By thoroughly recasting it, to deal with genuine national security issues. Video from Hot Air, article from FrontPage:
With President Bush lobbying Congress to revive the defeated and disastrous immigration bill, authorities have a chance to recast the bill in a way that takes adequate measure of the national security implications of the immigration issue. And now, Lebanon, a nation currently under attack from al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, has shown the way with a measure that the President and Congress would do well to consider adapting for the United States. In an attempt to prevent jihadists from entering Lebanon from neighboring countries, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry and the General Security Department may stop giving entrants from Arab countries automatic entry visas; instead, they would have to apply at Lebanese missions in their native countries – allowing Lebanese officials time to scrutinize their applications and try to determine whether they are involved in jihad activity.Such a proposal has a great deal to recommend it. Lebanon is treating immigration as a national security issue, as it manifestly is not only for Lebanon, but for the U.S. as well. With refreshing directness, Lebanese officials are considering heading off the problem at its source, or one of its sources, by restricting entry into the country from Arab countries from which jihadists come. Likewise the U.S. also could, and should, institute restrictions on immigration from Muslim countries. This issue has been clouded by national traumas about “racism,” but in fact it has nothing to do with racism, as jihadists with blonde hair and blue eyes are just as lethal, and should be just as unwelcome, as jihadists with dark skin, this is about taking prudent steps to protect ourselves and defend our nation. It is only a matter of common sense to recognize where the great majority of jihadists come from, and act accordingly.
Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Because this is not a racial issue, these restrictions should not apply to Christians and other non-Muslim citizens of those countries, although all should be subjected to reasonable scrutiny. Those who claim that such a measure is “Islamophobic” should be prepared to provide a workable way for immigration officials to distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims, or, if they cannot do so, should not impede basic steps the U.S. should take to protect itself. And Muslims entering from anywhere -- Britain, France -- should be questioned as to their adherence to Sharia and Islamic supremacism. This is not because anyone will expect honest answers, but so that answers proven false by the applicant’s subsequent activity can become grounds for deportation.Meanwhile, this is not just an immigration problem. The Fort Dix and JFK Airport jihad terror plots uncovered in recent weeks not only underscore the need to fix our broken immigration policies, but they show the need also to deal with the fact that jihadists are already in the country. When twenty-six percent of Muslims in the United States who are under the age of thirty approve of suicide attacks in some circumstances, and two such attacks are uncovered in the last month, this is not an abstract problem. Islamic organizations in the U.S. who refuse to renounce and teach against political Islam should be reclassified as political organizations and made subject to all the controls and scrutiny to which political organizations are subject. And here again, words must be backed by deeds, or can justly be regarded with suspicion.
If national security were our priority, these proposals would not even be controversial. Nor would Islamic advocacy groups in the U.S., if national security were their priority, oppose them either. In fact, they might spur those groups to become more energetic in rooting out jihadists from among their ranks, and from among the Muslim community in America in general. Instead of the platitudes and half-measures we have seen up to now, along with active opposition to anti-terror efforts, we might see them take genuine steps to declare the ideology of jihad and Islamic supremacism beyond the pale of American Islam, and renounce political Islam and any intention, now or in the future, to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic Sharia law.
But instead, the national debate still degenerates all too easily into charges of “racism,” while the real national security issues involved in immigration are shunted aside. A time may come, all too soon, when the American people will wish they had not for so long indulged this luxury. The President and Congress have a chance now to take up the immigration debate anew, and to think like statesmen, not like politicians. A realistic look at immigration as a national security matter would be a good place to start.
One big issue I have with vetting is that Islamic governments are infested with jihadists. If, for example, a Saudi wants a visa to visit the US, how do we know that every official document isn't a "fake"? That is, the documents are official but all relevant information in them is forged. Birth certificates, property records, employment histories, and criminal records are all easily faked when you have moles in the relevant ministries. Given these are Islamic governments the "moles" might even an officially sanctioned counterintelligence unit tasked with providing fake identities for whatever group wants to take the global jihad to infidel lands.
"...Lebanese officials are considering heading off the problem at its source, or one of its sources, by restricting entry into the country from Arab countries from which jihadists come...."
....Exactly as I think...Ban Muslim Immigration...
Yeah i agree, a total ban on muslim immigration, all western countries should do this as a matter of urgency. Protect our citizens from the Jihad obsessed lunatics.
Is it true Ayaan Hirsi Ali opposes limits on islamic immigration to the West? I read that somewhere but I could be mistaken.
"Indeed, Hirsi Ali’s ideological swings and roundabouts, which have taken her from fundamentalist Islam to strident atheism, have been remarkably timely. For instance, in 2002, she abandoned a position with the Wiardi Beckman Foundation, a think tank linked to the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA), and defected to the right-wing VVD when they promised her a parliamentary position, which she won in the 2003 elections. She criticised the PvdA for being blind to the ‘negative effects’ of immigration from Islamic countries."
...could this help?...
A very good article, Mr. Spenser. Unfortunately, it makes too much sense. And for some unknown reason, humans have a fear of ideas that are just too logical.
Perhaps we can fine tune the outrage against the costs associated with the current policy towards illegal immigrants and begin to focus on the utterly reprehensible and totally avoidable costs associated with muhammedan's in our midst . . . well, Hugh always says it best -
CEASE ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION NOW. ESPECIALLY CEASE ALL R-1 R-2 VISAS FOR MUSLIM RELIGIOUS 'WORKERS' AND THEIR FAMILIES. DEPORT ALL MUHAMMEDANS REMAINING HERE ON EXPIRED OR FRAUDULENT VISAS - ASAP. PROHIBIT ALL MONETARY TRANSACTIONS FROM MUSLIM LANDS WITH OUR UNIVERSITIES AND OUR DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.
HUGH FITZGERALD FOR SECRETARY OF STATE!
This policy should have been instituted on 9/21/01 - the day after the president addressed Congress.
Its effectiveness would depend on the latitude given to US agents. Would they be able to deny a visa to a Muslim who simply rubbed them the wrong way? If not, questions asked about Islam and Sharia seem pointless. How many known terrorists actually carry out multiple attacks? Generally they are the directors. They no longer need to be on-site to carry out their work. The internet and modern telecommunications mean they can direct operations from positions of safety. In this age of suicide terrorism your first terror attack is generally your last. So what if you lied on your visa application. Unless you are identified before you carry out an attack it won't matter. We can't deport a dead man.
Then you have the Richard Reids of the world - Muslims without Arab names. Who would catch them or even identify them as Muslims? Nothing stops them from lying to officials.
This also suggests that you need to bar travel to countries where terrorists come from. We've already seen Americans traveling overseas for training and then coming back to plan attacks. Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terrorism (official or otherwise). Mecca could be the next meeting place for terrorists planning an attack. Imagine telling an American Muslim that he can't take the hajj or if he does that he can't return to America?
In another generation would we see British descendants of Pakistani immigrants all named John or Charles? It would mean you need another way to identify them. The next Cat Stevens would never change his name.
Barring a definite Muslim signature, how do we keep some people from a country out but not all? There are Lebanese Christians but what stops a jihadist from posing as one? Unless you quiz him on Christianity instead of on Sharia you might not know. Once people born and raised in a Western country begin to engage in jihad (Spain and Britain being prime examples) how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? Isn't it all or none?
Stop all Muslim immigration into this country, even if they want to immigrate from Europe.
Allow immigration from any country -- even Muslim countries -- so long as the immigrant is a Christian, and has a statement from a Priest or Minister verifying that he is a Christian.
If Muslim governments protest, have the guts to enumerate all the violations of religious liberties suffered by non-Muslims in their countries .
Tell them that their socities are incubators for terrorists, and there's no reason in the world why we should gamble with the security of our people by allowing immigration from their countries.
Tell them that if innocent Muslims are hurt by this, it's because of their dysfunctional soceities, not ours.
Greetings:
The current immigration re-vamp is way too complex. It should be pared down to address security issues first. All the rest is just "a camel is a horse designed by a committee."
Moratoriums would be a useful tactic not just on the Muslim countries but also on our "near-neighbor" Mexico. The current discussions do not include any downside for countries that are aiding and abetting illegal immigration. Suspension of all legal immigration from Mexico and Muslim countries puts the ball back in those courts.
Additionally, restricting cash transfers by illegals would put a crimp in the economics of the illegals.
Speaking of walls and immigrants, Iran has now begun constructing a concrete wall along its border with Pakistan to control illegal border crossings and limit legal crossings to specific “easement” points. Many Pakistani locals suspect the government will seal the entire frontier.
Good walls make good neighbors, wrote Robert Frost.
I'm not opposed to the theory of restricting immigration on a religious basis, but not if it means unfairly discriminating against non-Muslim people who happen to come from Muslim countries. This is exactly what "a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries", as the article proposes, would cause.
The reality is that you can't ban all Muslim immigration without discriminating on an ethnic basis. Even then, you wouldn't be ensured of keeping all Muslims out, because Muslims who come from predominately non-Muslim countries could still gain entry by lying about their religion. The only real way to keep all Muslims out would be to ban immigration altogether, and only a total idiot would be in favour of that.
Having said that, I agree with the idea that potential immigrants should be made to declare that they reject Jihad and Islamic supremacism.
"Islamic organizations in the U.S. who refuse to renounce and teach against political Islam should be reclassified as political organizations and made subject to all the controls and scrutiny to which political organizations are subject."
While I fully support and agree with everything Robert said in this post, I can't help but make some observations. Tax-exempt organizations, Islamic or not, are not "required" to engage in any specific activities to obtain public charity status.
They only need to demonstrate that they are organized for religious, charitable, scientific..., literary, or educational purposes...and that they do not participate in, or intervene in , any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Trying to require an Islamic organization to teach against political Islam would, in my understanding, require new law, or more aggressive application of current doctrines in the world of tax-exempt charities. In the current climate of multicultural awareness, Islamophobia obsession, and anti-hate legislation, this simply doesn't seem likely.
In other words, if an Islamic organization were to support a Muslim candidate for office who wanted to implement Sharia law, it would be in violation of the law against political campaign intervention. But an organization would not be in violation of current laws if it failed to renounce such a candidate and teach against the implementation of Sharia. In fact, making statements against such a candidate would place the organization's tax exempt status in jeopardy just as surely as supporting the candidate would.
Another angle to consider would be the Public Policy Doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled that charitable status may only be granted to organizations operating in conformance with a public policy doctrine. The purpose of a charitable entity cannot be illegal or violate established public policy.
One could reasonably argue that any organization advocating the overthrow of the US government and the implementation of Islamic governance would clearly violate US Government policy. But reason isn't the driving force behind what laws are passed and enforced. Politics is.
The IRS does adhere to the public policy doctrine when allowed to by the courts, but the courts generally are not comfortable with enforcing this doctrine. Mostly it is used to prevent racial discrimination in private schools.
The IRS has shown some gumption in shutting down tax exempt charities that can be shown to be involved in financing terrorist organizations. Perhaps this effort can gradually be extended in the direction that Robert wisely suggests.
My words here are not intended to be a negative criticism of Robert's suggestion, but merely to provoke more thought as to how his idea might be achieved. Perhaps Robert would expand on this in a future post. Indeed, the IRS has been instrumental in bringing down organized crime bosses and drug smugglers where conventional law enforcement has failed...
I wholly agree with Robert. This is an avenue worth pursuing.