When Alexander Hamilton Called Unrestricted Immigration a "Trojan Horse" Threatening Our Liberty and Sovereignty

Tweet

Yesterday, I wrote of Thomas Jefferson's anti-immigration arguments in his Notes on the State of Virginia. My intention was not to argue that Jefferson was consistently anti-immigrant (he obviously wasn't), but that anti-immigration arguments of the sort that some today would no doubt label "un-American" or even "fascist" were perfectly normal and acceptable parts of political debate in the Founding Era and were often made by many of the Founders themselves, including Thomas Jefferson.

Sixteen years later Jefferson would appear to change his tune, arguing in his first Message to Congress that restrictions on naturalization - there was a fourteen year waiting period - should be eased:

[S]hall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?

He then went on to seemingly contradict his skepticism in Notes about admitting people with different civic habits and values, in favor of a more optimistic assessment:

[M]ight not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?

I say "appear" and "seemingly" because debates about immigration in these times often grew out of larger differences between Federalists and Republicans. These differences threatened to cause secession or even civil war with (it was feared) the involvement of foreign powers. It's not that one party was necessarily more pro-or anti-immigrant than the other. Rather, it often depended on whether the potential immigrants were seen to be allies or enemies of one or the other side.

So it actually wasn't completely inconsistent for Jefferson to be, say, against French emigres when he believed them to be monarchists but in favor when he believed them to be radical republicans (although obviously Jefferson didn't exactly put it that way or admit it). For Jefferson, the French had gone from being bad guys to good guys - a little revolution had occurred in the interim.

The anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by Alexander Hamilton, writing as "Lucius Crassus" in the New-York Evening Post of January 12, 1802, as a reply to Jefferson's first Message, should be understood against this background.

Hamilton first reminds Jefferson (of course!) of his earlier views:

The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?

"Lucius Crassus" then goes on to employ language that would seem to fit only the most paranoid nativist:

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

And here's the sort of "common-sense" view on immigration that one might easily imagine a "build the wall" advocate employing today:

By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers . . . But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open.

Hamilton would end by claiming that unrestricted immigration was a Trojan Horse (or in those days they said "Grecian Horse") for the United States:

To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the Message, would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty.

It's not clear that Jefferson had quite said or meant precisely that, but this was a public political debate among strong antagonists, not a philosophical disputation in a salon.

Tomorrow: At the same time Jefferson was becoming more "pro-", George Washington was becoming more "-anti"...

When Thomas Jefferson Was Anti-immigrant

Tweet

Last summer I wrote as post titled, "This Blog is Pro-Immigration*". The * denoted four caveats or further considerations including law and order, the complications introduced by state provided "welfare", problems created by hostile governments or parties and the threat of dangerous or hostile ideologies such as Islam.

So, for example, based on some of those considerations, I support Trump's policy on "the wall." I also support the recent freeze on refugees and travel from some Muslim countries.

I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree, either with my "liberal" general position, or my more "conservative" particular position on Trump's actions.

But I do think it's unreasonable to assert that Trump's actions are "un-American." This is usually simply asserted as a conversation stopper, though it's sometimes coupled with another conversation stopper - "we are a nation of Immigrants."

Now there's plenty of historical precedent for Trump's actions. For that matter, there's also historical precedent for pretty much any action anyone could conceivably take regarding immigration, pro or con. Immigration policy has constantly been a subject of debate throughout American history and virtually every philosophical or political permutation has been advocated or tried.

Perhaps realizing this, some pro-immigrant advocates go back to the Founding Fathers. They were resoundingly pro-immigrant (it is claimed). Among other things, they were all immigrants or quasi-immigrants themselves. If there have been anti-immigration arguments, movements or policies in American history, they have been deviations from the clear beliefs and intentions of the Founding Fathers.

This is manifestly false.

Curiously, one of the most famous (or it should be the most famous) "anti-immigration" arguments was given by Thomas Jefferson in Chapter VIII of his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785). Here Jefferson makes two sorts of claims. One is the quasi-mathematical claim (complete with tables) that the unrestricted growth of the country's population (abetted by immigration) would not be economically supportable. The second is the claim that importing people with differing ideological beliefs or habits - e.g. "Monarchists" - would not be conducive to civic order or liberty. Here he contrasts "internal" growth of population (which would take, according to his calculations, "27 years and three months" longer to achieve a stipulated population benchmark) with internal growth plus immigration. 

Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?

Now, do not misunderstand. I actually don't completely agree with Jefferson's first claim. Nor am I a big fan, in general, of Jefferson the man (though, like virtually all Americans I am a fan of at least a few of his ideas). But here's one of the most prominent Founding Fathers making an essentially anti-immigration argument in one of the primary philosophical-political works of the Founding Era. If it doesn't count as an important "American" influence or idea, nothing does. 

And, as it happens, I do think his second argument is sound, although it obviously requires careful interpretation in particular cases. These days we don't fear Monarchists. But we do fear Muslims. And I, like many if not most Americans, think that fear is well-grounded - for even stronger reasons than Jefferson gives concerning the (then Monarchist) French. So, for example, I'd much rather live under a French King than a Muslim Caliph. For what it's worth, I'm confident that Jefferson would have agreed, especially against the background of Jefferson's own later dealings with Islam in the Barbary Wars.

Next: Alexander Hamilton on Immigration as a Trojan Horse.

(He's the hip Hispanic guy in that musical.)

"Hipster Right-Wingers" Hang Anti-immigrant Banner from Brandenburg Gate

Tweet

"Secure Borders - Secure Future"

Earlier today, protesters from the so-called Identitarian Movement scaled the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and staged an hour-long protest, which included the unfurling of a large banner.

Members of the movement have been described by Breibart as "hipster right-wingers." See their video at the end of this post.

(They) don’t have the typical “right wing” look often seen in the media. The young men and women look like average 20 somethings, no bald heads or combat boots, but plenty of hipster beards and fashionable haircuts.

Hip or not, the state has announced that the Identitarians are now under surveillance:

Germany's domestic intelligence agency said this month it was putting the far-right group under observation because it aims to subvert democracy. 

A spokesman for the agency said this month there were indications the group's activities went 'against the free democratic order'. 

Leaflets scattered by the group claimed the government is trying to replace Germany's population with Muslim immigrants. 

Berlin Mayor Michael Muller described the Brandenburg Gate protest as a 'disgusting' act carried out by enemies of democracy, according to Germany's RBB 24. 

'Berliners will not allow the Brandenburg Gate [to be] misused as a symbol of exclusion,' he added

Increasingly, the language of the current German authorities resembles the language of the East German authorities a generation ago. Though polls now show that the majority of the German people disagree with the government's immigration policy, opposition to that policy is now equated with "subversion" or an "anti-democratic" mentality.

I well remember the footage of ecstatic citizens dancing on top of the Berlin wall, where only days before they would have been shot. The pervasive East German police state had seemed invulnerable and virtually no one expected anything but very gradual change.  But what had seemed impossible occurred literally over-night.

Things appear different today. The current German quasi-police state probably has more popular support than the East German Communist party every did. Then again, we weren't prepared in 1989 either.

As I've written before, in the long run, only the Catholic Church can save Europe.

But in the short run, I'm with the hipsters.

This Blog is Pro-Immigration*

Tweet

*With caveats. See below.

Yes, you read the post title correctly.

I've been pro-immigration for as long as I can remember. Initially my views came out of my commitment to libertarianism - small l and big L.

The libertarian position on immigration is both utilitarian and rights based: The utilitarian argument is that, all thing being equal, free movement of peoples benefits everyone. That doesn't mean it will benefit every single person at every moment. But in the long run more people will have a greater chance of being better off than if it were restricted. In essence, the libertarian argument for the free movement of peoples is the same as that for the free movement of goods and services, otherwise known as a free market. 

The rights based argument is that people have a prima facie right to travel to or from wherever they want, and to live wherever they want (at least within the boundaries set by their own financial resources). Thus, again all things being equal, the state should not interfere with that right. If freedom doesn't at least include the right of free movement, it's not clear what it does mean.

Ironically it was a British Labour politician from the first half of the twentieth century, Ernest Bevin, who gave one of the best rough definitions of freedom I've ever seen.

Freedom means being able to get on a train at Victoria Station and go wherever you damn well want without giving an explanation to anyone.

I like that.

And I would add to it: if you want to bring your family and a few suitcases along for the ride and then, upon arrival, decide to stay, that's okay too.

I can't count the number of times I have been called a racist or a fascist or "against diversity." Whatever my other faults, those things are not among them. Diversity, as to peoples and cultures, should be one of civilization's highest values. And Chicago, where I currently live, is a wonderful example of it. So is (or was) London, where I lived for two years, or Boston, where I grew up.  One of the reasons I'm against Islam is because it's one of the most anti-diverse forces in existence.

But I'm jumping the gun.

When I became a Catholic seven years ago, I was happy to discover that my pro-immigration sympathies were confirmed by my new faith. And I'm not referring to the post-Vatican II highly-politicized "liberal" Catholicism, but the real thing.

In Catholic tradition, one of the Four Sins that Cries to Heaven for Vengeance is "the plight of the alien." That's right, in general, supporting people who wish to better their lives by moving to a new country is commanded by God. Or so I would claim, based on my understanding of the traditional position. 

I'm serious about the implications of this. I don't think people have the right to, say, insulate their profits, income or status by lobbying their national government to bar immigrants from competing with them. Nor do I think the state has the duty or right to bar immigration on the grounds of protecting ethnic or cultural "identity," simply for the sake of it.

Christ put people first, not nations or governments.

If you disagree, that's fine. I'm not making a systematic argument here. I'm just laying out my position.

However, here are some caveats or rather, additional considerations as to why being "pro-immigration" does not mean being in favor of completely unregulated or open borders in all circumstances and at all times:

1. The state has the right and responsibility to make sure immigration is orderly. I suppose if there was a risk of disease or similar, it should do what is necessary to address that. Such was famously the case at Ellis Island earlier in this country's history. It is also not an overly burdensome imposition on liberty for the state to in some way track or register who is coming in.
2. The provision of state provided "welfare" complicates things. If someone wants to come from China and, say, open a restaurant (with their own money) selling americanized Chinese food, then that's fine. But if they come from China and are then provided with free medical care, schooling, welfare benefits and the rest, perhaps out of a fund which, say, I've been paying into for my entire life, that may not be fine. People have a right to travel but not a right to be subsidized by others upon reaching their destination. In many historical cases this consideration has been a moot point. If the welfare benefits are small enough and/or the new immigrants are "hard working" enough, it doesn't really matter. But it's always going to be an empirical question as to whether immigrants "put money in" or "take money out" of the state coffers or the economy as a whole. If the answer is negative, then that may have consequences for how "open" immigration should therefore be.
3. Immigration should not be a vehicle for state aggression - obvious or implicit - or individual aggression. States should not be able to dump "undesirables" or criminals on their neighbors. More obviously, immigration should not be used as disguised warfare. Thus, France and the Low Countries had no obligation to welcome Nazi "immigrants" from Germany in 1940. And that would apply whether the "immigrants" were wearing uniforms and driving tanks or coming with families and suitcases. In the same way, criminals have no absolute right to travel to practice their criminality. And this would apply whether they are being supported by a particular state or are simply "freelancers." Which brings us to 4, or, as it were, the elephant in the room:
4. Supporting tolerance and freedom is not a death pact that should allow freedom and tolerance to be destroyed by others. Being pro-immigration flows from one's commitment to tolerance and freedom. But by the same token, if there is good evidence that immigration will have a negative effect on those values - because, say, a critical mass of immigrants of a particular group or among those who profess certain beliefs are either indifferent or hostile to them - then that's a prima facie reason to restrict immigration, at least for that group. Let's continue this discussion outside of the numbers.

I'm obviously taking about Islam - not Muslim people per se but Islam as an ideology.

If I thought Islam was simply about worshipping a God whose name started with "A," wearing a hajib and eating sweets for Eid, then I wouldn't care one way or another. Undoubtedly this is how many Westerners perceive Islam. Unfortunately, their perception is wrong.

Islam is a lot more than a few quaint customs. The goal of Islam as an ideology - as explicitly expressed in the Koran, the collected sayings of Muhammed and Islamic history and tradition - is to instantiate, by whatever means necessary, Islamic rule on everyone - a rule that would be intolerant and unfree.

To put it mildly.

And there is little wiggle room with, as it were, the nasty bits of the religion. Islam claims that the Koran was dictated directly by God. And Muhammad's status as God's prophet gives his pronouncements a permanent validity second only to God's. If you try to jettison the bad parts - particular pronouncements of God or Muhammed - you're essentially saying that Islam is false. A "reformed" Islam wouldn't be Islam.  

Some people believe that since the values of an open society - tolerance, freedom and the rest - are obviously (so they believe) a sort of historical end point for social evolution, then even if there are those who "may not quite be there yet," living within an open society will cause them to assimilate to those values or at least assimilate close enough to them.

I used to think that.

I don't anymore - at least when it comes to Islam.

It might be true with really small numbers. More to the point, if the numbers are small enough, it might not be noticeable that assimilation is not happening. And of course if the numbers are small enough, it might not matter anyway.

But as we're now seeing in Europe, and if we had been alert to it, as we could have already seen in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia, Islam doesn't assimilate away when brought into contact with other sets of values. Instead it defends itself and if possible, pushes back as hard as it can the other way.

It may lie passive for a while, especially if the numbers are small or if it is targeted by, say an aggressive nationalism or secularism as in Turkey, but the ideology itself doesn't change. And the current resurgence of Islam in Turkey after generations of quasi-repression is a good example of that.

Islam can't change. But can Muslims change? Certainly many have. Millions of Muslims all over the world have become Christians or atheists or Muslims-in-name-only who eat sweets for Eid. The problem is that for a number of reasons the general trend seems to be in the other direction.

And this is just as true for Muslims in majority non-Muslim countries. For example, polls show that among Muslims in Europe, it's the younger generation that is the most "extreme" when it comes to support for sharia and all the rest. Muslims in Europe aren't assimilating; they're gathering strength.

Islam is one hardy meme. It has a built in defense mechanism. After it "takes you over," if you then succeed in expelling it, the meme tells other Muslims to kill you.

For anyone who really values tolerance and freedom, restricting Muslim immigration is a no-brainer. Those who support Muslim immigration have put themselves squarely in opposition to the values of Western Civilization, unwillingly or willingly.

They're not pro-freedom. They've become de facto enemies of it.

A plaque inside the Statue of Liberty contains these lines from the poem "The New Colossus":

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to break free. 

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Liberty isn't going to lift her lamp for those who want to stifle our freedoms. And neither should we.

Immigration should be supported.

Muslim immigration should not be.

Dodgy Dave Slammed for Exploiting Murder of Jo Cox

Tweet

A few months ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron was given the nickname "Dodgy Dave" by Dennis Skinner, the famously cantankerous Labour MP.

It fits.

Two hours ago (Sunday morning in Great Britain) Cameron wrote a disgusting anti-Brexit piece on his Facebook page.

He started out by spending three paragraphs referencing the murder of Jo Cox--"Jo Cox’s murder was one of those events that stop you cold; that shock you down to the core"--and then he transitioned into a political pitch against Brexit.

It is not easy, in the wake of Jo’s murder, to turn to the question of Thursday’s referendum.

But of course for Cameron, it's totally easy. If it hadn't been easy, he wouldn't have mentioned "Jo's murder." But as it is, he used the savage ending of her life to attempt to save his own life--his political life, that is.

And so we get nine more paragraphs of blah blah in the furtherance of that effort. The most oily paragraph--where he accuses Brexit supporters of sliming the motives of their opponents and then slimes the motives of Brexit supporters--is here:

Finally, there is this question about the kind of country we want to be. I’m so proud of Britain – this open, tolerant, big-hearted country of ours. But I believe this referendum has now become a watershed moment for our country. And we are going to have to make a defining decision on Thursday: are we going to choose Nigel Farage’s vision– one which takes Britain backwards; divides rather than unites; and questions the motives of anyone who takes a different view. Or will we, instead, choose the tolerant, liberal Britain; a country that doesn’t blame its problems on other groups of people; one that doesn’t pine for the past, but looks to the future with hope, optimism and confidence?

He might have just as well accused Brexit voters of being in favor of shooting and stabbing innocent female members of Parliament.

Oh right. He already sort of did (see first three paragraphs).

Cameron was quickly slammed in the comments--with most accusing him of using Cox's murder for political gain. I assume someone must have agreed with him. But scrolling down after ordering the comments by number of likes, I still haven't found a single supportive comment. And I'm stopping now as my scrolling finger hurts. Here are the first eight comments, verbatim: 

Using a poor woman's murder for political advantage. I didn't think you could get any worse. I wish I'd never voted for you. Still, you'll be gone as soon as we leave the EU, and I can't wait to get a decent Tory leader again. Like: 684. 

Britain is the 5th largest economy in the world, with the 4th largest military budget. A founder member of the UN and NATO. We don't need to be part of a failing sclerotic bureaucratic political project to still be an important player on the world stage. In fact, our European friends might be looking to us to lead the way out of the mess they have got themselves into. Like: 351. 

David Cameron you are a tasteless honourless man. How dare you politicize her death and use it to try and win your poor argument for remaining. I will still be voting leave and then once I've done that I'm campaigning for you to be booted out of number 10 😡😡😡😡. Like: 258. 

It is very sad that Jo was killed on our streets and it is unforgivable for Cameron to use this young ladies death to push forward this ridiculous campaign to remain but the bottom line is that this madness happened while we are still in the EU so I'm struggling to see your point on this one Dave! Like: 215 

Starting to use this women's murder for political gains is just wrong. It was also reported at the time that another person was injured in this horrid attack. But we hear nothing about this person. Like: 122. 

Wow, how low can you go.. absolutely no reason to reference Jo's murder in this thread, you are a pathetic excuse for a human being.. I have my suspicions that you lean towards a vote to leave as your PR has done them more good than you could ever imagine. Like: 87. 

So the other post was removed. But you are still linking Jo's death with the referendum. However you word it you are still using her death as political propaganda to scare people into voting in. Let people make up their own minds and don't stoop so low. Have some respect. Like: 79. 

Wow didnt think anyone would be low enough to use the murder of that poor, innocent woman for political gains. Then Davie came along... 😳 Quite ashamed that a working class Sunderland lad like me has voted for you twice now, not the Tories but you... Like: 62.

One might have thought that the political murder of Jo Cox would have helped the anti-Brexit vote. But apparently the result has been the opposite. I wonder whether that's because some people think that the anti-Brexit side has been cynically exploiting her murder.

On a lighter note, here's Dennis Skinner being ejected from Parliament for calling Cameron "Dodgy Dave":

BREAKING: Cox Assassin Gives Name at Court as "Death to Traitors, Freedom for Britain"

Tweet

Thomas Mair at Westminster Magistrates Court

Yesterday, I tried to provide some context to the murder of British MP Jo Cox, arguing that it was almost certainly anti-Muslim in character.

A few hours ago it was reported that Ms. Cox uttered her last words to her Muslim aide, Fazila Aswat, as Ms. Aswat tried to comfort her.

  

Her father, Ghulam Maniyar, described the scene:

I'm not trying to be coy here. The point is that for anyone who wanted to act out his anti-Muslim views in a violent manner, Ms. Cox was an obvious target.

A few hours ago, the suspect, Thomas Mair, appeared in court. From the Daily Mail:

Unemployed gardener Thomas Mair (left), 52, of Birstall, has appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court this morning after he was charged with the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox (inset). When asked for his name, the suspect (centre) accused of killing the mother of two replied 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain'. He has also been charged with grievous bodily harm, possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence and possession of an offensive weapon. Mrs Cox, 41, was killed on Thursday as she headed to a meeting with constituents in Birstall, near Leeds, West Yorkshire. In court, Deputy Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot ordered that he be remanded in custody until his next appearance, at the Old Bailey on Monday. Ms Arbuthnot suggested that a psychiatric report should be prepared, saying: 'Bearing in mind the name he has just given, he ought to be seen by a psychiatrist.'

Murdered MP Led Constituency with 20% Muslim Population - One of the Highest Outside Major Cities

Tweet

Merrie England: Eid in Batley and Spen

Some are still trying to cast doubt on the claim that Jo Cox's assassin has political motivations. For example, there's an ongoing back and forth over whether he shouted "Britain First!" (I think the weight of evidence is that he did).

Unfortunately, for the partisans of the non-political position, reports are now coming out that Thomas Mair had received books and literature from right-wing groups in South Africa and the United States. And we are now hearing that police have found "Nazi regalia" in his home.

But beyond all that, it just seems too coincidental that the first murder of a British MP in twenty-five years would be against one of the most pro-Muslim politicians in the country in a constituency - Batley and Spen - that is small-town ground-zero in the debate over immigration and not have it be political.

I'm not alleging that Britain First or any other anti-immigration or anti-Islam group had anything to do with it.

I suspect the murder is what it seems to be - a lonely mentally-ill man, living in a community undergoing steady "Islamification" was increasingly attracted to anti-immigrant views and finally decided to act on them through a deed of horrific violence.

Muslims comprised 18.77% of the vote in the most recent elections in Batley and Spen. And the largest town, Batley - with a population of 50,000, making up roughly have of the constituency - is now one-third to one-half Muslim. There are eleven mosques in this West Yorkshire town, and a total of sixteen in the constituency. 

Eid Salah at the Batley Cricket Club

Outside of some major cities and towns - London, Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford and a few others - Batley and Spen has one of the largest proportion of Muslims in the country.

Jo Cox literally owed her victory to the Muslim vote, which is among the most monolithic blocks of any segment - reliably voting 75% Labour. And this despite the fact that her Conservative opponent was himself a Muslim.

In the manner of most members of Parliament, she served the values and interests of her constituency faithfully. For example, she was a vocal proponent of boycotting companies that do business with Israel.

The Labour Friends of Palestine (Jo Cox in center) from a tribute to her on Electronic Intifada

It was not always this way. Though Batley has had a significant South Asian population going back to the 1950's, up until the end of the 20th century it was a typical Yorkshire community, among other things being overwhelmingly white. Indeed, Monty Python featured an ongoing skit - the exploits of the Batley Ladies Townswomen's Guild - making fun of the very British but slightly dim small-town residents.

Jo Cox was an important player in the struggle over bringing Sharia to Britain, though she obviously wouldn't have put it that way.

There is no reason to believe that she wasn't anything but well-intentioned.

And of course she didn't deserve to die.

But she was not a random victim of a mentally-ill man. She was murdered for her actions and her beliefs.

Amarillo - Site of Muhammad Moghaddam "Workplace Violence" Shooting - Has "the country’s highest ratio of refugees from Middle East nations"

Tweet

Eid al-Adha at Amarillo YMCA

I put the last part in quotations because I couldn't verify it. Breitbart made the claim in January but it was disputed by the Texas Observer. What is not in dispute is that Amarillo has a very high rate of refugee resettlement--the highest per capita in Texas, and almost double the rate of Fort Worth, the next highest in the state.

And if you Google "Amarillo refugees," you'll see that it has now become ground zero in the refugee resettlement wars.

The Walmart shooter,  Muhammad Moghaddam, emmigrated from Iran eight years ago. According to the Observer, over 2,700 refugees have been resettled in Amarillo in the last five years, equal to 1.3% of the population. Another source puts the total since 2002 at 5,251 or 2.5% of the population.

The anti-resettlement side points out that Amarillo now has the fifth-highest crime rate in the state--a rate much higher than other comparable cities of 200,000 population.

It also now has the highest per capita rate of reported rapes.

Karen Sherman, a former Amarillo resident who now lives in Missoula, Montana has become an anti-resettlement activist:

“Our city is failing because of the refugees. We have 22 different languages spoken in our schools. We’ve got 42 languages being fielded by our 9-1-1 call centers, and crime is just through the roof. We need to exercise caution, especially for the sake of our children,” she said.

Do Americans Support Trump's Muslim Ban?

Tweet

How about a ban on bad spellers?

In December of last year, Donald Trump advocated "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Predictably, this was denounced as racist, un-American, a violation of the 1st Amendment, fascist, extremist, etc., etc.

Trump did not spell out precisely how this ban would be put in place (as is typical, his opponents might say), but it should be noted that the United States Government need not ask potential immigrants their religion in order to implement such a policy, or at least to implement it de facto. It could, for example, put a temporary halt to emigration from certain countries, with possible exceptions made for persecuted minorities or other groups. Most European countries, whatever their initial position on the matter, are implementing such a policy or contemplating doing so at this very moment.

Whether Trump's proposed ban is racist, fascist or any other quasi-subjective bad thing is of course not measurable by scientific analysis. But we can measure whether it is "extremist" or "out of the mainstream" by, among other things, simply doing some polling. Not surprisingly, in the weeks after Trump's statement, a number of organizations did just that.

The results of the polls varied based on the wording of the question asked--among other things, when the fact that the ban was being proposed as a temporary ban was highlighted, it usually boosted the pro-ban side--as well as how the polled groups were defined--some included all adults while others looked for only registered voters or likely voters. One of the more interesting results was obtained by Fox News, which asked the survey question in two ways--one referencing Trump's name and the other not. Interestingly, when Trump's name was not mentioned, support for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration increased by 5%. Whether that's good news for Trump himself is another question.

I took all the polls I could find on the issue--eight in all--and then averaged them. You're not supposed to average polls, but I did it anyway. (The individual results will be presented at the end of the post.) Just so people know, I really did include all the polls I could find, rather than choosing only those polls that supported my case (whatever my case is supposed to be). I encourage you to check that claim on Google. And if there is some poll I missed, I would be happy to know about it. 

What were the results?

For all adults or all voters--Republicans, Democrats and Independents--52%, or a slight majority, opposed Trump's Muslim ban, while 38% supported it. However, 3 out of the 8 polls found that a plurality favored the ban.

But for Republicans, 58%, or a solid majority, supported the Muslim ban, while only 34% opposed it. In 2 out of the 8 polls, however, a plurality of Republicans opposed the ban.

What to say about this? Unless you want to only use the outlier polls, such as Fox News on one end and Quinnipiac on the other (see below), then the majority or average of all the polls show that Trump's ban is indeed opposed by Americans as a whole. But it is not overwhelmingly opposed. And one could easily imagine a change in events--for example, another terrorist attack--that would swing things.

On the other hand, the ban is supported by a solid majority of Republicans. Looking at the numbers alone, Trump's suggestion is not "extreme" by any measure. Indeed, for Republicans it is positively the "mainstream" position.

It roughly tracks the political split--small majority of all Americans opposing but solid majority of Republicans supporting--that exists for some other contemporary controversies, such as, for example, banning federal funds for Planned Parenthood, "banning" gay marriage or banning most types of abortion. Indeed, all of those "bans"--staples of most Republican political platforms--are arguably less popular among Republicans (and all Americans) than Trump's Muslim ban.

Many Democrats, liberals and "moderates" of all stripes will always cry "racism" against anything that remotely opposes Islamist aggression in any form. They think a German woman slapping a New Year's Eve groper is racist.   

But for those Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and others of good will who disagree with Trump's proposal, it is time to stop claiming that Trump's suggestion is racist, un-American, an "attack on Muslims" (as Mitt Romney recently claimed) or whatever. If it is, then a majority of fellow Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and others are in fact also racist, un-American Muslim haters.

So let's quit playing that holier-than-thou game right now.

***********

Here are the polls:

"Favor" means that they favor Trump's ban on Muslims.
"Oppose" means that they oppose Trump's ban on Muslims.

Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies, December 9, 2015:

All:
Favor: 37%
Oppose: 50%

Republicans:
Favor: 65%
Oppose: 32%

Rasmussen, December 10, 2015:

All:
Favor: 46%

Oppose: 40%

Republicans:
Favor: 66%
Oppose: 24%

Wall Street Journal/NBC, December 10, 2016:

All:

Favor: 25%
Oppose: 57%

Republicans:
Favor: 38%
Oppose: 39%

YouGov, December 11, 2015:

All:
Favor: 45%
Oppose: 41%

Republicans:
Favor: 69%
Oppose: 25%

CBS, December 11, 2015:

All:
Favor: 36%
Oppose: 58%

Republicans:
Favor: 54%
Oppose: 38%

ABC News/Washington Post, December 14, 2015:

All:
Favor: 36%
Oppose: 60%

Republicans:
Favor: 59%
Oppose: 38%

Fox News, December 18, 2015:

All:

Favor: 50%

Oppose: 46%

Republicans:

Favor: 71%

Fox News (without referencing Donald Trump in the question):

All:

Favor: 55%

Oppose: 40%

Republicans:

Favor: 72%

Quinnipiac, December 23, 2015:

All:

Favor: 27%

Oppose: 66%

Republicans:

Favor: 41%
Oppose: 51%