A thought experiment about immigration

[Barksdale, Yvette]

Eugene Volokh writes: 

 

 

"But those Muslims who do support jihadism, who would endorse enacting
Shari'a law instead of secular law, who have a far narrower view of
women's rights than even some indigenous American religious
conservatives, who have a very narrow view of permissible religious
freedom, and so on do seem to be more of a problem than, say, Mexican,
Chinese, Nigerian, Russian, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or whatever
other immigrants, precisely because they have an ideology that we should
be especially hesitant to see in our future fellow governors."

 

Hi Eugene -  

 

People who know more about this can correct me if I am wrong - but I
thought these ideas relate to Muslims = that is that Muslim state and
Muslim communities should be organized on this basis. Are they of the
view that non-Muslims as well have to follow Sharia law?  If not, then
why aren't their views like any conservative religious group that has
very strong ideas about how people within their religious communities
should behave? Why should we be more worried about them than Mormon
immigrants, conservative Hindu immigrants, etc. 

 

Moreover, to the extent that they do have a very strong  view of the
religious role of the state, it would seem to me that they would  be the
last people to immigrate to the United States, since our secular,
libertarian culture is radically oppositional to  theirs. Indeed, these
are folks who are fighting the expansion of American influence precisely
because  they don't our secular, libertarian values to trump their
religious, conservative ones (In their country.)  As a consequence, they
are trying to drive the United States both political, economic and
cultural influence  out of the Middle East, by any means necessary - so
that Muslim communities are free to adopt their idea of Muslim values.


 

Is it likely that these people would decide to become citizens of the
country which they think is evil personified, any more than American
Christians would want to become citizens of an Islamist state?
(traveling on missionary religious missions to convert individuals is
different  than wanting to  become part of the heretic's political
community, isn't it? 

 

Also, as to Puerto Rico, and Guam, - what's the argument about them?
They certainly haven't rejected American values - why wouldn't they be
good citizens?

 

yb

 

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

 

Professor Yvette M. Barksdale

The John Marshall Law School

315 S. Plymouth Ct. 

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 427-2737 (phone)

(312) 427-9974 (fax)

 

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:31 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: A thought experiment about immigration

 

    I certainly hope that the New Republic is right here, and that this
is another positive example of American exceptionalism.  And, as I've
noted before, I have no problem with Muslim immigrants generally; Islam
consists of many different ideological approaches.  But those Muslims
who do support jihadism, who would endorse enacting Shari'a law instead
of secular law, who have a far narrower view of women's rights than even
some indigenous American religious conservatives, who have a very narrow
view of permissible religious freedom, and so on do seem to be more of a
problem than, say, Mexican, Chinese, Nigerian, Russian, Catholic,
Protestant, Hindu, or whatever other immigrants, precisely because they
have an ideology that we should be especially hesitant to see in our
future fellow governors.

 

    Eugene

	-----Original Message-----
	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of AAsch at aol.com
	Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:49 AM
	To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: Re: A thought experiment about immigration

	In a message dated 2/23/2006 11:26:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
7barksda at jmls.edu writes:

		why are radical Muslims a special problem here. Is there
some reason why they are more problematic immigrants than other groups.

	I also missed many posts on this subject in the last week, so I
apologize if someone else mentioned the excellent article in The New
Republic in December analyzing "Why American Muslims Haven't Turned to
Terrorism?" at:

	 

	http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051212&s=ackerman121205

	 

	The article argues that American values, particularly religious
pluralism, make jihadism much harder to grow among Muslim immigrants
here compared to what's happened in Europe. Here is one paragraph:

	 

	"Indeed, counterterrorism experts are taking notice of the
relative absence of American Muslims in the global jihadist movement. In
a September talk, former White House counterterrorism czar Richard
Clarke observed, 'Al Qaeda's usual strategy is ... to rely on indigenous
populations, and maybe bring in a few operatives, but that indigenous
population may not be here in the numbers necessary.' (Considering that
September 11 was executed by only 19 men, that's quite a statement about
millions of American Muslims.) Some in the Bush administration concur.
'An Al Qaeda-like attack--well-coordinated, in sequence, causing
significant casualties--is less likely to come from a native American
Muslim population,' says the senior official. 'Countervailing factors
make it less likely for sleeper cells to germinate among the native
American Muslim population.' Those factors, according to the official,
are fundamental: 'It's the American dream. American Muslims are living
that dream.' Even that may be an understatement. For a variety of
reasons, the United States has successfully created the model for a
Western Muslim identity." (emphasis added)

	 

	Allen Asch

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060224/92114434/attachment.htm