This policy does not make our country safer. This policy infringes upon the rights of the individual. This policy is contrary to our values and traditions. There! I said it. I’m not the only one. These are statements that have been repeated over and over for public consumption for the past week or more. Oh! Wait a moment! I am so sorry. You thought I was talking about the temporary “travel ban”, as it has come to be called.
I apologize for the confusion! No, I was referring to the TSA. I like to think of them as “thousands standing around”, though I believe the official title is the Transportation Security Administration. How could one disagree with this? The opening statements are undeniably true when applied to the TSA. In the name of security the TSA, and for that matter the Department of Homeland Security, are given license to urinate upon the fourth amendment on the grandest scale on a daily basis. I appreciate that these assertions may be regarded as being impolitic given that those who serve in these agencies are heroes on the front lines protecting Americans from harm. Evidently the only requirements for fitting the title of hero is to wear a uniform, and/or carry a badge and in some instances carrying a state issued firearm. The latter is not always a requirement, but to be sure it helps. For any of you who may be unclear on the latter of these the state issued firearms are the good guns, not like those in the hands of private citizens.
Isn’t it astounding that some people in this country can muster a barrage of righteous indignation at a mere 109 people being inconvenienced by the executive order? I say this because the current mantra seems to emanate largely from those who profess to speak out against what they describe as an unconstitutional policy, and yet somehow they remain curiously mute on the thousands of American citizens who are subjected to the inconvenience and intrusive nature of TSA policies every day. I’m all about fairness! Would any of you please be kind enough to explain to me how existing travel security procedures are in any way different from those which you are so loudly lobbying against now? Oh, that’s okay. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Let’s subject this outrage to a reality check, shall we? There is nothing partisan about this, it is just sound logic. The left and their mouthpieces at the networks are hyperventilating over what they call an unconstitutional ban that is based upon a religious test, i.e. it is targeted at Muslims. They argue that these people are being targeted without probable cause. There are sound arguments to be presented against this position, but for argument’s sake let’s stipulate that this is true. If we are to accept the argument then surely this extends to octogenarian grandmothers in wheelchairs, twelve year old girls and, oh I don’t know, say perhaps an Episcopalian Minister. What possible probable cause is there for those examples to be subjected to the latex glove treatment from a TSA official? These people are working themselves up into a lather over 109 people when thousands of American citizens are subjected to unreasonable search procedures in our airports every single day. Since we are dealing within the realm of constitutional rights here let’s take note of another fact. The American citizen who is subjected to these security procedures is in fact protected under the US Constitution. To the best of my knowledge this protection does not extend to non-citizens who are trying to enter the country.
We also, as we so often do it seems, have a problem with the language being used in defining the argument. The executive order is not, as it has been characterized, a travel ban. It is a temporary, precautionary restriction upon entry into our country for individuals travelling from countries that have been identified as having a demonstrated propensity for terrorist activities. It is in place until such time as more stringent security precautions can be implemented to make a more thorough vetting of their background. So yes, before you cry out, it is a form of profiling. One can bemoan the injustice of profiling all day, but the fact remains that this is an effective tool utilized in security and law enforcement the world over. It has been and continues to be used for one very simple reason: it works.
If innocent people have been killed or otherwise harmed by individuals who shout Allahu Akhbar as they pull the trigger it makes no difference whether they are acting alone or as part of an organization. The common denominator is that they act in the name of a jihad. Therefore it is an extraordinarily foolish exercise to dispatch one’s security force to profile the Swedes or the Chinese. They may very well have their own terror cells, we don’t know for certain do we, but they have to date done nothing that would serve as probable cause.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, as I am often want to do. Let’s say I accept the language. Lets say we can call it a Muslim ban. The very obvious question to be asking is so what if it is? Oh I know this is sacrilege. I am now officially a heretic. That’s okay. I can live with it. I can live with it because I am able to present a rational case based upon entirely reasonable conclusions. There is an axiom that is applied regularly to a wide variety of fields. The best predictor for future behavior is past behavior. We need only look at France or Belgium, or more recently now Germany too. Events of the last couple of years in these places are a warning of what we should expect if our government continues to embrace an open door policy at all costs. Normally I don’t have objections when the machinery of government is brought to a screeching halt. It saves us from all of those things that government does to us, not for us. The one paramount constitutional duty assigned to our federal government is to provide for the common defense of these states. Frankly much of the policy of our government for the past fifteen years has done a poor job of this.
There are good and peaceful Muslims. There are true refugees in desperate need, fleeing murder and tyranny. I don’t dispute that for one moment. I don’t deny our country’s tradition of serving as a haven for the refugee. The true refugee most often ends up becoming a solid citizen, more appreciative of our liberties than many who are born here. We still have a duty to all of our citizens, native born and refugee alike, to insure that those we admit are indeed refugees and not wolves in sheep’s clothing. If that means that some people from that part of the world are going to be inconvenienced by further scrutiny then so be it. If they are of the true refugee class this will be the least indignation they have suffered in trying to get here.
We have already seen what the politically correct version of immigration policy can yield. Remember Tashfeen Malik? The record already shows that both she and her cohort, husband Sayed Farook, if properly screened absent the politically correct filter would have been at the very least under close observation. That or they might have been apprehended prior to their acts and for probable cause. Likewise for the Tsarnaev brothers. France and Belgium for decades conducted an immigration policy and accepted the non-integration of their Muslim population that have yielded a particularly bitter harvest. I truly would not mind being proven wrong on this, but caution dictates that if we are to pursue similar policies than we are to expect similar results.
There are those who posit the argument that we need Muslims to help us root out the evil. I don’t disagree with this either, but aren’t we wise to take any extra measures necessary to insure that we are indeed admitting Muslims of this variety? Absent this we are left with two other alternatives: those who would do us ill and those who will stand idly by , or worse, aid and abet the cause. It is an inconvenient fact, but the Islamic world is where these people live. If we ignore or deny this we do so at our peril.