Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The title of this post was the argument I encountered recently in an online discussion. The people who were making this proposal were not lunatics. They were law-abiding citizens who had a modicum of understanding of Islam. And they were dead serious.
We live, and for several years have lived, in a time when radical Islam is showing up all over the world. Although I personally believe there are law-abiding Constitutionalists among the Muslim population in the U.S., I am concerned that many Americans believe that any Muslim is a potential terrorist. Here are the kinds of remarks that were made in the discussion:
. . . The only thing a country can do is arm their populace, eliminate Muslims from coming in, deport those who are already in, and pray. . .
. . . Islam cannot be called a ‘religion’ anymore. By calling it a ‘religion,’ it gains the protected status that free societies enjoy.
. . . Islam is a Theocracy. The religion part is just its beard. Use that word exclusively to describe it. Theocracy is strictly prohibited by the US Constitution, ergo, Islam is strictly prohibited by the US Constitution.
. . . How do you respond to a group of fanatical people who are not afraid to die when trying to kill you?
When I asked people if they were prepared to deport all Muslims, even those who already had reputations as good Americans (M. Zuhdi Jasser comes to mind), a few noted the rule of taqqiya; this tenet allows people to lie to protect Islam. So, the suggestion was made that if people seemed to support America, it would be difficult to know whether they are telling the truth. Also, for those Muslims who are law-abiding, how do we know whether or not they will eventually succumb to the radical Islamist doctrine?
Also, there’s a controversy over whether deporting naturalized citizens is permitted here:
Amelia Wilson, assistant professor of law and director of the Immigration Justice Clinic, told Newsweek that the president does not have the authority to revoke citizenship on their own. Denaturalization can happen only through a court order, and the individual affected must be afforded full due process. [snip] ‘Under current U.S. law, the only lawful mechanism for revoking citizenship from naturalized citizens, known as denaturalization, is if it was unlawfully obtained—typically through fraud, willful misrepresentation or concealment of disqualifying facts during the immigration or naturalization process. Criminal convictions occurring after naturalization, by themselves, generally do not provide legal grounds for revocation,’ Wilson said.
How difficult do you think it would be to meet any of these criteria, or to even change the law?
In this country, I can foresee a ban on Muslims entering our country. But I can’t imagine trying to remove all the Muslims who are already here.
What do you think?
Discussion (200)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I’m a first amendment fan, but I agree with the need to remove Islam from American life. Has Europe’s example taught us nothing?
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
They've been expelled from the West previously.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
By the terms of their ideology they cannot attest to the US citizenship oath.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
What about native-born Muslim citizens? What about the homegrown Nation of Islam?
And how do you define Muslim? Do you base it on mosque attendance? Prayer habits? What if someone is born Muslim but no long practices the faith? What if someone converts to Islam but doesn't tell anybody? Are we going to read people's minds somehow to find out what they believe, and then expel them based on that?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Technically, Sharia gets in the way.
You're seeing five of 200 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.