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
I agree with most of what you say. But I am a mathematician by training so I always look for the underlying axioms of any thought system. Hence I ask myself and enjoin everyone to do likewise: “What do the non-jihadists really believe about Mohamed? And what’s to prevent their switching to become a jihadist anytime they have a bad patch in life and need an object on which to take out their dissatisfaction?”
Well, lookie there – found the Audible version. My mistake.
You mean right now, living in a large metropolitan area with about a 4% Muslim population and some recognizably Muslim enclaves? Pretty secure from terrorist attacks, actually, in the sense that they’re one of the least of our city-living worries.
Would the concentration and type of Muslims matter to non-Muslims’ feelings of security? It seems pretty obvious it would, and unreasonable to not consider it. I’d consider Ahmadis especially low-threat, for example. And I don’t live in Dearborn, MI, where threats are reportedly a major problem.
Can I imagine a hypothetical world where people all over the USA didn’t feel secure in congested areas? Of course. Are there Americans who, either because of the demographics of where they live, or because terrorism just frightens them even when it’s very unlikely, already feel insecure? Obviously.
Not all Americans feel frightened yet, though, or believe that the most frightening predictions will come true. It seems to me there’s room for legitimate disagreement.
Thank you Claire. Your previous post seemed somewhat out of character; you have a lot of credibility with me, however, and are also entitled to the literary equivalent to a bad hair day.
That being said, I appreciate greatly your willingness to undertake this very deliberate analysis. As I see it, in service of a fundamental logical analysis, it can be quite clarifying to use “straw-man” arguments. I do not see your technique as any kind of diversion, as has been suggested. It is a proper starting point and forces us to answer essential questions seriatim:
Do we want immigrants? Do we take those who cross our borders legally or illegally? Are we obliged to seek out and ourselves transport immigrants deemed to have special favor. Who decides they are favored?
If we want any of these, can our society afford to support them – either in terms of direct dependency or the ability to offer them a productive living? If so, what characteristics ought they have and how can we determine their presence or absence? Are there practical limits to our ability to know them? Knowing the fallibility and unreassuring track record of government, on what side ought we to err in attempting to make such determinations as to the character of potential immigrants?
Again, thank you for doing this. You help me to keep an open mind, even should we eventually disagree. That is why Ricochet is an oasis. Few places currently allow reasoned debate of difficult issues.
How Afghans who want to move to Europe are buying forged Taliban threat letters to pretend their lives are in danger
How could a religious test for immigration ever pass constitutional muster? Because it sure sounds like some of you are basically saying that the American government should discriminate based on religion. That sounds like a clear violation of the establishment clause.
As a practical matter, I can’t think of a better recruiting tool for ISIS than an overt government policy that discriminates against Muslims on the grounds that it is an inherently flawed religion.
More complex than that. Islam is more than a religion. Others can elaborate on this, but it integrates government with religion so tightly (think of Sharia law) that it is fair to claim that devout Muslim can have his allegiance to the rights in the Constitution compromised. Fair ground for discriminating on the same basis as used for excluding communists.
Uh, Dan. You can’t violate the Constitutional rights of people that don’t have Constitutional rights. They’re foreigners.
Do Chinese nationals have Constitutional rights in America? Especially if they’re not on American soil?
That’s not even an argument.
We aren’t saying discriminate based on religion. We say discriminate based on people who want to kill us and erase our culture. We can’t help it if they all happen to belong to the same religion, and we can’t help it if it’s impossible to tell which ones want to kill us and which ones mean us no harm. All we do know is that the book they all live by does encourage them to kill us. And lie to us.
Meanwhile, in Poland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hakb6S0IpgY
I hope you are joking when you say this. To me, that would be apostasy. I hope I would be as brave as the many martyrs who have suffered and died at the hands of these monsters rather than deny my Lord Jesus Christ.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Dan Hanson, how does restricting Muslim immigration “establish” a religion or restrict the free exercise of anyone’s religion, whether citizens or would be citizens or immigrants?
Well, yes, they could do that and go to teach in other foreign countries as well, then the foreign students can stay at home and get the liberal education without us paying for it. And we won’t then need to decline to admit so many of our own citizens of Asian descent because of quotas.
Happy to see my ancestors man up.
Wealthy business interest influence on our government for favors?
25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it. 26 For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?
Perhaps Ms. Berlinski could dispense some helpful tips for potential dhimmis on negotiating a Jizya so as to live to be eaten by a crocodile on more amenable terms and a sunnier day.
The Constitution’s ban on religious tests is a ban on religious tests for holding public office. It does not say we cannot exclude immigrants on the basis of religion.
There is no Constitutional right to come to America.
My goodness, Claire. I’m thinking there’s an important article you should read before posting again. Wouldn’t want you to lose your edge in the heat of the battle.
Specifically as it relates to the Syrian refugees, I have argued on here that we ought only to open the door to Assyrians/Chaldeans and Yezidis. So rather than dealing with the unenviable task of guessing if a Muslim supports ISIS, we reduce the considered population to a fraction (the Christians and Yezidis being in the 5% range tops)
Determining the veracity of one’s membership in these faiths would be far easier than haphazardly hoping you are not inviting in sharia proponents.
I think this view, however politically radioactive, is wholly reasonable. In fact, on a radio show based out of Arizona the other day, the host (an Iraqi Christian) and the guests (Shingaly Yezidi activists) advocated for exactly this policy. To quote: “We left that part of the world to escape the terror. We don’t want it to follow us here.”
” There is no Constitutional right to come to America.”
And … 3 … 2 … 1 … cue “Open Borders!”
(Grin)
I’m visualizing a group of cannibals pulling up to a refugee center trying to use Listerine to get rid of the smell of Upstate New Yorker and then finding out to their disappointment that the upstate New York buffet is closed and they will have to go back to consuming them while on tropical vacation.
I am so sick of hearing that this or that policy will be a “recruiting tool” for ISIS, so we can’t do it. Everything is a “recruiting tool” for ISIS. If we fight them, that’s a recruiting tool. But if we do nothing, then that’s a recruiting tool. (“The infidel is afraid of us. We kill them with no consequences. We are winning! Allah is with us.”)
Murderous psychopaths will be drawn to an ideology of murderous psychopathy. It recruits for itself. All we can do is make it less glamorous for them. That means that when one of them waves an ISIS flag, they get a bomb dropped on their head, not an invitation to tea and welfare checks in the U.S.
Let them recruit based on our failure to respect religious liberty (I can barely type that without laughing out loud). Better that than recruiting based on some of them blowing up an American shopping mall or kindergarten.
Most of Ricochet’s Open Borders advocates have been cool to the idea of bringing swarms of Syrian refugees here. They’d flood us with Latinos, but they don’t seem quite as welcoming to Muslims. It may be because Latinos, as a general rule, don’t go around blowing stuff up.
But if we don’t let more terrorists in, “the terrorists win”. /sarc
Based on appearance (not name), I would have suspected either Eastern European (I’ve met some Russian guys who look like that) or North African for Abdeslam. So, not Western European. It sounds perfectly plausible to me that people who live in Italy are good at recognizing magrebini. Claire’s argument that many people’s physiognomy is hard to place also sounds plausible.
I thought the establishment clause was about setting limits on the nature of the American government – i.e. that the government simply can’t apply religious litmus tests in determining its actions.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, so I’d be open to a real lawyer explaining why this is wrong, but if I were an American petitioning to to have my family brought to the country, and the government said, “No, you’re a Christian and America doesn’t let in Christians”, and then proceeded to expedite the immigration of my neighbor’s Hindu relatives because Hinduism is A-OK by the government, I’d think that might be a violation of the first amendment.
Likewise, if I were a Muslim American citizen and the American government decided that America had enough Muslims and would no longer allow Muslims to apply for green cards or citizenship, I think I might have a problem with that. Would that give me standing to sue the American government on the grounds that it was establishing a de-facto state religion by controlling the population on religious grounds?
Like I said, maybe I’m wrong here, as I’m not a lawyer. But there have been plenty of first amendment cases won on much thinner ground than this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
What part of that statement limits its scope to the hiring of officials for public office?
My layman’s understanding of the establishment clause is that it basically says that the U.S. government must be blind to religion when it takes action. For example, refusing student loans for Muslims would be a violation of the first amendment, would it not? How about modifying the criminal code to change the penalties based on the religion of the suspect? Wouldn’t an imposition of Sharia law be a violation of the first amendment? Or a law against blasphemy of the Prophet?