The Jewish Community and Immigration Policy
It is long past time to end the debate. It is time to stop entertaining the idea that merely addressing disenfranchisement, root causes, and entering into dialogue alone will safeguard this nation generally or our community specifically from domestic terrorism sufficiently. It will not.
It is time for the mainstream Jewish community in its entirety to back a moratorium on immigration from those nations where either the leadership or the population is hostile both to this country and to our community.Â
Obviously, dissidents should be exempted, and certainly there are other categorical exceptions as well that need to be considered, and more still on a case by case basis.
When it comes to terrorism, no one is saying “most.”
It is a very small percentage of Muslims that directly cause quite a bit of mayhem. But even if the percentage stays at the same very low percentage, more domestic Muslims equals more domestic terrorists and hate criminals.
It is a cruel numbers game. It is in our interest to preempt an increase in their numbers here through immigration.
It’s nothing personal.Â
It’s just war.
I don’t understand this post. The man responsible for the attack in Seattle was born in the United States – he wasn’t an immigrant.
Rebecca, why let facts get in the way?
Rebecca and Matt,
Many Muslims who commit terrorist acts in the West were born there. That is correct.
Do you both need me to explain how decreasing immigration would prevent an increase in their numbers as well, or can you figure that one out on your own?
Well, David, I’m glad that your goals for maintaining religious purity take a long-term view. Shall we also ban conversions to Islam in the US? It’s just a matter of numbers–that would meke for fewer Muslims. Shoud we stop the building of mosques? Fewer places for that small percentage to gather. It’s just war, after all.
But don’t worry if people like me disagree. I’m sure you’ll find good company among that those who are leading the charge to restrict immigration. I mean, no one would ever go from wanting to keep Muslims out to wanting to keep Jews out, would they? Why shouldn’t Jews align ourselves with those who frame their arguments in the language of preserving the US’s Anglo-Protestant character.
Your first paragraph was filled with nothing but straw man nonsense, and I will not dignifiy it with a serious retort.
Your second paragraph is more interesting and serious. I would say that I not only worried about those who hate me in their hearts but also with those who are actively tryng to blow my shit up. I don’t care what horrible person or group might agree with me in some way on some specific issue.
I was born and raised in France, I am used to this, a synagogue burned here, swatzstikas in cemetaries, this guy who was mugged off down the street…When I heard what happened in Seattle I thought it is just like what happens in France, YKH (You know who) are all over the place, just like in France, and violence will raise as long as they grow in number…just like in France!
Thanks for this post, David. It gives me the opportunity to recount a riveting interchange I had this morning, at a convenience store.
I had noticed the front page of the newspaper, showing Bush’s mouth full of Blair, or something similar, and I made a remark to the clerk. Immediately, I looked over my shoulder and then apologized to him: “I shouldn’t talk politics to you; you’re an immigrant…”. I didn’t get a chance to say, “I don’t want to get you deported,” when he smiled broadly, and said:
“Thanks ok. I’m Indian. I think they should kill their children. Before they grow up to be terrorists. ‘All’s fair in love and war!.'”
When I told him he was speaking neither, but, rather, fascism, he was very confused.
I didn’t have the heart to tell him that few people could distinguish him from those whose children he would like to see murdered.
Where DOES one draw the line?
Wow, i seriously can’t believe that a post like this is on Jewschool. This is really sick and disgusting racism.
Matt Borus’ point about restricting Muslim conversions may be an extension of the argument to absurdity, but is, in fact, no more groundless than the argument it satirizes. What bothers me most about the post is that Kelsey is playing it coy; there’s not a damn thing cute about suggesting the incorporation of formal religious discrimination into U.S. law, or flushing its 200-year-old tradition of religious tolerance down the toilet. Accordingly, if you’re going to make such an argument, the least you can do is. . . make the argument.
Obviously, dissidents should be exempted, and certainly there are other categorical exceptions as well that need to be considered, and more still on a case by case basis.
Gibberish. After these exemptions and qualifications, what you’re left with is an impotent policy that says “Islam sucks, Muslims are born terrorists, and we don’t want any in the United States.†If that gives you a big hard-on, fine. If it’s intended as more, then you damn well better describe who the hell “You Know Who†is. Muslims born in Canada? Turkey? Muslims of every race and ethnicity? What about the throngs of grateful allies we “liberated†in Afghanistan and Iraq? I assume the members of the royal families of Saudi Arabia attending Harvard and Princeton are still fine, right? And how about nationality? I guess we tell India and France and Indonesia their that only certain of their citizens are eligible for immigration, and that they need to start recording their citizens’ religion on their passports. But that’s no problem, because American Jews will have no objection to including religion on our passports, right? And, of course, it’s only Palestinian Muslims we’re worried about, right, just like those from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon; Arab Christians, on the other hand, are free to come and go.
All in all, the more you look at the plan, the more preposterous it appears.
Having come to Jewschool after spending some time earlier at Atlas Shrugs, LGF and FreeRepublic (call it political masochism), I was suprised to see the title of this post. I read through it, waiting in vain for the punchline. Matt Borus, miriam and david smith provided refreshingly levelheaded commentary.
I say, let them all migrate, the less muslims near Israel the better.
David Smith,
Have a general ban against countries that have produced terrorism and terrorists for ideological reasons, and then have all the exceptions. That way the ban isn’t according to religion, but against a nation.
David Smith said everything I would have wanted to say. This is really indefensible. By that I mean simply – incapable of being rationally defended.
Kelsey wrote: “Have a general ban against countries that have produced terrorism and terrorists for ideological reasons”
Wouldn’t that mean no more Irish immigration?
John Brown,
No. Domestic terrorism only.
John Brown, what these nazis mean by ‘terrorism’ is simply ‘violence that we don’t approve’.
Really, monkies are more intelligent that some of your rightwing partisans.
I would trust chimps close to the nuke buttons more than I would Bush and Olmert.
Why shouldn’t arabs organize to do the same to Israelis? Military action clearly kills more innocents than terror.
David ain’t a nazi but he ain’t thinkin either. Neither is mobius. The kidnapping of a couple of soldiers was in no way a green light to do this. Israel has kidnapped thousands of hizbollah partisans.
Well, David’s comments about not furthering the insanity by discrimination against people of Muslim faith are spot on. Have some of you people forgot Euro-anti-Semitism?
Believe me when I say that some grandfathers and grandmothers, if they could rise from the grave, would smack you upside the head until you renounced your rightwing racism.
The spirit of the people resisting the Nazis lives on in the hearts of people fighting US and Isreali lead oppression in the ME and around the world.
Well, DK, at least you’re being overt about views you’ve expressed in a slightly more muted way in other posts. And as Jewschool is regularly playing host to your alarmist, right-wing rants, I don’t see how it can be categorized as a ‘progressive’ blog. I’ll be going elsewhere from now on as, I suspect, will quite a lot of other people alarmed by this nonsense.
So we start out restricting immigration from “terrorism-prone nations” (Muslim nations).
Then we reduce our risk of being hit by… 20%? 33? 50? Maybe a lot, but not 100, of course.
But still, at some point, when everything seems safe, there’s another attack. There’s a bombing, maybe, or a shooting. Some McVeigh-type, only Muslim, engaging in a battle against the western decadence he’s grown up with. (“How can we text each other while driving our SUVs and sipping Starbucks when people in the Middle East can’t even make enough to eat?!”) Or perhaps it’s even in retaliation for the perceived anti-Muslim sentiment motivating this sweeping legislation?
And we know what we have to do next, don’t we? We reduced the risk — but not enough. More measures must be taken!
Well, if we could just distinguish potential terrorists on the street, it would be a lot easier for everybody, wouldn’t it? The police, the military, even everyday citizens — if we knew where to look, we’d know to exercise just a little more caution.
That’s it! We could give them something to wear, so we would know! Something small, not too obtrusive, but unmistakeable. It’s so hard to tell, sometimes; I mean, who can tell by sight? A Pakistani, or an Indonesian — could you tell simply by looking? But if he had a little something — maybe a little crescent?
Yes.
Yes, that would make all the difference. Maybe they’d even wear them with pride!
And we would know which businesses not to patronize, so we didn’t risk supporting terrorism.
And we would know who not to hire, so we didn’t inadverently supply a company car with which to commit an act of terrorism.
And we would know which neighborhoods to move out of, to keep our children safe from being used as hostages, or from knowing that somewhere, someone on the very same street we lived on, was plotting to blow up mommy and daddy.
And we would know, when the economy took a downturn, or something came up missing, or a child got sicker after being in the care of a physician of unknown heritage…
We would know the cause.
We would recognize the symptoms, and we could diagnose the disease as easily as the chicken pox.
And we would know the cure.
For us — for the whole world — to be safe, we would know what had to be done.
And we might even do it.
And that is why I’m apalled right now.
Wow! I find your post utterly disgusting. I’ve read your posts for about a year now and this one takes the cake.
“Have a general ban against countries that have produced terrorism and terrorists for ideological reasons, ”
nu, would this include the country that produced baruch goldstein? eden natan zada?
Gee, I don’t check this thread for a few days, and now there are 24 responses. Cool.
In response to my comment, which in #4 on this thread, DK wrote: Your first paragraph was filled with nothing but straw man nonsense, and I will not dignifiy it with a serious retort. I must say, given that you’re proposing a moratorium on Muslim immigration, that I wish that my proposals were nonsense. But were they much more absurd than yours? The prevention of conversions was a few steps up, but preventing the building of mosques? There’s plenty of precedent for that–heck, some folks are trying to do it right now in Boston. And honestly, a moratorium on Muslim immigration (even with exceptions for dissenters, however that would be determined and administered) could easily be seen as “man nonsense” in another discussion. I wouldn’t have dignified it with a retort if you hadn’t granted it your podium on JewSchool.
Your second paragraph is more interesting and serious. I would say that I not only worried about those who hate me in their hearts but also with those who are actively tryng to blow my shit up. I don’t care what horrible person or group might agree with me in some way on some specific issue.
Well, I could comment on the fact that some of those on the anti-immigrant right would be more than happy to blow your shit up. But they’re a fringe of the larger right wing (albeit a dangerous one). More disturbing to me is that with this call, you’re not simply agreeing with some horrible people or groups, but actively boosting them, giving them a legitimacy that they otherwise lack. And that’s dangerous to many of us, including Jews.
You also said, That way the ban isn’t according to religion, but against a nation.
Gotta tell you, when you headline your post with “ending immigration for you-know-who” and refer to “more domestic Muslims” as a threat, it’s pretty clear that this aiin’t about nations.
Dang–I must not have closed an html tag above somewhere (though I thought I did)
Well, unclosed html tag or not, thanks for calling DK on his alarming bullshit.
Thanks, htrouser.