Free Markets, Free People

So … now what?

So, what would a ban on all Muslims being allowed into the US do?

Well, I don’t know.  I certainly understand why there are those calling for it but there’s a simple point here, as pointed out in San Bernardino:

The attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino last week were discussing jihad at least two years before they opened fire in California, the FBI director said Wednesday.

The husband-and-wife duo “were radicalized for quite a long time before their attack,” FBI Director James B. Comey said during an appearance on Capitol Hill. This follows earlier statements by investigators that the shooters had both been adherents to a radical strain of Islam long before the massacre.

And one of them was a US citizen born in the United States.

Certainly, banning all Muslims from entry into the country would probably weed out some potential jihadis.  But a committed jihadi isn’t likely to seek permission to enter.  Not with the condition of our borders.  And, on the other hand, I find it completely contrary to what I believe, even though I certainly have a level of understanding for those calling for it.

More importantly, and right’s questions aside, is the exclusion likely to do to Muslims here exactly what happened to the San Bernardino male half of the killing team.  Radicalize them … or some of them.  Homegrown jihadis.

All that said, it certainly seems that a devout believer in Islam would have a higher likelihood of embracing radicalism than some other religions.  Part of that is because it is so incompatible with Western values and ideals.  So, a devout follower is less likely to assimilate than those of other religions.  Couple that with the demands of Sharia law and it appears to be totally incompatible with Western values and ideals (to those who become radicalized because of that incompatibility).

What about them?  What does a country do with citizens, or non-citizens for that matter, who don’t want to assimilate, don’t want to embrace the country’s ideals and insist, in fact, demand, that the country change to accommodate their beliefs?

Just a bunch of questions that have popped into my mind as I watch all of the politics of the issue flying around the airwaves.

~McQ

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

7 Responses to So … now what?

  • People do not get to this point by themselves, they get educated and that costs money. It is the Salafist/Wahabist branch of Islam that we need to mostly worry about. Wahabist mosques are favoured by external benefactors and largely not self supporting. To remedy the situation have a strong diplomatic word with these external funders and make them to stop with the funding.

    This method would not violate your constitution and Islamist people would still be able to freely worship. Only difference is that they themselves would have to pay for it like everyone else does. The requirement to pay their own way would moderate their behaviour.

  • “What does a country do with citizens, or non-citizens for that matter, who don’t want to assimilate, don’t want to embrace the country’s ideals and insist, in fact, demand, that the country change to accommodate their beliefs?”

    I suspect we’re about to find out again – from gay marriage to every other thing either the So-Cons are angry about, or on the other side the Progressive Left is angry about, no?
    The idea of the country not changing to accommodate personal belief isn’t new – The problem is the people who believe that it’s okay to be violent, and to the point of being lethal, to push their beliefs or demonstrate their anger at the failure of the country to accommodate them.

    We’ve been changing the country to match beliefs all along, from slavery (which went way beyond mere violence) to granting women the right to vote, to banning and unbanning alcohol.
    If an idea has merit we frequently can be convinced to change our practices, equal rights as another example. Crazy I know, but what a concept eh?
    People coming here and wanting to change the way we do things and convincing others to do so through reason is fine.
    But if reason is going to be replaced with coercion then I can’t say I’m feeling too open minded about it, and I don’t feel too bad about telling them they’re not welcome, because, they’re not.

    Sharia is pretty much a huge move to the past, and only violence is going to convince the current population to move in that direction (or mortal fear I suppose, just like the good old days).
    If people need to pray 5 times a day, okay by me, just don’t ask me to and don’t think it’s okay to threaten me, or worse, when I don’t.
    Let’s face it, aside from the standard people who don’t like, and never will like, fuzzy furriners, there hasn’t BEEN a significant problem with Islam coming to America. It wasn’t until after worshipers of Allah started blowing things up and killing our people that we started to care about Islam.

    And there’s a whole bunch of things they don’t like that we’re going to do because we believe in free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, eating ham sandwiches, and letting our women boss us around.
    If they can’t handle that, they should not come here, any more than I would expect to go to their country and do things that they find illegal or offensive.
    If they’re already here, they need to find a better way than 5.56mm slugs or flying airplanes into buildings to convince us their ideas are better than ours,
    otherwise they should keep their ideas to themselves.

    But all that would apply to ANY significant group of people holding beliefs, not just Muslims.

    • “and only violence is going to convince the current population to move in that direction”

      What about the future? “Radical” Islam is only a symptom. The real problem is that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. It is a totalitarian belief system, like Communism, which has no real tolerance for non-believers, in spite of what their apologists claim.

      Remember the “ratchet effect” some say the left uses to further its goals? With unrestricted Muslim immigration you will see , at best, the same thing.

  • I agree with a lot of what you wrote BUT I kind of like reestablishing the idea that we can not let in whoever we choose for whatever reason we want.

    That’s been lost

  • For every Tasheen or whatever, there are dozens of diverse or non diverse people that will take her place and will integrate and/or allow their children to integrate. We have borders in order to pick and choose what crosses for our benefit and safety. They’ve always existed for that reason. We never had an open door policy until the Democrats realized immigration helps them at the ballot, despite the rhetoric. There were a few periods, settling the West and then Economic expansion, where we needed large numbers of people. We still maintained standards for Health and More during those periods. In fact we are likely in violation of various 100-150 year old treaties due to our Health Policies and Travel & Immigration, as side note. Like we had for Health, we need standards now for Safety at a minimum. If that requires an assessment of the probability the immigrant or their children will be on a path to Integration (at least in the sense of respecting laws and other’s rights), so be it.

  • There’s a not-too-old Russian joke:

    It is the time of Stalin, he is traveling in a train and it becomes stuck in the snow. Stalin says, “fire all the engineers and replace them with the proletariat.” The trains gets moving again.

    Time passes.

    It is the time of Khrushchev, he is traveling in a train and it becomes stuck in the snow. Khrushchev says, “bring back the engineers. .. they knew what they were doing.” The trains gets moving again.

    Time passes.

    It is the time of Brezhnev, he is traveling in a train and it becomes stuck in the snow. Brezhnev says, “pull down the shades and pretend we are moving.”

    … next, Obama will be saying we should pull down the shades and pretend … Oh, wait … he is.