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.
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.
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.
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.
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,”)
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.