Andrew McCarthy On How The Constitution Doesn't Bar A "Religious Test" For Immigration
The way I see it, someone's religious beliefs are none of my business -- no matter how idiotic and/or irrational the stuff they believe in is -- as long as their particular belief system doesn't call for them to blow up, gun down, or otherwise horribly murder the rest of us.
Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the first Islam-driven attack (back in 1993) on the World Trade Center, has done some intensive study of Islam.
He is one of the few who has realized -- from early on -- that what Islam commands of its followers stands in conflict with the values of a free society. For example, its commands include the slaughter of gays and apostates, treating women as men's property, the removal of civil liberties, and the death or conversion of "the infidel"...among other niceties that run entirely contrary to human decency and a civilized way of life.
He writes at NRO:
Now for the suicidal part of denying the Islamic moorings of jihadism: Contrary to White House blather, people do not commit mass-murder attacks because of economic privation or over trifling slights. They commit it because they are seized by commands that they take to be divine injunctions rooted in scripture, their devotion to which will determine whether paradise or eternal damnation awaits.
About the subject of this post, also at NRO, McCarthy corrects a misconception from the 2016 presidential campaign:
Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a "religious test" in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism.It is also dead wrong.
The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you'll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration.
The clause states, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials -- specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.
...Promotion of assimilation and fidelity to the Constitution have been historical bedrocks of immigration policy. Indeed, before immigrants are naturalized as citizens, they must swear what is pointedly called an "oath of allegiance." It calls on them to renounce any foreign sovereigns by whom they have been ruled, and to honor our Constitution -- principles that are inimical to sharia supremacism.
We should resist a categorical ban on Muslim immigration; but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the commonsense vetting of immigrants for beliefs that are antithetical to our principles, regardless of whether the immigrant perceives such beliefs as religious or political in nature.
We should welcome immigrants who embrace our principles, seek to assimilate into our society, and are value-added for -- rather than a strain on -- our economy. But if, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional "no religious test" rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board.
The United States government's first obligation is to shield the American people from foreign threats, not to shield foreign threats and render the American people defenseless.
I can't help but think that he's being deliberately obtuse by completely ignoring the existence of the first amendment.
Renee at July 31, 2016 12:26 AM
If a Trump presidenc will scare the shit out of both parties, such that they will reign in the unconstitutional excesses of power the presidential office has gained over the last 15 years, it will all be worthwhile.
Matt at July 31, 2016 12:35 AM
How so Renee? The first amendment says nothing about immigration. It's protections apply to citizens and not to foreigners. And until they become citizens that is what immigrants are, foreigners. It is well upheld law that while the federal government cannot stop a US citizen from bad mouthing the government it does not have to allow foreigners who have bad mouthed it into the country.
Ben at July 31, 2016 5:32 AM
Indeed, Ben. Additionally, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates Congress' authority, and mentions To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
Nothing in there that says we have to accept anyone, or even everyone. Just that there be a uniform rule.
If you're a firm believer in shari'a law, you won't be happy in the US (or in the West in general). There are several muslim majority countries that we can point you towards that observe shari'a, and you should find that they satisfy your desires.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 31, 2016 5:48 AM
Exactly, Ben. And I R A.
Amy Alkon at July 31, 2016 6:19 AM
It seems the Constitution is cited by more people than have actually read it. It's not long. It's not complex. And it takes a Harvard educated judge to twist it into something it does not say.
MarkD at July 31, 2016 6:29 AM
"My religion"? "I am a devout Thugee". "These are my religious scarves". "Now if there are no other questions, I would like to come into your country". "We worship very quietly, you will hardly notice that we are here".
kenmce at July 31, 2016 6:53 AM
Nicely said, MarkD.
Ken R at July 31, 2016 8:53 AM
There is kind of a 'penumbra' argument there. Once a person becomes a naturalized citizen, they are eligible to vote and to run for public office. A pre-naturalization religious test would infringe on those rights.
Good grief, can you imagine the loss if we had kept out Arnold Schwarzenegger? Or et. al.
Canvasback at July 31, 2016 10:32 AM
Heck, if your going for an 'I made shit up' argument Canvasback there is a constitutional duty for all of you to give me $100. It's an emanation and such. Of course there is a similar emanation that I have to give all of you $100. You guys first? (pretty please?)
And think of all the bull testicle statues you would have missed out on if you were correct. What a . . . nope, not tragedy . . . ummm . . . I dunno, I give up.
Ben at July 31, 2016 11:36 AM
Do you trust the gummint to decide who's “value-added for our economy”?
Anton Sherwood at July 31, 2016 12:36 PM
A bit late to this discussion; but . . .
Why on earth should non-US residents be given the same rights as US citizens or US legal residents?
charles at July 31, 2016 6:24 PM
Leave a comment