By Howard Foster -
There are about six million Muslims in the U.S. and they constitute an extremely disproportionate number of our domestic terrorists. But this fact is disturbing to most Americans. The logical conclusion is that we should take a pause and stop Muslim immigration while we try to make sense of it.
No other western democracy has closed its doors to Muslims. We would be the first to do so if we took this step. It would infuriate a portion of the country, though I believe something like 80% would welcome a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and tourist visas. (Muslims who are already U.S. citizens would, of course, be exempt from the ban.)
After each terrorist act, we are told two things by the government: Islam is a peaceful religion, and we should not allow these few people to cause us to rethink our commitment to open borders. Regardless of whether the first premise is correct, the second one is plainly wrong. Open borders (immigration without regard to religion) simply does not make sense unless we can see into the soul of the immigrants.
Mrs. Tashfeen Farook, who is pictured above in a photo taken when she entered the country, depicts a typical Muslim woman wearing a head scarf. She was “vetted” by D.H.S. before being granted her marriage visa. But the vetters failed to contact people who knew her in her formative years in Saudi Arabia where she became a militant Sunni and overlooked her enrollment at a conservative Muslim school in her native Pakistan.
After 9/11 the U.S. essentially stopped Muslim immigration for a few years. No ban was formally announced, but the government finally got serious about the threat we faced. The Bush administration continued to proclaim its open border pieties but did not practice them. At the very least, we should return to that unspoken policy of treating all Muslims as would- be terrorists. If someone could find a way of actually vetting people so as to find out of they have ever associated with Muslim fundamentalists, either in person or online, this would not be necessary. But we are unable to do it.
I’ve read that Syrian refugees will be subjected to two years of scrutiny before being admitted to the U.S. My first reaction is where will they live for those two years? Why can’t they just stay there until the civil war in their country ends? And my second reaction is how do we possibly “vet” a person from Syria when we are in a defacto state of war with that country? It will not share its files on its citizens with us, and even if it did, would we trust them?
Donald Trump has ham-fistedly made this proposal, as everyone knows by now. The other candidates are lining up to denounce him. Apparently they would rather go to war with ISIS and allow about 100,000 Muslims to continue to enter the country each year.
Can anyone really deny the fact that If we banned Muslims from entering the country it’s very difficult to see how ISIS could be an existential threat to the U.S? Sure, there are homegrown radical Muslims like Mr. Farook (born in Chicago) and the Ft. Hood shooter. But people like that should already be on watch lists.
If we are really at war with ISIS, then the case for banning Muslim immigration is as easy to make as it was during World War II when we closed our doors to German and Japanese immigrants.
Howard Foster is an immigration attorney based in Chicago.
