{"id":82019,"date":"2015-12-12T18:28:29","date_gmt":"2015-12-13T02:28:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=82019"},"modified":"2015-12-12T18:28:29","modified_gmt":"2015-12-13T02:28:29","slug":"trump-has-a-point-why-not-ban-muslim-immigration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=82019","title":{"rendered":"Trump Has A Point\u2013Why NOT Ban Muslim Immigration?"},"content":{"rendered":"

John Derbyshire writes<\/a>: How about that Donald Trump,<\/a> eh? Monday this week the Donald called for<\/a> “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States<\/a>.” He walked the thing back a little bit the next day, saying that U.S. citizens who are Muslim should of course be allowed back in from overseas trips: “They’re a citizen. That’s different.\u201d <\/a>Naturally I am in total agreement. It does needs breaking down a little, though.<\/p>\n

There are three ways a foreigner comes to the U.S.A. He comes on an immigrant visa,<\/a> or on a nonimmigrant visa,<\/a> or he comes illegally. Let’s ignore the last category there as being just a law-enforcement issue.<\/a> What about the others?<\/p>\n

An immigrant visa confers the right of permanent settlement and ultimately citizenship, <\/a>unless the immigrant blots <\/a>his copybook <\/a>in some serious way. Should we block Muslims from permanent settlement here?<\/a><\/p>\n

You’re asking me? I write for VDARE.com.<\/a> We want a moratorium<\/a> on all<\/em> <\/a>new permanent settlement! The U.S.A. has as many people as it needs, and some serious problems<\/a> of assimilation<\/a>. Let’s stop all<\/em> issuance of immigrant visas for the indefinite future, and get down to assimilating the huge numbers we’ve let in this past fifty years.<\/p>\n

What, exactly, is the case against<\/em> this? There isn’t one. You can’t make one; although you can, of course, chant platitudes <\/a>about huddled masses<\/a> and “a nation of immigrants<\/a>.” That’s not making a case, that’s just emoting.<\/p>\n

When I first came here forty years ago the U.S.A. had 210 million people, who had somehow just managed to put men on the Moon<\/a>. I traveled all over that 210 million America \u2014 actually drove coast to coast<\/a> and back in my 1964 Chevy<\/a>. Let me tell ya, in case you weren’t around, 210 million America was a darn nice place.<\/p>\n

Now we have 320 million, a 52 percent increase. Is the U.S.A. 52 percent better off for that, discounting for things that would have improved anyway?<\/p>\n

I can’t see it.<\/p>\n

The ban on settlement needn’t be waterproof. I’m sure most Americans would allow some minimal family unification \u2014 spouse and minor children of citizens, subject to basic security checks. Likewise for foreigners with extraordinary talents<\/a>. If the world’s greatest chess player wants to settle in America, I’d say let him. Personally I’d even allow Muslims in both cases, subject to security screening.<\/p>\n

That would get you down to a few thousand a year accepted for permanent settlement, of whom a few dozen might be Muslims. But the current numbers\u2014well over a million a year, ten percent of them Muslims<\/a>\u2014are insane. We don’t need these people; and with such huge numbers, we can’t do proper, thorough background checks.<\/p>\n

So a moratorium on immigrant visas, Muslim or otherwise. What about nonimmigrant visas\u2014business travelers, academic exchanges, diplomats, students, guest workers, tourists?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The first thing to be said here is that these nonimmigrant visa categories are all hopelessly corrupted, as spelled out at length <\/a>by Michelle Malkin and John Miano <\/a>in their book Sold Out<\/em>. The whole system of nonimmigrant visas needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, with proper entry-exit tracking to stop visa overstayers.<\/p>\n

All right, but that’s not going to happen soon. Until it does, should we exclude Muslims, even as tourists?<\/p>\n

Yes, we should, to the degree we can. It is true of course that most Muslims aren’t extremists planning terrorism. Only a tiny minority are. The world has a lot of Muslims, though. What’s a tiny minority\u20140.1 percent? There are 1.6 billion Muslims. Zero point one percent of 1.6 billion is 1.6 million. Keep ’em out!<\/p>\n

All, right, but how?<\/p>\n

First we need to scrap the Visa Waiver Program<\/a>. Oh, you didn’t know about that? Citizens of 38 countries can come to the U.S.A. without a visa. These are all First World countries, mostly European; but that’s no protection. Britain<\/a>, France<\/a>, and Germany <\/a>are on the list and now they all have big Muslim populations.<\/p>\n

The Visa Waiver Program <\/a>should be scrapped. Any foreigner who wants to enter the U.S.A. for any purpose should have to apply to his local U.S. embassy for a visa and submit to a personal interview and a background check. Visa officers should have total discretion; and they should be instructed not to issue visas to applicants they suspect of being Muslim.<\/p>\n

They’d make a few bad calls in both directions, no doubt; but that’s no reason not to do what we can.<\/p>\n

Passport control officers at points of entry are a second line of defense. They already have authority to refuse entry to people on watch lists or who otherwise arouse suspicion.<\/a> Keeping bad people out is not insuperably difficult.<\/p>\n

This is our country. We can admit or exclude anyone we please, without explanation or apology. Right now, with Muslim extremists causing mayhem in Western countries, we obviously have a strong interest in keeping Muslims out.<\/p>\n

Again, the ban needn’t be totally waterproof. I’d allow diplomats from Muslim countries, for example; and if the King of Jordan wants to pay a visit,<\/a> I’d issue him a diplomatic visa.<\/p>\n

Beyond that, I don’t see any need. Most of what business travelers do could be Skyped. I can’t imagine Muslim tourism is a big sector even of any of our local<\/em> economies. We admit far too many foreign students:<\/a> our schools are a finite resource<\/a> that should be preferentially for our own people.<\/a> The guest worker visas are just a cheap-labor<\/a> scam\u2014read Michelle and John’s book.<\/p>\n

The Trump ban wouldn’t completely solve our Muslim problem. We have stupidly been allowing settlement of tens of thousands of Muslims every year for decades now; and there’s a population of native converts, like the boxer Muhammad Ali <\/a>and the senior Beltway sniper<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But the Trump ban would stop our Muslim policy from getting worse. That, it seems to me, is good sound policy.<\/p>\n

It is a measure of how demented, how detached from reality our public life here in the Western world has become, that the Trump ban, which I have just declared to be good sound policy on, I think, calm and reasonable grounds, generated shrieking hysteria among political and media elites here and abroad.<\/p>\n

Politicians from both wings of the Democrat-Republican Open-Borders cartel went into harrumph mode. Jeb Bush took a break from trying to lift his poll numbers up into double digits to tweet<\/a>: “Donald Trump is unhinged. His ‘policy’ proposals are not serious,” with mockery quotes around the word “policy.” Hillary Clinton, also on Twitter: “This is reprehensible, prejudiced, and divisive \u2026 This makes us less safe.” I guess continuing to admit 100,000 Muslims a year for settlement makes us more<\/em> safe.<\/p>\n

Marco Rubio honked <\/a>that \u201cI disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive <\/a>and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.” End honk. Lindsey Graham lisped <\/a>that: “Donald Trump has gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric,” end lisp.<\/p>\n

Rick Kriseman [Email him<\/a>] the mayor <\/a>of St Petersburg, Florida tweeted <\/a>that<\/p>\n

\n

I am hereby barring Donald Trump from entering St. Petersburg until we fully understand the dangerous threat posed by all Trumps.<\/p>\n

— Rick Kriseman (@Kriseman) December 8, 2015<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n