July 02, 2007
Justin Raimondo writes so fast that he can be forgiven for misreading what I wrote. He refers to “excluding” adherents to Islam, while I wrote “denying entrance to adherents of Islam.” Obviously, I’m not talking about deporting citizens who are Muslim, Black Muslim or otherwise, but changing our immigration policy so that we’re not accepting more Muslims.
Would that make a difference? I can’t say for certain at this point, because we may have already reached critical mass with Islamic immigration to the United States. What is clear, however (as I once discussed on ChroniclesMagazine.org), is that increased Islamic immigration, as well as the foreign (primarily Saudi) funding of mosques and Islamic schools since 1991, has made it far easier for Americans to convert to “mainstream” Islam (not the Nation of Islam). And those converts, as even the recent Pew Research study made clear, are more likely to hold radical views and to believe that, say, suicide bombings are sometimes justified.
Justin and I are completely in agreement about the need to change American foreign policy, and the role that our current foreign policy has played in radicalizing elements of the Muslim world. But the only course that I can imagine that’s more suicidal than continuing that foreign policy is to continue it while leaving our borders wide open to those Muslims we’ve radicalized.
As Justin admits, changing our foreign policy is more unlikely than changing our immigration policy. I suggest, therefore, that we take it one step at a time: There’s widespread support for curtailing immigration to the United States; let’s do that, while we continue to work hard to change our foreign policy.