Ken Berwitz
My congratulations to National Review\’s Andrew McCarthy, for explaining exactly what is wrong with Donald Trump\’s proposal to prevent all Muslims from coming into the United States “until we figure out what the hell is going on” (whatever that means), and what the correct policy would be.
Interestingly, he has written his explanation as a response to Charle Krauthammer – the exceptional columnist McCarthy usually agrees with, but thinks has gotten his position all wrong.
Here are the salient parts of his commentary:
I want (our immigration policy) to enableus, within the bounds of the law, to exclude sharia-supremacist Muslims whileadmitting pro-Western Muslims who revere our constitutional culture of liberty.The former are the breeding pool for jihadism; the latter have been valuable indisrupting jihadist cells and could, if empowered, be valuable in marginalizingtreacherous Islamist outfits like the Muslim Brotherhood.I prefaced (my position on Trump\’s proposed ban) by stating, “I am against a categorical ban onMuslim immigration[.]” The point of my post was not to defend Trump\’s proposalbut to justify my own proposal, which is plainly stated in the first lines ofmy post: Reject a categorical ban but mandate that “Muslim immigrants should beexamined about Islamic supremacism and . . . adherents tothat counter-constitutional ideology should be denied admission.”This can be done legally, but it requires a grasp of thepertinent principles.I differentiated the “final form” of Trump\’s proposal (which addresses aliens outside the UnitedStates) from the original (which addressed all Muslims, including Americancitizens and lawful permanent residents) because it is a salient constitutionaldistinction. The distinction hearkens back to the shameful aspect of FDR\’sJapanese internment during World War II: the failure to distinguish Americansof Japanese descent, whose detention was unconstitutional and a blight on ourhistory, from Japanese aliens, whose detention was lawful (we can debatewhether it was unwise). That is why I wrote that Trump\’s original proposal “would be lawless, and recklessly so.” In crafting a sound policy, we have torespect the rights of American Muslims.In crafting a sound policy, we have torespect the rights of American Muslims.
Yes, Andrew McCarthy. That is exactly the right approach to Muslim immigration….and demonstrates exactly what is wrong with Donald\’ Trump\’s shoot-from-the-hip barroom loudmouthisms.
Thank you for your commentary…and to Charles Krauthammer, whom I join Mr. McCarthy in having the utmost respect for — please take this under advisement.
