Our self-anointed arbiters of “respectable opinion” reacted with fits of apoplexy when presidential hopeful Donald Trump proposed a temporary halt on Muslim immigration. “Unconstitutional and un-American,” they raved and fumed – and further likened Trump to Hitler. Nevertheless – whether or not one agrees with Trump’s proposal – his critics are wrong to claim that his proposal is unlawful or necessarily un-American.
Federal law (8 U.S. Code § 1182) states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
The law specifically prescribes that adherents of totalitarian ideologies may be excluded. This provision authorized exclusion of Communists and Nazis. In terms of a religious test for immigration, we have had the Lautenberg Amendment. Passed during the Cold War in 1989, it authorized that the U.S. give preference to Soviet Jews and certain groups of Soviet Christians to come to the U.S. as refugees. Soviet Muslims were not included.
Trump’s plan appeals to many Americans because of their concern that Muslim immigrants pose a particular problem for assimilation. They point to studies of anti-American attitudes in Muslim communities and the well-documented problems Europe is experiencing with its growing Islamic population.
Their concern about assimilation is quite legitimate, and equally legitimate is their desire for an immigration policy that promotes assimilation. If anything is un-American, it is the lack of such a policy. This being said, there is a much better way to protect our national cohesion than simply focusing on Muslims. That solution is a sharp reduction of all immigration.
The truth of the matter is that people of every group are inclined to keep to their ways when immigration is constantly swelling their numbers. Currently we have the highest sustained level of legal immigration in our history, averaging around 1 million per year for more than 20 years. And along with them during that time, we’ve been accepting a yearly average of several hundred thousand illegal aliens.
The end result is a diversity which is becoming ever more divisive. One hundred years ago, we faced the same problem. Today we view the Ellis Island era through rose-colored spectacles, and imagine that all the immigrants then immediately embraced an American identity. In reality, the high level of immigration at that time was beginning to fracture the country along class and ethnic lines.
In response, Congress acted in the 1920s – with a wisdom seldom seen in that body today – and sharply reduced immigration. With that long-overdue repair the cracked Melting Pot began to function once more, and national unity flourished. Immigration advocates often point to this successful assimilation of immigrants, but they never mention why it happened.
If we cut immigration today, we might hope for a similar outcome. This would encourage U.S. Muslims who dream of jihad to reinterpret their faith in a way more in keeping with the norms of American society. Or to cite another example, it would encourage Mexicans enraptured with the notion of Aztlan to embrace their new country instead.
Moderating our extremist immigration policy is the decent – and American – thing to do. Unfortunately, a lot of “respectable opinion” stands in the way of this goal. Those who denounce Trump’s plan typically become unhinged at the suggestion of cutting any immigration whatsoever. They speak with moralizing language, but behind their rhetoric lies the squalid agendas of cheap labor for Republicans and cheap votes for Democrats. Such today – sad to say – is what we call “respectability.”