Should the U.S. Attempt to Limit Entry by Radicalized Muslims?

On Saturday, Jan. 31, The Dispatch ran an Associated Press piece, headlined, “French fracture laid bare as 8-year-old boy praises terrorists:”

“In early January ... three Frenchmen with links to Islamic extremists went on their murderous rampage, killing journalists at the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. ...

“More French (residents) have embarked on jihad in Syria and Iraq that in any other European country -- over 10,000. Dozens of these fighters have returned, feeding fears that they could turn their battle skills on France.

“The minute of silence for victims (of the Charlie Hebdo massacre) ... was not respected by all students. Some children contested it; others walked out. ... An 8-year-old Muslim boy proclaimed, “I am with the terrorists.”

If radicalized Muslim immigrants are siding with the terrorists and against France, a Western democracy that admitted them to afford them a better life, why is there any reason to believe that at least some radicalized Muslim immigrants to the U.S. won’t side with the terrorists?

Rephrasing the questions, how many radicalized Muslim terrorists should be allowed to reside in the United States? How many radicalized Muslim suicide bombers? How many Islamists who believe the country should be governed by Sharia Law, rather than our Constitution, should we admit annually (and how would you determine whether a particular immigrant poses such a threat)?

According to a Pew Report, since 2006 about 100,000 Muslims enter the U.S. each year.

Wikipedia notes, “A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72 percent of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81 percent of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14 percent of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8 percent of Muslims in the U.S.) said violence against civilians is ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ justified.”

It is estimated that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Fourteen percent of 1.6 billion means there could be 224 million Muslims in the world who believe “violence against civilians is ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ justified.”

But if 100,000 Muslims are entering the U.S. each year, and if 8 percent of those believe “violence against civilians is ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ justified,” how, short of barring entry to all Muslims, do we keep that 8 percent out? And how do we insure that their children will not be radicalized as were  Boston Marathon suspects, the Tsarnaev brothers and the 8-year-old French boy?

The 2013 Pew Report indicates that throughout the Muslim world, terror and the murder of innocent civilians is deemed “justifiable” to 224 million Muslims. Consider three stories that have appeared in The Dispatch over the last few weeks:

Two French Muslims killed 13 French journalists employed at Charlie Hebdo. Why? That satirical magazine published an unflattering cartoon about Muhammad. A third Muslim, one of their associates, killed four civilians in a Jewish grocery store. Why a Jewish store?

According to Amnesty International, as many as 2,000 women, children and elderly people were murdered  in the Nigerian town of Baga by the militant Muslim Boko Haram militia.

On Dec. 16, 2014, Taliban gunmen attacked a military-run school and killed 141 people -- almost all of them students,  innocent children. The murders were so barbaric even Taliban militants in neighboring Afghanistan decried the killing spree, calling it “un-Islamic.”

I don’t mean to imply or suggest that all Muslims who enter our country are terrorists, suicide bombers, or Sharia Law proponents. They aren’t. But the 9/11 terrorist murders, and the Boston Marathon murders conclusively demonstrate that at least 21 Muslim “immigrants” were terrorist murderers.

And while the great majority of Muslims coming to America are peaceful, decent people looking for a better life, how many al-Qaida, Taliban or ISIS adherents are slipping in among them?

So, I refer to the questions I asked in the opening paragraph.

If one in 100 Muslims admitted into the U.S. is a terrorist or a suicide bomber, or a Sharia Law proponent, is it in the best interest of the American people to admit that 100?

If only one in a 1,000 turns out to be a suicide bomber is that risk worthwhile? How about if one in 10,000? One in 100,000?

I raise these politically incorrect questions because Reuters reported last May 22nd,  “The Justice Department has tapped a veteran prosecutor to probe the flow of foreign fighters, including Americans, who are joining Syria’s rebels. Our government is concerned with the danger of these radicalized militants returning home.” (reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/us-usa-syria-foreigners-idUSBREA4L0UC20140522)

The fear is that when they are done fighting in Syria, they will return to the U.S. to kill here -- just as many have done in France. If this government and this Justice Department have concerns, every American should have like concerns. And while the president is “ending” America’s war on radical Muslim terrorists,  I see no evidence to date terrorists are ending their war against America -- or anybody else who disagrees with them.

So at least two questions remain.

-- How does America keep Islamic terrorists from slipping in while admitting peaceful Muslims immigrants? And

-- If 8 percent of Muslims immigrants admitted to America, and/or 8 percent  of the children of peaceful Muslims admitted to America are going to take up the cause of radical Islam or demand Sharia Law for America, is it wise to admit even their peaceful parents?


Posted: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:00 am
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea
ea