The United States must impose a total ban on Muslim immigration. If immigration quotas must be filled, there are millions of Christians and members of other oppressed faiths living in Muslim countries who would be happy to replace Muslims.
These are the thoughts of K.C. McAlpin, president of US Inc. “In the 1940s and 1950s, when U.S. leaders still knew how to defend Western culture and democratic institutions from totalitarian ideologies, the U.S. banned Nazis and Communists from immigrating to the U.S. The U.S. must treat Islam the same and impose a total ban on Muslim immigration,” writes McAlpin in an editorial in The Social Contract Press.
“Three millennia ago, according to Homeric legend, there was an epic siege of the city of Troy by Greek warriors. But even after ten years of sustained and furious attack, Troy remained safe thanks to the courage of her defenders and her impregnable walls. Ultimately, however, Troy was captured and destroyed when the Greeks used guile to get inside those walls by hiding soldiers in the famous Trojan Horse.
“The Homeric story is an accurate metaphor for the situation the U.S. faces today. Troy is even cited by Islamic leaders themselves who gloat about immigration as their ultimate weapon of conquest. We are fools if we fail to take them at their word and heed the lesson of Troy. For the sake of our national security and the preservation of our freedom, we must ban all Muslim immigration now,” McAlpin writes.
According to a Washington Post report, 60 US citizens were convicted or charged in cases involving terrorism during the first ten months of 2010 alone.
McAlpin’s editorial came under criticism for its anti-constitutional stand. The critics noted that the ban would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, or at the least conflicts with the spirit of it. A ban would be impossible to implement and consequently would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture that antagonizes Muslims and does nothing to enhance national security, the critics added.
In response to the criticism, McAlpin noted that applicants for admission to the United States do not enjoy the protection of the US Constitution or its 1st Amendment until and unless they are lawfully admitted.
“We contend that it is not “religious bigotry” to defend oneself, or one’s family and community from people who profess a particular religion, and whose adherents have repeatedly tried to attack and murder you in the name of their God.
“A ban on the immigration of the entire class of such people is a rational self-defense measure when it is impossible to distinguish between those members of the group who pose a threat, and those who do not.”