why not a full ban?

Submitted by Mitch Fugger (Netherlands), Feb 16, 2017 at 04:17

Maybe an ill-informed opinion, but my view is that vetting as an approach is still too 'nice'. How about a long-term ban? The arguments are:

- it forces their societies to clean themselves. True, it would be collective punishment, but moderate Muslims could exert considerable pressure on their radicalized peers
- as France is painfully discovering, the problems are with second- and third-generation Muslims. 1 Million Muslims immigrated to France after France left Algeria in the '50. These Muslims were never violent; in fact they came with the French to flee the Islamists in Algeria. But their children and grandchildren are now a huge problem
- the contribution of Muslims to Western society is still negligible
- the problem is not only belief and religious practice, but everyday life, interpersonal relationships, etc. Sons being brought up by a Muslim father and mother will always be treated as semi-gods. The few ex-Muslims that currently circulate in the Western media have the usual traits of spoilt sons: aggressive, aloof, arrogant, and, frankly, a bit stupid (e.g. Maajid Nawaz proposal that the West needs to change its perspective on Islam).

Only people that demonstrate a consistent Western-oriented *behavior* (e.g. regime critics) should be allowed in.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".