Wednesday, September 29, 2010

A Constitutional Amendment Is Not Necessary

To restrict Muslim immigration. There has been debate on how to stop the scurge of Muslim immigration to the U.S. and the attendant problems with Muslim terrorism, disloyalty and other social problems attendant with said immigration. The trailblazing VDARE blog suggests a Constititional amendment to solve the problem once and for all. While a comprehensive and bullet-proof solution, it presents a solution that will solve the problem, but be itself near impossible to implement.
Conservative writer Lawrence Auster, a pioneering and powerful advocate of immigration sanity since at least 1990 (see his The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism in PDF or HTML), has also been thinking about Islam’s mortal threat to Western societies for more than a decade. For example, nearly a year before the savage enormity of 9/11, Auster had written about The Clintons, Abdurahman Alamoudi, and the Myth of “Moderate” Islam.

Richer has just very ably reminded us of the “Why?” of ending Muslim immigration. But three paragraphs by Auster, written in 2006, may linger in your memory longer:

We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman, 24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as “British Muslims”) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.

This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat.[Capitalizations as in the original]

So much for the “Why?” What about the “How?” Matthew Richer’s essay suggests that it’s important for growing numbers of Westerners to come to their senses, spurred by such thumbs-in-our-eyes as the Cordoba Islamic Center intended for Ground Zero. Absolutely! But Auster has thought his way much further into the “How?” problem. In February 2009, at the Preserving Western Civilization Conference in Baltimore, he revealed the big picture he’d arrived at in a talk titled A Real Islam Policy for a Real America. The text of his talk, edited for publication, is here.

Auster’s central insight, among many key insights, is that our Constitution’s First Amendment needs qualification — via another amendment — if we are to rescue our society from ultimate submergence into Islam. (Recall that “Islam” means not “peace” but “submission.”) As Auster explains, via the device of an imagined presidential speech to the nation: [I]n order for the measures I have proposed to be truly secure and not threatened by constitutional challenge, we must go to the highest level of our political system. We must pass a Constitutional amendment that
prohibits the practice of Islam in the United States. Through such an amendment we will be saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society. We will be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is. And that, my fellow Americans, is precisely what the Constitution is supposed to be about. After the Civil War, slavery was prohibited, not by statute or presidential proclamation, but by an amendment to the Constitution declaring that slavery has no place in the United States. The same needs to be done with regard to the slavery that is Islam.

The recognition that Islam must be strictly excluded from the United States will come as a shock to most Americans, who’ve been taught that Islam is “just another religion.” But it’s not. As historian Serge Trifkovic, who grew up in a society with a vivid collective memory of the centuries of Muslim rule in the Balkans, wrote to me, “Islam is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the fundamental values of the West—and all other civilized societies, India, China and Japan included.”
A more easily implemented solution does not need a Constitutional amendment. There is a legislative solution, which not a comprehensive as a Constitutional amendement banning Islam and its practice, a case where the unobtainable perfect prevents implemintation of the obtainable, but merely, good solution.
Legislatively, Congress can for all practical purposes, end the scourge of Muslim immigration by simple changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Firstly, it can end most Muslim immigration in a two-fer solution. End the chain migration system where immigrants bring relatives other than their spouse and minor children. Most Muslim immigrants come based on sponsorship based on family relationships, parent, spouse, sibling, minor child, and child over age of majority. Chain migration is itself a major scourge, allowing for the immigration of less than desireable immigrants, many too old, unskilled, unwilling or unable to contribute to society. Chain migrants are welfare dependant, loyal to their originating country and unsuited to a modern industrial economy. Just what does a 60 year old rice farmer or laborer from China, El Salvador, or India contribute? Not much. Even worse is when that immigrant is a Muslim; the most disaffected among immigrants to start at. Even worse when you add someone with out skills or abilities and unmotivated to become an American in a Eurocentric Christian America. Discontent and alienation is highest among Muslims, even those with some acculturation, such as English language skills. Their religion is incompatable with a Constitutional Republic where Islam and Muslims are merely equal before the law; they thirst for more, for dominance. Ending chain migration will cut off most Muslim immigration.
Further minor reforms to the INA that would cut off Muslim immigration would be ending the Diversity Lottery immigrant visa that provides many immigrants from Turkey, Africa and the Muslim countries of Southeast Asian.
Ending the R non-immigrant visa catagory for religious workers is another minor change that would lower the number of Muslims and, more importantly, their religious leadership. Most of the crazed leaders of mosques in the U.S. come here on the allegedly non-immigrant R visa, which allows beneficiaries to adjust to legal permanent residents once here.
Another solution would be requiring all immigrants to speak English, even spouses, children and parents of sponoring U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. Most, but not all, Muslim women have very little education, much less good English skills. This is especially true in the more radical countries such as Yemen, Pakistan and Indonesia.
A second solution would to end the eligibility of source countries of Muslim immigrants to participate in immigration at all. Just prohibit citizens, nationals or residents of Muslim countries from immigrating. Congress has plenary power in this area. Simply banning immigration from Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Turkey, and the North African Muslim states of Egypt, Libya, Morrocco, Tunisia and Mauritania would similary solve the issue of Muslim immigration. It might be harder to defend before the Kennedy Supreme Court, but it is possible.
A third solution is similar to the Communist exclusion requirements implemented by Congress in the 50s. Back then, Congress prohibited Communists and those advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government from immigrating.
This could be expanded and applied in a manner to Islam. It would need to be expanded to anyone who advocated religious discrimination, the free exercise of religion, the enactment of religious based laws, advocating discrimination based on sex, or the replacement or restriction of any Constitutional rights based on the Bill of Rights currently enjoyed by Americans, all things symptomatic of Sharia Law. Islam requires and advocates discrimination based on religion and sex, religious based laws and argues against a Constitutional Republic and the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This would include but be broader than just overthrowing the government of the U.S. but inclusive of that and expanded to the overthrow of the Constitutional order now enjoyed.
However, it would be more difficult to implement, as each immigrant would have to be questioned as to their views, and they could claim that they personally did not want to impose the system of Sharia Law on the United States. Convenient lies for the intending immigrant and hard to disprove, except after they are here and started advocating such policies.
A blanket ban on Muslims like Communists and other totalitarians would also be subject to challenge in court. It would not be difficult to prove the danger of Islam, but one cannot depend on Anthony Kennedy to understand.
But because of the Kennedy Supreme Court, the best way to end Muslim immigration by ending chain migration. Which will also benefit us by raising the quality of all immigrant groups. Better to be successful with an imperfect solution than trying to obtain a perfect solution of banning Islam with a Constitutional Amendment and failing to reach that more difficult to obtain goal. Without the increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants, Islam will die on the vine, unable to replenish in enough numbers and subject to the pressures of conversion and lacity. Without a radical leadership it will also be subject to increasing moderation as its numbers decline and influence waivers. Islam before 1950 existed in the U.S., but it was moderate and subservient, subject to the servile mentality of the Arab who was powerless and frightened of the strength of American Christian civilization. They knew we suffered their presence at our pleasure and could be treated to removal just like large numbers of Communists were during the Palmer Raids. They were then at our feet, not our throats, and we can regain that position, over time, by ending chain migration.

No comments: