Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Syrian Refugees, Syrian Terrorists, Belgian Tourists, and Belgian Terrorists, Redux
Part of me thinks, “Okay, Claire, you’ve said your piece, you’re not going to elevate the tone on Ricochet at this point by pressing it further.”
Another part of me thinks, “I don’t seem to have made my case successfully.” By which I mean: I don’t think I convinced the maximum number of people possible. And that part of me thinks, “My case, perhaps, is important. If I let go now, it will be out a desire for popularity and for an easier day, which I’ll legitimize to myself by telling myself I’ve elevated the tone.”
So I’ll just do the best I can. I’ll make a few more arguments — keeping in mind that many of you seemed to dislike the tone of my last post — and see if I can find a way to win a few of you around.
First let me first draw your attention to this piece by Megan McArdle (brought to my attention by Virginia Postrel) called How to Win Friends and Influence Refugee Policy.
Perhaps you’ve seen the arguments on social media since the Paris attacks last Friday: One faction rants that of course the U.S. must take in huge numbers of Syrian refugees, and fast, because of course refugees are not terrorists. Another faction argues that literally any amount of risk at all is too much. And then there’s Donald Trump, whose ideas about how to deal with the potential threat of Islamist terror are making me rethink my longtime ban on the use of the word “fascist” as a pejorative.
Actually, scratch that. Not “arguments.” The posts are not intended to convince anyone. They are to signal tribal loyalties to people who already agree with you, while you marinate in your own sense of moral superiority.
If these factions want to convince other people, they’re going about it all wrong. …
I’ll let you read it on your own, but suffice to say, she suggests that some of the argumentative techniques I’ve adopted on this subject thus far are unhelpful. Many of you seem to be in agreement. As the Chinese proverb suggests, when seven sober men tell you you’re drunk, it’s time to lie down; and given that I do want to change your minds, not offend you, I’ll take her counsel and yours.
I’ll get to all the points you raised in the comments, thematically, but not in one post, because it would be too disorganized. I’ll start by addressing what seemed to me the most extreme position: We should not only not accept Syrian refugees, but ban all Muslims from entering the United States. (This isn’t a strawman argument; if you look through the comments, you’ll see that it was suggested, I think seriously, by quite a number of people here.)
1. Assume for the sake of argument that it is not in the interests of the United States to accept Muslim immigrants, be they refugees, tourists, students, permanent immigrants, or temporary workers. I don’t accept this, but I’ll assume it.
If so, we need a plan to distinguish Muslims from non-Muslims.
Now, consider the terrorists in Mali (who from first reports appear to have been members of Al Mourabitoun, working in conjunction with Al Qaeda). They forced their hostages recite the Shahada. Those who could recite it were allowed to leave the hotel. Note that even the terrorists weren’t able to distinguish “Muslim” from “non-Muslim” by looking at their victims. Of course, their method doesn’t quite seem the American way, but even if it were, there’s no similar declaration that would indicate non-Muslim status.
(By the way, helpful tip: Just in case you ever need to recite the Shahada to save your life — a useful skill in this day and age, alas, like being able to tie a bowline knot — here’s how you do it.)
That’s what makes someone a Muslim, at least in the eyes of many.
So — if you want to keep all Muslims out of the US, you’ll have to follow one of the following strategies:
1. Make a statistical guess. Ban anyone from entering from a country where it is known that some or a majority of its citizens are Muslims.
2. But consider that visa arrangements are usually reciprocal, so if we embrace this strategy, Americans would probably be banned in turn from traveling to a significant part of the world. Also, should we deny visas to everyone from some of the countries with the world’s largest Muslim populations, we would essentially be shutting down a large part of our own economy: People travel from these countries not just for tourism, and not just to study at our universities (although foreign money plays a major role in propping up those universities), but to invest and do business. Almost 40 percent of the world’s Muslims live in Indonesia, India, and Pakistan. Some 130,000,000 Muslims live in China. There are about 10,500,000 Muslims in the Philippines, about 700,000 in Argentina, and probably 7,500,000 in France. (We don’t know for sure; it’s illegal to take a formal census based on religion or ethnicity in France, but pollsters do it, and I suspect they’re probably close.) There are 5,800,000 Muslims in Germany. Cutting off travel to the United States from so many countries would be extremely costly — and as I said, would be likely to be reciprocal. (There are also 3,390 Muslims in Aruba — along with the Caribbean’s best wreck dives, apparently.)
Given that most people from those countries have no intention of coming to the United States to harm it, this would be a highly indiscriminate approach to the problem, with huge costs — not just financial, but reputational. We’d look like lunatics if we said, “We’re so afraid of terrorists that we won’t even allow Amir Khan to fight Manny Pacquiao in Las Vegas.” Does it matter if we look like lunatics? You bet it does. You want to be a diplomat sitting aside your opposite number in the Philippines trying to explain why they should hand over business visas to our executives from CocaCola, Citibank, Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, and McDonalds, even though we won’t give one to Pacquiao?
3. It makes much more sense to deny visas, or to be extremely cautious in our visa regime, when dealing with countries that consistently produce terrorism-prone populations of Muslims (or any kind of terrorist). It would be insane, say, to deny a student visa to Vietnamese citizen on this basis, given that not one of the earth’s 400,000 Cham Muslims has ever participated in terrorist attack. It would not be insane to scrutinize the application of a Belgian citizen with especial caution, given that by some estimates, Belgium has supplied the highest per capita number of fighters to Syria of any European nation – between 350 and 550, out of a total population that includes fewer than half a million Muslims.
4. That still leaves a lot of gray area. Let’s say, “Fine, we let in Pacquiao, but we sure won’t let in one single Muslim from the Philippines, given that Abu Sayyaf’s now waving the black standard.” And we apply this to any other country with an ISIS problem.
Problem solved? Not really.
First, I reckon at least a few countries would take great umbrage: Islam is the second-largest religion in India, for example, with 22 Muslims sitting in the 16th Lok Sabha. It would be utterly poisonous for India’s own domestic politics if the Modi government went along with this; they would really have no choice but to reciprocate by saying that they’ll give no US citizen a visa until we clear this nonsense up.
There goes our relationship with Israel, too: Muslims are 17.4 percent of the Israeli population, including 16 members of the Knesset. No Israeli government could afford to say, “Well, sadly, the US won’t give those members of our visiting delegation a visa, but this won’t affect our special relationship.” Bibi Netanyahu truly does not want to make the speech that begins, “Israel protects the full equality of Jews and non-Jews alike. This is the essence of the declaration of independence, which we follow, except when the United States tells us that it won’t grant 17 percent of our citizens any kind of visa.” So much headache for him down that path I get one just thinking about it.
It gets more problematic still. Continue to assume it’s illegal to come to the US as a Muslim. If your intention is to come to the US to disrespect the law anyway — by committing terrorism — you will conceal your Muslim identity. If someone is determined to come to the United States to kill as many of us as he can, he’s probably willing to lie when asked if he’s a Muslim.
5. But surely we can tell anyway? By the way they look? By their names? Well, no. “Muslim” is a religion, not a race. Now, two of our members have claimed that 
as people who’ve been in Europe all their lives, they would not have mistaken Salah Abdeslam (to the left) for anything but an Arab.
Really? Don’t think that’s a face you might see in, say, Greece? Have a look at th
e Greek football team, below. Frankly, the Yug
oslav face to the right looks more Arab than any of them, to me.
Point is, there’s been a lot of genetic exchange in this part of the world; I’ve seen Turks with eyes as blue as saphhires; I figure maybe their ancestors were pre-Battle -of-Poltova Swedes, maybe.
But even if it could be done, it’s not enough: It’s not enough to be able to spot the Arabs, you have to spot the Muslims: Arabs include Christians, Druze and Baha’i, and they even include atheists. And Jews. And while I could probably make a better-than-average guess, I’d never bet my life or anyone else’s on my ability reliably to distinguish, visually, among the peoples of the Arab and Mediterranean world — you’ve got Greeks, Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats, Assyrians, Armenians, Mandeans, Copts, Maronites, Berbers, Kurds, Turks, Iranians, Azeris, Circassians, Shabaks, Turcomans, Romani, Chechens, and Jews in these parts — and while most of them are Muslims, some very emphatically are not; and yes, some of them have been terrorists but not Muslims. So visual identification is out. I look Muslim enough that I’m worried if we use that criteria, I’ll never be able to come home.
Because it’s Sunday, let’s play a game: Spot the Muslim. No using Google. Tell me how you score:
6. But what about their names? Surely that’s a dead giveaway? Well, I’d be dead suspicious of someone named Mohammed Islam Osama al-Baghdadi, which is why I’d probably change my name before flying to America to attack it. It’s pretty easy to do in France, at least — and positively encouraged if you make the case that you’d like to do it so better to be assimilated:
My client is called Rachid. Mr K* wishes to modify this first name in order to be fully assimilated, and he wishes to highlight the following reasons. 1. Mr K* is not attached to his first name; Mr K* was born in France and has always been a French resident; Mr K* is registered as a ward of state. He does not know his parents. His father never recognized him as his own and never saw him. He has no memory of his mother. 2. Mr K* wishes especially to be able to demonstrate his complete assimilation to French society with a French first name that he can use in his occupation. Mr K* is 26 years old. He has a professional chef’s diploma, and specializes in pastries and baking. Mr K* works in wellknown Parisian restaurants. He wishes to have a French-sounding first name so that his first name will not hinder him in the development of a successful career. (Excerpt from a “requête” filed in 2009. The applicant was born in France to an Algerian-born mother) …
So really, no way to do it reliably.
Now, someone’s about to say, “But the Israelis — ” Let me head you off at the pass. I’ve written about this here before. (Don’t click on the link if you’re feeling sensitive to snark today.) It just won’t work for us.
So: Keeping all Muslims out of the US will be exceptionally difficult to do. I leave it to you to suggest how it could be done in a way that does more good than harm.
I have more to say — chiefly in response to the questions, “But why should we admit refugees? What’s in it for us?” and “What’s to say we won’t end up like Belgium if we allow more Muslims to come to America?” They’re both good questions. But I’ll leave those for the next installment. Let’s just focus on this part, first. (We’ll get back to Viktor Orbán one of these days, too.)
The main thing is that the policy — whatever it is — must do more good than harm.
So let me know how you’d approach it.
Published in Foreign Policy, General, Islamist Terrorism, Religion & Philosophy
Not the argument Claire. (But thanks for the “no muslims ever” strawman.)
The issue is refugees from the Syrian Civil war. You have yet to make the case thay they aren’t perfectly (well, “somewhat less than perfectly” – given your points on the other thread) safe in the camp(s) where they currently reside.
You have made no argument as to “Why the US” as opposed to “Why can’t Europe”.
Start there and we’ll talk.
Claire, we have to first get general agreement that if we could it would be good to stop all immigration by Muslims. Once that is in place we will have to live with the success rate of that policy. But, you don’t want to have that argument, do you? Here it is again: If we could would it be a good thing? That’s the question I have.
Myself, I am now utterly convinced that we need a new containment strategy — I call it quarantine them — at least as far as immigration. How we do this is step 2 and then all the criticisms about the effectiveness of the enforcement can start.
No, this argument was made in the comments. I’m trying to address the arguments in turn.
How about we only allow Muslims who pass the normal immigration requirements? How about we only allow immigrants who pass the normal immigration requirements?
Also, let’s make employers of work visa holders liable for their employees’ crimes.
I don’t think it would be, no. I wouldn’t wish to see unlimited immigration, but some immigration would be fine with me. But I’m willing to assume we should entirely halt it for the sake of argument — as I have here. My argument is that it would be no simple thing to make it so, and would come with very high costs.
Okay, I’ll assume this for the sake of argument. I’m asking how — in the world as it is now — we do this.
A good rough cut is to stop issuing visas to countries where one of the following conditions exists:
Exceptions could be made for nationals of countries described above, if the refugee is fleeing religious persecution. That would allow us to help Yezidis and Christians fleeing ISIS. I would not support extending religious refugee status to Muslim refugees.
It does not fit either with your title here, or the substance there, or the policy issue at hand.
Although I am perfectly willing to engage in the No Muslims Ever. Pseud posted a lovely peice called Molenbeek Broke my Heart to deal with Muslim immigration.
I would deal with the problem simply, treat it like one does the issuance of green cards for marriage. here are the steps.
Simply and follows procedures already in place.
Now, can we get back to “Why the US and not Europe?” argument?
Determining the appropriate level of statistical confidence would, by itself, be a tricky problem …
Why does it have to be “all” Muslims again? This is like that other straw man argument making the rounds these days that “no way can we remove all illegal immigrants”. We can gradually and deliberately reduce the Muslim footprint in this country though, which makes a lot of sense to me. And I, for the life of me, can’t figure out why we don’t heavily ostracize bigoted countries like Saudi Arabia. Especially now that we can produce about all the oil we need on our own. Someone explain that to me please.
Respectfully, Claire, you can’t elevate the tone by calling people you disagree with “disgusting demagogues.” Your previous post was insulting in many ways, and it’s not surprise that so many people reacted viscerally.
I still want to work on the why it would not be a good thing? This is important because this will drive the conversation into successful strategies if this is discussed. A person like Claire who doesn’t want this quarantine won’t be the best person to solve the problem. Instead she will only criticize the secondary effects because this argument is easier and it also diverts attention.
In that case, employers will not hire any visa holders. Is that the goal? Why not just stop issuing visas? It’s more direct.
We shouldn’t take up this argument with Claire — her strategy is to use the smoke screen of the effectiveness of a policy of quarantine to obscure the arguments for the existential threat that we face.
Why is this not an existential threat, Claire? Look around the world.
Albert Arthur, #12: I suspect that it would not completely stop the hiring of visa holders. It would, however, make employers very selective.
Man, CB, you are getting very hysterical here, not like your usual self. We are not afraid of terrorist, we just hate the religion and all it spawns. We hate letting someone in here with that virus in their psyche, dormant as it might be; one minute they seem assimilated and the next they have a “come to Mohamed” moment and insist that all women wear a veil, and that infidels are dogs or worse. It is that constant feeling of menace that emanates from their belief system we abjure.
This is much like the arguments we have about enhanced interrogation and torture. People often jump to the effectiveness rather than decide there are things worth protecting that simply cannot have doors closed to possible strategies to fight more effectively.
In comment #6, I suggested some criteria for selecting countries to ban. In the case of states which only partially implement Sharia law, and where they are not major supporters of terrorism, exceptions might be made if the visa applicants are carefully vetted, and there is good economic reason to admit them. Propping up universities is not sufficient economic reason to issue a visa (and do we want American college professors teaching foreign students how bad America is?). Numbers should be kept small enough that visa recipients can be tracked, and quickly rounded up and deported if they overstay their visas.
That’s a losing proposition – as all propositions that make you prove what doesn’t (or didn’t) happen, precisely because the things that never happen can’t be quantified.
Histories of the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII almost always include the phrase “And it never stopped a single case of sabotage!” That statement, and it’s polar opposite, are not arguable because neither are provable. Nobody would ever say, “Yeah, I was going to blow up that Boeing plant in Seattle before me and the folks were rounded up and sent to Montana.”
Neither foreign policy nor history is a double-blind study. Ultimately, the proof of these kind of arguments are measured in dead bodies. Let’s say we leave in 10,000 of these refugees and only three of them go rogue. Just three people decide to sit in the stands of a high school football game. It’s cold, everyone is bundled up so who notices a few suicide vests? In an instant there are 80 dead and another 150 wounded for life. And you say, “My bad!”? Or do you feel vindicated?
The job of the United States government is to mitigate external risks to it’s citizens. This is not 1938.
Larry Koler, #13: perhaps impute better motives to Claire on this? Perhaps she hopes to “clear the deck” of what she considers to be the weakest arguments, first, and work up to the really meaty questions?
Granted, it’s also possible she’s trying to adapt that interrogators’ technique in which the initial questions are easy and low-stress, to build a habit of cooperation.
Carry on, Ricochetti!
Claire, I’m not making the argument “no more Muslims,” but I did make a claim that you are discussing here. I haven’t lived in Europe all my life — just 15 years — but I did say that I would be able to recognize Adelslam as North African. I didn’t say “Arab” or “Muslim,” nor did I claim to know his nationality. I stand by the statement. My husband, who follows the news more sporadically, had never seen the guy’s face before. I showed him the pic in your post and asked, “Where is this guy from?” He glanced at it and said, “Morocco.” Now he could be wrong; I don’t actually know the nationality of Abdeslam’s family. My point was simply that the man does not look European, and most here would be able to recognize that.
Obviously, nationalities and ethnic origins are not always so easily discovered. People here tend to think I am German or Scandinavian, but I’m just a plain American mutt. There are red-headed, blue-eyed Iranians by the score, and plenty of olive-skinned Celts, too. My point was simply, in the case of Abdeslam, many would easily recognize him as magrebino (as the Italians say).
The thread was very long and emotions were running high, but I tried to write calmly and fairly on the subject.
It doesn’t need to be complete liability, but just enough to make employers selective. I suspect employers could purchase insurance policies against their visa holders’ criminality. At the very least, the employer should be made to cover the criminal’s imprisonment and deportation expenses.
This one isn’t a Muslim, but she’s someone we could do without.
Claire,
Just because you can find someone who actually made an argument doesn’t mean it’s not a straw man. But, at least it’s a step up from the “you’re all a bunch of mean-spirited racists and cowards” approach that your last post had in common with the President’s rhetoric.
So far as I know, every U.S. jurisdiction prohibits insurance covering criminal acts of one’s own agents and employees.
I started down this path, only to discover that the ‘extreme’ position you refer to above isn’t that extreme. It’s not just Muslims that some Ricochetti are wanting to ban, but all foreigners, Muslim or not… That is how they finesse the who is a Muslim problem.
see comments 260+ in your other post…
I think that once the refugees are out of immediate danger, then their problems become financial.
Doesn’t it make sense to have countries that have jobs and housing available apply to the refugee camps to take those immigrants into those countries for those existing jobs and housing units?
In the post-industrial United States, there are few unskilled-labor jobs available. People here are already hurting. A third of millennials are living with their parents. The suicide rate for people 45 to 60, especially among white males, is high. My husband used to manage gas stations in New England. When one recession hit, he had an employee with a PhD who was pumping gas–it was the only job the person could find. As sad as it was, at least the person had a place to go each day, some self-respect, and some building blocks for a life. Now all of the gas stations are self-service. At this moment in our national life, we have too few transitional low-skilled jobs available as it is.
This is why I want to see one or two new countries established for the refugees. A brand-new country will have lots of unskilled-labor jobs available as it gets itself built.
Frankly, our existing poor would be well served by a growth spurt across America of new cities and towns. At least people could get construction jobs and start building their life.
America needs a growth plan.
They could be required to post a bond of $10,000,000 to be refunded if they leave on schedule and cause no trouble. They could pay a company in their home country to provide the bond money. If they damage anyone, damages are paid out of the bond. If they overstay their visa, they forfeit the bond.
Agree with 1-5. But how does this help with the Belgian problem?
Yes, and for a shortcut, you can buy my book. But otherwise I’ll get to that tomorrow, or maybe to the other main question, which is why it’s in our interest to accept these refugees.
Brussels yesterday: