Spencer on what mass Muslim immigration has done to the West

It seems that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who came to the U.S. in part because the extreme security she required in the Netherlands to protect her from jihadist killers made ordinary life impossible for her in that country, has come under increasing threats in the U.S. as well, and her security has accordingly had to be increased.

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch posts the story, with these introductory comments:

This brings to mind the point Hugh Fitzgerald has often made—about how much more dangerous, difficult, expensive, and uncomfortable massive Muslim immigration has made life in the West. Yet no one dares to examine immigration policies in that light—as a national security issue.

Spencer himself has, of course, proposed that Muslims applying for immigration to the U.S. be screened for jihadist sympathies. Now if every future prospective Muslim immigrant who had a certifiable jihad connection were prevented from entering the U.S. (and other Western countries), that would be a fantastic improvement over the current immigration insanity. But how would it change the situation Spencer laments—that life in the West has become “much more dangerous, difficult, expensive, and uncomfortable” because of “massive Muslim immigration”? It wouldn’t change it. All those Muslims who are here as a result of mass Muslim immigration would still be here, their numbers and their political power and the dhimmi-like fear they inspire in our politicians being continually augmented by further immigration and natural increase.

Thus for the nth time Spencer has made a statement the plain implication of which is that we must not only stop Muslim immigration into the West, but even reverse it (i.e., start removing from the West at least those Muslims who actively support jihad and sharia, a very substantial percentage of the total). Yet he doesn’t follow through to the unavoidable logical conclusion of his argument. Instead, he criticizes other people for failing to articulate a position that he himself declines to articulate.

Further, when I make these obvious points, Spencer calls me a liar, charging that I have deliberately misrepresented and “slurred” him. Come on Spencer! Get over your liberal inhibitions, and get over your resentment of me, and start engaging with this issue seriously!

- end of initial entry -

From: Jeff in England
Subject: A QUESTION IN THEIR NERVES IS LIT YET THEY KNOW THERE IS AN ANSWER FIT

You’ve said it again for the millionth time but he won’t make the logical move to call for an immigratiion halt. How many more times do we have to listen to warnings by Spencer and Melanie Phillips and other Suspects about how reactionary Islam is and how dangerous Muslims in the West are, yet not hear any sort of logical immigration solution uttered from their lips?

Is there a limit or does this silence go on to infinity? A five year old would see the logic of immigration restriction, yet you won’t hear those two words come out of the mouth of Spencer or Melanie. It’s one of life’s great mysteries. Some sort of crazy conspiracy. JFK assassination and Princess Diana car crash conspiracy freaks move over, this silence by Spencer, Melanie and the other Suspects takes the cake.

Maureen C. writes:

Spencer’s idea on preventing the entrance of jihadis through screening is a complete non-starter.

We CAN’T screen for incoming jihadis, because screening requires having U.S. “intelligence” on foreigners that even U.S. intelligence agencies, let alone, the Immigration Bureaucrats, do not have—and cannot get. U.S. databanks only have data on Muslims who have already committed jihadi-type acts. In other words, the federal government “screeners” can only look for the Osama’s of the Muslim world—not for the Osama wanna-be’s.

In addition to being useless, screening is costly. It requires investing huge amounts of money to create the databank (which will be inevitably compromised and challenged in a court of law) and hire the personnel. Hiring personnel means getting gobs more useless U.S. federal government bureaucrats on the payroll—the kind who are now busy defending America by making Grandma take off her shoes at airports.

The only sure-fire solution to defending America is to deny entry to Islam—the tenets of which are opposed to our Constitution.

LA replies:

My gosh, Maureen, you’re right. All along I’ve accepted that Spencer’s idea was good and reasonable as far as it went (though still insufficient in the larger picture) in that it did not involve relying on only a questionnaire (which would mean trusting what immigration applicants told us) but also involved our independently verified knowledge of people’s background and associations to determine whether they are jihad supporters and sympathizers. But that assumes that we have the practical ability to gain such knowledge, or to gain it without a crushingly onerous investment in manpower and technology. It’s absurd. The task Spencer envisions is self-evidently beyond our power.

I’ve been so eager to find points where I agree with Spencer, so as not to seem like an unappeasable critic, as some have charged, that I failed to see this obvious flaw in his proposal.

The screening of Muslims for jihadism is not, as I have previously said, a step in the right direction toward the only thing that will actually protect us; it is an unworkable substitute for the only thing that will actually protect us: the exclusion and removal of Muslims.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 29, 2007 10:47 AM | Send