Donald Trump’s presidency will undoubtedly expose Muslims to increased scrutiny. Because adherents to Islam are disproportionately hostile to Western European values, it’s difficult to argue how something like an Islamic registry — done judiciously, for prospective citizens — is a bad thing. We advocate, for example, routine colonoscopies for middle-aged men because of their susceptibility to cancer on the principle that we shouldn’t play games when a life is at stake. Likewise, devout Muslims may put many lives at stake by merely existing in an environment opposed to their own Islamic values. Their resulting frustration is understandable. But to not periodically investigate them would be statistically negligent. Ideally, this investigation would take place before emigration from a Disney-esque principality like Sudan or Somalia and intensify until her compatibility with the West is confirmed..
I’m not going to argue that Western values are superior to Islamic values. That’s not why I’m here. I will, however, argue that every Muslim immigrant should be ethically audited to determine their compatibility with European lifestyles. To not do so is gross negligence for the sake of pompous virtue-signaling or the protection of feelings; a philosophy that has enabled the exploitation of the Western world by Islamists (as an r reproductive strategy) for over a decade. Instead, the immigrant experience should be a competitive and challenging one — like potential employees, they should be subjected to extended interviews and an applicant pool slug fest.
Critics designate Islamic registries as a ‘slippery slope’ precipitating our society’s descent into Orwellian social stratification. But there really is no connection between the two; Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Agnostics and Atheists have proven themselves to be unilaterally trustworthy. They don’t need to be watched because here is no statistical justification to do so. If Muslims don’t want to be investigated and monitored, they should not come here — of course, they are always welcome to try, but not without due scrutiny. Why imperil our citizens and their wealth for the sake of ideologically opposed outsiders who, half of the time, have no interest in assimilation?
The progressive’s answer is inadvertently platitudinous: “What about ‘Give us your poor, hungry, etc’”. This argument is merely sentiment; translated into adult, it means ‘Because helping poor, benighted people makes me feel noble’. Perhaps this mawkishness was acceptable two centuries ago when America needed immigrants, but it’s aged poorly. Trump, denounced as a bigot, has the better answer: “[We need a] total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Of course the world at large has branded him a bigot.
How is figuring out what is going on a bad thing? Can anyone tell me why we need more Muslims entering the United States? It’s like taking a girl out on date after date, paying for her dinners and picking her up, and instead of fucking you, she spits in your face. Let’s start ‘nexting’ immigrants. Why would you consider wasting resources on a person who gives back nothing, or less than nothing?? “Becaaaaause, that’s not who we areee” is NOT a valid answer — it’s sentimentality. And even if it’s not who we are, why isn’t it who we should be?