7 constitutional steps to protect us against Islamic jihad
Posted December 10, 2015 06:00 AM by Daniel Horowitz
Counter terrorism officers participating in the drill stand with a bomb-sniffing dog as they prepare to enter the building in which the drill is conducted. Albin Lohr-Jones | AP Images
Whenever one proposes a series of solutions to a public policy problem, especially one that represents an existential threat to our sovereignty, security, and society, it is important to first identify the problem.
Defining the Problem
The problem we face is not ISIS. The Islamic State is a symptom of the problem. After all, we’ve had hundreds of cases of homegrown terror long before ISIS. It is now clear that the San Bernardino terrorists were “radicalized” before the rise of ISIS. The problem we face is Islamic supremacism that is deeply rooted in Sharia-adherent Muslims throughout the world and in potentially hundreds of thousands of devout Muslims we have admitted into our country over the past few decades. Europe stands as a stark example of where we are headed under the current trajectory. This totalitarian and violently supremacist mindset, along with the culture of subversion and hatred for democracy thereof, can potentially prompt any sharia-adherent Muslim to pursue Jihad—whether promoted by ISIS, Al Nusra, Al Shabab, or no formal terror group at all. This is not a far-fetched threat; this is the reality before our eyes both in America and in Europe.
At its core, the problem is not a foreign policy problem. None of the terror groups have the ability to hit our shores with a Navy or Air Force. This is a problem of the radical Islamists we have already brought to our shores and those we will continue bringing in through immigration.
This all gets back to the stone cold truth the western elites refuse to recognize. While not all Muslims subscribe to the caliphate and the pursuit of jihad, all those who do subscribe to it are Sharia-adherent Muslims. And given the advent of the internet and cyber jihad, almost any sharia-adherent family we bring in can become radicalized or are already radicalized. This is especially true of the younger generation, as we are seeing a growing trend towards reverse assimilation into America’s political values.
Well, now that we have identified the problem as endemic of American and foreign Muslims, albeit by no means reflecting all Muslims, how do we deal with the problem without trading liberty for security?
By following common sense, putting American citizens first, and following the Constitution, we do not have to trade liberty for security, and in fact, can pursue policies long established and in line with our tradition.
There are three legal statuses when viewing individuals and the rights they may or may not have: foreign nationals desiring to emigrate, immigrants legally present in the U.S., and American citizens.
Potential immigrants: There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States. Period. Based on the social contract, social compact, sovereignty, long-standing law of nation-states, governance by the consent of the governed, the plenary power of Congress over immigration, and 200 years of case law, our political branches of government have the power to exclude or invite any individual or classes people for any reason on a temporary or even permanent basis. Congress has already delegated its authority to the president to shut off any form of immigration at will at any time.
Immigrants: Those already admitted to this country with the consent of the citizenry have unalienable rights. They cannot be indefinitely detained. However, they can be deported for any reason if they are not citizens. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), which is still settled law, the court ruled that Congress has the same plenary power to deport aliens for any reason as it does to exclude them and that the statutory procedures and conditions for doing so are due process. 
Citizens: American citizens of all stripes cannot be deported or excluded unless they have been stripped of citizenship for committing treason and have been proven guilty through due process. Naturalized citizens can be de-naturalized, but only if they were found to have lied in order to obtain citizenship.
With this foundation and these guiding principles in mind, it is actually quite easy to pursue policies that are in line with our Constitution, rooted in our nation’s history and tradition, and reflect the requisite common sense needed to protect American citizens above all.
- A slow down of immigration
The entire media focus on Donald Trump’s so-called across-the-board ban on Muslims is the perfect straw man to distract from a mature conversation over the real issue at hand. Focusing on the extreme of never allowing a single Muslim into the country under any circumstance, they ignore the extreme of our current policy of making immigration from the Middle East the fastest growing origin of immigration.
Numbers matter in immigration. The discussion must be focused on why we have increased Saudi student visas 10-fold since 9/11? Why we have admitted 680,000 immigrants from the Middle East in just five years. The simple reality is that these countries are overrun with Sharia adherence and Jewish hatred. We must focus on assimilating those Muslims already in America and empowering the legitimate moderates.
By continuing the current trajectory and bringing in immigrants from the Middle East at the pace of the European nations, especially in the post cyber-Jihad era, we will make it impossible for the more Americanized, moderate Muslims to win out when there is a constant flow of new immigrants freshly inculcated with the values of the Middle East. We can bring individuals here from the Middle East, but the existing suicidal, unaccountable, and unrepresentative policy of bringing in large numbers of Middle Eastern immigrants over such a short period of time is tantamount to bringing in the Middle East itself.
Congress absolutely has the power to curb or shut down any immigration or place any conditions on such immigration they deem necessary. As noted earlier, Congress has already delegated this authority to the president to execute at will at any time.
- Deport hostile non-citizen immigrants
Congress has the same authority to deport anyone who is not a citizen as it does to exclude them to begin with. Under current law, any non-citizen — whether present in the country legally or illegally — who commits a felony is supposed to be deported. In addition, “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible." [212(a)(3)(D)(iv).] Putting Islamic immigration aside, our government has failed to protect this country from criminal aliens for many years. There are an estimated 2.1 million criminal aliens at large in this country. The next president must immediately deport all criminal aliens. As it relates to those who preach hatred towards America, albeit not reaching the level of treason, Congress must write specific statutes directing ICE to deport them immediately. Non-citizens have free speech rights in the sense that they cannot be imprisoned for hateful (but non-treasonous) speech. But they can and must be deported. Any non-citizen attempting to incite hatred or violence against America should live somewhere they feel comfortable.
- Strip citizenship
We are either at war or we are not. If we are at war then anyone who supports our enemies, including U.S. citizens, should be stripped of their citizenship through due process. Ted Cruz has attempted to pass legislation doing just that, but has been stymied by Senate Democrats and a lack of support from anyone in GOP leadership. There are roughly 250 known Americans who have attempted to join up with foreign terror groups. The fact that they have not been tried for treason is unconscionable.
- Properly classify terror groups
In addition to slowing the endless flow of radicals from the Middle East the best way to deal with the existing homegrown terrorism is to stop allowing the Muslim Brotherhood foxes to guard the henhouse. It’s time to pass Senator Cruz’s bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group. This will prohibit government officials from being influenced by them, and more importantly, will cut off the flow of funds to radical mosques, which are serving as a repository for subversive anti-Americanism. Ultimately, members of these groups caught with ties to our enemies must be expelled at the very least. In addition, much of the radicalization in mosques and universities is funded by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They must be designated as terror states until there is a change in their policies, thereby prohibiting them from funding radical mosques. Taken as a whole, these steps will empower moderate Muslims to come out of the shadows and stop terror groups from marginalizing or intimidating them.
- Reform refugee program
In addition to presenting us with a grave national security risk and serving as an endless pipeline for immigrants from the Middle East fleeing Islamic sectarian civil wars, the refugee program has become a massive fiscal drain on the states, is corrupt, and unaccountable. The number of refugees deported for murder or sexual assault has soared in recent years, despite the recalcitrance to deport criminal aliens, which tells you there are likely many more problematic refugees. Any reform plan should include the following:
1. Temporarily shut down the refugee resettlement program. Pass Rep. Brian Babin’s bill placing a moratorium on the program until the Government Accountability Agency can conduct a full audit and give us an understanding of the cost, security problems, and the scope of the problem with the federal government and private contractors not consulting with the state and local governments.
2. After reforming the program, have the refugee act expire every other fiscal year so the people’s representatives can ensure the program is working for the American people.
3. Pass Cruz’s new bill requiring the support of the governor in order for refugee resettlement to occur within a state. I would also add a provision requiring the support of the local county government that is slated for resettlement.
- Implement visa exit-entry system
Conservatives must force Democrats on the record, once and for all, opposing a universally accepted proposition of instituting a visa tracking system to track the exit and entry of those who enter on visas. ABC News reported last year that DHS has lost track of 58,000 foreign students who have overstayed their visas, of which 6,000 presented a “heightened concern.” Keep in mind we admit over 150,000 foreign students from the Middle East, 60,000 from Saudi Arabia alone, every year. Open borders, suspension of deportation, and no visa tracking — coupled with record immigration and visas from the Middle East — is the nightmare scenario we are now confronted with. Democrats have no leverage to oppose something they are on record as supporting if Republicans sincerely pursued a righteous fight for the implementation of biometric exit-entry at every land, sea, and airport.
- Privatize TSA
The creation of the TSA was supposed to keep us safe after 9/11. Instead, it serves as a fascistic paramilitary outlet that humiliates and violates the rights of every American citizen. Appallingly, 72 employees of the TSA are on a terrorist watch list. By privatizing airport screenings we can move towards a common sense screening model targeting terrorists similar to the security protocols of Israel’s El Al airline.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.
Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895) (“It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by congress, are due process of law.”) Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 223 (1953) (Jackson, dissenting) (“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will,”)