November 18, 2015

McCain vs. Cruz on the question whether the U.S. should give priority to Christian refugees.

Cruz: "There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror... If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation."

McCain:  "I don’t think any child, whether they are Christian or whether they are atheist or whether they are Buddhist, that we should make a distinction. My belief is that all children are God’s children."

I'll say 10 things:

1. If seeming to be a Christian puts you on a fast track, wouldn't the most devious people pose as Christian?

2. What test would you perform to determine who is Christian... and do you like the idea of the United States government administering religious tests?

3. Yes, there's a "religious test" clause in the Constitution.  It says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Immigrants are not qualifying for an office or public trust. The religion clauses of the First Amendment are more apt.

4. But quite aside from the constitutional provisions, there is a strong and worthy culture in America that rejects discrimination based on religion. Don't screw it up! Yes, you'd like to filter out the people who would like to screw up that culture for us, but don't become the very thing you rightly hate.

5. McCain's statement is hedged. Maybe I don't have his complete statement here, but if he's only talking about young children, then, sure, they're children. It's easy to say let the children come to us, especially if, by children, you mean very young children.

6. Young children can be assimilated and taught anything, but should a child be raised in a religion that was not his parents' religion? Your answer to that question is religious, and his parents' might have (or have had) a different answer.

7. McCain said that atheist children are God's children. That makes perfect sense. It's not something that an atheist could believe — unless you've got a free-wheeling atheist who uses expressions like "God's children" figuratively — but it's a coherent thing for McCain to believe.

8. Does McCain think we are all God's children or only that all children are God's children? If we are all God's children, does McCain want no distinctions based on religion for anyone seeking access to the United States?

9. McCain puts his opinion in the form of a religious statement, referring to his "belief" and mentioning God. You might think that legal or political ideas should predominate here, but if religion is what guides the policy choice, then what is the best religious answer?

10. Is Cruz proposing anything more than that religion be considered as one of the factors as we look at the whole person and make a decision? If not, this is a lot of political posturing and I'm not convinced there's any real disagreement at bottom.

163 comments:

Larry J said...

There have been reports for months that ISIS is murdering large numbers of Middle Eastern Christians. They're being actively targeted, much like the Jews in your SS Saint Louis post yesterday. That alone should give them some priority.

Grackle said...

Do you deny that the Islamic State is SPECIFICALLY targeting Christians? That would make them the logical refugees, now wouldn't it? Do you have a problem with the notion of Christian refugees? We gave priority to Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union for years, and it is well-established that Jews were over-represented in the creation of the Soviet Union. There is a time to be sophisticated and a time for common sense. How many Americans WANT a bunch more Muslims? Do we get a say?

False Grackle

Nichevo said...

Ann, could you please categorize the refugees for us? I'm sure I could get it at Belmont Club or someplace with a man blogging, but I'm interested to see your grasp of the breakdown of who is on the move.

gspencer said...

"If seeming to be a Christian puts you on a fast track, wouldn't the most devious people pose as Christian?"

If proper vetting were in place, ascertaining a person's background through a quizzing interview would quickly reveal the fraud. The Israelis are pros in asking simple questions as part of their protocol for anyone approaching their airports.

It can be done.

AprilApple said...

I'm sure an Islamic radical would have no problem pretending to be a Christian in order to get in.

Jane the Actuary said...

There are two grounds for providing preferential treatment for Christians.

The first is, as Cruz states, the fact that there is no risk of these individuals being ISIS-affiliated.

The second is that Christians, and other religious minorities, are at particular risk. They are much less likely to be successfully resettled elsewhere in the Islamic world, are at risk of mistreatment even in refugee camps, and, even should this all be resolved with a return of refugees to their homes, they are unlikely to be able to return, as Syria, Iraq, and other such places in general have become intolerant of Christians. (In fact, there exists a concern already that Christians are less likely to be selected for resettlement because they feel they cannot live safely in refugee camps, so they are not officially recognized as "refugees" by the UN.)

Are Mulsims likely to pretend to be Christians? Not likely. It's not as simple as checking a box on a form. Christians are clearly identifiable in their religious practice. Given the length of the process to be resettled formally (as opposed to the method of just demanding resettlement by crossing the necessary borders yourself), it's foolish to think that hordes of Muslims in refugee camps will just change their official status while continuing to pray 5x per day towards Mecca. Unless we consider our bureaucracy to be so incompetent as to fail to pay attention to this.

Original Mike said...

Oh, for crying out loud. How complicated is "keep the killers out"?

tim maguire said...

Americans generally reject guilt by association. I would like us to keep doing that. I have no problem with tightening up refugee intake processes, I have no problem with flagging people based on characteristics that make sense, but actually punishing people based on anything other than the behavior of that person is not ok.

Anglelyne said...

4. But quite aside from the constitutional provisions, there is a strong and worthy culture in America that rejects discrimination based on religion. Don't screw it up! Yes, you'd like to filter out the people who would like to screw up that culture for us, but don't become the very thing you rightly hate.

Behold the twilight of liberalism, in all its mindless glory.

PB said...

The Obama administration cares little about results, only PR posturing. There needs to be screening and tracking for a period of years. Requiring refugees and non-citizen immigrants to report their whereabouts should be a minimum. If you have to file a change of address for your driver's license or for voting, refugees and non-citizen immigrants should be similarly required to file a change of address. For refugees and non-citizen immigrants, failure to so so should carry penalties, even deportation.

who-knew said...

What Larry J. and Grackle said. Given the genocide that the middle eastern Christians are facing, giving them priority makes sense. But the refugees in general here are very problematic, given that ISIS has publicly proclaimed their intention to hide terrorists in the mass of people fleeing to the west. I have no faith in the administrations ability or willingness to properly vet them before allowing them into our country.

AprilApple said...

Unless we consider our bureaucracy to be so incompetent as to fail to pay attention to this.

That's where I land.

Paco Wové said...

I have no problem becoming a thing that is highly selective about who gets into this country. None, zip, nada.

Brando said...

Cruz's distinction is idiotic, and cheap pandering to the base. Yet another reason why such a person could never win the general election--his focus is entirely on the hard right and has a low ceiling.

ALL refugees coming from a region where terrorists are trying to infiltrate them should be suspect, regardless of religion. Does anyone think for a minute that an ISIS agent is going to actually tell the DHS officials "yep, I'm hard core Islamist...when can I hit the streets of NYC?"? I'm all for security precautions, and not letting anyone run free here until we have some way of verifying they aren't ISIS agents (and if there is no way of verifying, find somewhere else for them--we're not the only country in the world who can take people) but anyone who opens a blind spot to "Christians" is just as stupid as the people saying "let them all in, no questions asked".

AprilApple said...

Did McCain forget to mention that Christians are being slaughtered wholesale in what amounts to genocidal religious cleansing?

Ann Althouse said...

Note to the commenter I deleted: Do not add blank space around the text of your comment. It's okay to have paragraph breaks but beyond that, trying to add emphasis this way is not acceptable, especially as the first comment. You can make the same point again if you like.

Bob R said...

This is not about a general religious test. This is about SYRIANS. The Christian minority (and other religious minorities) in Syria have been mercilessly persecuted. The point about impostors is valid, but it might be easy to find them out. How tight are the various religious minorities? Can they vouch for each other?

Brando said...

"Given the genocide that the middle eastern Christians are facing, giving them priority makes sense. But the refugees in general here are very problematic, given that ISIS has publicly proclaimed their intention to hide terrorists in the mass of people fleeing to the west. I have no faith in the administrations ability or willingness to properly vet them before allowing them into our country."

I agree, but many Muslim groups have been targeted just as cruelly by these fanatics. I'm all for getting them out of danger, but we need some assurances (beyond "trust me") before anyone is let loose here.

There's no way to tell which of these people coming in is Muslim and which are Christian--even a dangerous Islamic fanatic would be willing to do a shot of whiskey and eat a bacon sandwich if it means serving his deadly mission (or at least I don't want to count on that NOT being the case). I'm not sure how we can split out the innocent from the terrorists, but until we find a way this is a security risk.

n.n said...

Our liberal society is constructed on tests used to selectively exclude people and even life. In fact, quasi-religious/moral and ideological tests are integral features of the progressive liberal state and culture. It's not surprising that class diversity schemes would be used to facilitate marginalizing American institutions, culture, and people... and competing interests. The liberal society has a notable anti-native outlook as the left pursues establishment of monopolies.

That said, what ever happened to the American left which placed homogeneity and people first?

The competition for the moral high ground must have been brutal. Today, it's all pro-choice quasi-religious, from equivalence to congruence to murder.

exhelodrvr1 said...

A little common sense is in order here. We absolutely should be profiling. Religion is one aspect of the profile - that doesn't mean to not allow any Muslims, or to allow all Christians.

Jason said...

If number one is a concern, we shouldn't let ANYBODY in over the age of 12.

Ann Althouse said...

Obviously, risk is a factor, both the risk to the person staying home and the risk to Americans if the person is admitted.

But I heard a number of GOP presidential candidates emphasizing creating a safe haven within the Syrian territory. Protecting people at risk doesn't necessarily have to take place here.

Anglelyne said...

And just for the record, our great-grands had a "strong and worthy" culture that made no bones about discriminating out the wazoo when it came to keeping out immigrants they thought were a bad fit with their culture.

David Begley said...

There was a reason McCain lost. He is not a clear thinker on many issues.
Right now we can't risk this refugee migration. Too risky.

And this whole refugee crisis was created by Obama. He drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing. He didn't create a no-fly safe zone in Syria.

Every day Obama's plain incompetence becomes more obvious.
And, of course, Hillary would be more of the same. If she wouldn't be napping in the Oval, she'd get confused about Sunni v. Shia.

Hagar said...

This particular bunch of persecutors would have a problem posing as Christians. They are fundamentalist Moslems, remember?

Anyway, this is about a government program to accept refugees, so it is going to be FUBARred from the start, and anyone entering into it is going to be enmeshed in years of paperwork.

The jihadists are not going to bother. It is much easier to just waltz in illegally.

chickelit said...

More children for us means more young males for Europe.

I sincerely doubt McCain's sincerity regarding "it's just children."

Althouse, didn't you reject McCain's judgement in 2008 in favor of Obama? You appear to be favoring McCain now -- is that because he aligns with Obama?

Tank said...


Ann Althouse said...

Obviously, risk is a factor, both the risk to the person staying home and the risk to Americans if the person is admitted.

But I heard a number of GOP presidential candidates emphasizing creating a safe haven within the Syrian territory. Protecting people at risk doesn't necessarily have to take place here.


The obvious answer. If help is truly needed, don't do it here.

The concept that the Zero, Kerry, Vagina, Rice administration is going to competently vet these Syrians (and other invaders) is a joke, and a bad one.

Unknown said...

Moderate Muslims who look the other way when a radical commits terror is guilty too. Period. Part of the conspiracy even silent conspiracy.

This is is so logical it is almost certain to costs the democrats the White House if no change

Anglelyne said...

David Begley: There was a reason McCain lost. He is not a clear thinker on many issues.

To put it charitably.

sean said...

The commenters raise a good point. I don't recall Prof. Althouse, or any professor anywhere, complaining about American efforts on behalf of Soviet Jews. It's only Christians that raise professorial hackles. Why is that?

Bay Area Guy said...

Cruz is right; McCain is fuzzy.

Keeping the bad guys out is paramount. In this conflict, the bad guys are Radical Muslims. To do this properly, some good Muslims won't get in. Most normal people understand that "war is hell" and this is an unfortunate component of war.

On the flip side, allowing the good guys and/or victims to come in is not of primary importance, but merits some serious consideration. In the Middle East, Christians aren't the problem. They are more likely to be the ones attacked. So, Yes, giving them special consideration isn't a bad thing.

AllenS said...

It was meant to be a separate paragraph.

Providing the blank space is the only way to make a separate paragraph.

You didn't like the link.

Did you?

Derp said...

but don't become the very thing you rightly hate.

Given that there is no God, sometimes we are presented with situations for which there is no perfect answer. Muslims don't assimilate as a rule. That's a fact. Look at all of the terrorists in Paris, only one of them is fresh off the boat. The rest of them were European "nationals" of some sort or other.

So your argument is rhetorical, basically. Rhetoric is words that sound like logic, but aren't. So the best way to avoid becoming the thing we hate is to minimize our infection with those members of the insane cult who can't get along with any of the other religions, and who cause trouble to the Hindus, the Chinese, The Christians in Russia, the Jews, yada, yada, yada.

How much evidence does it take to overcome a rhetorical argument? But we are back to yesterday. Even if a fact is true, there is the motive for bringing it up, and the only motive for bringing up the fact that Muslims cause trouble wherever they go is RACISM! Don't be a racist! Well, to paraphrase a wise man, The Englightenment is not a suicide pact.

Blue Ox said...

"What test would you perform to determine who is Christian"

So the same government that is to be entrusted with "fully vetting" the backgrounds of these people "at the highest level possible!" to ensure our safety, cannot be expected to determine someone's religious affiliation 'cause that'd be too hard?

How reassuring.

AprilApple said...

I'm still waiting for the Democrat party and their Media to explain what our vetting process is beyond rhetoric and promises.

Please explain what "fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way." means. How?

Right now, the heads of our intelligence agencies are saying we don't have a reliable system or a database.

ndspinelli said...

In case you're new. Mrs. Althouse HATES religion and thinks religious people are buffoons. All posts about religion on this blog should be seen in that context.

The Syrian refugee problem can be simplified, and the religion of the person is not the criteria. Admit ALL females, and all men under age 12 and over age 55.

David said...

The way to protect people in Syria is to defeat ISIS on the ground there. That is not our policy. Now our policy is to get a cease fire. Calling it that is more palatable than saying we have decided to support retaining Assad in power. Then we decide to do something about ISIS.

Kerry says some "solution" is coming "within few weeks." How the hell can he know that?

Monkeyboy said...

So the vaunted vetting process can tell who is a terrorist but can't tell who is a Christian? How about talking to them in Aramaic?

There are areas of Syria that have been Christian since the first century like Maaloula that are being cleansed. If they aren't refugees from genocide then no one fits the criteria.

I was a fan of a southern no-fly zone two years ago, but I doubt our "allies" the Russians and the Iranians would allow it now.

n.n said...

There isn't a refugee crisis. There is a progressive social justice-fostered humanitarian disaster. Instead of leaving millions of people and a wasteland behind, or shifting the problem globally, we should follow Russia's lead, protect the people in their communities, and confront the enemy on the ground. Iraq was a successful military and diplomatic model for confronting and restructuring a fractionated nation.

Derp said...

Let's raise a glass to those three sailors brave and true who prevented McCain from finishing at the bottom of his class at Annapolis!

Mac McConnell said...

Middle Eastern countries don't want the refugees because they are destabilizing and dangerous, why should we.

CStanley said...

I think the opportunity for infiltration is too great either way. How does the applicant prove that he or she is Christian?

Cruz has a habit of throwing these ideas out there, which have emotional appeal but on closer inspection make no sense. Another example was after the CNBC debate he started saying that the GOP primary debates should only be moderated by people who vote in GOP primaries. Megyn Kelly pointed out to him that this meant someone would have to delve into the voting records of the journalists, and asked him who would be responsible for that, and he quickly changed the subject.

I know he's supposed to be brilliant, so I have to assume he knows better but wants to shore up his base.

AllenS said...

"If you like your security, you can keep your security." -- BO

Does anyone trust this guy?

Terry said...

Obama loses me when he starts to lecture on what are and what are not American values.
Did he learn those values in Hawaii or Indonesia?
We drop atom bombs on cities full of people, fer Christ's sake.

Original Mike said...

"I'm still waiting for the Democrat party and their Media to explain what our vetting process is beyond rhetoric and promises."

Apparently, it's classified.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

This is a poorly reasoned argument from Althouse that seems to start from her conclusion (#4) and works backwards looking for justification.

There already is provision in the asylum laws for persecuted groups- of which Christians in the Middle East are in ways Muslims are not.

#2 is silly in the sense that the US Immigration service *already* tests the veracity of people's claims for asylum. Asylum seekers already make claims about their identity, backgrounds and circumstances then the government workers (otherwise why are they eating out of our sustenance?) validate the information.

Seeing as Christian churches keep baptismal records, wedding records, have a system of God parents, have communities that know each other, its not like there is no possible way check the claims of being a Christian adherent. "What town are you from? what church? Oh St. Cyprian... we have people from that parish and they dont seem to know a Salah Abdeslam"

Todd said...

Two items:

1) Despite what progressives (and the current President) would like everyone to believe, coming to America is a privilege, not a universal right. WE get to decide whom to let into this country and whom not to. Has been that way for years with our older (abet not perfect) immigration system. The country has been choosing who to let in and who not to already on numerous conditions like high skills, persecuted persons, etc.

2) Those very same people that are yelling against this, would we be having this very same discussion during WWII if the peoples we were planning to grant access to "in mass" were Japaneses or Nazis? We ARE at war with these terrorists. It does NOT make any sense to import large groups of peoples that we have no way to vet. As we can not verify that these folks are NOT terrorists, we should NOT be shipping more in. We should be shutting down the boarders and shipping the current crop of illegals OUT not only because there could be terrorists in the mix but because they are already breaking the law. They are here illegally. We should adopt Mexico's illegal immigration policies...

traditionalguy said...

The crafty Arab Caravan Raiders lead by Mohammed mixed a copied Religion that claimed it replaced the Judeo-Christianity it copied with an Art of War Theology that always put the scare into rich merchant slaughter victims.

Nothing has changed.

Mohammed's converts are taught their Duty to god is to raid wherever and whomever has loot, especially Nordic blonde women they use and then sell as slaves.

Comparing that group to sincere Christian worshipers from the birth place of Christianity as if there is any shred of similarity is deliberate deception. If not, then why does the Obama Administration send them all to GOP red states but avoids any blue state coastal enclaves where the NYT's ruling elite readership lives in security.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

#4- You have to let murderers into your country to kill you and your family, Americans, otherwise you are bad people.

Democrat party progressives, who consider republicans their enemies, want to admit thousands of people whose culture is fundamentally in opposition to American values, and who have proven just in the last 72 hours the reckless, irresponsible, and murderous folly of that very decision by an ally now being attacked in the streets. Because it's for the children.

Why any American would ever support the democrat party is a question only Freud could answer.

Laslo Spatula said...

What will the Syrians who arrive be doing in five years?

Working in good jobs and assimilating into our culture?

Storehoused on Welfare and growing embittered and resentful?

Judging from France's success with Muslim immigrants should we start building our own banlieues?

I am Laslo.

TreeJoe said...

It's funny - we will allow and accelerate immigration for people who are from rich families in, who are "highly educated" with "advanced degrees" over those of lower socioeconomic background.

And that's considered acceptable and responsible.

But you make the observance that a particular tribe of people (Not race; this is not ethnicity focused) has been particularly focused on practicing a culture and forcing a set of beliefs that is not widely accepted - beliefs about women being lesser, homosexuals needing to be killed, etc. etc.

And you say, "hey, maybe we should put really tight strictures on people coming into our country who say they practice those beliefs".

And suddenly that's not acceptable, compared to rejecting people because they didn't get a bachelors degree.

Derp said...

Obama Administration send them all to GOP red states but avoids any blue state coastal enclaves where the NYT's ruling elite readership lives in security.

Oh the welfare magnets as Former Mass Governor William Weld called them, will quickly draw Muslims to the blue states. No need to worry there.

Basil said...

So, during the Holocaust we should have tried to take in as many Germans and Poles as possible, without imposing any religious tests?????

Professor, maybe its time to retire from your professorship and get into the real world. The one Ted Cruz lives in.

Life is not a four factor Supreme Court test invented to avoid the policy implications of clear language. You are turning into John Roberts.

It is the Muslim religion that, in its basic tenants, says that it expands by conquest and that non-Muslims are either second class persons or must be killed.
I wish this was not so, but it is.

The belief system is just so incompatible as to require geographic separation, at least until Islam rejects the concepts of infidel, sharia and dhimmitude.

Bay Area Guy said...


Here's the names of the Paris suspects, most of whom are dead:

Salah Abdeslam, 26 - urgently sought by police
Brahim Abdeslam, 31 - named as attacker who died near Bataclan concert hall
Omar Ismail Mostefai, 29, from near Paris - died in attack on Bataclan
Bilal Hadfi, 20 - named as attacker who died at Stade de France
Ahmad al-Mohammad, 25, from Idlib, Syria - died at Stade de France (unverified)
Samy Amimour, 28, from near Paris - suicide bomber at Bataclan

Any common threads, other than young, male, Arab? (Sarcasm off)

Browndog said...

ISIS sympathizer or active jihadist: You betcha. We can do that.

Christian or muslim: HUH? How in the hell are we supposed to figure that one out?!?

AReasonableMan said...

Althouse said ...
2. What test would you perform to determine who is Christian... ?



Kill them and see if they go to heaven.

AprilApple said...

We are all forced to admit our petulant child of a president, who adores Islam and falls all over himself to glorify it, and despises and ridicules Christianity at every turn - is himself a Christian - and if we do not - shame be upon you...So Sayeth his media. Amen.

Meanwhile, does anyone care about the wholesale destruction of Christians in the ME and Africa?

Derp said...

I would feel better about it if I thought for a minute they were "coming to take our jobs" but as we see in Europe, they are looking for the best "salary" as one of them called welfare benefits.


Kill them and see if they go to heaven

That sounds very "reasonable."

Levi Starks said...

Nice discussion.
Please ask yourself this question: where in this world are Christian refugees fleeing Christian oppression in Christian nations, seeking safety and refuge in Muslim dominated nations?

AprilApple said...

ARM hates Christians. Like a good boy leftist. attaboy.

AReasonableMan said...

The truth is out there, April. The truth is out there.

Renee said...

This crisis has gone on for years, now politicians are posturing they care about refugees? Why did they care in 2012, when war was raging and the US closed it's embassy. It's been the non- profits like Catholic Relief Services handing the load, now politicians want to come out to save the orphans?

traditionalguy said...

Speaking about the Islamic Jihadists, the Russian Orthodox leader Putin said, " It is God's job to forgive them, but it is my job to get them to God."

Rick said...

But quite aside from the constitutional provisions, there is a strong and worthy culture in America that rejects discrimination based on religion. Don't screw it up!

(1) Religion has always been part of the test for refugee status. It is inextricably linked to persecution and thus we have always accepted more religious minorities. Once again those who think they are applying a rule are in fact breaking it.

(2) It's perfectly reasonable to distinguish between not letting someone in based on some factor and not discriminating against that characteristic between citizens. I think our immigration system should reject political extremists of all types, this doesn't mean I want American extremists jailed or banished.

Derp said...

We will know this war is over when we can make a play making fun of bin Laden the way The Producers makes fun of Hitler. "Springtime, for Osama, in Tora Bora!" But we know that nobody dares even write such a play, and if they did, Barack Hussein Obama has shown he may well put them in jail as he did that artist who produced The Innocence of Muslims.

But we know he is a Christian who listened every Sunday to "God Damn America!" pastor, the one who said that 9-11 was "Americans chickens coming home to roost!" so anybody who somehow thinks a guy who gave seminars with a guy who wrote an editorial for the NYT that appeared on 9-11 and confessed to regretting not killing more people as a terrorist against the United States.

Why should we trust this guys. But even though everything above is a fact. What is my motive for bringing them up? It must be RACISM!

Derp said...

The surest way to screw up American values is to bring in more Muslims. Viz the current POTUS.

Derp said...

The truth is out there, April. The truth is out there.

That's a pretty naive statement. I guess if you believe in God secretly somewhere in the back of your mind, there is truth. But if you know that our ability to see in physics doesn't go beyond certain scales, and beyond that we have nothing by statistical descriptions of processes that physicist say it is pointless to speculate about, "shut up an calculate" and which String Theory has shown little if any ability to penetrate, and since whatever is on the other side of the Big Bang is ontologically unknowable, your statement that the "truth is out there" is pretty amusing.

It's turtles all the way down.

Rick said...

Monkeyboy said...
So the vaunted vetting process can tell who is a terrorist but can't tell who is a Christian?


Reminds me of people on the left arguing that those who feel unsafe with Dartmouth protesters screaming in their face must be racist while also believing emails about nonexistent Halloween costumes create unsafe spaces. It's one thing to have an unusual belief or be slightly more sensitive to one type of event than others. But when you downplay a bigger event while hyping small events of the same type you have to look for another explanation.

And isn't it interesting how often these dichotomies are completely consistent with the person's political alliances?

john mosby said...

A truly skilled statesperson would do a diplomatic-judo move and open their borders to Alawites. If you give Assad and his fellow-travelers a safe haven, Daesh loses its sole shred of legitimacy in Syria. Then they either get pushed out by their fellow Sunnis, closing the case; or they take over, become an actual state, and get the Dresden treatment, also closing the case.

JSM

Peter said...

Perhaps you'd be on safer grounds if you specified "non-Muslims" instead of specifically "Christians"?

As for why you'd do it, the obvious reason is because non-Muslims are at significantly higher risk than everyone else, because ISIS has declared war on anything, anything, and anyone that's not Islamic. Yes, occasionally ISIS will butcher a few Shia, but mostly it's about creating total Islamic hegemony in areas it controls.

Why would that not be sufficient reason?

William said...

Thought experiment. Gays are singled out for persecution in Syria and Iraq. Would Althouse and other progressives be willing to grant them priority status in immigration? And if gays, why not Christians?.......I understand that there's already a certain number of Syrians who have been settled in this country for years. If they would wish to sponsor and vouch for relatives, I would give such people priority........Back in the twenties, there was considerable backlash against European immigrants because so many were anarchists and Reds and openly hostile to American values. Isn't that what closed our open door policy? I don't think the majority of immigrants then had radical political beliefs but there were enough to cause the shuttering of Ellis Island. We're the children of immigrants and the grandparents of anti immigrants.

MaxedOutMama said...

Non-Muslims should have priority because they are the prominent targets in the region from which the refugees are coming. It's not clear that they'll ever be able to go back home now. In Iraq and Syria, religious minorities have been the target of the most extreme pogroms.

I say we should offer refuge to them.

As for Muslims from the region - they can hopefully be repatriated in a few years. We would be better off funding camps close to the region and spending our money knocking down ISIS and setting up some sort of UN-controlled zone such as the Kurdish no-fly zone in Iraq, which did work.

As Al-Sisi pointed out in Egypt, the fact that there is a relatively main-stream version of Islam that has complete hate for the rest of the world should give us all pause:
"It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible that this thinking -- and I am not saying the religion -- I am saying this thinking," el-Sisi said.

He continued: "This is antagonizing the entire world. It's antagonizing the entire world! Does this mean that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants -- that is 7 billion -- so that they themselves may live? Impossible!​"


But it is happening. Until Muslims realize that they are hurting Muslims with these beliefs, we will not cease to see the Muslims celebrating when people are killed in the West by terrorists. Why should we give such people refuge?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/06/africa/egypt-president-speech/

Until we show more concern for the targets of widespread Muslim massacres than for the general Muslim populations affected, I do not think we will see Islamic reform from within. If we do not see Islamic reform from within, we are facing world war.

exhelodrvr1 said...

And don't assume that Muslims fleeing ISIS are not also enemies of the west - ISIS also fights against other Muslim terrorist groups.

Rick said...

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/18/turkish-fans-disrupt-moment-of-silence-for-paris-victims-with-boos-and-calls-of-allahu-akbar/#comments

Here are a few moderate Muslims expressing their opinions.

Laslo Spatula said...

Maybe we can aspire to this kind of multi-culturalism. "In the Muslim immigrant culture of the banlieues, gang-rapes are referred to as tournantes, or "pass-arounds")".

I am Laslo.

Anonymous said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/

The top Middle East nations don't want them, because......?????????

William said...

I tend to dislike people who rejoice in my murder. Does this make me a bigot?

rhhardin said...

If they want to live here, let them learn Spanish.

Mike said...

Ann I think you are missing some important points.

1) What makes someone a refugee in a religious/ethnic war? Christians in Syria rightly fear for their lives. Do they have anywhere to flee to? Alawites fear for their lives too, but they can at least flee to other parts of Syria. Sunnis, on the other hand, are not getting murdered when ISIS pulls into town. I am not saying it is _good_ to be in a war zone, but clearly some populations are more at risk. If there is a "test" here it is not religion as much as it is a measure of how dire a population's circumstance is.

2) In Syria and other countries "religion" is defined much more broadly than in America. It is a description of what sect a person comes from, and not that different from race or ethnicity in the USA. It's not an indicator of one's religiosity.

3) It's not as hard as you think to identify these sects -- all Syrians don't "look the same" so to speak. Yes, a person can pose one way or another. But in most cases a family name is indicative and there's a host of soft indicators that people within the culture recognize.

Pookie Number 2 said...

4. But quite aside from the constitutional provisions, there is a strong and worthy culture in America that rejects discrimination based on religion.

That's pretty weak when the religion systemically inclines its adherents to violence.

Don't screw it up! Yes, you'd like to filter out the people who would like to screw up that culture for us, but don't become the very thing you rightly hate.

The thing we hate is violence. No-one's advocating that.

You really need to think more deeply than these knee-jerk anti-Cruz talking points.

rhhardin said...

You could exclude the Muslim religion based on idiocy. It has no redeeming social value as figurative of anything.

You can exclude anything you want because Congress sets the requirements for immigration. Ted Kennedy opened the floodgates in the 60s. Before that it was zero.

Bob Boyd said...

Seems like you're over-thinking Cruz's statement, Professor.
I interpreted it as 'We can't help everybody. Let's try to help the ones we can.'

McCain and Obama are trying to muddy the waters for political reasons by using emotionally charged phrases like "My belief is that all children are God’s children" and "religious tests." When a politician starts talking about 'the children', watch out.

McCain's beliefs aren't the issue here. The beliefs of dangerous radicals are the issue. I haven't heard anyone saying 'let's see if they know their bible'. That's another Obama straw man.
If we can identify members of a persecuted minority, how is that different than any other background check? If we can't do it with high confidence we shouldn't let them in. We should look for alternatives.

If there was a community of determined atheists with a long history of being persecuted by Muslims would we be having this discussion?
The Progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been working hard to create division and mistrust of Christians here at home because Christians largely don't support their agenda.

Michael K said...

"have communities that know each other"

This is the way to pick out the Christians who have been the victims of genocide.

After the Democrats abandoned South Vietnam, the Vietnamese refugees that came here, especially in southern California, reconstituted their society by vouching for each other and accepting those they knew. We even had Vietnamese doctors who ended, up after a couple of years, with their patients they had been caring for in Vietnam.

There were no records of medical graduates in Vietnam and the North Vietnam government would not cooperate so the medical school faculties got together and created new records of attendance and graduation

Those Christian societies have been close for centuries and they know who each other are. They could do the vetting and probably are well equipped to do it now except Obama and his administration are hostile to Christians.

jacksonjay said...

Will the vetting and resettlement work better than the $500M effort to arm and train rebels in Syria? Is Swaggy more committed to widow and orphan resettlement vetting than he was to the $500M rebel training? "Uh, uh, uh, I didn't believe it would work when we committed to it."

Actual quote, “I’ve been skeptical from the get go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria,”

There is no reason to believe Red Line Swaggy on anything. His goal is to play prevent defense until Jan. '17. Prevent defense can get you beat!

Paco Wové said...

"You didn't like the link."

If you strike down my link two more will rise up to take their place!

Turkish soccer fans boo during moment of silence for France's victims

Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks and chant 'Allahu Akbar' before Greece friendly

Ken B said...

It is important to understand why we have "religious freedom" and exemptions for the religious in various areas. It is because of the inherent failings of the religious. It is not just a reticence to impose things on people, because we do that to the non-religious regularly. It is a recognition that they are irrational, impervious to evidence and argument, and prone to violence. And the separation of church and state is also a recognition that when the religious control the levers of power they try to impose their faith. This also is a recognition of the inherently failings of the religious.

Once written, twice... said...


Ann, it is good to see you challenging your Althouse Hillbillies. The Republican Party has now become the party of bigots and haters. It is no surprise then that Republican Governors and presidential candidates are espousing bigotry and hate.

Big Mike said...

1. If seeming to be a Christian puts you on a fast track, wouldn't the most devious people pose as Christian?

Let's start by stipulating that terrorists would try to pose as Christians.

2. What test would you perform to determine who is Christian... and do you like the idea of the United States government administering religious tests?

You can at least determine non-Muslim by making them eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, with a nice ham sandwich for lunch, and maybe pork chops for dinner. As regards Christianity, perhaps have them recite the Lord's Prayer, ask their minister to vouch for them, ask Christian neighbors to vouch for them. Tedious, but pretty do-able.

4. But quite aside from the constitutional provisions, there is a strong and worthy culture in America that rejects discrimination based on religion. Don't screw it up! Yes, you'd like to filter out the people who would like to screw up that culture for us, but don't become the very thing you rightly hate.

And don't screw it up by overdoing it! There are any number of good and righteous aspects of American culture that can be taken to an extreme and turned into a profound negative.

6. Young children can be assimilated and taught anything, but should a child be raised in a religion that was not his parents' religion? Your answer to that question is religious, and his parents' might have (or have had) a different answer.

This almost certainly happens every day in American when children are adopted. If you don't know the religion of the child's parents -- and I understand that most state agencies don't record that information -- then whether the child is being raised in the same religion is purely random. Yes, a child can be adopted through a religious institution, but much happens through secular agencies.

7. McCain said that atheist children are God's children. That makes perfect sense. It's not something that an atheist could believe — unless you've got a free-wheeling atheist who uses expressions like "God's children" figuratively — but it's a coherent thing for McCain to believe.

And that's me -- an atheist who uses phrases like "God's children" and sometimes yells out "Jesus Christ!" or "God damn it to Hell" when he hits his finger with a hammer. At any rate politicians in general, and Republican politicians in particular, are schooled to toss religious phrases into their speeches. While "it may be a coherent thing for McCain to believe," it's unknowable whether he actually believes it.

8. Does McCain think we are all God's children or only that all children are God's children? If we are all God's children, does McCain want no distinctions based on religion for anyone seeking access to the United States?

That's how I read it. And I think he's bats**t crazy.

9. McCain puts his opinion in the form of a religious statement, referring to his "belief" and mentioning God. You might think that legal or political ideas should predominate here, but if religion is what guides the policy choice, then what is the best religious answer?

Well that's where my atheism lets me down. My atheistic response is that members of one religion, Muslims, proclaim their desire to murder me and my neighbors and that members of another, Christian, are being murdered by members of the first solely because of their religious affiliation, then it seems right and proper to offer sanctuary to the Christians and tell the Muslims to go to Jahannam.

10. Is Cruz proposing anything more than that religion be considered as one of the factors as we look at the whole person and make a decision? If not, this is a lot of political posturing and I'm not convinced there's any real disagreement at bottom.

This is interesting. What makes anyone think that we even can "look at the whole person"?

Don't know.

Rick said...

Once written, twice... said...

Ann, it is good to see you challenging your Althouse Hillbillies. The Republican Party has now become the party of bigots and haters. It is no surprise then that Republican Governors and presidential candidates are espousing bigotry and hate.


I see the limit of the left's intellectual capability is calling those the disagree with bigots as often as possible. It's not surprising they eschew reason when reality proves their most cherished beliefs wrong every day.

bbkingfish said...

Ebola.

Fear Ebola.

We need a strong man to protect us from Ebola.

furious_a said...

The second is that Christians, and other religious minorities, are at particular risk. They are much less likely to be successfully resettled elsewhere in the Islamic world, are at risk of mistreatment even in refugee camps...

They're being pitched from lifeboats into the Mediterranean, for chr*ssake.

jacksonjay said...


The Hillbilly Hater is awake. The internet is working!

Derp said...

EIGHT migrants have got into Europe with same papers as those found on stadium suicide bomber

But not to worry!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322960/The-Syrian-passports-terror-EIGHT-migrants-got-Europe-papers-stadium-suicide-bomber.html#ixzz3roEWksoI

Derp said...

They're being pitched from lifeboats into the Mediterranean, for chr*ssake.

Don't forget that it was Hilary's brain wave to topple Qadaffy that led to that pulse of refugees into the Mediterranean in the first place!


Hillary, the confused old warmonger who launched a thousand refugee ships.

furious_a said...

"What test would you perform to determine who is Christian"

I'll bet there are some Christian Syrian village elders who could be of use with that. The phonies would stand out like Rachel Dolezal to them.

furious_a said...

AReasonableMan said...

Kill them and see if they go to heaven.


They're already being murdered in place, asshole.

Michael K said...

Maybe some people should read today's Belmont Club.

Third, events in Paris may have blown the lid off the problem of the unassimilated immigrant communities, which serve as the social basis of the Jihad. The official fiction is that these communities can be managed by government funded outreach programs. In the last few days, however, Molenbeek in Belgium has made the news as the epitome of Jihadi central. In a Reuters article titled "Islamist 'airbase'", the authors attempted to portray it as a throwback from Europe's otherwise advancing civilization.

I read his column every day. It is a useful antidote to the silly one so common around here.

why the Europeans are so jumpy, as if they've suddenly realized something. In addition to the normal anxiety there may be a sinking feeling that the European public has been fed a line by their esteemed leaders and that their worst suspicions about multiculturalism have been confirmed. Andrew Rule writes in the Herald Sun that real threats may be right down the street.

If Europe is turning into a powderkeg as millions of legal and illegal migrants pour through porous borders, then Paris is the wick.
Its notorious northern suburbs — known to local rappers as “Le Neuf Trois” from the local postcode — have been growing more dangerously unstable for at least 30 years.

Although not far by Metro from the picture-postcard Paris loved by tourists, the public housing estates north of the old city have become a concrete jungle as waves of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East have arrived, many of them nursing old grievances and fanning new ones.

The locals call these badlands “Chicago”. The irony is that the real Chicago is now almost certainly safer than the so-called city of love. ...

The Cracker Emcee said...

Where did McCain get the idea that this was about children? McCain has always been positively Kerryesque in his idiocy.

Michael K said...

"It is no surprise then that Republican Governors and presidential candidates are espousing bigotry and hate."

Says the volunteer for housing a few "migrant" young men of military age.

exhelodrvr1 said...

From that bastion of right wing bigotry, ABC:

https://twitter.com/KatMcKinley/status/667002011238297600

iowan2 said...

The law excludes States from refusing. What can be done is allow their request for asylum. ID them, Prints, DNA sample. IF there are questions down the road, these people that have chosen to be here and by consent agree to waive what ever rights citizens have here. Their communications can be surveilled, private property searched, assets seized, freedom taken without explanation, no hebeus.

My right to safety far exceed all civil protections that citizens have. Again, this is not something that we are forcing on anyone, but rather rules that have been agreed to prior to admittance. This Should be implemented for everyone on here that has not gone through the legislated immigration process.

furious_a said...

McCain has always been positively Kerryesque in his idiocy.

Forget it, Jake, it's Senatetown.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...1. If seeming to be a Christian puts you on a fast track, wouldn't the most devious people pose as Christian?

If seeming to be a refugee gets you entry, wouldn't the most devious people pose as refugees?

Helen Lovejoy-esque "think of the children!" calls seem to be ok if they come from the Left. Smart Republicans (snicker) would call that bluff immediately--pass a law saying we'll take in as many orphaned Syrian refugees under 12 as there are, that sort of thing. Take "the children" off the table as an issue.

Annie said...

The EU admits only one in five 'migrants', are actually Syrian refugees. Most are coming from N. Africa and all over the ME, taking advantage of the crisis to get into Europe. They are callng them economic migrants. They are shopping for the best welfare.

Regarding a 'religious test', it's not about that. It's about who should get priority due to persecution and genocide. It just so happens to be Christians and Yazidis, in this case. ISIS is purging what few are left; enslaving them, killing them.
Obama's state department says since the Christians are NOT victims of persecution, they will not be allowed here as refugees. Obama's religious test is that he will always side with the muslims.



mccullough said...

The job of US government leaders is to put Americans first. This global citizen bullshit has to stop. How many is Japan taking?

Most Muslims in this country are not well assimilated. Their culture is completely foreign to Western Enlightenment principles. Unless they are going to live in self sufficient communities in the boonies like the Amish, these refugees are not going to work out.

Derp said...

In 2009 Alwan applied as a refugee and was allowed to move to Bowling Green, where he quit a job he briefly held and moved into public housing on Gordon Ave., across the street from a school bus stop, and collected public assistance payouts, federal officials told ABC News.

Wow. I can't believe it. I can't believe the racism displayed by ABC news to report this fact. I bet though, that this is the only Muslim, well, him and the Tsarneav Brothers, but that's probably the whole list!

The [Boston] Herald reported that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his wife and 3-year-old daughter collected welfare until 2012 and that both Tamerlan and Dzhokhar received benefits through their parents "for a limited portion" of the time after they came to the U.S., which was around 2002. However, the Department of Transitional Assistance wouldn't release information about how long or how much they received.

The [governor's] [Deval Patrick, Obama lite] administration clamped down the lid on Herald requests for details of Tamerlan Tsarnaev's government benefits, citing the dead terror mastermind's right to privacy.

Across the board, state agencies flatly refused to provide information about the taxpayer-funded lifestyle for the 26-year-old man and his brother and accused accomplice Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19.


I am sure they are all going to be productive citizens.

EDH said...

How about settling the Muslim refugees in the state of Hawaii? Sounds like it's Hawaii's turn and the governor would welcome them, they just have't shown up for the last decade.

After touching off furor, Gov. Ige says chance of Syrian refugees coming to Hawaii is low.

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
The day after he touched off a furor over Syrian refugees in Hawaii, Gov. David Ige said he doesn't believe the state will see a huge influx from the war-torn country.

"I suppose in hindsight I should probably be more thoughtful about my statements," he said during a news conference Tuesday.

He added the chances of Syrian refugees actually coming to the islands is low.

"In the last decade, zero have come. How many might show up in the next month? I would guess it would be zero. But whatever refugees are fleeing from oppression and abuse anywhere in the world, we will assimilate them."

Derp said...

The day after he touched off a furor over Syrian refugees in Hawaii, Gov. David Ige said he doesn't believe the state will see a huge influx from the war-torn country.

So garage mahal is Gov of Hawaii? It figures.

cubanbob said...

Although it pains me since I am an immigrant the question posed is a false one. America has no obligation in this instance to accept any of the refugees and to the extend it does, it's on it's own terms. As noted by others above the government has no real way of vetting these people so while using heartbreaking photos of young children to stir emotions the issue is deflected since those kids aren't coming alone but with their parents and older siblings and later family reunification. Before the West starts taking in Arab refugees the issue should be forced upon Arab countries to take in their brothers and sisters. As for religious vetting as noted by others above, the various religious and ethnic communities in Syria are ancient and clannish and they are capable of self-vetting who is and who isn't one of their respective communities. Obama can do the country a great service by resigning today. Biden fool and idiot that he is, would be far better than Obama at this point. And better than Hillary as well.

AllenS said...

States that don't want to have these migrants, but are forced to accept them, should put them on buses and send them to states that are willing to accept these migrants.

Bus fare from Wisconsin to Minnesota shouldn't cost that much.

Make sure the migrants understand that welfare benefits are much better over there.

Original Mike said...

"The job of US government leaders is to put Americans first."

We may have our first President ever who does not believe that.

Derp said...

Make sure the migrants understand that welfare benefits are much better over there.

They don't call them "welfare benefits" they call them "salaries."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Europeans have been importing populations of people who hate them for a while now. Mark Steyn has covered the effects of those policies, and they'e not pretty.

I'm not happy to see large numbers of people, including what seems like most of the Right, say they're afraid of Syrian refugees. It's sad and a little embarrassing. It's not, though, all that surprising, and that sentiment isn't insane.

We don't trust our federal government. We don't trust them to screen people on the front end, we don't trust them to adequately monitor people when they're here, and we don't trust them to act on information when doing so might make them subject to being called profilers, or racists.

We don't trust those portions of our culture that should instill "American" values in people who come here and assimilate them into our society (disregarding those portions of their old societies that we dislike). The Media and the Academy are outright hostile to our views of "American" values, and they encourage separatism, division, and racial/ethnic/religious/cultural grievances between minority populations and the nation at large. Calling America a "melting pot" and basing arguments that we can successfully integrate large numbers of diverse peoples into our society easily ignores the changes that we as a nation and a culture have undergone since the time when that was true (pre 1950s, at least). A strong, self-confident culture can win over otherwise-hostile outsiders. A cringing, apologetic, self-hating culture, on the other hand, cannot. Our democratically-elected President finds the very idea of "American exceptionalism" silly, for God's sake! You can't beat something with nothing, and as far as vigorously defending our traditional cultural values today we mostly have nothing.

If we don't trust the government, don't trust our current culture, and don't trust that what's happening in many European nations (large self-segregated immigrant populations that don't integrate with the larger society and breed resentment & hate) won't happen here, it makes sense to react with fear to the prospect of bringing that trouble to our land. It's still sad, though.

furious_a said...

Biden fool and idiot that he is, would be far better than Obama at this point. And better than Hillary as well.

That is what is truly frightening.

furious_a said...

2. What test would you perform to determine who is Christian...

Vetting: the jihadis force their bound Christian captives to kneel, then ask them to recite Koran verses. When the captives cannot, ISIS fire up the camcorder, get out their knives and start chanting Allahu Akhbar!

BrianE said...

I'm curious if Ms. Althouse would oppose the immigration of someone who believed that the U.S. Constitution was secondary to Shariah law and considered it their duty to impose it on their host country?

Skeptical Voter said...

Hoodlum Doodlum, I'm not afraid of "Syrian refugees". I do have a problem with unscreened young Muslim males aged 18 to 30. They show a distressing tendency to put on Semtex belts and go out and kill infidels.

Now as happened in Paris a day or two ago, the mothers of such young men say, "He didn't mean to kill anybody. He was just suffering from stress." Well why was your son wearing a Semtex belt Mom? Was it the latest fashion accessory for young Muslim males?

The old line goes that "Stress is what you feel when you resist the urge to smack the snot out of some silly fool talking nonsense at you." Well stress is what I feel when I listen to President Obama lecturing me.

Scared of widows and orphans? My bleeding backside!

Derp said...

America needs more of this if we are to become the truly great nation to which we aspire:

MONTREAL - A Montreal man has collected Quebec government welfare cheques for almost 20 years, even as he criss-crossed Europe to meet six other men who've since been either killed, convicted or linked to global terrorism, lawyers for the RCMP and CSIS allege.

In recently filed court documents, government lawyers claim that while Mohamed Omary has been jobless and on the dole in Montreal since he arrived from Morocco.

Yet he still somehow found cash to repeatedly visit Europe between 1993 and 1999.


Michael K said...

"They don't call them "welfare benefits" they call them "salaries."

Very true. The European newspapers have quoted any number of "migrants" saying this.

As for being afraid of Muslim "immigrants" you have to consider that ammunition is expensive,

Conservation of resources and all that.

holdfast said...

Given years of time and billions of dollars, the Federal Government couldn't even build a website that works to sell subsidized medical insurance.

The IRS' systematic discrimination against conservative groups was apparently just a case of massive, systemic incompetence - but not malice. Oh no!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427201/loretta-lynch-lois-lerner-protected-prosecutorial-discretion

The ATF "lost" thousands of guns in a botched "sting" operation which made no sense at all since they had no ability to track the guns at all.

But now we're supposed to believe that the Feds can do a perfect job of vetting refugees and "refugees" from a shattered country that is essentially a US enemy, where central records are both haphazard and inaccessible, and where government offices have been sacked (and thousands of passport blanks taken). As the French might say, it's simply incroyable. As in not credible in the least.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/360149.php

cubanbob said...

What Ted Cruz ought to say to Obama as part of his campaign speeches;

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If these refugees were serious about wanting to come here they should have snuck across the southern border several years ago and applied for DREAMer status--then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Real American said...

While all children are God’s children, some of God's children tend to blow up and behead people who aren't Muslim so we shouldn't fucking let them in our country.

Derp said...

Revealed: Australian jihadist received welfare payments MONTHS after he had fled the country to join extremists in the Middle East
It is believed Khaled Sharrouf, from Sydney, was on a disability pension
He continued to receive it for at least two months after he fled Australia
The convicted terrorist left the country on brother's passport in December
On Twitter, he issued a call-to-arms asking people to 'come and be part of what we have dreamt...for decades'
Almost 60 Australians fight for Islamic extremist groups in Iraq and Syria



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689045/Convicted-terrorist-received-welfare-months-fleeing-country.html#ixzz3rrZXsF1O
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Remember, these are not fresh off the boat terrorists, they are people who have been taken into the bosom of the West, embraced, supported for decades sometimes.

There is zero guarantee that even vetted Muslims will not follow the same well trodden path.

Real American said...

there's simply no way to make sure that on an individual basis only the good ones get in and the bad ones are kept out. That is why a general policy that is overexclusive is better. Error on the side of keeping bad guys out rather than letting good guys in. These people have no right to come to our country, especially when there are more than enough wealthy countries right around them (like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc) that should be taking them first.

Derp said...

The terrorists stopped in pre-dawn raids in Paris were plotting deadly attacks on the Charles de Gaulle Airport and a shopping mall — but police thwarted the would-be massacres just in time, according to local media. Two suspected terrorists were killed and seven more were arrested after the tense, hours-long standoff at a suburban Paris apartment building, police said. The raid targeted ISIS terrorist Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the mastermind behind Friday’s massacre. The hiding terrorists were “about to move on some kind of operation,” police sources told CNN, adding that the raid was “right on time.” The suspects were planning to attack Paris’ airport

It keeps getting better and better... But we can't conflate this with the refugee crisis, Obama says so, and we all know he has out best interests at heart.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Skeptical Voter said...I'm not afraid of "Syrian refugees". I do have a problem with unscreened young Muslim males aged 18 to 30.

That's fair. I should have said I'm not happy to see people on the Right characterized as afraid--I recognize that's not your position but I also recognize that "afraid" is how your position is being portrayed. That's a problem, politically, notwithstanding the validity of the position.

Anonymous said...

1: Bacon, ham, and eggs. If they're not willing to eat it, no go.

2: We have a politically strong part of our society that absolutely rejects assimilation and America being a "melting pot". Amusingly, it has a large overlap with the people calling the rest of us racists for not wanting to take in Syrian refugees.

Shut up the anti-assimilation crowd, and we'll talk. Until then? hell no.

Clyde said...

Ham sandwiches for all, beer or wine for the adults.

cubanbob said...

The left ought to be consistent with their viewpoints. If the Left insists on applying the precautionary principle to AGW then it ought to apply the same principle to male Muslim immigrants of military age. Why take chances?

Nichevo said...

Althouse, you crybullying me to make me agree with you is about as legitimate as me hitting you to make you agree with me.

holdfast said...

By the way, this whole Syrian Refugee fight is another example of the Obama Admin's "Stray Voltage" doctrine - he would much rather have a national discussion about whether he's too soft and the GOP is too racist than have to discuss his utterly failed anti-ISIS strategy and the fact that the USA is about to take a back-seat to a Russia-France alliance in Syria.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/2014/04/16/pen-phone-stray-voltage

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/barack_obama_trolls_the_gop_the_president_intentionally_baited_republicans.html

R. Chatt said...

Obama has a lot of nerve, I have to give him that much. He attacks fellow Americans and belittles Christians (his voice dripping with disdain when he says the word "Christian") while he is in Turkey to an audience which is mostly Muslim. Devout Muslims believe they have an obligation to make the whole world Islamic. Muslims believe that Christians and Jews are inferior to Muslims and aught to paying a protection tax. Muslims don't have any trouble discriminating against Christians and Jews because the holy Koran tell them to. And we're supposed to believe that protecting ourselves by keeping out devout Muslims is going to be used as a recruiting tool by ISIS? They must be howling with laughter at our President. Seriously.

Michael K said...

" If the Left insists on applying the precautionary principle to AGW then it ought to apply the same principle to male Muslim immigrants of military age."

Good point.

grackle said...

Yes, you'd like to filter out the people who would like to screw up that culture for us, but don't become the very thing you rightly hate.

When faced with ruthlessness the only sane response is ruthlessness in return. And there’s always their track record, which is:

All nations with a Muslim majority are freedomless totalitarian societies.

The religion, if you want to call it that, enslaves those who live under it. The religion controls all aspect of life in these societies, starting with the family itself and extending to the judicial, legislative and executive functions of their society. There are no exceptions, except perhaps for the elite Muslims. It’s called “Sharia” and it rules all aspect of life.

http://tinyurl.com/mheey6u

Most Muslim majorities favor the practices listed below:

Children married to adults.
Children raped and used as sexual toys.
Female genitalia mutilation.
Women are more or less locked away, allowed to appear in public only if accompanied by a male relative, and not even allowed to drive an auto.
Raped women are often murdered by their own family – it’s called an “honor killing.”


The Muslim citizens of these Muslim nations hold some very frightening viewpoints(to a Westerner). And the minority Muslim citizens of Western democracies? Read all about them at the URL below. Bookmark the site and use it next time folks prattle about “assimilation” of Muslims in Western democracies. It covers Muslim attitudes toward “terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in "discovering" agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern.”

http://tinyurl.com/ctcu24c

I think it is perfectly reasonable to be wary of such a religion and those who practice it. I’ll change my opinion if I can be shown any nation with Muslim majority that exercises tolerance in their society.

SMGalbraith said...

Continue with the same policy for Syrian refugees over 50 and women and children. Male refugees between 18 and 50 undergo heightened scrutiny. Yes, define heightened.

Something along these lines. To continue with the same policy in light of what we've learned is stupid. To completely shut down the program is equally dumb.

All of our debates are now between unthinking ideologues on the right and unthinking ideologues on the left who spend all of their time attacking one another. There's not exchange or give-and-tack, no middle ground anymore.





Derp said...

There's not exchange or give-and-tack, no middle ground anymore.

OK, you tell me how this is going to happen. How these people are going to be brought here while maintaining national security. Where is the irrational fear among the "xenophobes"?

Derp said...

I just saw a Jeb Bush ad. You know what I saw? Bring on the refugees even though telling the sheep from the goats is impossible! That's not what the ad said, that is just his position as stated yesterday.

I wouldn't vote for him over Hillary. I would vote Green.

Michael said...

WE CAN'T SEEM TO PIN POINT THE PROBLEM .....

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

Michael said...

**********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************

They're not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan

******** So, where are they happy? **********

They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do
they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves, THEY
BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!!
And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the
countries they came from where they were unhappy and finally they will
get hammered!

Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!

And We just can't figure out who's causing the problem.....?

Unknown said...

I'm rather surprised hat a law professor, and her mostly intelligent commenters, have ignored the actual laws that do require a religious test?
Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shameful-and-not-american-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew

Todd said...

Michael said...

Well sure anyone can cherry pick incidents and fact to support their arguments. What about all of those non-Muslim terrorist acts you conventionally left off of your list? Like um... Well what about... No, wait, how about... There was that one... No wait I got one! McVeigh! See! Anyone is a potential terrorist!

/sarc

Derp said...

Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Come on, don't confront Ann with facts. She is enjoying her smug superiority so much!

Sammy Finkelman said...

1. If seeming to be a Christian puts you on a fast track, wouldn't the most devious people pose as Christian?

They do when they come from China, but nobody there knows much about Christianity. Less educated eople say they are or want to be Falun Gong.

Sammy Finkelman said...

But of couyrse this couldn't really be faked with Syria . There is family, you know

Nichevo said...

Feeding them treyf is an unsophisticated test. Taquiyya allows them to eat pork and drink wine and blaspheme if it means not getting caught. You would have to then have people/machines watching for flinching, elevated heart rate, sweating...

Checking for circumcision might be more effective (for males) as I would presume Middle Eastern Christians are uncut. Like Jews, no proper Muslim man is uncircumcised, I'm pretty sure that would be very close to universal, and while there may be some possibility of recovering the foreskin, I tend to like the odds. Not a perfect test though. And I would feel bad asking men to drop their pants to ID them, so hopefully we could do better.

What would work better is culturally attuned people doing the detecting. Like Israel does in evaluating fliers at the airport. The US has used native auxiliaries in many wars for their local knowledge - Kit Carson scouts in Vietnam for instance. We could hire some Syrian Christians, or Lebanese Maronites and all that, who would probably know at a glance.


What would work best is keeping them there, or in the region. What would work bestest, I suppose, is victory, however defined, in Syria and Iraq, so that people would not need to flee. But I see no reason why the West should take them if their neighbors won't.

As for our values and "becoming the thing we hate," I suppose we shouldn't have fought in WWII.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

holdfast said...
By the way, this whole Syrian Refugee fight is another example of the Obama Admin's "Stray Voltage" doctrine


That occurred to me as well, Holdfast, especially as some insist on the shell game of talking only about children and ignoring the problem of, you know, non-children.
Hey everybody, let's fight about whether we're racists, bigoted against Muslims, or just hate kids! That's the national conversation we should be having, definitely.

Editor said...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/obama-federal-law-is-unamerican.php

Federal law requires a religous test for refugees.

Editor said...

Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]

The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

Original Mike said...

"I should have said I'm not happy to see people on the Right characterized as afraid--I recognize that's not your position but I also recognize that "afraid" is how your position is being portrayed. That's a problem, politically, notwithstanding the validity of the position."

Obama has constructed so many straw men over his tenure I'm surprised the Fire Marshall has not condemned the White House.

Original Mike said...

"Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum."

You must be mistaken. Althouse is a Constitutional Law professor.

Original Mike said...

Of course, so is Obama. Well, Instructor. Almost a Professor, though one the school was unwilling to commit to.

averagejoe said...

It's kind of illogical that progressive democrats are so critical of republicans (and others) concerns regarding muslim immigration. Progressives as a group are predominately, not just atheist, but resolutely hostile to religion and belief in God. Yet here they are in favor of an influx of rabidly religious individuals into American society. And not just any religion, but a religion that demands obedience, forbids secular influence, and requires that society be based on their religious beliefs. You'd almost think that such people as these progressive democrats are just unprincipled reactionary motherfuckers that reflexively oppose republicans without regard to the issue, and just want to weaken America and hurt Americans because they don't like them.

Gabriel said...

Oh good Lord.

Immigration law already takes religion into account when according refugee status!

It's like people have no idea what any of laws actually say and are just emoting based on their preconceptions.

Lydia said...

Where did McCain get the idea that this was about children? McCain has always been positively Kerryesque in his idiocy.

McCain may have been thinking of Christie's godawful comment about not letting in orphans under the age of 5.

Jupiter said...

From the link;

Dans l'enfer des tournantes (In the Hell of the Tournantes) is a book by French activist Samira Bellil.[1]

In the Muslim immigrant culture of the banlieues, gang-rapes are referred to as tournantes, or "pass-arounds").[2][3]

The book focuses on life in neighborhoods (banlieues) of France where Samira says that she and countless other young girls have been victims of organized gang-rapes known as tournantes.[4][5] It was first published on October 9, 2002.

Maybe we could set them up with a frat at UVA.

Seriously, why on Earth would you want to let a single Muslim into the USA?

Nancy Reyes said...

Uh, Mariel Boat lift anyone?

Castro opened the doors, and 100 thousand Cubans fled in their relative's boats. So Castro opened prison and a lot of very violent men entered the USA.

Last thing I looked, Cuba was a "christian" country. And Cruz is a Cuban American.

eric said...

I'm glad you wrote "aside from the constitutional provisions" because there aren't any.

Most people don't realize how little the constitution applies on the border. Did you know the burden of proof is on the alien? Did you know you don't have a 4th amendment right on the border? Heck, the minute you arrive you're seized and not allowed freedom of movement unless you can prove to the government you're allowed admission.

Next Althouse will demand our military extend constitutional rights to our enemies as they fight them overseas.

Nichevo said...

Whaddya mean will? She does.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Nancy Reyes, Cuba is a communist country, not Christian. Also the home of Santeria religion. Religion aside, what is your point? That because thousands of dangerous criminals from Cuba were let loose in America dozens of years ago, that we are now obliged to admit thousands of dangerous criminals from Arabia?

grackle said...

Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required … [ 5 paragraphs of laws, definitions and regulations follow, ending with]… is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

The problem here is that we have a POTUS who routinely ignores laws, who flouts laws he disagrees with, without apology, without hesitation and with righteous claims of superior morality. What the “law” is is irrelevant with a POTUS like Obama.

furious_a said...

...the mothers of such young men say, "He didn't mean to kill anybody. He was just suffering from stress."

Tsarnaev bros. mom made excuses, too.

hombre said...

Christians are persecuted by Muslims in Muslim countries. Muslims, by and large, are not. The refugees are coming from Muslim countries.

It's not rocket science.