Trump Did Not Ban Muslims; Only Terrorists
President Trump did not ban Muslim immigration to the United States. He banned it from seven countries that either sponsor terrorism (Iran and Syria) or cannot control terrorists within their borders (Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia). Those who demagogically seek to morph President Trump’s travel ban into a religious ban must have flunked math.
There are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. The combined population of the seven targeted nations is a mere 222 million. How, by banning entry from only 13% of the Muslim world is Trump blocking all Islamic immigration?
The plain fact is that we have no way of vetting those coming into America from these seven nations. With some, we maintain no diplomatic relations at all and with the rest, we are there to fight a war. We are totally unable to determine who is dangerous and who is benign as they line up for visas to enter our country. It is reckless and irresponsible to permit entry by nationals of these countries until we have a much better idea of who the entrants are.
Trump did not impose a religious test on immigration. Had he done so, the ban would have been global and, likely illegal. But by singling out seven countries that are undeniably global sponsors of terrorism or are manifestly incapable of stopping terror armies from operating within their borders, the president is enacting a secular ban based on an objective evaluation of the dangers each nation’s migrants pose to our homeland.
The president did overreach in initially applying the ban to permanent residents of the United States who hold green cards. If these folks have lived peacefully enough among us to have resident status, we can likely hazard their readmission here after they have traveled abroad. But for those here on student visas or tourist visas, readmission should be banned.
There is no legal right to come to America. The Constitution gives our government the right to decide who comes and who stays. The president is within his legal rights to set up a standard banning migration from certain nations.
We must recognize that immigration from Islamist states poses a dual threat: Not only are those who come here possibly entering our nation to do us harm, but the long term consequences of allowing an unassimilated, segregated Islamist ghetto to arise in the U.S. are quite dangerous. Islamic voting blocks can work to subvert our national defense against Islamic terror. Just look at France or Germany where in-migration — without integration — has led to no-go zones where the police dare not tread and where politicians dare not speak out for fear of offending ten or twenty percent of the voters.
Islamic immigration is unique in today’s world. It amounts to colonization by immigration. Radical Muslim theologians admit that they are following this strategy and extol its likely results.
Colonization by immigration has many precedents, not the least of which is the American migration to Texas in the early nineteenth century or to California thereafter. While each state was in Spanish and then Mexican hands. American migrants arrived in droves and refused to integrate with the native population. In time, they became the majority and they took over their lands by force or diplomacy and merged them into the United States. The Jewish migration to Palestine in the twentieth century also serves as an example of the process.
We must not allow immigration from terrorist nations to rise to such an extent that it leads to colonization of our country.
Mexican and Western Hemispheric immigration poses no such threat. Hispanics and Latinos have always wanted to merge into our culture even as they enrich it by adding their own linguistic and ethnic flavor to our national melange. But Islamist immigrants from these terrorist nations too often demand to live apart under Sharia Law, inaccessible to our mainstream culture.
Are there good immigrants from these nations? Obviously there are. And a lot of them. Do they help to build America? Undeniably. But can we tell them apart from the terrorists? Absolutely not. So we must err on the side of caution.
Trump is right, not racist.