Luke Ford

John Derbyshire writes: How about that Donald Trump, eh? Monday this week the Donald called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” 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.” Naturally I am in total agreement. It does needs breaking down a little, though.

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

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

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

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

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. I traveled all over that 210 million America — actually drove coast to coast and back in my 1964 Chevy. Let me tell ya, in case you weren’t around, 210 million America was a darn nice place.

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?

I can’t see it.

The ban on settlement needn’t be waterproof. I’m sure most Americans would allow some minimal family unification — spouse and minor children of citizens, subject to basic security checks. Likewise for foreigners with extraordinary talents. 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.

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—well over a million a year, ten percent of them Muslims—are insane. We don’t need these people; and with such huge numbers, we can’t do proper, thorough background checks.

So a moratorium on immigrant visas, Muslim or otherwise. What about nonimmigrant visas—business travelers, academic exchanges, diplomats, students, guest workers, tourists?

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

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

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—0.1 percent? There are 1.6 billion Muslims. Zero point one percent of 1.6 billion is 1.6 million. Keep ’em out!

All, right, but how?

First we need to scrap the Visa Waiver Program. 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, France, and Germany are on the list and now they all have big Muslim populations.

The Visa Waiver Program 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.

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

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. Keeping bad people out is not insuperably difficult.

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.

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, I’d issue him a diplomatic visa.

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 economies. We admit far too many foreign students: our schools are a finite resource that should be preferentially for our own people. The guest worker visas are just a cheap-labor scam—read Michelle and John’s book.

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 and the senior Beltway sniper.

But the Trump ban would stop our Muslim policy from getting worse. That, it seems to me, is good sound policy.

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.

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: “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 … This makes us less safe.” I guess continuing to admit 100,000 Muslims a year for settlement makes us more safe.

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

Rick Kriseman [Email him] the mayor of St Petersburg, Florida tweeted that

I am hereby barring Donald Trump from entering St. Petersburg until we fully understand the dangerous threat posed by all Trumps.

— Rick Kriseman (@Kriseman) December 8, 2015

Perhaps Mayor Kriseman should attend to the beam in his own eye. According to the NeighborhoodScout website:

St Petersburg has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes … One’s chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 16. Within Florida, more than 93 percent of the communities have a lower crime rate than St Petersburg. In fact … NeighborhoodScout found St Petersburg to be one of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S.A.

Where one’s personal safety is concerned, being banned from St. Petersburg looks like a good deal.

So it went. I didn’t read a whole lot of these responses, but I have not the slightest doubt that someone somewhere said: “That’s not who we are.” It wouldn’t be a full-blown outbreak of PC hysteria without that.

The politicians at least tried for a dignified style of disdain. The media Lefties were just, if Jeb won’t mind my borrowing an adjective from him, unhinged.

The Philadelphia Daily News ran a cover showing Trump with his arm raised and the headline THE NEW FUROR, F-U-R-O-R.

"The New Furor": Philadelphia Daily News front page goes there on Donald Trump https://t.co/HSfXFsMh5J pic.twitter.com/hXdUJfhoGb

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) December 8, 2015

Having mixed with tabloid journalists considerably this past thirty years, I assumed the subeditor responsible was too stupid to spell Führer correctly, but apparently they were trying for a pun. That’s brilliant, guys.

Comparing Trump with Hitler because of the suggested ban on Muslims is actually a bit odd. Hitler seems to have gotten on well with Muslims. Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when the Nazis took power, was a big favorite. Al-Husseini had an amicable meeting with Hitler himself in 1941; and one of his most treasured possessions was a photograph of him and Heinrich Himmler smiling sweetly at each other, with a friendly inscription by Himmler, taken in 1943. The common bond there was of course hatred of Jews.

It was the same all over the media playpen. I caught The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Monday night. Bill had his two bimbo lawyers there to discuss Trump’s remarks. The first one started in by saying that not granting visas to Muslims would violate the Constitution. That got a smile from the Big Mick. Bill doesn’t know squat about immigration but he does know that foreigners in foreign countries don’t enjoy the protections of the United States Constitution.

So far as Muslims are concerned, it’s not even clear that Constitutional protections apply even in the U.S.A. Religious freedom isn’t absolute. The Constitution doesn’t protect polygamy, for example. And Islam comes with add-ons that fall outside the scope of Constitutional protections: its own law code, for instance, and extra-national loyalties. It’s not just a religion.

The Pew Research Center surveyed Muslims in 39 countries, asking them if they thought sharia law should be supreme in their countries. In Afghanistan, ninety-nine percent said it should. Pakistan, 84 percent.

Trump’s proposed ban is moderate, sensible, and prudent. The fact that it ignited hysteria among our elites just tells us how unmoored from reality our elites have become.

We need some new elites. Electing Donald Trump as President would be a good start.

David French writes: There will be no doubt some hand-wringing about “Islamophobia” and further calls to continue the American elite’s fourteen-year track record of whitewashing Islamic beliefs and culture, but I wonder if the media is missing a powerful, largely-uncovered influence on America’s hearts and minds — the experience and testimony of the more than two million Americans who’ve served overseas since 9/11 and have experienced Islamic cultures up-close. Yes, they were in the middle of a war — but speaking from my own experience — the war was conducted from within a culture that was shockingly broken.

I expected the jihadists to be evil, but even I couldn’t fathom the depths of their depravity. And it was all occurring against the backdrop of a brutally violent and intolerant culture. Women were beaten almost as an afterthought, there was a near-total lack of empathy for even friends and neighbors, lying was endemic, and sexual abuse was rampant.

Even more disturbingly, it seemed that every problem was exacerbated the more religious and pious a person (or village) became. I spent enough time outside the wire and interacting with tribal leaders to get a sense of the reality around me, but the younger guys on the line spent weeks at a time living in the heart of the local community.

I remember one young soldier, after describing the things he’d seen since the start of the deployment, gestured towards the village around us and said — in perfect Army English — “Sir, this s**t is f**ked up.” It is indeed.

While it’s certainly unfair to judge Indonesia or Malaysia by the standards of Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s very hard to shake the power of lived experience, nor should we necessarily try. After all, when we hear stories from Syria, Yemen, Gaza, the Sinai, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Pakistan, and elsewhere they all fit the same depressing template of the American conflict zones. Nor is the dazzlingly wealthy veneer of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the other Gulf States all that impressive. Tens of thousands of soldiers have seen the veritable slave labor that toils within the oil empires and have witnessed first-hand their casual disregard for “lesser” life. But this same experience has caused us to treasure the Muslim friends we do have — in part because we recognize the extreme risks of their loyalty and defiance of jihad. That’s why American officers fiercely champion the immigration of local interpreters, even to the point of welcoming them into their own home. That’s why there’s often an intense connection with our Kurdish allies, the single-most effective ground fighting force against ISIS.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Nobody here, or anywhere else, is scared of the vast majority of Muslims either. It’s just that the vast majority of non-terrorist Muslims don’t provide any benefit to this country that outweighs the problems caused by the terrorist minority, so there’s really no reason to have any of them here.

* I would like to see Trump for President and Cruz for AG. I don’t know why more people aren’t talking up this rather obvious synthesis.

Trump would not give Jeb any job in his administration more prestigious than serving carved meat at a pool party, and even that would be an honor.

* Trump isn’t David Duke. Trump has spent yeeeeaaaaarrrrrss (Trump voice) on TV. As the laughable butt of jokes on Oreo commercials with the Manning brothers (“Double Trump!”) or hosting the Apprentice or feuding WWE style with Rosie O’Donnell. NBC promoted him for years, and now he’s an un-person?

The problem with that is that 99.9999% of US entertainment idolizes rebels. The street cop who does it “his way” with the loud Black superior screaming at him. Bruce Willis as a “rascal” (in the clean-for-tv version) in Die Hard 2, or all the Die Hard movies, Liam Neeson in Taken 1-23, every action movie ever made, most TV shows, etc. Conformity, toeing the line, going along, have been shown in American entertainment to be the province of either villains or weaklings.

Trump is just playing Dirty Harry, the Man with No Name, John McClain, Captain America, and Iron Man all in one. He importantly says “I love Muslims” and “I love Mexicans and will get the Hispanic vote,” so he’s not the bad guy. The difference between the villain and the hero is the latter is motivated by decency and former by power. Trump knows this story has been playing out in America for more than a century and plays to it very well.

Duke was a Klan member, he didn’t offer much of anything but the Klan, so he went nowhere and lost to the crook.

It seems that the GOP is planning a “floor fight,” with the establishment just throwing out the rules and refusing to acknowledge Trump delegates/votes, and choosing its own candidate. Rubio acts like he’s got the deal to be the nominee. Presumably the GOP can do that if it wants.

Which means it would be Trump vs. Hillary vs. Rubio. By no means is that a certain victory for Hillary. Many suspect that Bill Clinton out of rivalry with Gore sandbagged his electoral effort against W. Would Obama be happy to remain the Democratic Big Man leader instead of President Hillary? Does Rev. Wright live by a golf course in a lily White area? Moreover as noted above, Trump draws substantial amounts of support from Democrats. If you are a White union voter, would Hillary! be your candidate? If you were a lesbian, maybe. Outside the pantsuit set, not much. Nor would Boy Rubio be a choice either. Trump, Northeastern, employs union labor, fairly liberal in social attitudes but embracing Nationalism and White identity? Sure.

Trump would lose the Romney set, and also the Lindsay Graham Log Cabin Republicans (all five of them), as well as the cuckservative insiders. His gains among blue collar Whites however would IMHO more than offset losses. That’s because Trump is liberal enough in social areas to get blue collar White votes, while being assertive for White group rights but not pursuing racial conflict.

Indeed the coming defenestration of Rahm Emmanuel*, who is toast in Chicago and WILL be replaced by some Black candidate, is going to be instructive. The go along, get along, White leadership and Black votes of the past is no longer tenable, as divided as Republicans are Democrats face an outright racial split with Whites in the Northeast and Midwest being purged out of Universities and City leadership in favor of … Blacks. Chicago going full Detroit, with a general White purge of leaders in favor of Blacks, only gains more White blue collar votes for Trump and away from Hillary!

Ann Sterzinger writes: There’s a lot of raspberrying and dismissiveness in the debate over whether to let the wave of “Syrian” “refugees” wash up on U.S. shores. In the partisan sandbox-fights to which we tend to reduce even the most serious questions, it’s easy to forget that in a case like this, there is probably a strong moral argument to be made on either side.

And while I ultimately come down on the side of “Get these nutjobs far, far away from me!”—I continue to subscribe to the Daffy Duck school of pain—each argument in a case like this suffers greatly when it dismisses the opposition out of hand.

By now we’ve all heard the loudest argument for opening the gates: Barack Obama’s snide little speech in which he informed the GOP that they’re crybullies to sound the tocsin over a pack of harmless widows and orphans. (They may well be crybullies, but not for that.) Never mind that many of the terrorists who have been rocking European civilization are second- or third-generation immigrants.

This isn’t the first time Obama has ridden his love-unicorn roughshod over the realities of what Muslims themselves actually think and believe. In his 2009 must-read summary, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, Robert Spencer describes how in a 2009 speech Obama “proved” the peacefulness of Islam by cherry-picking a few peaceful-sounding phrases from a Koran passage that’s mostly about violence:

Obama cited verse 5:32: “The Holy Koran,” said the President, “teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” This sounds peaceful enough, but Obama studiously ignored the next verse (5:33), which mandates punishment for those whom Muslims do not regard as “innocent”—punishments including crucifixion or amputation of a hand and a foot for those who fight against Allah and Muhammad.

The “peace” that Islam promises is less like unicorn turds and more like a Muslim Pax Romana: we’ll have peace when everyone else is subjugated.

To be fair to this side of the question as a whole, however, one must remark that the welcome-wagon-in-chief has hamstrung himself in his ability to present the case. He’s stuck repeating the weakest arguments—twisting scripture and screeching “Let’s be nice!”—because, if he were to present the best argument for his side, he would have to draw attention to his own foreign policy.

To wit: while American taxpayers do not owe every foreign human being on Earth an apartment and a welfare check, it could certainly be argued that we have some moral responsibility to open our doors to people whose countries we’ve bombed the shit out of, particularly in proxy wars. (I still hold that it’s valid to bomb ISIS wherever they are on Earth, since we’re for all intents and purposes at war with that entity; but playing chicken with the Russians over Syria’s civil war? Not so much.)

However, though this argument is perfectly valid, it is trumped by two equally moral counterarguments.

First, fewer and fewer Americans want anything to do with being the world’s damn policeman anymore. But who listens to the serfs who foot the bill? I’m not willing to be dismembered in my hometown because my government keeps pretending to the rest of the world that we’re a democracy.

Second, however many stupid things our government might have done in the past, that doesn’t override our imperative to steer it to the right course whenever we see a possibility for doing so.

And d’ya know what is always the right thing for a government to do? Protecting its own citizens.

I said it about Gee-dub when he sent young men to die to avenge his father, and I’m saying it about Obama as he prepares to sacrifice his civilians so he can look charitable on the world stage: Could you at least pretend to give a shit about your subjects?

A government that doesn’t care about the lives of foreign citizens is bad, but considering the overall history of the world, it’s not particularly bad; you could even say it represents a normative dose of human evil.

But a government that’s just as glib about its own citizens’ lives is completely psychotic.

Clearly, we need to quit killing Muslims abroad, even if we think we’re doing them some sort of twisted favor; if they want to pretend it’s 700 A.D., that’s their problem. (I’ve argued elsewhere that Islamists would want to kill us even if we weren’t bombing them; as Spencer says, “[Obama] doesn’t seem to have considered that if the Koran mandates jihad against non-Muslims, displays of U.S. goodwill are unlikely to have much effect.” But even if you threw out the ethical question, this is clearly a case of “better safe than sorry” . . . and in case you hadn’t noticed, these wars have nuked the federal budget.)

But if we can’t do that, at least we need to quit importing people who hate us.