Here is a quartet of recent articles I submitted for Op-Ed’s with my local newspaper, but rejected as being too strident/controversial. When people are dying and an entire society is at risk, I think we can afford controversy. The only issue should be what can we do to fix the problem and safeguard the community.
My opinions may sound harsh, but the crux of the argument is, would they be effective? If so, should we still wring our hands that we’re hurting some feelings, whether individuals, a sub-group or an entire theocratic system? You be the judge.
THE ACCIDENTAL IMMIGRANT
People emigrating to America come for many reasons, the main ones being 1) a better life 2) more opportunity 3) religious freedom 4) safety and security, and 5) escape from immediate danger.
Unfortunately, others come here to do us harm. Their long-range plan is to plant home-grown terrorism on our soil. Another more subtle goal is to grow an indigenous population that eventually achieves significant levels as a percentage of the population, exposing and in-culturating us to their ways and incrementally changing our society.
A third more dangerous purpose is to gain access to our infrastructure in order to wreak havoc and mayhem like on 9/11.
The first group are welcome, even category 5 who are just trying to survive but may find they actually like it here, which is our hope. The second group is the problem, being almost entirely middle easterners and particularly Muslims.
This reality demands that we screen very carefully those we allow in, even the ones escaping danger. We cannot afford to do less. Migrants are not citizens and do not enjoy constitutional rights until they have formally matriculated into America. In these hazardous times they must be viewed as guilty until proven innocent, especially Muslims.
This seems like unfair stereotyping but it’s vital to our national security. If we’re not sure who they are they must not enter! If they’re fleeing for their lives and can’t be vetted to a high level of certainty they should be allowed in under strict supervision, remaining isolated and away from the general population until their actual identity and status are known.
TRUMP INSULTED MUSLIMS?
When Trump suggested we temporarily shut down all new immigration from targeted Muslim countries and specifically all Muslims, he was drawing a logical conclusion from facts at hand. 
Virtually all terrorist acts, here and abroad, are committed by radicalized Jihadist persons within the Muslim faith/community. We cannot ignore this reality.
Yes, the majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful, even the vast majority. But when a small minority of their extremist brethren commit evil, killing innocent men, women and children, the majority publicly say and do very little? Silence or apathy in the face of these atrocities projects tacit approval, whether true or false. This makes them part of the problem, not the solution.
Something like a billion and a half Muslims should be able to control a few hundred thousand extremists, including mullahs, imams, sheiks, ayatollahs etc. The mainstream must openly reject their jihadism and cast them out, eradicating their teachings and beseechings from the mosques, which are a menace to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The non-Muslim world is daily at-risk and, in the main, not interested in appeasement, tolerance or pacification. We want an immediate end to the violence and mayhem with/without Muslim help. Trump is right, Muslim feelings and sensitivities notwithstanding. Indirectly they have brought this on themselves and must endure the consequences. Simply watching and commiserating in silence doesn’t cut it!
TRUMP RIGHT ON!
Unfortunately, I must agree with Mr. Trump. If there is one mosque enjoying tax free religious status in this country but preaching radical jihad and hatred against us, it’s one too many! We cannot grow an indigenous Muslim population without knowing who they are and what they believe.
In reality, there are thousands of mosques now operating here, with new ones opening every day. Undercover investigations have already found a meaningful percentage are in fact preaching fundamentalism and jihadist orthodoxy, supporting radical elements around America and around the world. This must stop!
We have no time for political correctness or liberal hair pulling over what appears to be intolerance, prejudice or racism. San Bernardino proved we are not vetting middle easterners effectively, let alone keeping them under constant watch and surveillance. Besides, we don’t have the people and resources to do this, when there are literally millions of potential sympathizers involved.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but 99.99% of terrorists are Muslims! We know this, and that radical elements of Christians, Jews, Hindis and so on are not killing anybody. We need to wake up and do our job, if we are to survive. Let’s remind President Obama he took an oath to protect us. Tell him to start doing his job!
DOWNSIDE OF IMMIGRATION
Traditionally we’ve been a country of assimilators, not immigrators, meaning people coming here in previous generations kissed the ground and found work, learned English, adapted to our culture and blended into society as quickly as possible. There were ethnic neighborhoods like Chinatown and Little Italy, but generally an immigrant’s goal was to learn our ways and immerse themselves into the masses; not melt or disappear mind you, just adapt, fit in and become like the rest of us.
They came for refuge and a better life. Otherwise they would’ve stayed home. It didn’t make sense to keep to the old ways, clinging to their customs and language. Privately in their homes, maybe, but in open society they wanted to be like us, not different! It’s true the older folks had a tougher time, couldn’t learn the language, at least not as easily as their kids. But if they couldn’t escape their ethnicity, they made sure the next generation did!
We Americans here expected this to happen, having little patience for non-English speaking foreigners except, sadly, to exploit their labor. Today, however, there is an element among us thinking we should be tolerant. We should accommodate their needs, catering to their native language, customs, laws, dress, religion, whatever. This element says we must respect their heritage, bestowing a cultural validity equal to our own. It also says we must offer them our unconditional hospitality.
Why? Why should they be allowed to come here if they have no gainful employment, no interest in becoming an integral part of our society nor contributing to it in any way? The fact they came here shows there was something lacking in their homeland that kept them from prospering and feeling comfortable. Changing one’s country is a huge ordeal. There must be strong incentives to make a person want to do this. Whether it’s for a better life or to save a life, it’s a terrible reflection against their homeland. To suggest their culture is equal to ours is absurd on its face.
Non-assimilative immigration is a strong and deliberate promoter of deep diversity, which is now factionalizing our society. Too much of it will result in a disruptive diversification, making us dangerously less homogenous.
We need to reinstate the assimilative expectation and process as it relates to our immigration policy. We should insist on English, self accountability and a reliable proof of loyalty to their new homeland.
We must control who comes here, monitor them for some preliminary period, restrict their voting rights during a familiarization period after taking citizenship, and restrict access to government benefits they haven’t earned. Otherwise, we are fools with our hospitality!
Alvan Shane
Upland, Ca
Leave a Reply