Saturday, May 14, 2016

Muslim Ban — Common Sense or Unconstitutional?

A friend of mine, in response to an earlier post, wrote:

The problem I have with a "ban" on Muslim immigration is it violates the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How do you legally restrict Muslim immigration without congress making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

A good question. I replied:

Right now there are laws in effect, I believe (at least they were a few years back), giving Jews a special right to enter the US from Russia. That seems to have been constitutional. It would seem that when dealing with foreign countries or foreign individuals, we routinely take religion into account for formulating policy. And, logically, if you prohibit the entry of Muslims, or Shintoists, or whatever, you're not doing anything with regard to an establishment of religion (making a religion an official religion of the state), nor are you saying that these people can't freely exercise their religion. They just can't enter the country. And, of course, you can easily argue that the tenets of Islam make it incompatible with the American system. Finally, despite all of that, it's clearly cultural suicide to allow Muslim immigration, so any interpretation of the law that would require us to is self-destructive.

Since answering him, I've looked up the law I referred to, and it's the Lautenberg Amendment [link], which gave special immigration status to both Jews and evangelical Christians. And thinking about the difference between that First Amendment's application to Americans versus foreigners and foreign countries, I came up with a couple other thoughts. First, we give aid to Israel and of course have diplomatic relations with it. Since Israeli law gives Jews a special status above all others, most especially with regard to immigration (any Jew on Earth has a right to immigrate to Israel, and no non-Jew does, unless married to a Jew), by the logic of the universal application of the Amendment, we should have no diplomatic relationship with Israel or send them aid (taxing Americans to give money to a single religious group). In fact, we should probably declare war on them to force them to change their own laws.

And this applies to any country that has policies in violation of our First Amendment. Vatican City, of course. Any country with an established church, like the UK. And what with emperor-worship and all, you can make a constitutional case for immediate war with Japan.

So if a "Muslim ban," or even a feeble version of it, is impossible because of the U. S. Constitution, so is practically every other manifestation of American foreign policy.

And, that's leaving out entirely the question of at what point a religion requires the implementation of a political system that may or not be clearly inimical to allegiance to the United States. Insofar as sharia law is integral to Islam, you can certainly make a case for Islam and the American system being incompatible. As the second quibcag indicates, it can be argued that Islam isn't just a religion, but a blueprint for an entire reorganization of society, calling for laws and principles in complete opposition to American law and tradition, including that First Amendment.

And as for whether we should have some kind of Muslim ban, never mind the constitutionality of it all, this if from VDare [link], called to my attention by the indispensable Nicholas Stix [link]:

On Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tells The GOP They Need To LISTEN To Trump Voters On Immigration

Friend of immigration enforcement Tucker Carlson usually appears on a Fox News morning show where his sensible views about the immigration threat to national security get fewer eyeballs. But on Tuesday he was part of the panel on the network’s major news show, and he couldn’t resist bringing up the lessons of Trump that the Republican Party refuses to hear, that heartland Americans want immigration to be controlled and reduced.
Will speaking a tiny morsel of truth about the national question cause Carlson to disappear from Fox’s prime time? We’ll see
TUCKER CARLSON:I would say the Republican Party in Washington should also not ignore Trump’s voters, and the one issue that they can win a lot of these voters back — and they should, he just won the Republican nomination beating 16 people, all of whom were backed in a sense by Washington Republicans. There’s a statement being made by voters to DC: I think they just need to move on immigration. I actually think a lot of the details of economic policy, the subjects Ryan is most interested in, Trump would probably move on those, but they’ve got to demonstrate a good faith effort to secure the borders and at least to rethink our current immigration scheme which has been in place for 51 years. Nobody is even willing to talk about it. Trump’s voters clearly want a public conversation on that. Why can’t they move on that?
HOST BRET BAIER: These Republicans are nowhere near deporting illegal immigrants.
CARLSON: But the population is. There was a series of polls in swing states done last week on how do you feel about a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Everyone in DC’s horrified by the idea. It’s like evidence of membership the Nazi Party, and yet across the country, huge numbers of people — 65 percent of Wisconsin voters favor that, not all Republicans, a lot of Democrats. It doesn’t mean you should back it; it does mean you need to rethink your comfortable assumptions about immigration if you’re the Republican Party.
STEVE HAYES: In a country founded on freedom of religion, it’s not a good idea to ban religion.
CARLSON: It’s a little more complicated than that.
HAYES: Republicans can’t just cast aside their principles because Donald Trump comes around and you know this orange guy suggests free trade is bad, we’re gonna throw away two hundred years of Adam Smith.
CARLSON: I’ve never noticed a lot of principles among Republicans in Washington; perhaps they’re there, they’re hiding them well. I would just say, look at the destruction of Europe underway now — one of the lessons from Trump. It doesn’t mean we need to ban people who are Muslims, I agree that’s an overstatement, kinda crazy, but it does mean keeping your immigration regime the same in the face of what’s happening in Europe is equally crazy.
HAYES: I agree with you entirely. They need to respond to this clearly, but if you make the argument — you’re not making it, others have made it — that they just cast aside these pillars of conservatism because Donald Trump is making certain arguments about trade and other things, I think that’s unwise, and I think that’s one of the reasons that you’re seeing this resistance from some people. They don’t want to support somebody who opposes the things that they fought for and held most dear for years.
CARLSON: Open borders is one of the things they held most dear for years. They’re going to have to give up on it because the country just doesn’t support it. They’ve defended it and they need to change.
Actually, what would be wrong with ending immigration from Muslim nations entirely? America didn’t have visas for Nazis in WWII, and Islam has been at war with the West for 1400 years. America’s first war, aka the Barbary Wars, was against African Muslim kingdoms where President Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy to destroy the Islamic pirates who had terrorized the seas with the enslavement of more than a million Europeans over centuries, as well as the capture of American seamen.
Certainly Tucker Carlson is right to point to the European disaster caused by the unpopular Muslim influx, which has brought terror and death.
To read the original, with videos and illustrations, go to:
Quibcag: For some reason, the girls of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) have decided to cosplay as Islamic terrorists. UPDATE: I just got two comments on this post, both of which made excellent quibcags. The first is illustrated by a pair of Aztec gods drawn by shido-burrito.  The second was drawn by agiantoreo


  1. Islam is more than a religion, it is a civil system.
    Consider communism - a secular religion - Mao and Stalin. Open to immigrants?
    To go back to the Aztecs, they're coming in but will they be allowed human sacrifice?
    Or worse, can even liberals swallow ritual cannibalism?

  2. That a ban on Muslim immigration into the U.S. is unconstitutional is horseshit. Up until 1965 we had all kinds of restrictions on immigration of certain social-ethnic groups. Carter imposed a ban on Iranian immigration in the wake of the U.S. embassy sacking in 1979. We also did not allow ex-Nazis in (except for certain scientists like Verner Von Braun) and we did not allow most Communists in either during the Cold War.

  3. Just about every last wave of immigration we ever had brought along problems. The Irish brought rioting and brawling (police used to shudder when St. Patrick's Day or the big Orange holidays came up on the calendar), the Italians brought along their criminal secret societies, and we survived. We'll survive this.

  4. Civilizations do indeed survive every crisis, except, of course, the final one.

  5. Letting Muslims in establishes a religion, Islam.
    You automaticall y have Mosques and religon.
    And Congress shall pass not law in establishing a religion in the USA

  6. One big issue in liberalism (and the internet itself, really) is pendulum ideology. As soon as you speak out against an idea people automatically assume you're on 'the other side', whatever that may be. You either want to make Muslims victims of the next Holocaust or you want to make America another outpost for Sharia law. If anything, the best way to avoid starting another Holocaust is to get them as far away from the people who supposedly want to inflict it on them. I say we wall off the Middle East and let Assad and Netanyahu have their way in the whole region for the next millenium or two, and see what happens.