Immigration. In many ways, it’s a complex issue. At its foundation, it’s not complex at all. Every immigrant admitted to America must benefit America, not be a drag on taxpayer resources. Every immigrant admitted must be willing to fully assimilate and embrace our civic religion—our American values and way of life. By this I mean capitalism, and the freedoms acknowledged in the Constitution. Those whose religion and/or culture are fundamentally incompatible with America must never be admitted for any reason. Consider this from Politico:
Political leaders in the United States must not turn away Syrian refugees as part of a religious test, an emphatic President Barack Obama declared Monday, entreating public officials ‘not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.’
‘And when I hear folks say that well maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,’ Obama said during a news conference at the G-20 conference in Antalya, Turkey.
‘That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have a religious test for our compassion,’ he went on to say.
Understanding that Barack Obama does not support and defend the Constitution, and does not act in the best interests of America, is the first step to understanding what he says and does. Whether he is an active Muslim terrorist supporter and enabler is for each American to decide, however, it’s hard to imagine how someone that unquestionably was would speak or act significantly differently than Mr. Obama.
As with virtually everything Mr. Obama does, he has erected many straw men, raised arguments virtually no one makes, and then attacked them for making arguments they didn’t make. No one is demanding a religious test for immigration, though if we did, it would be entirely legitimate. In suggesting that only Christians from the Middle East be admitted as refugees, we acknowledge the inescapable reality that there are some belief systems that are compatible with our constitutional republic and some that are not. This issue is particularly important if we do not demand and enforce complete assimilation, as many proponents of “comprehensive immigration reform” do not.
Christianity is a religion, and a religion that truly is a religion of peace. It is compatible with any non-totalitarian system of government—and particularly with democracy–and its adherents live peacefully everywhere in the world. It is not a system of government, and the Bible makes the distinction between faith and politics exquisitely clear. It proselytizes by asking people to accept its precepts on faith alone. Christians are not committing acts of terror. They pose no threat to America.
The same cannot be said about Islam.
I’ll make the usual disclaimer: not all Muslims are terrorists—most aren’t—but virtually every terrorist abroad in the world today is Muslim. Islam is a political movement with religious overtones. Muslims that take the sword against non-Muslims are living the word and intent of their “faith.” Those that live in peace with others are not. Anyone claiming Islam is a “religion of peace” has never read the Koran or Hadiths. They have not read the writings of the most influential Muslim clerics and thinkers, past and present. The Koran, and those that have commented upon and interpreted it, lay out very specific attitudes, practices, and methods for conquering the world, and for forcing everyone in it to accept Islam. Those that resist or refuse die. This too is mandated by the Koran.
Part of what makes Islam so insidious is its mandate to lie to unbelievers (Taqiyya) in the pursuit of Jihad. Christianity is a religion that values life. Islam values death, and its adherents are not the least bit shy about explaining that fundamental difference and exalting it.
Islam recognizes no separation of church and state. Its goal is the world-wide, forced establishment of Shari: Islamic law. Shari is absolutely incompatible with individual freedom, and is horrifically abusive—even deadly—toward women. It recognizes no equality between men and women, who are treated as chattel.
Some Muslims may argue that they treat their women properly. Perhaps they do. But if so, they are not following Sharia; they are not faithfully following the intent and letter of Islam.
Accepting into America people who, by their very nature, by their cultural/religious beliefs, by everything they have been taught and lived since childhood, is incompatible with America is not religious pluralism or tolerance. It is cultural, national suicide.
Americans have every right, indeed, every necessity of demanding that every new immigrant be not only willing, but able, to accept our Constitution and genuinely tolerant civic beliefs. Muslims that are faithful to the Koran, that cannot pledge primary allegiance to America over their faith, family, tribe or any other consideration, are not only unalterably unable to do that, they represent an imminent, deadly threat to individual Americans and to the continuing existence of Western Civilization.
If Islam and the cultures of the Middle East are equal to ours, if every culture is equally valuable and nurturing of the best in human nature, why can’t these so-called “refugees” find acceptance and sanctuary in the many nations of that region? If Islam truly is a religion of mercy and peace, why can’t those refugees—a suspiciously large number of which are men of military age—find shelter among their fellow Muslims where they should find acceptance and comfort in the bosom of those that believe and live exactly as they do? Shouldn’t those surrounding Muslim nations be anxious to demonstrate the mercy and kindness of Islam, particularly toward their co-religionists, or do they, practicing the pragmatism Mr. Obama does not, recognize the necessity of keeping jihadists out of their nations?
During the Cold War, we refused admittance to America to Communists dedicated to the destruction of America. Denying Jihadists—and all Muslims until we have the unquestionable ability to conclusively determine their intentions and beliefs—access to Americans is no different. Religion didn’t enter into it then—nor is it a part of a sane immigration policy now. Constitutional rights belong to American citizens, not to anyone else. They are intended to protect individual liberty, to deter and restrain a dangerous and tyrannical government, not to ensure that those that would murder us and destroy our nation have direct access to us all.
Recognizing reality and protecting the very lives of Americans is anything but “shameful.” It is not revealing of a “dark impulse,” but of a clear-headed practicality and the fulfillment of any president’s oath of office. What Mr. Obama is doing is not expressing an American, religious sensibility, but doing and saying whatever he needs to do to justify his feckless malfeasance in knowingly failing to discharge his primary responsibility: protecting the lives of Americans and the national security of America.
This is a dark impulse indeed for a dark time Mr. Obama is making darker still.