- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Trump Unhinges the Establishment

Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.

As all the old hate words—xenophobe, racist, bigot—have lost their electric charge from overuse, and Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini. The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.

Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.

But is this really true? The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime.

In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States. Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia. Under FDR, Truman, and JFK, this was the law of the land. Did this represent 40 years of fascism?

Why might Trump want a moratorium on Muslim immigration?

Reason one: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber, and the San Bernardino killers.

And as San Bernardino showed again, Islamist terrorists are exploiting our liberal immigration policies to come here and kill us. Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.

Second, Muslims are clearly more susceptible to the siren call of terrorism, and more likely to be radicalized on the Internet and in mosques than are Christians at church or Jews at synagogue. Which is why we monitor mosques more closely than cathedrals.

Third, according to Harvard’s late Samuel Huntington, a “clash of civilizations” is coming between the West and the Islamic world. Other scholars somberly concur. But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?

Set aside al-Qaeda, ISIS, and their sympathizers. Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are untold millions of followers of the Prophet who pray for the coming of a day when sharia is universal and the infidels, i.e., everyone else, are either converted or subjugated.

In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone? With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?

Many European nations—Germans, French, Swedes, Brits—appear to regret having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have now formed unassimilated clusters and enclaves inside their countries. Ought we not explore why, before we continue down this road?

In some countries of the Muslim world, Americans who embrace “Hollywood values” regarding abortion, adultery, and homosexuality, can get their heads chopped off as quickly as converts to Christianity.

In what Muslim countries does Earl Warren’s interpretation of the First Amendment—about any and all religious presence being banned in public schools and all religions being treated equally—apply? When is the next “Crusade for Christ” coming to Saudi Arabia?

Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic? President Obama and the guilt-besotted West often bawl their apologies for the horrors of the Crusades that liberated Jerusalem.

Anyone heard Muslim rulers lately apologizing for Saladin, who butchered Christians to take Jerusalem back, or for Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered the Christian Balkans rampaging through Hungary all the way to the gates of Vienna?

Trump’s surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment—that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide.

Trump’s success tells us that the American people really do not celebrate “globalization.” They think our negotiators got snookered out of the most magnificent industrial machine ever built, which once guaranteed our workers the highest standard of living on earth.

They don’t want open borders or mass immigration. They want people here illegally to be sent back, the borders secured, and a moratorium imposed on Muslim immigration until we fix the broken system.

As for the establishment, they are saying pretty much what The Donald is saying. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament: You have sat here too long for any good you have done here. In the name of God, go!

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. [1] Copyright 2015 Creators.com.

19 Comments (Open | Close)

19 Comments To "Trump Unhinges the Establishment"

#1 Comment By Lee On December 11, 2015 @ 1:34 am

“Trump’s surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment—that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide.”

Indeed.

#2 Comment By TB On December 11, 2015 @ 7:55 am

PB: “Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.”
_________________________

No, it didn’t.
1. Trump didn’t call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. He demanded we block entrance into the country of Muslims, be they immigrants, tourists, skilled workers, students, fiancees and visitors of every other category. He later agreed that Muslims who are citizens would be “allowed” to return to their country had they been traveling abroad.
2. The Donald wants the ban to last “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” That timeframe is meaningless.
3. The exclusion tramples on the values expressed at the base of our Statue of Liberty, but elevates another set of values as old as the Mayflower Compact- reactionary fear of The Other.
4. While the Trump proposal may energize the reactionary fears of the GOP base, it clearly cannot be unconstitutional because our Constitution does not apply beyond our borders to non-Americans.
Francis Scott Key’s lyric needs immediate modification. We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. We’ve become are the land of the numb and the home of the coward.

#3 Comment By Erdrick On December 11, 2015 @ 8:35 am

The Ottomans (and the Mongols) have basically fallen down the memory hole. They’re inconvenient to the modern leftist narrative that white people are conquering imperialist oppressors and all others are harmless, peace loving victims of white aggression.

#4 Comment By Bob K. On December 11, 2015 @ 9:18 am

To T.B.

Our Statue of Liberty was gifted to us from the people of France who are now having 2nd thoughts about those “values expressed at its base”, which they put into practice in their own country.

#5 Comment By VoegelinGirl On December 11, 2015 @ 9:26 am

Pat, you good Old Lion!

May the Lord grant you good health for many years to come. A real Amen Corner can’t be earned and can’t be beat. 🙂

If Trump is elected it’ll be because Americans want to undo the last 16 years of governance.

It’s probably a good idea.

Trump is nowhere near as smart as Nixon but he’s smart enough not to need or appoint yes men. The value of that alone is substantial.

And the first thing he ought to do is clean out the judiciary, down the pike, like Clinton did.

Lastly, what he’s already brought is a puncture to the false and kitschy world we’ve created. And the value of that is more than substantial.

#6 Comment By Allan On December 11, 2015 @ 9:26 am

As an American Muslim, and as someone who has recommended “How The Right Went Wrong” to numerous friends and family members, I am deeply disappointed with Pat here. Anyone who knows about extremism in the U.S. knows that these people are being radicalized on the internet, not at the mosque. Besides that, how would you ever implement such a policy? Trump can never answer specifics of his outlandish proposals. He is simply a demagogue playing on the fears and paranoia in the country right now. He has no knowledge or wisdom, and it’s sad to see people I thought were sane and thoughtful back his ignorance.

#7 Comment By Scott On December 11, 2015 @ 10:20 am

“Reason one: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber, and the San Bernardino killers.”

Lack of critical thinking here: They were also men, young, mostly Saudi, etc.

BTW, last week the House overwhelmingly past law tightening visa on people from four countries, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan. Yet the San Bernadino terrorists of Saudi and Pakistani origin. Pure security theater.

#8 Comment By Grumpy Realist On December 11, 2015 @ 10:48 am

Considering that most mass shootings are caused by young men with guns, why don’t we just ban male immigrants altogether?

#9 Comment By Fred Bowman On December 11, 2015 @ 10:49 am

Often wonder how much of the Foreign Aid money that we send to Saudia Arabia & the Gulf States end up being used to support groups like ISIS?

#10 Comment By Clint On December 11, 2015 @ 11:00 am

Last month, Rand Paul introduced legislation that would require the Department of Homeland Security to suspend visas to nationals of countries with a high risk of terrorism until additional security screenings could be implemented.
It would put a pause on all immigration from 34 high risk countries.

Apparently,Paul’s legislation is Constitutional,because it’s an immigration moratorium based on high risk,not religion.

#11 Comment By William Dalton On December 11, 2015 @ 11:35 am

“They don’t want open borders or mass immigration. They want people here illegally to be sent back, the borders secured, and a moratorium imposed on Muslim immigration until we fix the broken system.”

I applaud the application of the Pat Buchanan scalpel to cut open to public view the hypocrisy of American liberalism in its vilification of Donald Trump, who, in most respects, represents all of their materialist values. However, we should not forget that the only thing broken about our system of admitting Muslims within our borders is the fact of our fighting wars that kill Muslims in their foreign lands. This is the source of “Islamic terrorism” in the United States and elsewhere in the West. If we were waging such a war in China is there any doubt we would be beset by Chinese terrorism and calls to impose a moratorium on Chinese immigration until “we fix the broken system”?

#12 Comment By long way home On December 11, 2015 @ 12:23 pm

Buchanan, like ISIS, wants to “eliminate the grayzone” (“But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?”).

Happily, few Muslims and few US whites want to divide the world into “us and them” on these lines. This is in some measure because it doesn’t make any sense. (“It is an eternal, inevitable war that follows invariably from their worldview! We have always been at war with Indonesia!”)

‘Course, the extremists can do a lot of damage trying to make it happen.

#13 Comment By bacon On December 11, 2015 @ 12:48 pm

@Grumpy Realist – “Considering that most mass shootings are caused by young men with guns, why don’t we just ban male immigrants altogether?”

The only problem with that is that most mass shootings are caused by young American men with guns.

#14 Comment By Johann On December 11, 2015 @ 1:43 pm

Its all media and PC hysteria. It goes from Trump’s desire to “not let anymore in” to “Trump wants to march them into the death camps”.

But one thing that is irritating is that Trump, the media, our politicians, and the people in this country and throughout the west lump all Muslims together. Terrorism is a Sunni thing. Its the Sunnis that have attacked us over and over. I blame part of this on the neocon media in all its forms for hyping the threat of Iran. But fact is, the Shia don’t do terrorism, especially against the west. The neocon press really overhyped the Iranian assassination plot against a Saudi diplomat, and they love to say Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror based on their support of Hezbollah. Of course when we supported the Afghan mujhahadeen, those guys were freedom fighters.

Bottom line, based on history, the Shia are a very very low risk of becoming terrorists.

#15 Comment By RM On December 11, 2015 @ 2:23 pm

Pat, Do you actually know any Muslims? I work with many Muslims, Shia, Sunni, Ismaili and even Sufi. There are no sectarian arguments in my company, there is no infighting between Persian and Pakistani. These guys consider themselves American first and foremost and America, unlike Europe, has embraced them. Europe’s post-colonial history of welcoming “guest workers” without any hope of citizenship has led to the current situation. America is different and exceptional. An immigrant who comes here can start a business, raise a family, send a kid to college. Can he do that in Paris or Berlin? It’s our very acceptance of them that keeps them from becoming a mass movement. Statistically speaking, there will always be a few kooks, Muslim, Christian, whatever. Maybe you should exit your insular echo chamber and get to know some Muslims.

#16 Comment By Majumder On December 11, 2015 @ 2:44 pm

“…Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.”

Sir,

It appears that Republicans in the House and the Senate are trying to distance themselves from the presidential candidate by saying that Mr. Trump’s speech didn’t represent American values!

I don’t know whether American values require open border, open immigration, open trade-deficits, and wide-open fiscal deficits in America.

#17 Comment By Myron Hudson On December 11, 2015 @ 3:24 pm

Our “clash of civilizations” begins in the Middle East and would also end there, if we just got the hell out and left them to it.

Our “clash of civilizations” is also between Empire and those occupied. Again, if we stopped pursuing Empire, those no longer occupied would no longer find it necessary to push us out.

#18 Comment By Myron Hudson On December 11, 2015 @ 3:27 pm

As Scott points out, our attackers come from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, supposed allies. Ones we should disentangle ourselves from.

If we restrict immigration from any group, it should be from countries whose citizens have attacked us. Yes?

#19 Comment By IranMan On December 26, 2015 @ 6:00 pm

“Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state.”

Japan has never invaded or colonized any part of the Middle East. Hence, no blowback.