Immigration was a big issue then, as well. But its potential implications weren’t so obviously lethal in those days.
I’m caught between two extremes.
I strongly disagree with people who want to denounce Islam as wholly evil, to bar all Muslim immigration and even perhaps to deport all Muslims, who cannot admit to a single saving grace in the religion or the culture or grant to Muslims a single historical achievement. (The relatively large representation of such people among Trumpists was one of the many things that caused me to decide, already last year, that I could never support Mr. Donald J. Trump for the presidency even if he acquired the nomination of my then-party.)
On the other hand — contrary to common accusations (and, often, very mean-spirited ones) from the faction described above — I don’t view the contemporary Islamic world through rose-colored glasses. I’m quite aware of the dysfunctionality that blights many parts of the Muslim community, and I’m not at all opposed to carefully screening potential immigrants from areas where terrorism is rampant.
To put it in practical terms, I oppose any suggestion that Muslims, simply as such, should be barred from entry into the United States. That strikes me as profoundly unconstitutional and very counterproductive. But I would at least be open to considering proposals to temporarily bar or severely limit immigration from, say, Syria. And/or Iraq. And/or Pakistan. And so forth. And I’m not opposed to much more searching background checks on would-be immigrants and travelers in order to detect possible terrorist ties.
I’m more or less on the same page with David French, in this article:
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In