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
In this day and age, I’m not convinced visa waivers are a good idea, anyway. For Belgium or any other country, including the UK and Canada. And I say that as someone who believes that America’s greatest stroke of good fortune was to be colonized by Englishmen. I think we need to take a good look at any foreigner we allow into the country. Coming to America is a privilege, not a right.
I’d agree with that, I’m just pointing it out. I think we’re going to be thinking about the university model in very different ways in the coming decade. But this is a consequence of what this would entail, and would result in a reduction in funding of things we haven’t yet figured out how to replace: not everything a top-ranked research university does can be replaced by Khan Academy, yet.
With you there. I suspect the reason we tolerate them is that we fear that what would come after them would be even worse (if this is imaginable) and because they’re cooperative –reasonably in oil pricing policy, which we hope to use to keep Russia on a leash. Whether this is wise, I doubt.
Yesterday (assuming I am any good at spotting sarcasm) we were told sarcastically how silly we are for not trusting American security agencies to spot Islamic terrorists (“For you see, I’m completely with you in saying that we can’t and shouldn’t trust any of those agencies, given that they screw up everything they touch. It’s like they’ve got some kind of anti-Midas magic, isn’t it?”)
Today, it’s never mind spotting Islamic terrorists, they can’t even tell whether someone is a Muslim. That’s a rather steep learning curve, in the wrong direction.
I’m not terribly interested in preserving the paychecks of Leftist college professors, or their research grants. Let them go teach in some Islamist country, and see how long they last before the Faithful hand them their Infidel heads.
OK, rephrase: “We are not afraid of terrorist,s we just hate the religion and all it spawns. [And I do.] 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. Therefore we won’t even allow Amir Khan to fight Manny Pacquiao in Las Vegas.” — because under one of the solutions I proposed, we don’t give visas to people who come from countries with a significant ISIS presence. And the Philippines is one of them. Not hysterical, just a fact.
I then moved on to the idea that we try, “Pacquiao can come, but Muslims from the Philippines can’t.” And I suggested that might not be a workable strategy, either. For the reasons I mentioned.
Claire,
This is strawman wonderland. First, whether or not there are terrorists amongst the so called Syrian refugees isn’t the point. The President and the EU are writing the Immigration Laws by fiat. It is a matter of sovereignty and constitutional seperation of powers that they have no such power.
ISIS is slipping Jihadists in with the refugees. It has said that is what it is doing, it has been caught doing it. I think this is absolutely not the time to be playing the “give me your tired, your…” Golden Door sympathy card. Barach Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are just thrilled that you are giving them political cover. Their disastrous Foreign Policy, disastrous Domestic policy, disastrous Energy policy, and disastrous Health Care policy can just be ignored.
Of course, it’s all about how much more they care!??? To steal Rodney Dangerfield’s simple punch line. “They really care. It’s just about what I have no idea.”
Regards,
Jim
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson.
You wouldn’t want Claire to be small-minded, would you. :D
I’m not so interested in the paychecks of the Leftist profs, but I’m interested in the research labs, the chemistry and chemical engineering, the engineering and applied science, the mathematics and physics and astronomy, stuff like this, stuff like this …
This is a strawman again. I want vetting and lower levels of Muslim immigration, and a plan to accord with Abraham Lincoln’s guidance as regards the spread of slavery in the US:
Long before there was ISIS, the US had a rather severe problem with Moro (Philippine Muslim) terrorists. In fact, the problem was so severe it led to the development of one of America’s most beloved pistols, the Model 1911 .45 ACP.
Earlier in the thread, I suggested that visa applicants from questionable countries post a $10,000,000 bond to insure they cause no trouble, and that that they leave when their visa expires. A world-class prizefighter could easily post such a bond.
What were our immigration and refugee policies regarding communists during the Cold War? That would probably be a fair model for our policies regarding Muslims today.
Not all who subscribe to harmful ideologies are militants who pose imminent threats. That doesn’t make them harmless. Many are basically good persons who act kindly in face-to-face encounters yet enslave and tyrannize through political action… like Democrats.
We might not need to dismiss all Muslims, Iranians, or Syrians as candidates for refugee status or immigration. But we should be profiling. Political correctness is dangerous and stupid.
You may find this article interesting. I agree with it.
If we use Carey J.’s well thought out criteria, Muslims from the Philippines would face less scrutiny and bars to entry than those from, say Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or Pakistan or Syria or Libya.
(PS. sorry for my intemperance in language. The 1400 year Western cognitive exercise in denial regarding the abiding faith of Muslims gets to me now and then.)
Why?
When we allowed in communists I believe we made them answer questions regarding their true allegiance to the US Constitution and American core values. Let’s say we did the same with Muslim immigrants, what questions should we pose? How about these:
“What did Mohamed admonish his followers about killing infidels, how did he put these admonitions into practice? How do you feel about this aspect of Islam? Is Mohamed not the ‘perfect messenger of Allah’ and his example to be followed in all respects, all respects? Why then do you still call yourself a Muslim?”
Claire, I think you need to address comment 9. For the record, I don’t support banning Muslim immigration, but the point doesn’t have to be to stop them all. Surely even a “not welcome” sign, i.e., a question, “are you a Muslim,” where yes = “sorry, no admittance,” would, over time, vastly reduce the Muslim footprint and make it less likely that we develop Muslim-dominated areas that might serve as a breeding ground for terrorism.
The problem is the administration doing the vetting. The Obama administration can be counted on to let the terrorists in, and keep the Christians, Jews, and non-violent out. Intentionally.
If this was a Republican or Jim Webb administration ( or even a Joe Lieberman administration ), there would be more trust. As it is, the distrust is well earned.
The answer to Manfred’s question is simple: Oil. For fifty years we’ve failed to hold the Islamist governments who support terrorism philosophically and financially accountable for their crimes because of oil. We have, in effect, traded blood for oil. No more blood for oil.
To paraphrase Cato the Elder, I am of the opinion that Riyadh must be destroyed.
I just want to say that I might be read as having suggested allowing no Muslims to enter the country ever, but the context was talking about the problem of the radicalized children of immigrants. What I meant to say, therefore, was that the only solution to the problem that I can see is allowing no further Muslim immigration–not banning tourist visas. Our intelligence services ought to be able to identify terrorists with enough assurance to keep the specific bad actors from coming in on short or long-term visas, and if so far they haven’t, well we need to work harder on them.
On the issue of Muslim immigration, I’m with Larry Koler in wanting to know, if stopping it is in fact impossible, whether it would be a good idea if it were possible. Alternatively, I’d like to know whether there is any other strategy that would keep us from becoming another Belgium–or keep my city from becoming another Minneapolis (which has sent many young men of Somali origin to ISIS) or another Dearborn, Michigan.
There are still some conservatives, though, who believe fearing terrorist attacks is more reasonable than hating the religion and all it spawns. That may be Claire’s point.
shows how much I know. I guess I leave decisions on letting Muslims into the US to the ‘experts’. But the national policy should be as I advanced earlier, to see a gradual diminution of Muslim presence in the US long term, just as we do with Nazis, Communists, and White Supremacists. To make explicit the incompatibility of Mohamed, his message and life, with the American Creed. If a Muslim attests that he/she super-ordinates our Constitution and way of life to Muslim orthodoxy our response needs to be: “Prove it”.
We read what you wrote, we just don’t agree with you.
Good advice from my mother: If you find your self starting, “I probably shouldn’t say this, but…” you should listen to yourself – your first impulse in these matters is generally correct
Even if we close the door to any and all terrorists from entering the US, how do you ever feel secure in congested areas, in underground metro tunnels, in shopping malls, in football stadiums, high-rise buildings like the Twin Towers, from the home-grown variety? We are all infidels, the rest of us. Christians are having “Come to Jesus” moments all the time, why won’t ‘assimilated’ Muslims have similar “Come to Mohamed” moments? Then what? They are just the internet away from being counseled by the most radical Imams in the world.
As I’ve argued before, peaceful and assimilated Muslims seem to be secular usually… which is to say they are agnostic. Islam for them is a less a belief system and more a cultural touchstone, like Catholicism for many Mexicans. They are good people because they are secular, rather than because of Islam.
I wouldn’t dislike someone because he grew up in a home of communist sympathizers, but I would deride communism as an evil ideology regardless of any offense he took. Islam seems to be a worldview founded by a warlord and focused on his dishonorable example. His disciples were militants, whereas Christ’s apostles led no armies and Christianity only became tangled with government when, after centuries, the Roman Empire collapsed and left people’s needs to the Church.
Islam has throughout history been war-bent. We’re told jihadists are a minority of Muslims, yet somehow that minority rises to power in every Muslim nation despite very different cultures and politics. Somehow, that minority pops up in ghettos around the world. Even China is plagued by Muslim terrorists. It wars with everyone.
If the ideology/religion/worldview/philosophy is problematic, then it must be considered in refuge and immigration policies.
Claire’s argument seems to be based on the likelihood that large numbers of Muslims could and would pretend to be Christians or Jews or something else in order to get around a ban on Muslims. This argument doesn’t address whether a ban on Muslims would be good or bad, just how hard it would be to enforce. But I don’t think it would as hard as she implies. Whether you are a Muslim would in most cases just be determined by where you live, your family, name, etc. It wouldn’t be a defense to say, “Yes my name is Mohammed, my family is Muslim and I live in a Muslim population but in fact I accepted Jesus as my savior last week.”
It’s not as difficult as you’re making it Claire. We try to make it difficult in order to avoid asking the hard questions.
Look forward to that, although I imagine it will resolve into a Forgotten Man argument.
Jackie Onassis in an Hermes head scarf? That’s supposed to prove how confusing it all is?
Yeah, I tend not to buy ebooks whose marginal to cost to produce is effectively $0.000000000000001 for more than $9.99 out of my pocket.
Additionally, I don’t want to burden the saintly JoALT with the consumption of more shelf space which is what precludes me from paying the $.01 Amazon is asking for the hardcover.
Paperbacks are right out.
Too bad there isn’t an Audible version – I have a few carryover credits I need to consume before Dec 24.
Drraaattt!!! I the one and only Snidely Whiplash have been forced by this incredible logic to end my scheme of cruel prejudice against Muslims. Also, I was hoping to tie little Dr. Nell Fenwick (she has a PhD now you know) to the railroad tracks and extort a ransom from Chief Inspector Fenwick.
Curses!!! Foiled Again!!! I hate Dudley Do-Left.
Regards,
Jim
PS I love having these fun spirited discussions on Ricochet. Gee, I wonder what’s going on in Israel right now?
Gush Etzion murder victim identified: Hadar Buchris
Young woman seriously wounded in attack succumbs to her injuries shortly after; terrorist eliminated.
Gee, that’s not as much fun is it.