Mass immigration and open borders are huge problems, but their costs are sometimes difficult to see. Generally, Americans take a rosy view of immigration, as it conjures up images of plucky Irishmen crammed onto ships, chuffing past Ellis Island. We’re the melting pot—people of different creeds and races come here, each contributing some distinct spices to the stew, but ultimately subsuming into the larger cultural heritage and mores of the host country. Learn English, learn the Constitution, follow the rules, and you’re golden.
Of course, that all assumes the assimilability of the immigrants. Back in those rose-tinted Ellis Island days, waves of Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants (not to mention Chinese and Japanese migrants to California) caused great consternation, as each ethnic tribe and nationality stuck to its own. With the National Origins Act of 1924, that great wave of migration trimmed to a trickle, with quotas favoring immigration from Western Europe. Combined with the national struggles of the Great Depression and the Second World War, those migrants had time to get “baked in” to the national pie, and emerged full Americans.
Consider, too, that these immigrants came to the United States at a time when there was significant friction by doing so. Many of them would never return to their home countries, or would do so only many decades later. Lacking the access to mass, global communications networks, many of them never saw or heard from their relatives and families again.
Today, immigrants are able to communicate seamlessly with their relatives back home—a wonderful marvel of our modern-age. They can also hop a jet plane and be back in hours (or get here quickly). That same friction is no longer present to the same extent as it was 100 years ago.
Couple that with massive legal and illegal immigration, and the push to assimilate begins to vanish rapidly. That push becomes more of a gentle nudge, if that. Why learn English and the local customs when you can be surrounded by your hombres from back home?
Let’s go a step further: what if your host culture no longer promotes or defends the rightness of its own beliefs and values? Instead, it promotes multiculturalism and diversity as self-evident goods. The official and cultural messages are no longer “assimilate” and “respect our laws, values, and God,” but instead become, “do your own thing” and “we’re nothing special—we don’t even really believe this stuff.” Suddenly, there’s no compelling reason to assimilate into a culture that lacks confidence in itself.
Take all of that and add in a culture that does have some conviction in the rightness—and righteousness—of itself, and you’ve got the makings of a cloistered, insular community of unassimilable immigrants in your midsts.
Such is the situation in Minnesota with the Somali “refugees” living there. They are, almost universally, devout Muslims. They are also what the cool kids call “visible minorities”—they’re black—which serves as a further impediment to assimilation. Islam in its most fundamental form is, essentially, at odds with Western civilization. The very existence of Sharia law conflicts directly with the Constitution. It’s all a recipe for disaster.
Indeed, the situation in “Little Mogadishu“—the Somalian neighborhood in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area—is a miniature form of the Islamic migrant crisis Europe has endured for years now. Like the banlieues of France and Belgium, Somalian Muslims have created their own ethnic enclave in the heart of a State once dominated by Swedes and Germans.
Little Mogadishu is, sadly, following the pattern of other Muslim-dominated areas in the West. It’s crime rate is through the roof, growing 56% in 2018. Most of that increase is due to gang violence between competing Somali street gangs.
Minnesota—in a suicidal display of “Upper Midwestern Nice”—has encouraged the accumulation of Somalis into its State, creating a powerful ethnic voting bloc that holds increasing sway over the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party (the technical appellation for the Democratic Party in Minnesota). Freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who can barely speak English without an anti-Semitic accent, is a troubling figure to have walking the highest corridors of power. She’s a political figure ripped straight out of sub-Saharan
That’s had lethal consequences, too, such as Somali police officer Mohammed Noor’s fatal shooting of Australian Justine Damond. That killing drew attention to what was likely an unfortunate diversity-hire. The Minneapolis Police Department is, apparently, attempting to hire more Somali officers to improve community outreach in Little Mogadishu, but why did the city allow such an alien enclave to develop in the first place?
That incident at least received coverage from the mainstream media. What didn’t was this piece from InfoWars, which details (with police documents) the antics of a group of eight or ten Somali teens. It seems these precocious, vibrant youngsters were spreading diversity with hammers and pipes in an attempt to rob elderly white people.
Some of these attacks are, no doubt, the result of typical inner-city gang violence. But the insidious influence of radical Islamism is alive in well in the environs of this Minneapolis banlieue. Fox News calls it “the terrorist recruitment capital of the US.” Ami Horowitz, in a jaw-dropping YouTube video, demonstrates that Somali Americans believe Sharia law is preferable to (and, by implication, should replace) America’s constitutional law.
So, how does the United States avoid replicating the errors of Europe and Minnesota? Tighter immigration restrictions would be a key first step.
Another would be more drastic, and unlikely politically. Indeed, were it to succeed, the precedent it established could be destructive in the long-run to religious liberty. I’ll elaborate:
Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust.” That is a beautiful statement in favor of religious liberty.
That said, Islam may very well be the grand exception. It is a faith that is fundamentally incompatible with the faith, culture, and laws of the West. It has no desire to reform (indeed, it may lack the ability to do so), and it contains within it no separation of church and state. The faith of Islam is the law code.
As such, one could argue it may be necessary to amend the Constitution to ban Muslims from serving in higher office. That is a bold step, and one that I shrink away from even as I ponder it. But can there be any guarantee of loyalty from followers of a religion that is so hostile to American and Western values?
Of course, the flaw in this approach is that individual Muslims are, like lapsed Catholics and Protestants, sometimes easygoing about their faith. At the same time, even lax Muslims have a tendency to radicalize quickly. Just look at the Boston Marathon bomber, who went from being a pot-smoking loser to killing innocent people in the blink of an eye.
Regardless, the West has to wake itself up to the real, existential threat Islam represents. We’ve spent nearly 1400 years fighting against its aggressive expansion—the Battle of Tours, the defense at the gates of Vienna, the Reconquista—only now to invite the invaders in with open arms?
A few hundred Muslim immigrants a year is no big shakes. But if we adopt Europe’s “come one, come all” approach, we’ll lose everything that makes our country great, and free.