- With the growing Muslim threat throughout the United
States and world, it's time for rational Western countries to enact an
all-out ban on Muslim immigration. It's proved disastrous in all of Europe
where Muslims migrated. Why? Muslims do not assimilate or acculturate
into host countries. Rather, they become antagonistic, regressive and violent.
- In a new piece by K.C. McAlpin, president of U.S. Inc.,
"A reply to critics of The Social Contract's call for a ban on Muslim
Immigration to the U.S.", he gives full measure why Muslim immigration
must be stopped within the USA. www.TheSocialContract.com ,
February 2, 2011.
- "Thoughtful observers have criticized our fall,
2010 edition of The Social Contract for its call for a ban on Muslim
immigration to the U.S., on national security grounds," said McAlpin.
"By "thoughtful observers" we mean to exclude our adversaries
on the far left who get a case of the vapors whenever limits on mass immigration
are proposed. Rather this commentary is to respond to concerns expressed
by those on the political left and right who generally agree with us on
the need for common sense immigration reform, and whose minds are open
to rational argument and debate.
- "Objections to our call for a moratorium on Muslim
immigration generally resolve into one of two arguments: (1) That a ban
would violate our Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, or at
the least conflicts with the spirit of it; and (2) That a ban would be
impossible to implement and consequently would be nothing more than a symbolic
gesture that antagonizes Muslims and does nothing to enhance our national
- "Regarding the first objection it needs to be understood
that applicants for admission to the United States do not enjoy the protection
of the US Constitution or its 1st Amendment until and unless they
are lawfully admitted. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has plenary
power under the Constitution to regulate immigration and determine who
can and who cannot be admitted.
- "Congress may bar immigration on any grounds it
chooses - including those classes of persons protected by our civil rights
laws e.g. race, religion, national origin, sex, age, etc. Congress has
used that power in the past to ban the immigration of Communist Party and
National Socialist (Nazi) party members who were deemed to be threats to
our national security. This case is no different.
- "We contend that it is not "religious bigotry"
to defend oneself, or one's family and community from people who profess
a particular religion, and whose adherents have repeatedly tried to attack
and murder you in the name of their God. A ban on the immigration of the
entire class of such people is a rational self-defense measure when it
is impossible to distinguish between those members of the group who pose
a threat, and those who do not, and when protecting innocent lives has
the overriding priority it should have for those charged with defending
the nation's citizens from attack. We do not advocate abridging the freedom
of religion of anyone lawfully admitted to the U.S.
- "The second objection assumes that it is impossible
to screen Muslims from the pool of immigration applicants, and therefore
useless to try. The idea is that Muslims would simply identify themselves
as members of other faiths or as non-believers on immigration applications,
making such a ban merely symbolic and unenforceable in practice.
- "We disagree. In the first instance there are a
large number of Muslim clerics, academics, intellectuals, writers and religious
leaders who cannot escape their religious affiliation because it is a matter
of public record. In fact a disproportionate number of such people are
among the most anti-American of all Muslims, and therefore potential threats
to our national security.
- "Second, a ban on Muslim immigration would give
the FBI and our national security agencies a useful weapon to use against
those the agencies suspect of being terrorists. There is a precedent. The
aforementioned ban against the immigration of Communists and Nazis was
used in much the same way against those who were suspected of being Communist
or Nazi sympathizers. In addition to preemptive screening, terrorist suspects
who managed to immigrate and were later caught attending a Mosque could
have their visas revoked for falsifying their immigration applications,
and be deported before they became a threat.
- "Third, such a ban should prevent the resettlement
of Muslim refugees within the U.S. This is important because a troubling
number of first and second generation Muslim refugees who have been given
refuge in the U.S. have later turned up in terrorist training camps in
countries such as Somalia and Pakistan. Several dozen young Somali refugees,
for example including U.S. high school graduates, were found to have returned
to Somalia to pursue jihad against the U.S.
- "Finally, imposing a ban on Muslim immigration is
very likely to have an impact that goes far beyond mere symbolism. It is
certain to discourage many Muslims from applying even if they are inclined
to falsify their applications. And even though a ban is certain to exacerbate
tensions with the Islamic world, it could well be the catalyst that triggers
the Reformation within Islam that many observers think is essential if
there is ever to be peaceful coexistence between Islam and the West.
- "A ban on Muslim immigration, therefore, is not
only constitutional, but a practical and necessary way to defend ourselves
against the growing threat of homegrown terrorism the U.S. faces in the
- You may contact K.C. McAlpin at www.thesocialcontract.com