By: Benjamin Weingarten
Lost in the deluge of punditry, prognostication, and politicking in the wake of the media uproar and subsequent and ongoing litigation on President Donald Trump’s terror entry executive order is a fundamental principle that sits at the heart of the order.
If you have not read the order’s text in its entirety, you have likely missed the part that holds the key to American national security and foreign policy in the war against the global jihad.
Hidden in plain sight in Section One is one of the most consequential paragraphs produced by our nation’s leaders since September 11, 2001, if we will only recognize it.
The language reads as follows:
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Criticism of the executive order in the days following its signing has been devoid of any mention of the imperative to admit solely those who respect our Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Nary a peep has been raised by the executive orders’ opponents about “violent ideology.”
We have not heard even a whimper about the need to prevent those who would subjugate and commit violence against women, gays, and non-believers in a specific faith from coming to our shores.
Leftist opponents of the executive order will read into the above paragraph only language meant to discriminate against Muslims, and thus bigotry in the eyes of its drafters and supporters. Of course, implicit in this assumption is a recognition that such beliefs flourish in the Islamic world.
Opponents of the order ignore the fact that its purpose is expressly to keep out such bigots.
For these opponents choose to be willfully blind to the belief system of the jihadists peaceful and violent who wish to undermine and ultimately dominate Western civilization. They miss out on the political ideology that lies at the jihadist core, cloaked in religious garb.
For it is Sharia law that underpins the practices of the Islamic supremacists who meet the description of the language of the executive order. It is the desire to impose Sharia law that guides their every action.
It is only with that context — a description of the ideology of those Islamic supremacists who wish to spread their ideology over the world — that America can implement adequate vetting procedures.
To put it differently, what the excerpted portion of Section One of the terror entry executive order does is orient our immigration policy towards the jihadist threat.
It suggests that our current vetting policies do not sufficiently screen for such a threat, and that we are particularly ill-equipped to screen for it in failed, jihadist-laden, and/or hostile states.
While those executives at the 97 companies who filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the temporary restraining order imposed by Judge James Robart focus much of their argument on the economic benefits of immigrants, they conveniently ignore the reality of the populations in question covered by President Trump’s executive order.
In the regions of the world covered by President Trump’s temporary ban, the percentage of people who favor making Sharia the official law in their country is overwhelming.
We are lacking in data for all countries covered by President Trump’s executive order likely because it was difficult to obtain given the disrepair and ongoing violence in such nations.
You cannot defeat a foe if you do not openly and honestly call it by its name.
But the above figures are representative.
As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Jackson wrote of Sharia in 1955:
In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge – all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire – reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.
The notion that we would orient all of our policies towards Sharia supremacism, rather than the non-ideology of “violent extremism,” appears to be being implemented holistically.
Reports indicate that the administration may also be seeking to supplant the disastrous “Countering Violent Extremism” program with one focused on “Countering Radical Islam Extremism,” or a similarly titled one.
You cannot defeat a foe if you do not openly and honestly call it by its name.
Those who believe in a robust program to defeat the global jihad should be heartened by these early efforts.
Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/most-vital-part-of-trumps-immigration-order-is-the-one-no-ones-talking-about#sthash.AOUs5if5.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment