By David French
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
At 9:52 a.m. on Monday morning, a silver Honda jumped a
curb at Ohio State University and plowed directly into a crowd of students,
sending bodies flying through the air. As students rushed to help, a young
Somali immigrant, Abdul Razak Ali Ratan, got out of the car and began attacking
horrified students with a butcher knife. All told, eleven people were wounded
before a university police officer shot and killed Ratan, ending the attack.
Ratan is the third Muslim immigrant to mount a mass
stabbing attack in 2016. The first occurred at an Israeli-owned deli in
Columbus, Ohio, the second at a mall in Saint Cloud, Minn., and the third
Monday at Ohio State. The attacks together wounded 25 people. The latest
stabbing comes on the heels of Afghan immigrant Ahman Khan Rahami’s September
bomb attacks in New York and New Jersey that left 29 injured.
The toll continues. Muslim immigrants Tamerlan and Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev killed five Americans and wounded 280 in the Boston Marathon bombing
and subsequent shootouts. Muslim immigrant Muhammad Abdulazeez killed five men
and wounded two in attacks on military recruiting stations in Chattanooga,
Tenn. Muslim immigrant Tashfeen Malik accompanied her first-generation
Muslim-American husband to attack a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif.,
killing 14 and wounding 22. First generation Muslim-American Omar Mateen — son
of Afghan immigrants — carried out the deadliest domestic terror attack since
9/11, killing 49 and wounding 53 at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub.
And if you think these are the only terrorist immigrants
— or terrorist children of immigrants — you’re sadly mistaken. The Heritage
Foundation has maintained a comprehensive
database of terror plots since 9/11, a database that includes foiled
attacks. The number of Muslim immigrants involved is truly sobering. For every
successful attack, there are multiple unsuccessful plots, including attacks
that could have cost hundreds of American lives.
After all these incidents, can we finally have an honest
conversation about Muslim immigration — especially
Muslim immigration from jihadist conflict zones?
When we survey the American experience since 9/11, two
undeniable truths emerge, and it’s past time that we grapple head-on with them.
First, the vast majority of Muslim immigrants — no matter their country of
origin — are not terrorists. They won’t attack anyone, they won’t participate
in terrorist plots, and they abhor terrorism. Some even provide invaluable
information in the fight against jihad. That’s the good news.
The bad news is the second truth: Some Muslim immigrants
(or their children) will either attempt to commit mass murder or will actually
succeed in killing and wounding Americans by the dozens. All groups of
immigrants contain some number of criminals. But not all groups of immigrants
contain meaningful numbers of terrorists. This one does. It’s simply a fact.
Moreover, there isn’t an even geographic distribution of
terrorists. We don’t have as many terrorist immigrants from Indonesia, India,
or Malaysia as we do from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, or from the conflict
zones in the Middle East. It’s much less risky to bring into the country a
cardiologist from Jakarta than a refugee from Kandahar.
If the Democrats wish to maintain immigration from
jihadist conflict zones, they need to rid their rhetoric of the language of
“Islamophobia” and tell the truth. If they want to continue admitting refugees
from jihad zones, they need to make the case that meeting the humanitarian
needs of an an extremely small fraction of the world’s Muslim refugees is worth
the cost of importing a small number of mass murderers. They must make the case
that the human toll in America is the price we must pay for national
compassion. Of course no Democrat wants a terror attack to occur, but Democrats
must understand and acknowledge that under present policies, such attacks will occur — despite our best efforts to
stop them.
But I’d submit that America can show compassion without
opening its borders to an uncertain number of jihadist killers. We can maintain
and expand existing safe zones in the Middle East. We can project power to
continue to roll back ISIS and provide space for people to return to their
homes. We can implement new tests for immigrants and restrict immigration from
volatile regions. At the same time, we can avoid paranoia and appreciate the
peacefulness and patriotism of the vast majority of our existing Muslim
population.
The Trump administration has an opportunity to implement
a rational policy — one that rewards friends, preserves Muslim homes in the
Middle East, and protects our borders far more effectively than did the Obama
administration. In the 15 years of American engagement since 9/11, we have
worked with a host of interpreters, allied soldiers, and sympathetic officials
— many of whom have endured enormous risks to fight jihad. We should welcome
these people with open arms. Muslim immigrants from outside jihadist conflict
zones should be welcome as well, provided that they do not profess allegiance
to the ideology of our enemies.
During the Cold War, American law denied entry to the
United States to any alien who wrote, published, or advocated “the economic,
international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the
establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship.” We continue
to maintain an escalating series of ideological litmus tests for visa
recipients and green-card holders. We can and should expand those tests to deny
entry to any visitor or immigrant who advocates the doctrines or ideas of ISIS,
al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and any other recognized terrorist
organization — including by expressing support on social media for the goals,
theology, politics, or leadership of those organizations. Indeed, the list
should expand beyond known terrorists so that we’d exclude those who support
the doctrines or ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood or the Iranian Revolution.
Beyond this basic test, it is simply not in America’s
national interest to admit refugees, visitors, or other immigrants from zones of
jihadist activity unless they have a demonstrable record of loyalty to or
cooperation with the United States or its allies. When we know that our enemy
is seeking to infiltrate and indoctrinate these specific populations (and has
greatest access to these populations), the burden of proof for immigration or
entry should be squarely placed on the immigrant. If refugees need our aid, we
should aid them in the Middle East.
During the primary, Trump outlined a number of
immigration proposals, including proposals for “extreme vetting,” temporary
suspension of immigration from “dangerous and volatile” regions that have a
“history of exporting terrorism,” and establishing some form of additional
ideological litmus tests as a condition for entry. He has also advocated
establishing “safe zones” for Syrian refugees in Syria.
This is a promising start, but within weeks, he’ll have
to get specific. It will be his responsibility to maintain Muslim alliances,
protect America’s enormously profitable international tourist trade, and
maintain the free flow of commerce across international borders, all while
keeping out those men and women who seek to slaughter Americans in the streets.
With the exception of his overbroad and misguided proposed temporary Muslim
ban, Trump has been at his hard-headed best when it comes to understanding the
need for a nation to protect its borders. Monday’s events at Ohio State
demonstrate that it’s time to put his broad ideas into precise and effective
practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment