Call To Ban All Muslim Immigration Into The US
Call To Ban All Muslim Immigration Into The US
By Frosty Wooldridge
With the growing Muslim threat throughout the United States and world, it's
time for rational Western countries to enact an all-out ban on Muslim immigration.
It's proved disastrous in all of Europe where Muslims migrated. Why? Muslims
do not assimilate or acculturate into host countries. Rather, they become
antagonistic, regressive and violent.
In a new piece by K.C. McAlpin, president of U.S. Inc., "A reply to critics
of The Social Contract's call for a ban on Muslim Immigration to the U.S.",
he gives full measure why Muslim immigration must be stopped within the USA.
www.TheSocialContract.com, February 2, 2011.
"Thoughtful observers have criticized our fall, 2010 edition of The Social
Contract for its call for a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S., on national
security grounds," said McAlpin. "By "thoughtful observers" we mean to exclude
our adversaries on the far left who get a case of the vapors whenever limits
on mass immigration are proposed. Rather this commentary is to respond to
concerns expressed by those on the political left and right who generally
agree with us on the need for common sense immigration reform, and whose
minds are open to rational argument and debate.
"Objections to our call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration generally
resolve into one of two arguments: (1) That a ban would violate our Constitutional
guarantee of freedom of religion, or at the least conflicts with the spirit
of it; and (2) That a ban would be impossible to implement and consequently
would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture that antagonizes Muslims and
does nothing to enhance our national security.
"Regarding the first objection it needs to be understood that applicants
for admission to the United States do not enjoy the protection of the US
Constitution or its 1st Amendment until and unless they are lawfully admitted.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has plenary power under the Constitution
to regulate immigration and determine who can and who cannot be admitted.
"Congress may bar immigration on any grounds it chooses - including those
classes of persons protected by our civil rights laws e.g. race, religion,
national origin, sex, age, etc. Congress has used that power in the past
to ban the immigration of Communist Party and National Socialist (Nazi) party
members who were deemed to be threats to our national security. This case
is no different.
"We contend that it is not "religious bigotry" to defend oneself, or one's
family and community from people who profess a particular religion, and whose
adherents have repeatedly tried to attack and murder you in the name of their
God. A ban on the immigration of the entire class of such people is a rational
self-defense measure when it is impossible to distinguish between those members
of the group who pose a threat, and those who do not, and when protecting
innocent lives has the overriding priority it should have for those charged
with defending the nation's citizens from attack. We do not advocate abridging
the freedom of religion of anyone lawfully admitted to the U.S.
"The second objection assumes that it is impossible to screen Muslims from
the pool of immigration applicants, and therefore useless to try. The idea
is that Muslims would simply identify themselves as members of other faiths
or as non-believers on immigration applications, making such a ban merely
symbolic and unenforceable in practice.
"We disagree. In the first instance there are a large number of Muslim clerics,
academics, intellectuals, writers and religious leaders who cannot escape
their religious affiliation because it is a matter of public record. In fact
a disproportionate number of such people are among the most anti-American
of all Muslims, and therefore potential threats to our national security.
"Second, a ban on Muslim immigration would give the FBI and our national
security agencies a useful weapon to use against those the agencies suspect
of being terrorists. There is a precedent. The aforementioned ban against
the immigration of Communists and Nazis was used in much the same way against
those who were suspected of being Communist or Nazi sympathizers. In addition
to preemptive screening, terrorist suspects who managed to immigrate and
were later caught attending a Mosque could have their visas revoked for falsifying
their immigration applications, and be deported before they became a threat.
"Third, such a ban should prevent the resettlement of Muslim refugees within
the U.S. This is important because a troubling number of first and second
generation Muslim refugees who have been given refuge in the U.S. have later
turned up in terrorist training camps in countries such as Somalia and Pakistan.
Several dozen young Somali refugees, for example including U.S. high school
graduates, were found to have returned to Somalia to pursue jihad against
"Finally, imposing a ban on Muslim immigration is very likely to have an
impact that goes far beyond mere symbolism. It is certain to discourage many
Muslims from applying even if they are inclined to falsify their applications.
And even though a ban is certain to exacerbate tensions with the Islamic
world, it could well be the catalyst that triggers the Reformation within
Islam that many observers think is essential if there is ever to be peaceful
coexistence between Islam and the West.
"A ban on Muslim immigration, therefore, is not only constitutional, but
a practical and necessary way to defend ourselves against the growing threat
of homegrown terrorism the U.S. faces in the 21st Century."
You may contact K.C. McAlpin at www.thesocialcontract.com