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.
I’ve Changed. This Is War. Seal the Borders. Stop the Visas.
Asylum seekers arriving at train station in Munich. Jazzmany / Shutterstock.com
I know this is not my usual position. But this is a war. Therefore I have come to believe there should be no immigration or visa waivers until the US adopts a completely new system to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country. A wartime lockdown. And a big change in my thinking.
ISIS and related Islamic terrorists are already here. More are coming. We must stop them.
Until FBI director James Comey gives us the green light, I say seal the borders.
Here’s what we must do: Completely reform the vetting process for immigrants and foreign visitors. Change the screening process. Come up with a new visa-application review process. Stop this nonsense of marriage-visa fraud. And in the meantime, seal the borders. I agree with Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, who argued many of these points in excellent detail on the National Review website Friday.
Again, why am I taking this hardline position? In the past I have been an immigration reformer, not a restrictionist. But we are at war. That changes everything.
Let me emphasize that my support for wartime immigration restrictions is not based on religion. I think Donald Trump made a big mistake here. Instead, I agree with this Rupert Murdoch tweet: “Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.”
Fortunately, the Republican House voted to tighten restrictions on travel to the US by citizens of 38 nations who presently enter our country without a visa. This covers 20 million visitors a year who are allowed to stay 90 days. And of course this system is abused, big time.
But I say seal the borders. People hoping to relocate to the US from Syria, Iraq, and anywhere in the Middle East, and people coming here from France, England, Sweden, and wherever will be upset, at least for a while. There may be some unfairness to this. But I don’t care. Wars breed unfairness, just as they breed collateral damage.
We may set back tourism. We may anger Saudi princes whose kids are in American schools. But so be it. We need a wartime footing if we are going to protect the American homeland.
Of course, President Obama doesn’t get it. He never will. Already we should have led NATO into a declaration of war against ISIS. Already we should have pushed a resolution of war against ISIS through the UN Security Council. Already we should have convened meetings with our Mideast allies to formally declare war against ISIS. Already the US Congress should have issued a formal declaration of war against ISIS.
The president had his last chance last Sunday night. And he didn’t do it. He is not a wartime commander in chief. In fact, he is not a commander in chief.
As I have written before, if the US wants to destroy ISIS, it can destroy ISIS. We won’t end terrorism around the world. But we can destroy ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Prominent generals are telling us that. Prominent national-security strategists are telling us that.
So let’s do it.
If there is to be a true wartime effort to destroy ISIS, our leaders must communicate a sense of urgency and energy. Define the clear goal: the destruction of ISIS. Speak to that goal constantly. Take steps at home and abroad to back up that goal. Lead the country. Rally the country.
Republican and Democratic commanders in chief have done this in the past. We must do it again.
I don’t believe a visa or immigration lockdown here in the US will solve the Islamic terrorist threat. Many other steps must be taken. And I am not suggesting this in the name of religious profiling. Instead, I am hardening my position on immigration because we are at war and I fear we may be losing this war.
My shift in thinking comes from a deep desire to strengthen homeland security. Hopefully an immigration freeze will not be in place for very long. But for now I believe we must do it. (By the way, keeping America safe is a prerequisite for growth.)
And let me add, as I have in the past, if the US has the will, the urgency, and the energy to destroy ISIS, then we will destroy ISIS.
Published in Immigration, Islamist Terrorism
Just 2 clarifications. Shutting down immigration is shutting down tourism and shutting down trade?
When did immigration become synonymous as tourism and trade? When did shutting down immigration become synonymous with autarky? We were an autarkic country from the twenties through the sixties?
Isn’t this rather fuzzy thinking? or are you just putting us on?
Koolie- Kudlow didn’t just call for stopping immigration. He wants to stop visas and visa waivers too.
Salvatore: Thanks but this is what Kudlow said: “Fortunately, the Republican House voted to tighten restrictions on travel to the US by citizens of 38 nations who presently enter our country without a visa. This covers 20 million visitors a year who are allowed to stay 90 days. And of course this system is abused, big time.”
He wants to stop people from 38 nations who are currently allowed to travel to the US without a visa; and he wants to disallow visas to be waived. I don’t read that as shutting down tourism. Tourists can still visit but they need visas to visit. Am I reading Kudlow wrong? I’d be interested to know if I were interpreting this incorrectly.
P.S. Years ago, when I was a tourist, I always needed a visa to visit the US (and most other countries). That didn’t mean I was shut out from visiting the US–just needed to get a visa, time-consuming, yes, but a basic, fundamental procedure in a world of nation-states.
You must take us all for simple fools. Nobody thinks that an EO or whatnot would be the final word. But it would be a great start.
Has mr kudlow, or have other ricochet members, come now to the simple understanding that our president is a traitor?
Ball- Not “simple fools.” Constitutionally unprincipled citizens would be my way of characterizing it.
San Bernadino terrorist: born in the US.
Why let that stop us.
You do have to. That doctor you go see, was likely born in Pakistan. That engineer who wrote the code for this website, was likely born in India.
But, don’t let any of that stop you.
Let me rephrase that: economically unprincipled.
The US is the #1 destination of tourism in the world. The #1 destination of international travel. It is the #1 trade destination in the world. It is the #1 educational destination in the world.
Talk about a ridiculous over-reaction. Seal the border. Oh my sides! And then “conservatives” pretend to be for free markets, or for rule of law, or for capitalism.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think Larry is coming through loud and clear, even though his categories get a little jumbled amongst visa travelers, non-visa travelers, immigrants and refugees.
He means to make a strong statement and does. On the podcast he doesn’t leave much doubt: “I would not let anybody in. Maybe I could find a way to allow a British banker or a German trader to come in. … Other than that, this is war and I wouldn’t let anybody in.”
When Larry writes “seal the border” until the entire vetting process for “foreign visitors” is reconstructed he is not fine-tuning this one. Whether he extends this to Canada/US/Mexico truck commerce, container ships etc. is less clear, but an open question.
You give him too much credit. He’s not cleaver enough to be a traitor.
Obama is a symptom, not a cause. He’s pampered and lazy, both intellectually and physically. There’s not one original thought bouncing around in that doctrinaire Leftist meat computer riding atop his shoulders. He’s almost entirely reactive, not proactive. His only role is to trot out Lefty talking points at every event, and for every “initiative” concocted for him by Valerie Jarret and others. He’s not accomplished one thing of significance, before or during his White House tenure. His “signature legislation” is just that—something to which he lent his signature and that’s all. Others developed it and Democrats in Congress got it passed only because of raw majority numbers, which they promptly lost because of Obamacare.
Obama is a speech-maker, reasonably good at that (though spotty) but nothing more. If he weren’t a powerful race symbol in an elite culture obsessed with race, we’d never have heard of him and everyone with a brain knows this. His leadership has been a failure on every level. Black Americans are not fooled—their lives are worse after his 7 years in office. The only thing he has accomplished that will last even one term after his departure is massive debt service.
Farook’s American citizenship was a mere accident of birth. The other terrorist (Farook’s wife) was an immigrant, and both subscribed to a foreign ideology that is anti-Western and anti-American to the core. And no, I don’t have to care about them or any others who presume to have a right to settle in my country, break its laws, kill my fellow Americans, and presume that I owe them anything.
A secure border makes the rule of law and free market economics possible.
A final comment for our viewpoint, Mike:
“The safety of the people shall be the highest law.” Cicero
Gee, Mike – don’t you know that supporting free markets and capitalism means opposing any restriction on the entry of foreign citizens that might do economic harm?
I just listened to a podcast of Larry’s radio show. He says more than what he wrote in the OP. What I hear very clearly is that he wants to stop all immigration, stop all visas (which I interpreted to be immigrant visas, since it is of the same piece as stopping all immigration), stop all visa waivers, (which I interpret as for those from the 38 countries). (Contd below)
#105 (Contd) to Reply Quake Voter
You are right that he is willing to go beyond that but he does it more in the manner of declaring a principle and a hypothetical, much less categorical than his statement on stopping all immigration. When the lady guest asked how far he would go, whether he would stop all business travelers and tourists, Larry did not answer directly. He only maintained the standard that proper vetting is an imperative, and agreed with McCarthy that if such vetting is impossible, then exceptions for national security reasons can disallow even entries by business travelers.
Thus, what I hear is Larry being clear and categorical on stopping all immigration but less clear (more circumspect) on business travelers/tourists beyond declaring he is willing to take a hard line even on those if his imperative on vetting cannot be met. This is consistent with your point that he could “allow a British banker or a German trader to come in.” It’s a mistake to jump to the conclusion that Larry is calling to stop all immigration, all tourism, all trade, yes, calling for autarky.
Larry’s problem is that he cleaves ever too willingly to his phobia about profiling Muslims, something even his pro-immigration lady guest suggests needs to be done.
More embarrassing than in New York? I would argue that we in New York have the absolute worst. ;)
I can tell you that the Paris attack had a big change upon my way of thinking. It made me realize that it is a big mistake to have large groups of Muslims in one’s country. I was a critic of Islam before, but the Paris attack and then quickly followed by the San Bernadino attack made me realize that we have to go to more extraordinary measures.
For the record, I’m not against all immigration. I do think Larry Kudlow’s proposal goes to too far by shutting down all immigration. I am against Islamic immigration. For obvious reasons.
Now it may be that the logistics of filtering out Muslim immigrants may be impossible, but I don’t know if that is true. Perhaps we have to limit immigration by specific countries – as we used to do – rather than stipulate a religious criteria.
Vetting via the Keystone Kops:
“Secret Policy Kept Social Media Out of Visa Vetting“
I think Larry extends it to all immigration because of political correctness. He’s afraid of being accused of religious profiling. That’s why his proposal is not necessarily the best but expresses clearly his deep and common-sense concerns about our highly reprehensible vetting mechanism in this time of war.
Kudlow needs to further refine his thinking but he is moving in the right direction. What’s unhinged are the responses from our PC cringing moderates, who rush to the wildest conclusions possible while missing the essence of what Kudlow’s saying and the nationally-shared alarm that undergirds it.