a national consensus on the restriction of all immigration across the board, we may be waiting a long time. That’s why I think we must work on both: work for a reduction of all immigration, while also singling out the particular dangers of a population which by the very nature of its religion is inherently unassimilable and presents a mortal danger to our society.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 25, 2007 01:34 AM | Send