Donald Trump, one of the 2016 Republican presidential candidates, has been on record vindicating the ideology that Muslim immigrants should be denied access to the United States of America. Opponents and proponents alike have raised their sentiments and taken their stand on the issue as well. Great populations of persons have criticized Trump for his statement and some have viewed him as a reckless talker. But what if Trump is right? What if his view is the right approach that can assure the American citizens of their national security? Looking at a number of underlying factors, this paper explores some of the obvious reasons why Trump would be vindicated for his sentiments. This paper evidently discusses the extents to which the immigration of Muslims to America is an issue of concern as far as matters of national security are concerned.
George Saunders ingeniously reveals an element of xenophobia when he compares the intrigues between the citizens of the Inner Horner and Outer Horner during the reign of Phil the leader of the Outer Hornerites population. He depicts Phil as a brutal leader who does not welcome the idea of being associated with refuges (the inner Hornerites). But have you ever asked yourself how colonizers came to be and how nations became colonies of other nations? In most instances, it started with friendly explorations where friendly natives welcomed humbly looking and beaten up strangers to their countries and homes only to lose the leadership of their countries and homes to these humble strangers turned tyrannical. In most cases a tyrannical stranger took advantage of the kindness of his host and overturned the reign of the host and took control. Phil’s reign might have been frightening, but it may have not been entirely based on oppression of the Inner Hornerites but a protection of his territory and its resources for his people (the Outer Hornerites).
In Canada for instance like many other countries, it has been noted that increased immigration has raised discontent especially when it comes to issues of acceptance of the immigrants religion among the natives.This raises the concern of religions with very radical beliefs for whose believers may engage in acts that may destabilizes the smooth running of the native governments. In instances where temporary or even permanent migration permits are granted, there are possibilities that a larger number of illegal immigrants can take advantage of this line of weakness to flock such a country under illegal circumstances. These unauthorized entries may pose a serious compromise to the integrity of the national security. The threat in national security is elevated by the fact that some of these illegal immigrants might be people with disguised terrorisms intentions. There are those who believe that immigrants will come with their skills and expertise that may positively contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the host country in which they are allowed residence. On the other hand, do not forget that as you welcome those that may contribute positively to the betterment of your local economy some of them will not be well intended in your country. Because of the existence of such characters in within the populations of the accepted immigrants, it means that your national security is in jeopardy. Such a country is quite easy to attack from within as is the example of what happened during the September 11 2011 attacks. The terrorist were easily given access into the United States of America, However no one knew the atrocities that were being planned at the back of their minds. It all ended up with loss of lives of the natives in their thousands and destruction of businesses and properties.
John Tirman may have viewed the swift decision by the US legislators to enact national security enforcement and protective laws (which he ridicules as unnecessary sweeping vigilance) to prevent the occurrence of another or a similar September 11 2011 attacks as uncalled for.However, the truth is terror intentioned individuals who may be planning to gain entry into America are well aware the big brother is sharply watching over his borders and airports. As a result, it has instilled fear to people with such intentions and they have probably chosen not to attack America on American soil but other places and countries where the influence of America is held so dear. They have decided to attack countries or American embassies in countries regarded as friends of the United States of America. No wonder we have not heard another similar attack with an almost similar magnitude with the September 11 2011 since it happened close to fifteen years ago. There is a possible strong case that we can attribute the phenomenon of reduced terror attacks to the impact of these legislations.
It is not entirely true that when a person who shares the same radical faith as a similar person who committed a major scale atrocity that led to death of thousand on the basis of that faith is frisked by the police, should be considered an injustice. It is said once bitten twice shy and if at one point you were kind to a person from the Inner Horner and instead of being grateful for your kindness blew thousands of your people to death, you will be justified to treat another new Inner Hornerite with a pinch of salt. Therefore claiming that such an act by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents is an act of injustice; even if the new Inner Hornerite is totally innocent, is plainly unfounded and biased.
It is most notable that in most cases, Muslim is not a voluntary but a given religion considering the religious laws enshrining the Muslim faith and how children from a tender age are consistently and in some instances forcefully driven to pick up and adopt their parents’ religion. The Muslim religion has also been associated with the oppression of its women. It thus begs the question, if believers of such a religion are that radical as not to be kind with their own, how can they be kind to those who are perceived to be enemies? It is thus very important for America to protect its borders and other possible entry points against a people who have tagged themselves as enemies of America. If it calls for establishing laws that will inhibit the entry of Muslim immigrants from entering America and that this is the only way established to promise a lasting solution and to guarantee the Americans citizen of their safety when they are on their home soil, so be it.
The USA policy makers may need to establish even more stringent border patrol and manning legislation to overcome the problem of porous borders that has become a leeway for illegal migrants. Apart from terror and security threats, majority of which have their geneses from Muslim associated terror groups. Illegal immigration has led to a compromise in the rule of law with increase in the rates of crime. It has also led to a cut-throat competition for employment opportunities with the legal American citizens’ workforce and inflated public expenditure on health and education. Finally the incident of illegal immigrants also strains the relationship between nations and especially nations from which the immigrants are coming from and the nation which the immigrants have chosen to go into . Therefore it calls for a lasting solution that will bar these illegal immigrants entry into America. As a result, confrontations between countries with immigrants being at the centre of such confrontations can be avoided. And if the Donald Trump’s school of thought could be the only approach that can achieve this, why delay its implementation in the first place.
According to a survey report by the Center for Security Policy, it is noted that up to twenty five (25%) of the American Muslims who gave their respondents on the survey believed that it was okay for America to be attacked by the Muslim Jihadists. These respondents held the belief that America deserved all the hatred and the Jihad wars that were being directed against it by the Muslim associating terror groups. This is the report cited by Donald Trump that led to his view of barring subsequent Muslim immigrants from setting foot on American soil until secure national security and safety mechanisms were put in place to prevent Jihad attacks on American soil. Trump believes that acting so coyly with a group of people some of which its members have become die hard followers of the Jihad principles is naïve. These people have proved in the past that they do not mind baying for innocent blood without regard to human dignity and human right to life. They have left thousands maimed with permanent disabilities, they have broken families, they have made children to become orphans and have driven parents to become childless. If they can deal mercilessly with innocent people, I doubt that barring them from entering and seeking disguised refuge in a foreign country will be a greater evil than what history has associated them with.
Bibliography
Bloemraad, Irene. Understanding “Canadian Exceptionalism” in Immigration and Pluralism Policy. University of California, Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2012.
Bush, Jeb, and Thomas F. McLarty III. U.S. Immigration Policy. Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York: Council on Foreign Relations®, Inc, 2009.
Cesari, Jocelyne. "Islam in the West: From Immigration to Global Islam." Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 8 (2009): 148–175.
Kanji, Azeezah, and Khadijah Kanji. "Muslims & Multiculturalism: Evaluating Common Concerns about Muslims in Canada ." ‘Muslims and Multiculturalism’ workshop at . Noor Cultural Centre , 2013. 1-26.
Saunders, George. The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil. Riverhead Books, 2005.
The Atlantic. "Donald Trump Calls for Banning Muslim Immigrants." theatlantic.com. 7 12th , 2015. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/ (accessed March 5th, 2016).
Tirman, John. "Immigration and Insecurity: Post-9/11 Fear in the United States." MIT Center for International Studies Audit of the Conventional Wisdom. Chatham House, London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 06-09 (June 2006). 1-4.
