First, from Charles Krauthammer (in this case, in the Washington Post): “Why take the Trump stunt seriously?”
I decline to join the chorus denouncing the Trump proposal as offensive and un-American. That’s too obvious. What I can’t get over is its sheer absurdity. . . .
Dozens of others have already pointed out how strategically idiotic is Trump’s exclusion principle. Absent a renewed Christian crusade against radical Islam — with those fabulous Hollywood-wardrobe tunics — the war on terror will be won only in alliance with moderate Muslims. Declaring them anathema is not the best beginning to coalition-building.
To take but the most obvious example: Our closest and most effective allies on the ground in the Middle East are the Kurds. Trump would turn them back at the Orlando airport. No Disney World for them. Or does he not know that they are Muslim?
It is embarrassing even to embark on such arguments. To treat “no Muslims allowed” as a serious idea is to give credit to what is little more than a clever stunt by a man who saw Ted Cruz beating him for the first time in the Iowa Monmouth poll and five hours later decided it was time to seize the stage again.
From David Frum at The Atlantic: “America’s Immigration Challenge”, for which there is no simple quote I can cull to represent the key argument in the piece; go read the whole thing. It’s very data heavy, arguing that we shouldn’t let American notions of welcoming the stranger blind us to the fact that our immigrants are largely uneducated, and not able to engage in the self-improvement that we romanticize as a part of the Immigrant Story based on our stories of our grandparents and great-grandparents. Somali refugees, and their relatives brought in by chain migration, came from cultures in which education didn’t exist, and, both here and in Europe, they are far more likely to be unemployed and welfare-dependent than the population at large. Syrian refugees, again, much as their advocates claim they’re highly-educated, aren’t, for the most part: “In 2010, the average Syrian had less than six years of schooling, less even than Egypt, according to the UN Development Index. Women were systematically subordinated: Only a quarter of Syrian women completed secondary education; only 13 percent participated in the workforce.” From doesn’t make a blanket statement of “no immigration” but his bottom line is really that we should be clear-eyed about the impact of these policies.
And a third piece, by David French at the National Review, “The Hidden Reason Why Americans Dislike Islam”, from an author who was in Iraq himself:
I wonder if the media is missing a powerful, largely-uncovered influence on America’s hearts and minds — the experience and testimony of the more than two million Americans who’ve served overseas since 9/11 and have experienced Islamic cultures up-close.
Yes, they were in the middle of a war — but speaking from my own experience — the war was conducted from within a culture that was shockingly broken. I expected the jihadists to be evil, but even I couldn’t fathom the depths of their depravity. And it was all occurring against the backdrop of a brutally violent and intolerant culture. Women were beaten almost as an afterthought, there was a near-total lack of empathy for even friends and neighbors, lying was endemic, and sexual abuse was rampant. Even more disturbingly, it seemed that every problem was exacerbated the more religious and pious a person (or village) became. . . .
Two million Americans have been downrange, and they’ve come home and told families and friends stories the media rarely tells.
So since I don’t have anything to offer this morning, I invite you to read these and tell me what you think.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In