Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Trump, Muslims, Derbyshire, and the Left

The left in this country has a peculiar relationship with the Constitution. When it says that

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,

they interpret it to mean that the government has the right and duty to disarm everybody. Or, if they're not totally in denial of reality, they say that the Founders were wrong, or old-fashioned, or something.

On the other hand, when the Constitution says that Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

they take it to mean that we have to let foreign Muslims immigrate.  Well, it doesn't mean that. We once had a law that Soviet Christians had no special right to immigrate, but that Soviet Jews did. No court struck that down. No leftist waved any signs about that.

Actually, of course, leftists don't care a hoot about the Constitution. They want lots of Muslim immigration in particular and third world immigration in general in order to increase the power of the welfare state, move the political center to the left, and, basically, destroy the two things they hate most — Western culture and the White race.

And aside from the constitutionality of a Muslim prohibition, is the idea of Muslim prohibition a good one. You're damn right it is.  At, John Derbyshire writes:

Trump Has A Point–Why NOT Ban Muslim Immigration?

Any conservative who raises his arm above the shoulder in public will be photographed like this. Credit:
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 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 he 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?
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: What could be more politically incorrect than an anime girl in a bunny suit with a gun?


  1. Quibcag: What could be more politically incorrect than an anime girl in a bunny suit with a gun?

    Truth. Nothing particularly wrong with the firearm (yet another proof that guns kill!), but the bunny suit is definitely a microaggression.

    Objectification à la Playboy, y'know.

    1. Ah yes ... Machine Gun Mikuru. Terrorism never looked so cute.

      Blame Haruhi for that one.

      To anyone who has not seen the series, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, I suggest one do so. It's a hoot!