Jihad Watch: Lawrence Auster, Muslim immigration, and emails

February 6, 2007

Lawrence Auster, Muslim immigration, and emails

The blogger Lawrence Auster (about whom see here and here) has been criticizing me for quite some time for not coming out against Muslim immigration. Yet when he has articulated his position in more detail, it is remarkably similar to mine: he even mentions, in the last post I linked, the immigration application questionnaire that I have been working on for almost a year now and about which I have held discussions with several Congressmen. As for illegal immigration, I am opposed to it across the board, and as for monitoring mosques, I have called for it repeatedly -- see, for example, this article from March 2003.

There is more. In an email exchange today which Auster has published in part (he selectively edited it), he adds eight recommendations:

1. Declare that Islam is not just a religion but a political movement aimed at gaining power, and therefore the individual beliefs of individual Muslims matter less than the overall presence of Islam among us which strengthens the Islamic political agenda. Therefore (1) Islam is not a religion receiving protections under the First Amendment, and (2) Islam is not welcome in this country. Also declare that America renounces multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are equal, and that it intends to go on existing as a distinct country with a distinct culture and way of life and will in the future adopt laws consistent with that purpose.
This declaration is the basis of everything that follows.

2. Cease all further immigration of Muslims, from whatever country, with only special individual exceptions for close relatives, etc.

3. Make resident aliens leave. This could start with singling out resident aliens with jihad associations, but then if deemed necessary be upped to include all Muslims resident aliens.

4. Make all Muslims illegal aliens leave.

5. Examine the beliefs, associations, statements, and actions of all naturalized Muslim citizens. Those who are jihad supporters will lose their citizenship and be made to go back to their country of origin.

6. Leave open as an option doing the same with natural born American citizens who are children of Muslim immigrants, as I discussed in my 2004 article at FP, “How to Defeat Jihad in America.”

7. Outlaw all mosques and Muslim schools and Muslim organizations that preach jihad and sharia or that disseminate literature advancing jihad and sharia.

8. Urge other non-Islamic countries to do the same, with the aim of initiating a vast worldwide Rollback of the Muslim “diaspora” back into the Muslim lands.

It's curiously inconsistent that he says we should declare that "Islam is not welcome in this country" and then never says a thing about expelling ordinary Muslim citizens -- all that follows deals with immigrants, illegal aliens, resident aliens, and citizens who are jihad supporters. What about Muslim citizens who are not jihad supporters in any discernable way? Can they stay? Auster doesn't say. If Islam is "not welcome in this country," shouldn't Muslim citizens be expelled? Why does Auster shy away from following his argument to its conclusion?

There is no doubt that Islam is political, as I have noted hundreds of times in innumerable contexts. In my 2005 book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) I wrote this:

Reclassify Muslim organizations.
Any Muslim group in America that does not explicitly renounce, in word and in deed, any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia should be classified as a political rather than a religious organization, and should be subject to all the responsibilities and standards to which political organizations must adhere. (P. 230)

I point this out because Auster and his followers frequently claim that I have offered no solutions to the problem of jihad, when I have included suggested many ways to manage this problem (as opposed to solutions, which don't actually exist, since Islam and the jihad ideology is not going away) in my books Onward Muslim Soldiers, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and The Truth About Muhammad. This is just one of them.

But anyway, after Islamic groups are classified as political groups, what then? Some of Auster's recommendations are good. Others I find fantastic, impractical, unworkable, and inconceivable of ever being adopted, as well as unconstitutional and possibly immoral. In the United States we do not have thoughtcrime (contrary to the overheated claims of the Left). We cannot outlaw Islam as such any more than we can halt Muslim immigration per se, not just because we are multiculturalist wimps who refuse to take hard steps in our own self-defense, but because Islam is a belief.

Beliefs have never been outlawed in the United States. The Smith Act, for example, doesn't outlaw the Communist Party as such; instead, it says that "whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States...by force or violence...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both..." It didn't outlaw believing that Communism is a great idea. It couldn't outlaw that. But isn't "advocating" and "teaching" all about belief? By way of an answer, consider how the Communist Control Act of 1954 specified that Communists could be identified:

In determining membership or participation in the Communist Party or any other organization defined in this Act, or knowledge of the purpose or objective of such party or organization, the jury, under instructions from the court, shall consider evidence, if presented, as to whether the accused person: (1) Has been listed to his knowledge as a member in any book or any of the lists, records, correspondence, or any other document of the organization; (2) Has made financial contribution to the organization in dues, assessments, loans, or in any other form; (3) Has made himself subject to the discipline of the organization in any form whatsoever; (4) Has executed orders, plans, or directives of any kind of the organization; (5) Has acted as an agent, courier, messenger, correspondent, organizer, or in any other capacity in behalf of the organization...

And so on. Click on the link to read the rest; you'll see that they are all about actions -- about involvement with the Communist Party. None of these points says anything about thinking Marx and Lenin are just great, or that Das Kapital contains the answer to human suffering, being matters for prosecution.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and don't claim to play one on TV. In the meetings I have had with Congressmen, I have tried to help them see the parallels as suggested legal avenues to explore, and hope that their lawyers will be able to work out something that is Constitutional, workable, and even -- although this is a pipe dream with the new Congress -- capable of being passed. Using all this as a model, I think membership in Islamic organizations that advocate and teach the desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States and replacing it with Sharia could be criminalized. This is something I have included in my recommendations to the Congressmen over the past year or so. But it is not the same thing as outlawing belief in Muhammad as a prophet, or the Qur'an as a divine revelation. Such things will never happen under the U.S. Constitution, and that's a good thing for many reasons.

For one thing, I don't want the U.S. to start outlawing beliefs. If yours is outlawed, mine can be too. I want the officials of the U.S. government to protect the Constitution and laws of the nation, as they swear to do. This means that those who advocate the replacement of the Constitution with Sharia should be regarded by those officials as groups and individuals they have pledged to protect us from. Lawrence Auster realizes this too, which I believe is why he doesn't follow through on the logic of his saying that "Islam is not welcome in this country" by saying that all Muslims should be expelled. Instead, he focuses in his latter recommendations on jihad activists and sympathizers, because he knows that the U.S. can outlaw actions -- activity on behalf of jihad -- but not beliefs -- the idea that Muhammad is a prophet.

After all, if it somehow became illegal to believe in the United States that Muhammad is a prophet, how would this be enforced? Would nationwide questioning be instituted? And what of false answers? A huge monitoring apparatus would have to be instituted, spying on all citizens. (I'm sure I would come under close scrutiny in such as system, as hardly a day goes by during which I don't read the Qur'an; the neighbors would get suspicious.)

The problems with stopping Muslim immigration as such are similar. I agree with Auster, although he has done his level best to portray my position as the opposite of this, that we must do everything we possibly can to make sure that jihadists do not enter the U.S. or remain here; and I have pointed out many times, although he has claimed that this is a lacuna in my position, that there is no firewall between moderates and jihadists (see, for example, this post from June 2005).

So what is to be done in the face of that? Well, everything I have outlined above: outlaw Sharia supremacism, monitor mosques, etc. And ban Muslim immigration? This would be the common-sense thing to do, and I favor it in principle, but how it would be done is not an easy question to answer. How would it be done? Ban all immigration from majority Muslim countries? Then Muslims can enter from Britain and France, at least until they become majority Muslim.

Ban all Muslims, from whatever country? That's what Auster says above. Then you will have immigration officials giving religious tests. "Do you believe Muhammad is a prophet and the Qur'an is divine revelation? Then you can't come in." You'll be keeping out nutty multiculti Christian leaders who believe Muhammad is a prophet along with Muslims, but hey, that might not be such a bad thing. Seriously, however, the practical issues here are overwhelming. What if someone lies? Or converts while in the U.S.? Will you arrest an immigrant for possessing a Qur'an or entering a mosque, while it remains legal for citizens to own Qur'ans and go to mosques? Unless all mosques are closed and Islam is outlawed in this country, ending Muslim immigration as such is completely unenforceable. And Islam will never be outlawed in this country, as America does not criminalize beliefs.

That's why I have instead focused, in the immigration application proposal I mentioned above, not on Islam per se but rather on elements of Sharia that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and American society. Here again one would not expect honest answers, but it would be clear that activity in order to institute Sharia here would be grounds for deportation.

This is eminently practical and enforceable. Ask on the immigration application if the applicant understands that the U.S. prohibits the beating of a disobedient wife, which is allowed for in the Qur'an (4:34), and that if he beats his wife this will be grounds for deportation. Knowing what we want to hear, the applicant answers no. But then he beats his wife. Instead of treating this simply as a case of spousal battery, it would now also be grounds for deportation. The arrest stems from the action, not the belief, but the deportation occurs in recognition of the fact that wife-beating is sanctioned by Sharia, that the wife-beater in question accepts Sharia, and that Sharia is inimical to Western society and law. Believe Muhammad is a prophet all day long, but if you act to institute Islamic law here, you are not welcome.

But what about Norwegian Lutheran immigrant wife-beaters? Would they be deported too? Sure. (I mean, who wants wife-beaters here, anyway?) It's preferable to focus on the actions of Islam that are inimical to American society and law, rather than beliefs. We don't care why you beat your wife, but the punishment must be ratcheted up as part of a larger effort to prevent Sharia supremacists from having free rein in the United States.

Anyway, Auster has suggested that I actually hold to some multiculturalist belief in mass immigration, which is and always has been false. Since I have asked him for retractions and corrections on several points and he has refused, I characterized his portrayal of my positions on several matters during an email exchange today as dishonest. He has published my emails to him today; he is offended that I call him dishonest, although he has never bothered to explain why he apparently thinks he knows what I believe better than I do, and has thus brushed aside my requests for retraction. I stand by the substance of those emails.

Mr. Auster has repeatedly written that he has maintained a high-minded focus on principles and ideas, while I have descended to personal attacks. That is apparently the purpose of his posting my emails today. Some snippets of Auster's high-minded commitment to principles, rather than personal attacks, appear in emails he sent me last September:

You're out of your effing gourd, pal.
If this reasonable e-mail so offended you that you decided never to mention again any writings of mine at your site, then you are indeed a collossal jerk.

What a hopeless jerk you are. You're so bent out of shape you can't even remember what you're saying from one minute to the next.

You have exposed yourself before many readers as a major league jerk.

The record of your idiocy and immaturity will be on the Web forever.

You're nuts.

Since you will have shown yourself as beyond civilized behavior, I will not want to hear from you again.

I take your response to mean that you will refuse to post my response to your sleazy out of context quotations of my private e-mails to you.

The last one is especially piquant in light of his post today. It refers to this, in which I referred to some of the same emails. I posted them then to show the hollowness of Auster's posturing about taking the high road, and I do so again now for the same reason.

John Derbyshire and others have tangled with Lawrence Auster in the past -- as Derbyshire explains here with a keen oberver's eye. I am sorry that our exchanges have been so rancorous; it is a pity that he has decided to direct so much energy to discrediting those whose positions do not tally with his 100%, rather than directing his energies to awakening Americans to the magnitude of the jihad threat.

UPDATE: Auster's reply predictably fulminates and plays pot-kettle-black games, displaying an impressive talent for projection and accusing me of "dirty tactics" -- while taking no responsibility for his own actions, and still addressing nothing of substance that I have written above, except to say that he expects his plan will involve the mass voluntary departure of Muslims from the U.S. Well, carry on, sir; I'm through.

SECOND UPDATE: With an Orwellian talent for inversion of reality, Auster and his acolytes continue to claim that I have declined to meet Auster on the level of ideas, and that instead I have engaged in personal attacks -- while calling me "pathological," claiming I suffer from a "victim complex," and more. Sure, Larry, no personal attacks from you. Auster claims that he has "given the entire history of why I stopped speaking with Spencer." He doesn't mention, however, that he only published this explanation long after he stopped speaking to me, and that in it he never addresses my simple question, which was why he characterized my inviting Gadahn to accept the Bill of Rights as "purely liberal" -- an appelation which, provided without explanation, his readers were certain to misunderstand. In a very long explanation he asserts several times that my defense of the West is entirely on liberal grounds, but never explains why the Bill of Rights is a liberal thing. Yet it is I who am not dealing with substantive points.

This is a man who has seized upon words here and there to imagine and magnify slights, while rudely sneering at and brushing aside my kindness toward him: he says that I sent him "e-mails larded with the same expressions of good wishes for my success, health, and happiness." Oh, horror! Good wishes! What a horrible fellow I am!

That his followers continue to believe that he is only interested in discussing principles in light of things like this, and that I am the one personally insulting him, is testimony to his persuasive powers, but to little else. I would be happy to discuss and debate the issues of immigration at hand with Lawrence Auster or anyone else, but note that in the aftermath of my original post above, he has focused with relish on attacks on my character, with only the scantest attention to the points I have raised.

Posted by Robert at February 6, 2007 9:21 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

"I agree with Auster, although he has done his level best to portray my position as the opposite."

Freud called this the narcissism of small differences, I think. The great discipline is to accept the possibility that the other guy is right; you will not die first because you were wrong, though the feeling of being made small explains a lot of behavior. People need to accept their mortality.

A greater place for Christianity in public life might help us inwardly and as a way of confronting Islam.

I wonder if membership in a mosque could be grounds for special scrutiny. Certainly there should be a full-court press to convert these people, whose ancestors were forced into their way of worship.

There is no God but God, and Mohammed has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: StillBreathing

at February 6, 2007 10:13 PM

The only question I'd want answered from prospective immigrants is whether they believe in Islam or whether they consider themselves 'muslim'.

Outlaw islam (a seditious political movement) in the US permanently.

If the prospective immigrant holds the beliefs of Islam, then (s)he needn't pursue our shores. The problems faced in their birthland are due to their faith in a 7th century doctrine and should be addressed there directly.

I don't care one iota how 'moderate' their belief in Islam is. As far as I'm concerned, there may be "moderate muslims", but there is no such thing as a "moderate islam" and for that reason, they will never be welcome here by me, and those already here, will NEVER be trusted again.

Posted by: miira

at February 6, 2007 10:21 PM

I just want them out.
Everywhere they are in numbers...death follows.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at February 6, 2007 10:42 PM

We cannot outlaw Islam because it is a belief. I accept this but I do not like it. To tolerate the intolerable is…intolerable.

The neighborhood cats use my backyard as their communal territorial toilet. I can’t keep them out so I’m stuck cleaning up their mess, watching them breed like rabbits, and listening to them fight in the middle of the night. I don’t hate cats, I just hate their actions. I just want them to quit doing their primitive nastiness in my yard. I worked hard for my house, my yard. Now I have to share it with animals that don’t give a damn about my yard, or my beliefs.

Intolerable.

Posted by: butterfly

at February 6, 2007 10:52 PM

The burden of proof should not be on society to guess whether or not any particular Muslim believes in furthering Islam forcefully, but rather on any or all Muslims to clearly identify and prove whether or not they want or support violent Jihad and forceful Islamic rule. Those who follow Islam believe in justified deception.

Posted by: Report

at February 6, 2007 11:05 PM

And this is part of the reason why a lot of people dismiss the anti-jihad movement as bigoted, sad to say.

Posted by: wrathofasma

at February 6, 2007 11:11 PM

Finally, a GOOD interview. The BBC's Jeremy Paxman has a REAL investigative reporter question session. Impressive.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24331_UK_Islamic_School_Teaching_Infidelophobia&only

Posted by: Borg

at February 6, 2007 11:12 PM

Off topic, but Cal Thomas has a well written article with a positive JihadWatch mention.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19281

Posted by: JSobieski

at February 6, 2007 11:15 PM

"Now I have to share it with animals that don’t give a damn about my yard, or my beliefs." - butterfly

http://www.animal-traps.com/

capture - deport (to humane society)

Similiar in concept to the sharia law/jihadist trap recommended by Robert Spencer. Highly effective in both instances.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln

at February 6, 2007 11:32 PM

Having a growing Muslim population in the U.S., or any Western country, is a latent problem, and as Mr. Spencer has pointed out, has no easy solution.

Merely questioning immigrating Muslims as they come into the country isn't going to help much, since they will simply wave the taqiyyah and kitman flags and dissemble. In any case, if we then are not going to make them dhimmis in our own country, we are still going to have to establish a sophisticated and comprehensive monitoring system of Muslim behavior in Islamic communities and in the mosques.

And what do we do about outside funding of Islamic education centers, mosques and madrassas by Saudi Arabia?

As Mr. Spencer indicated, the U.S. did not outlaw Communist Party members from the 1920s onward, yet we still had to infiltrate their cells, and catch covert spies, thwart sabotage, etc.

There's no getting around the fact that Islam is an alien and pernicious belief system in Western countries, and represents a poised dagger at the heart. It should be repressed at every turn--from greatly reduced immigration to stifling of seditious teachings and incitements.

Personally, I do not believe Islam can be "reformed." Where would you start, especially if one accepts the premise that Muhammad was a prophet and supernaturally "dictated" the laws of God as revealed to him? If you knock the underpinnings out of this premise, then the whole thing collapses under its own medieval irrelevancy.

The entire belief system has represented, and continues to represent, a mortal threat to freethinkers everywhere and civilization advancement for over 1,400 years. It's not going away any time soon.

Mr. Spencer mentions "outlawing belief." How did we deal with Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in this country? How did we deal with KKK holdovers? These groups were successfully marginalized by years of public education about their twisted ideas, so much so, that the remnants are today hooted down in public forums and strongly resisted by the public at large.

Perhaps a much greater awareness of the Islamic threat in this country would serve to alert the slumbering population to rise up and not only marginalize, but also root out those that truly are the concealed enemy. If this is the case, then Mr. Spencer's yeoman efforts, along with many others, will be the best medicine yet.

Posted by: prman

at February 6, 2007 11:41 PM

If it is complicated to outlaw the belief system of Islam, it is completely unworkable to outlaw the teachings of Mohammed beyond a certain point. It just can’t be done-the manpower required to define the ‘acceptable point’ and police it would suffocate our government’s ability to act.

Mohammed’s teachings easily qualify for prosecution under the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. When the time comes, additional language can be added to strip citizenship and deport.

It will be impossible to eliminate the threat from inside Western countries. But it is possible to keep it suppressed and unorganized, just like the war on drugs. There are moral issues with deporting good people of faith who would be caught up in the sweep. But given the realities of modern weaponry, these issues become less relevant.

Every Citizen should be shown the aspects of Mohammed’s teachings that cause the problem and then be given the opportunity to safely become Apostates. If they choose to retain their faith and all that comes with it, they should be humanely deported to a country of their choice with compensation.

Posted by: pez

at February 6, 2007 11:47 PM

OT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJweJ02Ar0c&mode=related&search=
Lying, deceiving, dawa.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at February 6, 2007 11:49 PM

justamomof4 posted the above at LGF↑

Posted by: Carolyn2

at February 6, 2007 11:57 PM

From RICO:

It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

“Racketeering activity" generally means (1) any act or threat involving, among other things, gambling, which is a felony under state law, or (2) an act which is indictable under certain provisions of Title 18, such as the Wire Act, the Travel Act, the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act. [151]·

Muslims are ‘Associated’ with Islam.

Islam directs its followers to kill people. Killing people is a act which is a felony under state law.

It's not that complicated.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/rico.htm

Posted by: pez

at February 7, 2007 12:02 AM

Comment to the trap the cats people be warned
my friends wife had him capture all the stray cats in the area because they were defiling her flower beds.
So out went the cats and thus began the invasion of the rats. Believe me those strays control the rodent population

Posted by: buckshot3565

at February 7, 2007 12:10 AM

Islam should, indeed must be outlawed in the U.S. for the threat to decline, there is no other answer. Outlawing the faith, tear down the mosques, remove the quran for sale, along with dvds and videos that support islam . Those who follow it must leave the country, unless they revert or leave the faith of islam. Outlawing the faith, is the easy part, It is the first step.

After it reforms itself, it then it could be considered for allowing here again.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1

at February 7, 2007 12:47 AM

In not knowing Mr. Auster, I can only comment on what is too much the hen pecking which goes on in Conservative ranks. Christians judge President Bush going to hell because he does not measure up to their standards. Mr. Auster judges Mr. Spencer not Muslim aware enough in solutions while jihad is marching lock step against their vented enemy.

I can not speak for Mr. Auster, but the solution to outlawing Islam is to discriminate against it as communists were discriminated against much to the chagrin of Hollywood, reds in Washington and communists. (For the record Gorbachev when asked about Joe McCarthy stated in paraphrase, "McCarthy set us (the Soviets) back decades in our purposes in America.)
So McCarthyism did indeed work as did Nixon witch hunts which the left eventually paid him back for in a coup.

So make it unprofitable to back Muslims and let them be penalized in public ridicule and in a few years all you will have left is Sean Penn types still so angry that their daddy communists were chastised.....but all he accomplishes is sticking pins in Ann Coulter dolls.

No laws are necessary. The law providers simply have to let discrimination prevail and Islam will fade.....like cities zoning pig slaughtering plants around mosques. All quite distasteful, but compared to Muslims wanting to plant nuclear bombs in New York and 7 other US cities....a little discrimination solves allot of problem.

It is a fact fellow readers that the moment Islam murders hundreds of thousands of Americans a whole lot worse blood bath will occur on Muslims. Sometimes the lesser discrimination is better than the lynch mobs who will solve the Muslim problem.

Those are the facts.....now find a solution without attacking each other.

Posted by: Lame Cherry

at February 7, 2007 12:59 AM

I don't believe that we should grant islam religious stature. It is simply an ideology at loggerheads with western democracy. Its adherents should be deported and their citizenship revoked - in those cases where citizens refuse to renounce islam.

Further, we should destroy the mosques and schools that teach islam here in the US. (Monitoring mosques makes no more sense that monitoring a metastasizing tumor. The mosques and schools need to be shut down.)

We don't do islam, here.

Posted by: Havoc

at February 7, 2007 1:00 AM

SEIG HEIL!! SEIG HEIL!!

Oh, sorry..... wrong site

Posted by: edward

at February 7, 2007 1:40 AM

I agree with Islam being outlawed in the USA, make it illegal for anyone to convert to Islam.

Islam is on the whole incompatible with our western system - Islam still operates on the tribal mentality which is inconsistent with the rugged individualism that the United States was founded upon.

Mosques and other Islamic organizations definitely need to be kept an eye upon. They're practically begging Big Brother to knock down their doors.

Posted by: abad

at February 7, 2007 1:50 AM

Islam = Aids
Muslims = T Cells

Posted by: Dsinc

at February 7, 2007 1:53 AM

A huge monitoring apparatus would have to be instituted, spying on all citizens. (I'm sure I would come under close scrutiny in such as system, as hardly a day goes by during which I don't read the Qur'an; the neighbors would get suspicious.)

What exactly are you doing - practicing for the next Quran recitation Olympiad in Malaysia? If that's what you do, you should be under 24 hour surveillance!

Ban all Muslims, from whatever country? That's what Auster says above. Then you will have immigration officials giving religious tests. "Do you believe Muhammad is a prophet and the Qur'an is divine revelation? Then you can't come in." You'll be keeping out nutty multiculti Christian leaders who believe Muhammad is a prophet along with Muslims, but hey, that might not be such a bad thing. Seriously, the practical issues here are overwhelming. What if someone lies? Or converts while in the U.S.?

No, just ask a plain and simple question: Are you a Muslim? An Yes answer is an obvious reason for disqualification. However, let's say the respondent said No, and later on it turns out that he was a Muslim, that's perjury, and grounds for instant deportation. Same thing if he converts.

When I applied for a student visa some 15 years ago, one of the questions on my form was, 'Are you or have you ever been a member of a Communist party'? If I had joined the Communist Party of the USA, that would be a very good reason to put me on the next flight out of here. If one wants to, have a follow-up question: Will you ever become a Muslim? An yes would be grounds for instant rejection, and a no would be grounds to convict on perjury should the respondent in future either turn out to be Muslim in the first place, or have converted while here.

Robert, you state that one can't outlaw beliefs. But Islam isn't just belief in the Allah-Mohammed joint venture: it's also an endorsement of the contents of the Quran. It's perfectly legitimate to claim that those who endorse the Quran endorse Q2:193, which calls on Muslims to keep fighting until fitnah is no more, and all deen is for Allah alone. Why should someone who knowingly or unknowingly endorses that be allowed in, or allowed to stay in once in?

But what about Norwegian Lutheran immigrant wife-beaters? Would they be deported too? Sure.

I have no problems with Norwegian Lutheran wife-beaters being deported, but unlike the Muslim wife beater, the Lutheran wife beater isn't trying to practice Shariah. The question mentioned above specifically cites Q4:34, and puts the Muslim on notice that if he beats his wife, he'll be putting Shariah above the law, and would be deported for perjury. The Lutheran wife beater would be doing no such thing: for all one knows, he may be responding to months or years of his wife's spousal abuse, and snapping at the bitch after a proverbial straw is broken. Sure, deport him to maintain equality under the law, but there is a good enough reason to treat it as a normal spousal battery.

Maybe put Lawrence Auster to debate against Dean Emsay, Ralph Peters, Dinesh D'Souza and Sean Hannity. Let him rant against those who really disagree with him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at February 7, 2007 2:04 AM

It's all very well shooing away the strays that foul your American backyards. These scavengers, used to the good life, won't return to the flea pits they once inhabited but will eye up the neighbour's garden across the pond. I can assure you that this land of once sweet smelling green pasture and carefully mown lawn, is already being utilised as a foetid toilet tray.

Posted by: western infidel

at February 7, 2007 3:04 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with Infidel Pride's simple corrective of Robert Spencer's gingerly parsing, and consequent complication, of the problem:

"Just ask a plain and simple question: Are you a Muslim? A Yes answer is an obvious reason for disqualification. However, let's say the respondent said No, and later on it turns out that he was a Muslim: that's perjury, and grounds for instant deportation. Same thing if he converts."

(I would add further methods within reason (given the multitudes we would be screening) for ferreting out dissemblers who answer "No" -- such as background checks, searches of luggage, etc.)

Now, what's the problem with this proposal?

There are only two apparent problems from what I can tell:

1) Our PC culture currently wouldn't implement it -- but that doesn't mean it's wrong nor unworkable in and of itself; and anyway, our PC culture currently wouldn't concretize any of Spencer's suggestions.

2) It would be imperfect. Well, news flash: any methodology put into practice is imperfect.

As for the Constitutional issues, I think Infidel Pride argues effectively that this would not be un-Constitutional: we are not talking about a simple belief that Mohammed was a prophet, but the whole concatenation of beliefs by which subversion of the Constitution, treason, and potential violence against Infidels are linked to that simple belief. And where, in certain cases, that concatenation may not in fact exist in a particular Muslim's mind -- well, too bad: that will have to be chalked up to collateral damage, the price to be paid for our self-defense from potentially horrific attacks which otherwise would be extraordinarily difficult to anticipate and proactively nullify.

Posted by: remote_control

at February 7, 2007 4:16 AM

Islam should simply be BANNED. It is not legitimate as either a religion or a political movement.

Islam is not a moral religion, hence does not deserve its status as a religion. I think Muslims should be offered a choice - rejecting Islam (i.e. conversion to another religion or atheism) or being forced to leave.

Mosques should be removed, the Qur'an removed and anything Islamic removed. After this, any true Muslims will follow of theirown accord. Any left are probably more interested in democracy than religion and can stay. However, anyone found practicing Islam should face immediate extradition.

-Stefcho

Posted by: Stefcho

at February 7, 2007 4:42 AM

"Why does Auster shy away from following his argument to its conclusion?"

From what you've presented here, Mr. Spencer, that conclusion does not necessarily follow.

I agree with Auster that Islam is a political movement, albeit one cleverly decorated with theological trimmings. But in the case of another noxious political movement, Communism, we did not expel even overt Communists from the country if they had achieved citizenship or permanent-resident status; we simply kept a close and untrusting eye upon those we knew about. To do otherwise would have been to impose a criminal penalty on a belief, which would fit poorly with our traditions of open inquiry and advocacy.

In other words, we resisted the impulse to emulate that which sought to destroy us. It's a good rule to follow, in the main.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto

at February 7, 2007 4:56 AM

Then you agree *in principle* with ousting Muslims or not?

It's not at all clear whether you think that, hypothetically, no Muslims in the United States would be better.

You seem to dodge answering simply:

"As for illegal immigration, I am opposed to it across the board, and as for monitoring mosques, I have called for it repeatedly -- see, for example, this article from March 2003."

People need leaders to reassure them that it's OK to say "I don't want Muslims to immigrate here." They're afraid of how that sounds. If you agree with it *in principle*, then please be louder with your agreement the next time the opportunity presents itself to do so.

Posted by: MDCLXVI

at February 7, 2007 4:57 AM

Nah, you won't be able to expell the Lord or his prophesy; this is his world; and all of it is for his glory. When the walls of Jerusalem came down, everyone was taken to Babylon except for the few....later the people returned, but not until the Lord's prophesy was fulfilled.

Posted by: Jeff

at February 7, 2007 7:32 AM

I am delighted to see RS take Auster to task on this. I find Auster's behavior toward RS -- and others -- just harassing. I realize it's beneath the dignity of many good writers to descend to discussing the sniping kinds of posts he writes, but occasionally it's good to see people expose it to light.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 8:07 AM

Most legal measures related to communism in the US happened after 1945. But communism had already reached its high point and was diminishing in appeal in the 1930's because of Stalin's purges and the 1939 Hitler Stalin pact.

Communism was only fought using legal tools or government action in the post 1945 era, after it had already lost its appeal to gain new members and even hold onto old ones.

Stalin continued to engage in bad acts in Eastern Europe and Russia after 1945. Many people stopped believing in the Communist Party but still had an attachment to leftism or liberalism or socialism.

Islam is not in the same situation, at least not yet. After 9-11, many Muslims approved of the attacks. This is the opposite of the Stalin purges. There is at least one poll showing that Muslims approve of Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Islam and communism are not the same. Islam has been around since before 622 AD. Islam is something people believe comes from God, not just a fashion statement as to your beliefs.

People were attracted to communism based on empirical beliefs, poverty, inequality, Great Depression, opposing Hitler, etc. Empirical events then made them leave it.

What would make Muslims leave Islam? 9-11 worked for Ali, but for others its not bad, its good. Most people stopped believing in communism rather easily. Leaving a religion like Islam is not something that happens often.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 8:31 AM

http://sheikyermami.com/who-is-sheik-yermami/

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/06/internment-deportations-now/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at February 7, 2007 8:33 AM

There's no comparison between humans and animals. Animals' behavior is wholly instinctual while humans have freedom of choice. I hope the dialogue here can remain on humans rather than animals (also people's beloved pets) that don't have freedom of choice.

There are many humans who deserve to be caught in "animal traps" rather than animals. A 13 year old girl was just raped and murdered here in my town by a male relative. He is human and worse than any animal I've ever seen. He had freedom of choice and chose evil. The poor family - their grief is incalculable.

I don't think any Muslims should be living in the US - look what their numbers have done to Western Europe!

How come there isn't a huge migration to their Islamic Lands, LOL?!

Posted by: darcy

at February 7, 2007 9:21 AM

All can agree that:

Questionnaire dominates current system.

That forces people to focus on the issue of whether a questionnaire will work.

No immigration dominates questionnaire

to prevent terrorism.

So if we set up a preference order in terms of preventing terrorism, we are led to the conclusion that in terms of preventing terrorism, no immigration is dominant over the questionnaire and the current system.

By introducing the questionnaire, Spencer forces people to think about a preference relation based on terrorism.

Most discussions of immigration are structured by racism as if this was the default basis of analysis of everything. To exclude is racist is set up as the default.

The questionnaire changes the basis of analysis from racism to stopping terrorism. Stopping terrorism is a benefit. What is the cost of stopping immigration?

For some people, immigration is the way to fight racism. However, immigration is instead usually pushed as of economic benefit. In fact, its not. Men's median wages were lower in 2005 than in 1973.

Census Gov Report p60-231

In terms of fighting racism, immigration increases conflict, so its irrational to think of it as fighting racism. Diversity creates distrust is the results of common experience and history, but also now of a Harvard study by Putnam.

Search:

diversity distrust Harvard Robert Putnam

diversity distrust Harvard Robert Putnam Steve Sailer

diversity distrust Harvard Robert Putnam Lawrence Auster

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 9:23 AM

I agree with Robert Spencer.

Doesn't Scientology still have tax-free status as a religion? If the United States hasn't banned Scientology, how can it ban Islam, when Islam has long been touted as one of the three great religions of the world?

As things stand right now, a democratic government in any country will not ban Islam, just as it will not ban Christianity or Judaism. As a recognized religion, Islam has equal rights with any other religion.

Given that, what else can be done? Robert Spencer's suggestions make sense and are potentially do-able.

In terms of the law, ignore the religious aspect and prosecute such Muslims on their words and actions.

Someone can admire Hitler all he wants and I will stay as far away from him as possible. But the minute he starts acting on Hitler's ideology, doing things that endanger others and breaking the law, the law can, and should, step in. The same is true of Islam.

Posted by: Josephine

at February 7, 2007 9:23 AM

I agree with Josephine largely, but I would say this:

Banning of hate speech is a good thing. Not all speech is protected under the constitution, as evidenced by the fact that if you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater and a six-year-old gets trampled to death by panicked people, you will go to jail for a long, long time.

What needs to happen is that radical Islamists need to have hate speech laws enforced against them. And laws that convict radical imams of conspiracy to commit murder when they enjoin people to terrorist acts.

We have lots of protections, but nobody has the guts to enforce them. And to those I would add one other, which should carry extra jail time for aggravating circumstances attendant to mass murder and hate crimes:

MAKE IT AN ACT OF TERRORISM TO ENJOIN, PREACH, OR ADVOCATE THE MURDER OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

And people should start suing in civil court. Jews and Christians should bring class action suits against Muzammil Siddiqui as head of U.S. Fiqh and all other imams and mosques who support terrorists or terrorist-supporting organizations (there goes CAIR!) and bankrupt them.

How did we get rid of the KKK? Not by outlawing them. We got rid of them by bankrupting them in courts, by suing them for wrongful death, hate speech, and everything else we could think of. And we did this as a culture when our heads finally cleared and we could see them for the terrorist organization they were.

If the Christian churches in this country had any sense WHATSOEVER they would have brought a class action suit against the ACLU for malicious litigation and harassment, starting at $50 million dollars.

AND ... to add to this ... Robert Spencer is right about immigration and Auster is running on the coattails of bona fide experts using the tactic of spurious little attacks to which people of integrity must eventually respond.

I'm glad Robert finally did.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 10:04 AM

Robert Spencer by theory or instinct is a great teacher. The questionnaire idea is how a great teacher gets a student to think in a different way than they did. That is why it is so important.

It forces people to think in terms they wouldn't without it, i.e. how to make our immigration system work to stop terrorism or even worse conflict here.

The whole idea of Jihad Watch is self-discovery. This is through the fact articles and then the discussion. Its a workshop on Jihad and Islam.

Those who attend the workshop on a regular basis come away with a knowledge that is part of them from their efforts here to learn. For most, one lesson is to stop Muslim immigration completely.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 10:04 AM

And one other very important thing:

The United States needs to pass a law prohibiting the funding of any religious or political organization or party by any person, organization or state outside the country. That would stop the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to U.S. mosques.

And make the exporting of funds to named terrorist organizations in other countries an offense that carries a 75-year prison sentence followed by deportation if you live long enough. Don't just deport these guys back to where they can wage jihad.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 10:09 AM

quote The United States needs to pass a law prohibiting the funding of any religious or political organization or party by any person, organization or state outside the country. That would stop the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to U.S. mosques. end quote Morgaan Sinclair

This is a very important point.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 10:15 AM

Old Atlantic ...

How about this. We stop all immigration and just say this:

"Since 9/11 the costs of screening immigration have become prohibitive. Therefore, we are halting all immigration, including student visas, until we can revise our system. The constructive ideas of all countries are welcome. Visitors to the United States on tourist visas will be under the strict control of immigration services and must enter the country with at least $5,000.00 and return tickets."

Then we just stop the issuing of all green cards and stop all student visas.

Then watch them scramble to get their terrorists under control.

MEANWHILE, we need a policy that controls student visas in the future -- that says we will accept NO STUDENTS WHATSOEVER from countries which do not strictly enforce all the international human rights agreements, including those that would guarantee full and EQUAL rights under the laws for women, children, people of all religions, ethnicities and national origins.

IMMEDIATELY the following countries, without mentioning Islam AT ALL, will lose all rights to have students come to the United States for study:

SAUDI ARABIA
PAKISTAN
SUDAN
NIGERIA
MOROCCO
TUNISIA
IRAN
BANGLADESH
and many others, many of them Islamic.

Two months ago the President of the United States gave King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 15,000 student visas to dispense as he would. With Wahhabism the state religion of Saudi Arabia, which students do you think will get these visas?

They will absolutely be:

Wahhabi
Hand-picked by imams
None of them will be female

And they will further pollute an already majority-Wahhabi Muslim American ulema.

This is a major issue and area, and we need to get a serious grip here. Not only on Muslim immigration, but immigration problems in general.

If we stop most or all immigration, then we can use the resources freed up to deport those we want to deport.

With more than 1/2 of the prison population of the U.S. composed of illegal immigrants, mostly Mexican, and terrorists in our midst, we have every right to get serious about this.

Take, for example, the fact that to live and work in Canada now you have to have $1 million in the bank -- and to emigrate to Australia to retire you have to show net worth in the millions to even get an application through, and you'll see how far behind the curve we really are.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 10:38 AM

I'm starting to wonder if all I have to do to gain web traffic is become another complicator of otherwise obvious and simple solutions.

I'll stick to my methods and see what happens instead:

Outlaw Islam.

Truth, not Islam.

Islam is the Enemy.

If you can't make the point in four words or less, then the point isn't worth making. And you can quote me on that one, too.

Posted by: Foehammer

at February 7, 2007 11:05 AM

quote

end quote

Even self poisoning with a smile Canada is ahead of us on immigration. I agree with all your proposals.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 11:12 AM

This whole controversy simply shows that a viewpoint I advocated a while ago on this site is correct. You cannot disentangle the problem of Muslim immigration and its inevitable consequences from that of immigration in general. Its politically impractical and introduces all sorts of ethical dilemmas. We must institute a much reduced and carefully monitored immigration flow such as the one we had prior to 1965. Until we construct such a policy we need an immediate 10 year moratorium. The most urgent priority now is to keep the Evil Party and the Stupid Party from getting together on amnesty and guest worker legislation that will make the current dilemma even worse.

Posted by: RBLA

at February 7, 2007 11:18 AM

"Here again one would not expect honest answers, but it would be clear that activity in order to institute Sharia here would be grounds for deportation."

I cannot agree with you more. As you may recall, I have made similar suggestions in the past. As for those who want to "ban Islam," it disapoints me profoundly to see so many readers of such a great website tilting at windmills. Furthermore, focusing on Sharia is the best way to find common ground with the liberals who have to vote for the law.

Posted by: Pavlov's dog

at February 7, 2007 11:26 AM

" The most urgent priority now is to keep the Evil Party and the Stupid Party from getting together on amnesty and guest worker legislation that will make the current dilemma even worse.
Posted by: RBLA [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 7, 2007 11:18 AM" This is correct

" focusing on Sharia is the best way to find common ground with the liberals who have to vote for the law." Pavlov's dog

Also correct.

The discussion on Muslim immigration is not really that this is what would be legislation. Its another argument to convince people to stop all immigration.

Whether one comes to that as the only way to stop Muslim immigratio, or good in itself, it doesn't matter. That's the logical end point of many ways of analyzing this.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 11:42 AM

Old Atlantic ... you've such a sane voice! Gives me hope!

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 12:00 PM

Mr. Auster is wrong about Mr. Spencer (and the last of his emails posted above raises doubts about his "conservatisim").
He is right about immigration and a ban against all muslims from entering the USA (and all non-muslim nations) for temporary or long term residence.
Some examples: USA essentially banned all persons from any soviet block (and many communist) nations. What is the evidence: there were no massed enclaves of immigrants in the USA consisting of devout communist-socialists dedecated (overtly or covertly) to the overthrow and destruction of the USA (unlike say Detroit/Dearborn, etc.). There were no "off-limits" centers where communists could gather in large numbers to promote overthrow by violent and other means - such as mosques which are going up as fast as fast-food restuarants in the USA. Of course there were (and still are) many domestic communists who did hold overthrow/destructiion of the USA/captitalism which kept law enforcement busy for the entire period the soviet union existed (and still does).

If these short example is not not convincing - take the example of our "ally" Saudi Arabia - which bans all religions and persons from promoting or following such and severly restricts entry to its territory (of course what kind non-muslim would wish to immigrate to such a wonderful "utopia" anyway.).
At least make some sort of reciprocal agreement with all muslim nations: each allows religious equality for all persons entery temporarily or long term and makes every effort to protect, promote, and defend such freedoms -including outlawing extremism in all forms which promotes all forms of religious intolerance, hatred and genocide (as does the USA and most of the civlized world). Saudi Arabia could lead the way in such reforms and all future emmigration from it and such - would be dependent upon verifiable actions taken on above standards of modern civilizations. Other wise - no muslim immigration to the USA. Start now.
At the least - Mr. Spencer is promoting questionaires for those who wish to enter - in hopes of stemming the unchecked flow of any potential shariaists and terrorist-wannabes. It is a start, but the USA can and should go much further -in fact it must go further.

Posted by: TINBH

at February 7, 2007 12:19 PM

I find it very unfortunate that there is so much animosity (between Spencer and Auster), when I think they have much more in agreement. Although I tend to agree with Spencer -- one could never outlaw Islam or deport Muslims or cut off all immigration -- these proposals are impossible (not to mention undesriable and could never get past the U.S. constitution).

Might also add that at least in the United States there are people who recognize the dangers of political Islam. I don't know of anyone here in Canada. (To the contrary, it seems that major efforts are made so as to accommodate and make Islamists feel welcome and comfortable.)

Posted by: J.S.

at February 7, 2007 12:27 PM

DebV ...

Well, here's an anecdote from Massachusetts. There is a man here who is a long-time freelance construction laborer with a construction license, and the Canadian government just told him that to move to Canada he'd have to have $1 in the bank.

Maybe the rules for Americans are just different than for others, or maybe this injunction is recent. But having seen the paperwork with my own eyes, I can tell you that no AMERICAN is going to get into Canada to work without an immense bank account.

And maybe the powers that be in Canada have taken the same amount of election cash most Americans in office have taken from the House of Sa'ud and everybody else!

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 12:35 PM

J.S.

If you want the hostility "between" Auster and Spencer to stop, I'd suggest you go post on Auster's site. Because it isn't "between" Auster and Spencer so far as I can see. It's "from" Auster TO Spencer, who occasionally has to defend himself.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 12:37 PM

1400 years ago the islamic world declared war against the non-muslim world and has conducted said war ever since. That war is now (again) "at the gates of" the non-islamic world - e.g. it has been brought to the shores distant from its main center.

How many Germans, Japanese, Italians were allowed to immigrate to the USA during WWII?
If and when this long war ends - happy utopian diversity can be renewed in the USA, but it could be a very very long time before it ends.

See what one of the most admired muslim leaders of today has to say to the USA as well as all of the non-islamic world. He spells it out very clearly:

"If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]

Posted by: TINBH

at February 7, 2007 12:44 PM

So DebV ... why make it so hard for an American business person to get in and open the floodgates to penniless Muslim immigrants who then get passed through a sieve of a border?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 12:59 PM

DebV is absolutely correct with regard to our immigration system here in Canada -- it's in shambles. And, yes, if you're interested in entering Canada via the "business person" route, it requires 1 million (or more). This policy was introduced by the Liberals -- and there were a zillion critics -- if you're a drug dealer from Hong Kong, hey, no problem, just keep where you obtained your funds under wraps, and you'll get in. (There were a number of editorials extremely critical of Canada's "business immigrant" class). This then pushes applicants to Canada to choose other categories (such as "refugee"). Anyway, all one has to do to settle the issue is take a stroll through any of Canada's cities -- then you might understand -- there's a problem (many, many immigrants do not speak a word of either French or English, btw.)

Posted by: J.S.

at February 7, 2007 1:11 PM

"Old Atlantic ... you've such a sane voice! Gives me hope!
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 7, 2007 12:00 PM "

Likewise.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 1:23 PM

DebV,

At LGF there is an article about the new mosque being built north of Toronto, and the new radical imam -- Bangash. I'm wondering -- is Bangash a citizen? or is he an immigrant? Personally, I think if Bangash is an immigrant, he should be deported.

Posted by: J.S.

at February 7, 2007 1:27 PM

DebV ...

My friend is going to be DELIGHTED to hear this, and I will pass along the website and information you have given me here.

Thank you so much. He will be very, very delighted to hear that he still has hope. I think he believes he will be better off there since the economy right where he lives is really awful for him right now.

Thanks again ...

Cheers,
Morgaan

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 7, 2007 2:46 PM

DebV,

Thanks for that link to The Era Banner paper. But, I still can't find out whether or not Bangash is a citizen of Canada. There was mention in the article of a "Mr. Shami, a native of a Muslim country in North Africa", but nothing regarding Zafar Bangash's citizenship. (I'm assuming you are correct about his citizenship -- it's just that I can't seem to find any articles -- Zafar Bangash has an entry at Wikipedia -- but, again, no mention of his being a Canadian citizen.(?)) Might also note, about the magazine publication, that I thought Canada had anti-hate speech laws (oh, wait, I must have forgotten, those laws only apply to non-Muslims!)

Also noticed (in my search for Bangash's citizenship) two other items: 1) The Conservatives are raising the target for immigrants so that up to 260,000 new residents can be admitted as permanent residents in 2007 -- that's a 5.2 percent increase from last year. In terms of immigration policies, the conservatives appear to be the same as (if not worse) than their Liberal counterparts. 2) Tarek Fatah is writing a book on the Islamists in Canada...that should prove an interesting read.

Posted by: J.S.

at February 7, 2007 3:16 PM

There's no doubt Auster is behaving very weirdly here. And Robert's suggestions are great places to start. We'd be so much farther along if they were adopted. I also agree that it's impossible to outlaw Islam.

I do think perhaps Robert should be a little more open to the idea of our banning immigration from majority Muslim countries. While he's right that people could still come in from England, etc., the immigration questionnaire approach he advocates could be combined with simply shutting down immigration from Saudi Arabia, et. al. That would, IMO, simplify the whole thing, and it wd. be eminently justified in light of the problems immigrants from such countries have caused. Then the jihadis would at least have to go to the trouble of coming in from elsewhere, and at that point Robert's screening questionnaire could come into play.

Posted by: Lydia

at February 7, 2007 4:19 PM

Butterfly, scatter pieces of orange peel around your yard - cats hate citrus, and this should help to keep them out.

Similarly, perhaps we should be grinding up pig bones and scattering the dust up and down our streets, and in all public areas. Perhaps that might help us with another animal that comes here uninvited, makes a terrible mess, caterwauls from high places, is very aggressive, and breeds like rabbits.

After all, it's the year of the pig soon!

Posted by: Aardvark

at February 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Immigration restrictions may be completely open. The Constitution tyically talks about rights of those in the US or citizens.

Can people outside the US be restricted from coming on the basis of religion? Its not the establishment of a religion to so exclude them.

If they don't have a right to be here, there is no right conditional on their being here that is restricted, its an empty set. Until a person has a right to be here, they don't have a right to a religious belief, etc.

So it may very well be constitutional to restrict immigration based on religion.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 7, 2007 5:50 PM

In answer to the question, "Can people outside the US be restricted from coming on the basis of religion?" my best guess would be legally yes but it would enjoy no popular support among Americans. Someone would certainly try to make the case that barring immigrants of one religion is tantamount to establishing a religion, and it is possible that the courts would side with that view.

Auster's proposals are beyond silly-- they verge on fantasy. I don't read his site but I know of him and have heard that he is an intelligent if somewhat annoying writer. As I read through Spencer's post I got to Auster's proposals and my jaw literally dropped. I scrolled back up to make sure that this was really Auster's view; I suddenly thought perhaps I had misread something. Spencer pointed out many difficulties with Auster's proposals, but there are a host more. Declaring Islam a political movement instead of a religion in no way circumvents the First Amendment which also protects political views.
Also, how in the world does one, "declare that America renounces multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are equal, and that it intends to go on existing as a distinct country with a distinct culture and way of life and will in the future adopt laws consistent with that purpose." He seems to have a fundamental failure to understand the principles of the American founding.

Posted by: AnneCrockett

at February 7, 2007 7:05 PM

DebV,

Thank you so much, once again! Now, I'm going to be a huge pain yet again...(bear with me)...I notice that the article says that Bangash is a "Canadian of 33 years." (It doesn't actually state that Bangash is a "citizen" -- in other words -- an immigrant (a legal permanent resident) could be described as a "Canadian" -- couldn't he?

Posted by: J.S.

at February 7, 2007 8:44 PM

What I find curious about this is that I have access (through a library) for a number of databases. If I search the Canadian newsstand database, with the search terms "Khadr" and "citizen," I get a zillion hits (all the papers reporting along the lines of "Khadr, a naturalized Canadian citizen," blah, blah, blah), BUT if I substitute the term "Bangash", for "Khadr", I come up zilch. Just wonderin'...

Posted by: J.S.

at February 7, 2007 9:05 PM

Thanks for the tip Aardvark, I will certainly try it.

Those cats belong to my neighbors, they are loved, and they bow to Mother Nature, not belief. Thiers is an innocent malevolence, no supremacist ideological drive. I tolerate them for my neighbor’s sake. My “friends” from the Umma however will get no pass. They must be made accountable for their actions, as individuals and as a group, and caught and deported as necessary.

I think I understand the principles around both edges of the Constitutional sword discussed here. Still, it angers me that we can’t ban groups like the KKK and Islam. Why should we be forced to tolerate hate and haters, groups that as a matter of their creed hurt or kill others? I just can’t believe that’s what our Founders had in mind. Freedom of religion is one thing, freedom to practice a death cult is quite another. It’s madness, suicide.

Islam is my enemy. So are the KKK, MS-13, NAMBLA, and Norwegian Lutheran immigrant wife-beaters. Criminals all, they ain’t welcome here in this neck of the woods. Their beliefs infringe on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Yet we tolerate them. We wait till the crime has been committed and then take action. Fine, that’s who we are; everyone gets the benefit of the doubt. “They’re not all bad people.” High ideals are useless when the victim was someone you love.

Posted by: butterfly

at February 7, 2007 9:31 PM

In terms of practical solutions to limiting the influence of Islam in this country, I'm not a lawyer but what about the whole IRS tax-exempt status for religious organizations? There have certainly been some articles in the news not long ago about churches facing the possibility of having their tax-exempt status revoked because they appeared to be endorsing certain political candidates. This whole legal issue is way out of my league but I tried to do a bit of googling on IRS law in this respect and it appears to me that 501 (c)(3) is the code that determines whether a religious establishment is crossing a certain political line that would remove that tax-exempt status:

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

Are any mosques in violation of these tax codes in crossing the line from religion to politics? And even if they weren't exactly, certainly tax laws are constantly rewritten in a way that doesn't appear to invoke basic constitutional issues but which nevertheless end up having a huge influnce in the day to day affairs of people living here. Is there a way to use loopholes in the tax codes in order to address the merging of religion and politics that is such a salient feature of Islam?

It would seem to be an approach worth some exploration.

While the old saying goes "Only two things are certain in life - death and taxes", we could work to make this point, through entirely legal channels, via the tax code:

You may well love death. But we love taxes. And by the way, in this country, the IRS ALWAYS defeats death! Enjoy the jizya!

In other words, rather than confronting this problem through constitutional law, could we approach it by revising and tightening IRS tax laws?

Just throwing that out there in the spirit of the brainstorm...

Posted by: Caroline

at February 7, 2007 9:34 PM

As to the rest of the substance of this article, everyone should keep in mind that there is a good reason that Muslims avoid airing their dirty laundry in public. They must be laughing their asses off right now. Just try to keep THAT image in mind when your emotions get the better of you in the future. Incidentally, Andrew Bostom did the right thing. One isn't required to come out in public (which includes avoiding the kinds of private emails which will inevitably be made public) to win this thing. Just give the other guy the chance to fire the last nasty shot and paradoxically, one just might find oneself to be the one who comes out smelling like the rose in the end.

Posted by: Caroline

at February 7, 2007 9:58 PM

Muslims, who trumpet the virtues of Sharia, must ask themselves why they came to the West. Justice will be served. The case can be made for treason.

Posted by: SFOD

at February 7, 2007 10:47 PM

SFOD: "The case can be made for treason"

We need an army of lawyers on our side that would put the ACLU to shame and would exhaust every side of this - constitutional law, tax law, immigration law, RICO statutes, etc, including defense of those being sued by Muslims (including journalists). Much of it would probably have to be pro bono work to work up the case but would have to be overseen by professional lawyers. If I knew of such an organization that devoted itself full-time to this activity, I would contribute generously.

Posted by: Caroline

at February 7, 2007 11:02 PM

AnneCrockett:

'Auster's proposals are beyond silly-- they verge on fantasy. I don't read his site but I know of him and have heard that he is an intelligent if somewhat annoying writer. As I read through Spencer's post I got to Auster's proposals and my jaw literally dropped. I scrolled back up to make sure that this was really Auster's view; I suddenly thought perhaps I had misread something. Spencer pointed out many difficulties with Auster's proposals, but there are a host more. Declaring Islam a political movement instead of a religion in no way circumvents the First Amendment which also protects political views.
Also, how in the world does one, "declare that America renounces multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are equal, and that it intends to go on existing as a distinct country with a distinct culture and way of life and will in the future adopt laws consistent with that purpose." He seems to have a fundamental failure to understand the principles of the American founding. '

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!!!

Posted by: edward

at February 7, 2007 11:16 PM

It is a interesting argument, to outlaw islam. Compared to other groups , islam is in it's own class, in that it embraces itself as superior, even to the host country.

Islam is a faith, a idea, way of life. However, it is the written word of the faith that allows for, even demmands of the followers of islam, to subdue, place themselves above, and kill outsiders.

The Nazi did not say kill all who are not Nazi, nor did members of the communists, nor did the KKK. But islam, not only demands it, it placed the words in print for all to see and fear.

Death to all outside of islam for those who reject it, there is no other choice. Death to the jews, this is placed into the mind of the muslim from birth. This places islam in position to be the first "religion" group to be outlawed in the United States.

Outlaw islam in the U.S., I see little downside.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1

at February 8, 2007 2:11 AM

I think we're suffering from a badly-framed argument and unclear thinking.

MULTICULTURALISM is the state in which people from many cultures can live together safely and retain some of the color and traditions of the lands from which they or ancestors came while supporting and being blessed by an overarching, benign culture. This allows my idiot Irish relatives to dress up like overly-tall, fattened leprechauns on St. Paddy's Day and march down the streets like total fools after having dumped enough veggie dye into the local river to turn it Kelly green. It allows my Greek Orthodox friends to hold a festival each October and teach me how to dance like Zorba. And it allows my Mexican friends to hold Cinqa de Mayo celebrations and teach me to hat dance on a Sombrero. When you start to try to threaten this, people go crazy: it's who we are. They should go crazy: multiculturalism is a good thing.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM is something else entirely. Now I'm completely aware that this term was initially used by the cultural anthropologists to mean something extremely specific. But in the terminology of the wider community, it has come to mean the appropriation the control of a cultural unit -- inside a wider culture -- over which some of its members intend to exert control over an ethnic, social, or religious minority, abrogating their freedoms and protections under the wider laws of the sovreign state of which they are citizens.

And it's ***THIS*** that is the problem in Islamic communities in Europe and even in the United States, where imams think they can force women into cover, where independently functioning shari'a courts (like almost happened in Canada) can enforce shari'a codes regarding inheritance, marriage, divorce, child custody,

Every time conservatives try to frame this argument in terms of multiculturalism, they lose. People scream bloody murder, because they don't know what is meant.

They MUST learn to frame this argument in terms that are real: and that's CULTURAL RELATIVISM, which is the chief means of spread of extreme shari'a worldwide. This is why Pipes is more worried about soft terrorism of the cultural relativist kind than the murderous variety, bad as that is.

That, then, leaves the uniculturalism of places like Saudi Arabia and North Korea where any divergence from cultural or religious norms brings torture or death for apostasy. People who fear that multiculturalism will be destroyed in this country really fear uniculturalism will ensue. It won't, because that's not what the people who are warning us actually mean to have happen. That's what the radical Islamists hope to have happen, but people are ill-read on the subject they don't get it.

But they can get the concept of CULTURAL RELATIVISM when it's clearly explained. It is the resistance to that, that we should be explaining in some detail, with examples of how this goes down in other countries; for example, in Holland the Rotterdam women's collective offers assertiveness training coupled with housing and career help to Dutch-born white women whose spouses have beaten, abused or raped them. For Muslim women, they advise marriage counseling -- WITH THE HUSBAND AND HIS FAMILY WHO NOW WISH HER DEAD FOR CAUSING THEM SHAME. They try to put the marriage back together with an Islamic counselor from the ulema of the woman's mosque.

The upshot of this cultural relativism, where a Muslim woman fleeing spousal abuse and family incarceration, is treated differently by Dutch national social services -- and has her Dutch national courts replaced by shari'a law and her life put back in the hands of people who will kill her -- is CULTURAL RELATIVISM that has handed over her civil rights to her local imam.

Now that is something that the multiculturalists in the United States would NEVER agree to. And that's how the argument will be framed if we're to get people to get this. Because that they can understand.

Besides, nobody's going to prevent my Uncle Seamus from getting blind drunk, dressing up like a fool, and marching down the street singing Irish drinking songs on St. Paddy's Day. Give it up, folks! Give it up!

But ...

We can pass laws that say preaching violence and hate speech in mosques is illegal, and we will shut you down if you do it.

We can pass laws that say if you send money to Hizbollah and Hamas, you get jailed for 75 years minimum, no parole.

We can pass laws that say any American woman subjected to shari'a law -- or religious law of any kind in abrogation of Consitutional rights -- any place in this country is a violation of her civil rights and that anyone participating is going in for a minimum of 20 years, no parole.

And when the ACLU sues, we countersue for malicious ligitigation. And we start at $50,000,000 for every class action suit, which should be brought by every women's group in this country and Ms. Magazine, which has, BTW, stood up for Muslim women in the United States and abroad better than any other group or publication in the country.

There are ways to do this, but we have to argue without resorting to sloppy terminology that makes some moron in South LA think we're going to tell him he can't do Sombrero dancing on the 5th of May.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at February 8, 2007 7:11 AM

Morgaan,
The distinction you made between Multiculturalism and Cultural Relativism is true, important, and should be highlighted. It is true that the word "multiculturalism" is often misused to mean "cultural relativism," -- Auster's quotation above does this-- but you are still absolutely right.
I find it interesting that Auster says "America" and not "the United States". The thirteen colonies had distinct cultures. It is only the foggy ruins of time that allow us think of them as a homogeneous group. While some of the larger differences boiled over in The Late Unpleasantness from 1861-1865, there were many others. All of these differences had to be finessed to produce both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
US immigration in the first part of the 20th century expected that immigrants would learn English, embrace the principles of our government, and view US history as their own history. Their ethnic backgrounds were seen as flavoring the stew in the melting pot, i.e. multiculturalism, not cultural relativism or, worse, balkanization. I would like to see the Department of Education and the Immigration and Naturalization Service follow the "Abie's Irish Rose"/"Life with Luigi" model for educating citizens (in the case of the Education Department, both native born and immigrant). In fact, there is a new US citizenship test which moves more in that direction. More about that can be found here:http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1117/p03s02-ussc.htm

Posted by: AnneCrockett

at February 8, 2007 9:29 AM

Hey, I just visited Auster's site. I saw the post entitled,"Told he should stop calling me a liar, Spencer insists I am one" TOO Funny. How about you stop lying, Slick Larry? It reminds me of Clinton and his sociopathic belief that his lies also must be accepted as truth. (I believe it comes from a narcissitic personality disorder in which one's own importance looms so large in one's consciousness that it overshadows other distinctions such as that between truth and falsehood.) Auster believes calling outright falsehoods "intellectual criticism and disagreement" mitigates them. I haven't been this amused since Clinton explained that he wasn't lying, either. He was just engaging in "intellectual criticism and disagreement" of the meaning of the "is" and "sexual relations."

Posted by: AnneCrockett

at February 8, 2007 10:14 AM

The definition of multiculturalism as presented above does not define what multiculturalism is in Canada. Canada (thanks to Trudeau) has adopted an official policy of multiculturalism. This policy is extremely controversial, primarily in terms of how it is to be implemented. It also raises serious questions about the nature of Canadian society.

Sociologists define "cultural pluralism" as the degree to which one finds "institutional completeness" in various ethnic communities. Here is a quote from a sociology text: "Some ethnic groups have a complete set of special institutions that serve their own members. They have their own banks, radio stations, newspapers, real estate offices, travel agencies, shops, clinics, resort hotels, and so on...Their members can get along quite nicely dealing almost exclusively with one another. They may not have to understand any language but their own to meet all their ordinary daily needs" (p. 296, Foundations of Modern Sociology, Metta Spencer).

What am I seeing with regard to Canada's Muslim communities? I see increasing levels of voluntary separation. If you watch multi-ethnic tv, you'll see the degree to which these communities are becoming self sufficient. They don't have to attend Canadian public schools, they don't have to read Canadian newspapers, they don't have to watch Canadian television, they don't have to shop at Canadian stores, they don't have to bank at Canadian banks, and, of course, they don't have to speak either French or English. So is the insistence that Ontraio allow Muslims to adopt Sharia law as their legal system (to settle family and personal matters) all that outlandish a demand?

The politically incorrect question then becomes -- Are they Canadian? Or are these enclaves isolated states within states?

And, obviously, this has no bearing on the notions of cultural "relativism" (that's a different, although equally pressing, issue.)

I believe these problems are found in the UK, in Australia, and in Canada (perhaps less so in the United States.) Nonetheless, adhering to an official policy of multiculturalism does not necessarily lead to harmony and unity or the betterment of society (it can, when taken to extremes, be divisive).

Posted by: J.S.

at February 8, 2007 12:24 PM

This argument about allowing immigrants to do anything because of religious values is absurd.

Tommorow if a Hindu or Jew says "Hey my religion says I should wear a mask to cover my face".Will he be allowed in the bank. Definetly NO.

Then why are the muslim women allowed their niqab which shows nothing but their eyes. Is it not equivalent to a mask.

Why this favoritism to Islam????

Islam or Muslims want every rule of the host country to change as per their Sharia laws.
Why is no other religion demanding so much concessions in the name of religion.

Other immigrants migrate and lead a normal Canadian way of life but at same keep their culture within them and follow them in their houses. Thats how it should be for Islam also. But why dont they do it same way as immigrants.

The answer lies in simple fact that they want Islamification of the host country.

Posted by: Indiana_jones

at February 8, 2007 8:41 PM

Morgaan - I think your distinction between multiculturalism and cultural relativism is interesting. The difference between a St Paddy's Day parade and stoning someone to death is basically the difference between innocuous "mores" and actual ethical principles. Recently, I spent a good deal of time researching the issue of cultural relativism on the web and tried to consolidate the most important intellectual arguments against it out there on the web into a format that the average person could use in order to intelligently debate the subject, especially in the context of Islam:

http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/3175.aspx

It's a small piece of the puzzle of a handbook some of us (a very small number of us actually! - help welcome- SOS!) are trying to create in order to help us debate the most common apologist myths about Islam.

In any case, the single biggest lesson to take away from the debate about this particular issue is that while (naive) cultural relativists champion relativism because they actually believe it promotes their ultimate value - "tolerance" - in reality, moral relativism (of which cultural relativism is merely a variant) - ultimately leads to the exact opposite - fascism and tribalism and moral nihilism. But the thing is that the average person needs to be able to grasp the essential intellectual arguments for WHY this is so.

Posted by: Caroline

at February 8, 2007 9:51 PM

Questionnaire is teaching tool for country

Robert Spencer's Questionnaire idea is a way for members of Congress, the bureaucracy, and the public to learn the reality about immigration. If adopted, it will create a huge paper trail. The legislation should specify that the questionnaires be made public without the person's name.

The questionnaire should be structured so that part of it at least is suitable for such publication.

The Oprahfication of the Spencer Questionnaire.

The questionnaire should also have sections that are not specific to Islam, but ask for attitudes about family relationships, men and women, etc.

As each person or group deals with the questionnaire, and as it becomes law and creates a paper trail it changes the discussion of immigration from "all exclusion is racism" to other issues, like women's equality and rights, spousal abuse, rights for children, punishment of children, fairness, real equality, supporting our troops, etc.

The Questionnaire changes the debate and allows many others to join the debate who can't now because of PC. It allows other allies to come in, e.g. women's groups against arranged marriages as part of family reunification. If adopted it will create a paper trail that Lou Dobbs and others can talk about on their shows.

What will happen is that the bureaucracy will at times let in people with the "wrong answers". This will create its own little tempests.

Questions about arranged marriage should be part of that. Do you believe two people should know each other before getting married? Do you believe the woman should choose her own husband?

Arranged marriages under current law in the US are acceptable as family reunification and are permitted. They are not just to Pakistan but also ones not involving Muslims to other places.

Women's groups can be an ally on such a questionnaire, even though they would never oppose Muslim immigration or immigration.

Excluding test prep by law

Immigration lawyers would draw up the right answers. This should be excluded by the law. The law should say that groups like CAIR or lawyers can't suggest answers or prepare sample questionnaires or prep people for them. This should be stated as fraud by the legislation.

The questionnaire should not be something someone can help someone prepare for. The penalty would be a fine on the group doing it, their loss of the ability to be an immigration lawyer or assist in immigration, and the applications so affected would be nullified.

One of the questions on the questionnaire would be whether anyone or any organization suggested answers for the questionnaire, and if so who, when, etc. A yes answer to any part of this would lead to an oral interview on this.

Other parts could as well. By having a detailed 30 page questionnaire, it will be possible to figure out ones that seem like they are making false statements and then hone in on them for oral interviews. In addition, if a person's answers vary from one is the norm in that country, that could trigger an oral interview.

Requirement to compile norms by country and group

In order to do that, they would have to compile norms for that country, both in actual behavior and in answers to the questionnaire, both for immigration or just survey. This can link into current human rights issues. Countries that currently have what we consider human rights abuses, but which they consider normal or imposed by God, would be categorized and all of that developed in detail.

This would be a mandate on both the immigration service, the state department, and intelligence agencies. Each department would have to prepare a report and it would be certified that it was accurate to the level that the military can use it if they need to. This is an important certification because it pushes PC bureaucracies to think of the harm they do our troops if they PC-ify what people in other countries actually think and do as a consequence of their morality.

Robert Spencer's idea of a questionnaire is brilliant. It is something that women's groups, MSM shows like Paula Zahn Now, Senators and Congressman, and others can support. Spencer might even get on Oprah.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at February 9, 2007 7:32 AM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.