Mr. Trump is under fire for suggesting, logically enough, that since some Moslems are bent on mass murder to further their aims, we should halt our acceptance of Moslem immigrants until they are cleared of jihadist intentions. Mr. Trump was and continues to be virulently attacked for his suggestion.
Actually, we suppose that he is attacked for being Mr. Trump, which is to say, not a member of the approved political Establishment. We further suppose that is a preeminent element of his appeal to voters.
We are grateful for Mr. Trump’s willingness to point to the errant stupidity of mass importations of folk, a significant percentage of whom wish us dead.But we do not agree with him in assigning that as the reason for stopping the flow.
We disagree because we doubt strongly that anyone is capable of winnowing out the jihadists from the rest in today’s world. Their destroyed homelands will not provide much to investigators nor will they who are bringing deadly intentions advertise that. We seem unlikely to be able to sort masses of immigrants into well versus ill disposed toward us. We did not identify the Boston bombers nor the recent San Bernardino killers.
Two new realities already exist, seems to us: First, in the present reality that we inhabit, there are and will continue to be a number of folk bent upon murder of innocents in the name of Allah. Some will be arriving and some will already be here. Some of those will bee identifiable; many will not. This will remain an ongoing problem independent of immigration. In San Bernardino, only one of the two killers was an immigrant.
The stream of immigrants should be dammed and regulated for other reasons of greater importance. One of those is cultural, the other is financial and both are existential for Americans. For Europeans as well.
Fundamentally, the United States has been the strongest of the earth’s polities because it is the largest and most cohesive agglomeration of people. It hosts the most people in one place who share a single language, a common culture and historically, a similar attitude. That exists nowhere else. It has allowed Americans to act as a single entity.
China, Russia, India, those are assemblages of disparate peoples, languages and cultures bonded by force. That has much to do with their inability to accomplish the attainments found in the United States. There is little doubt that diluting cohesive populations with disparate languages, cultures and behaviors also dilutes their ability to cohere and therefor, their ability to act in concert. And where one of the diluting streams is Islamic, the innate intolerance and aggressiveness will exacerbate divisiveness. In sum, dumping a Moslem horde upon another culture is destructive. A non- Moslem horde is no different, though perhaps a lesser degree of onslaught. That is why mass migrations have usually been seen as invasions.
A social species forced together will assimilate or war. When the new arrivals are numerous, they are emboldened to refuse assimilation and war results.
The second factor is economic: the immigrants are unable upon arrival to contribute to the economy of their host. They are instead, a drag upon it. That worsens the lives of the locals forced to pay for the new load. Resentments arise. When the locals are already under economic pressure, that is magnified. Again, large masses of migrants have been perceived as invaders. And it is for those reasons that Mr. Trump’s hiatus in immigration is eminently sensible. The U.S. and Europe have much to lose, nothing to gain with the arrival of destabilizing numbers of aliens.
Islamic violence is another subject. Intolerant violence is endemic in that religion historically, presently and indefinitely until its precepts are significantly altered. Nor, as the World Trade Towers illustrated, does it depend upon mass migrations, though they can feed it.
So we agree with Mr. Trump, though not for his reasons. We suppose that he is simply using current concerns to his advantage, as politicians do. We would like our politicians to be more forthcoming, but we suppose that would not get them elected. We know whose fault lies in that …