Don’t Panic over Muslim Immigration to the U.S.

Responding to recent debate over the security threat posed by Muslim immigration to the U.S., and especially by the acceptance of refugees from the Syrian civil war, Reuel Marc Gerecht cautions against exaggerating the dangers. Since September 11, 2001, anyone entering the country from the Muslim Middle East has been subject to intense scrutiny by several government agencies—despite “the president’s politically correct vocabulary.” And comparisons to the current situation in Europe are unhelpful:

What success Islamic terrorists have had using refugee cover in Europe has come through the unfiltered, rapid Middle Eastern exodus that the German chancellor encouraged. Refugee admission to the United States is usually a long and unpleasant process. Its vagaries—not knowing whether one will be admitted and the relentless boredom in inhospitable processing camps—would be tricky for a terrorist outfit trying to target young holy warriors. This is why, so far, there is no known case of such a refugee sleeper cell. It’s been long-term residents and citizens, not refugees, who have gone rogue. . . .

The upside of Americanization has held its own against Islamic militancy, the rare toxic combination of factors that turn non-jihadist radicals into killers. There are good reasons to believe that Americanization will eventually extinguish the potential for domestic jihadism. . . .

There are certainly disturbing elements in the Muslim-American experience. Many American mosques have Saudi funds flowing into them, and that is never good. But the milieux created by these mosques usually don’t radiate the hostility toward infidels that one finds frequently around their West European counterparts. . . . The United States could absorb hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Muslim immigrants and refugees without challenging the country’s ability to homogenize even the most refractory, sharia-loving newcomers.

Would doing so increase the chance of Islamic terrorism? Yes. More Muslims in the United States mean more possible targets for recruiters, more chances for a radicalized Muslim to go rogue. But America, unlike many European countries that made their choice decades ago by allowing large-scale Muslim immigration, can still choose to turn off the spigot. . . . [T]his more stringent approach perpetuates an illusion, however: that the West isn’t intimately involved in the Muslim world’s problems, that it can insulate itself behind reinforced borders.

Islam and the West are in a globe-altering civilizational struggle, which the Muslim world has been losing for over 200 years. Islamic terrorism has become so savage in part because hundreds of millions of Muslims, faithful Muslims, have adopted so many Western values and habits. . . . The millions of Muslims who have and will seek sanctuary in the West are overwhelmingly on our side of the divide—between those who loathe and fear the West’s unstoppable individualism and those who are willing to admit, however reluctantly, that infidels have created a better world in which to raise children. These Muslims may not be our friends, but they are not our enemies. They may well be key to a victory over jihadism. We should have the confidence in our civilization that they do.

Read more at Weekly Standard

More about: American Muslims, Immigration, Politics & Current Affairs, Refugees, Terrorism

How to Save the Universities

To Peter Berkowitz, the rot in American institutions of higher learning exposed by Tuesday’s hearings resembles a disease that in its early stages was easy to cure but difficult to diagnose, and now is so advanced that it is easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. Recent analyses of these problems have now at last made it to the pages of the New York Times but are, he writes, “tardy by several decades,” and their suggested remedies woefully inadequate:

They fail to identify the chief problem. They ignore the principal obstacles to reform. They propose reforms that provide the equivalent of band-aids for gaping wounds and shattered limbs. And they overlook the mainstream media’s complicity in largely ignoring, downplaying, or dismissing repeated warnings extending back a quarter century and more—largely, but not exclusively, from conservatives—that our universities undermine the public interest by attacking free speech, eviscerating due process, and hollowing out and politicizing the curriculum.

The remedy, Berkowitz argues, would be turning universities into places that cultivate, encourage, and teach freedom of thought and speech. But doing so seems unlikely:

Having undermined respect for others and the art of listening by presiding over—or silently acquiescing in—the curtailment of dissenting speech for more than a generation, the current crop of administrators and professors seems ill-suited to fashion and implement free-speech training. Moreover, free speech is best learned not by didactic lectures and seminars but by practicing it in the reasoned consideration of competing ideas with those capable of challenging one’s assumptions and arguments. But where are the professors who can lead such conversations? Which faculty members remain capable of understanding their side of the argument because they understand the other side?

Read more at RealClearPolitics

More about: Academia, Anti-Semitism, Freedom of Speech, Israel on campus