Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Archbold: “The Right Questions” On Muslim Immigration

We stay well clear of politics here, but Donald Trump’s suggestion that there be a moratorium on Islamic immigration has raised a lot of hackles. Despite the outrage, the American people are much more on board with this idea than one might expect. Check out this screenshot of an MSNBC poll on the topic grabbed earlier today:


A friend also sent over some polling data (source) from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in which American Muslims were asked about violence against civilians:


Yeah. So assuming the numbers aren’t actually higher (because of taqiyya), in the both of the most recent polling events, THIRTEEN PERCENT of American Muslims found a time where they could justify “suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets.”


Estimates on the American Muslim population range from 5 to 12 million. If we take a nice easy number like 10 million, and extrapolate 13%, that’s 1.3 million people. People who very well may live in your community and attend your local mosque.

Last night, I linked to this video from a woman who grew up Muslim in the Middle East, who passionately dispelled the liberal Western narratives about Islam as a peaceful religion. She sounded a lot like our own Andrew Bieszad, in fact, whom I interviewed on this topic last week.

With all of this in mind, we turn our attention to Creative Minority Report, where Pat Archbold lays out the questions we should be asking in our policy discussions about Islamic immigration:

ALL rights come from God, not government, not ever.

Error has no rights. Condemned “Each one is free to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he thinks true.”

Islam is a particularly noxious error perhaps even of Satanic origin.

While the common good of the state and the Church may dictate the need of tolerance of error, sometimes the common good dictates otherwise.

So, it is permissible for a State to suppress Islam to some degree.

So Catholics must dispense with the notion that banning Islamic immigration is de facto anti-Christian and somehow violates human rights. It does not. Period.

The right questions are these:
Q: Does the common good of the State and the Church require this action at this time? Good people can disagree on this.

Q: Is there a prudent way, in a secular republic with increasing antagonism toward Christ and his Church and which increasingly ignores its legitimate and long-standing constitutional limitations, to effect such a policy without establishing a precedent of government power over religion in general that will almost certainly be used against the Church?

Q: And as a corollary to the above: Is the risk of Muslim immigration currently greater than the threat posed by a centralized tyrannical secular republic unfettered in its ambitions by constitutional limits?

For my part, I don’t think so. For Americans, the greater threat is clearly our secular-atheist government.

But whatever your opinion, this is where the debate should be.

So you see, we find ourselves between Iraq and a hard place. (I kid.) But seriously: we are weighing two incredibly potent dangers against one another – the power of the secular state to suppress the 1st Amendment on a case-by-case basis, and the growing power of Islam in our towns and communities, knowing full well that the teachings of Mohammed demonstrate no respect for non-Muslims, and think of us as no better than dogs.

Catholics solved the Islamic problem across Europe over centuries of warfare. The best Catholic minds should be brought to bear now on this issue. It’s a big one, and it’s not going away.

27 thoughts on “Archbold: “The Right Questions” On Muslim Immigration”

  1. It is not about the 1st Amendment. It is about the inability of practicing Muslims to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is purely a political problem.

    • Oh, practicing Mohammedans (I prefer this accurate term instead of “Muslims”) can and will swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution with no problem. They call it taqiyya and they practice it without blanching.

      • If Mohammedian was good enough for Archbishop Fulton Sheen it is good enough for me. He used the term Mohammedians in his 1950’s classic, “The World’s First Love”, where is chapter 13 or 18 he talks about how Mary will lead to the conversion of the Muslim people. He also talked about Fatima, the name of one of Mohammed’s daughters, as being the catalyst for this conversion.

      • Being neither citizens nor residents, the Islamic masses outside our borders have no right to demand admission. A religious test for them is entirely appropriate and even lawful. As for those already here, the practice of Islam should be prima facie evidence that the subject does not intend to support the Constitution.

        • And as for those already citizens, the open practice of Islam should be prima facie evidence of ineligibility for any position, office, or employment in which it is necessary to swear allegiance to the Constitution. We would not tolerate the presence of a arsonist cult in this country, or of a lynch-the-Jews cult. While Msgr. Knox was dead on in his characterization of America as the happy hunting ground of religious sectarianism, it is still not the case that anything goes.

        • Inside America, the Muslim Brotherhood is certainly working to increase the numbers of muslims who come here, much as Latino groups like La Raza agitate for immigration reforms that will increase the size of their constituency. Madness. Aided and abetted by both the Democrat party and Republican party.

    • Wherein the only “good” muslim is a “bad” muslim.

      So many Westerners want Islam to have a reformation in which they all one billion of them stop believing their sacred texts while carrying on as colorful ethnic groups. But the sacred texts will always be there for the young muslim to read. We can’t un-print the Koran. We can’t un-say what the Prophet said.

  2. Since when are non-US citizens subject to our Constitution? All people are granted basic human right but not Constitutional rights. I think the Trump proposal is a good starting position in dealing with the worldwide spread of Islamic terrorism. Is it feasible? Who knows? But at least it has put the Muslim world on notice about how the American public is tired of being targeted by their vile religion. Hopefully our leaders, military and ecclesiastical, will grow a pair of b@lls and stop making excuses for this murderous cult.

  3. Steve Sailer has, rightly, observed that it was not too long ago that immigrants from the Soviet Union had to produce evidence they were Jews to they could remain in America and so the potential problem addressed by Mr. Archbold has already been dealt with.

    There are always a 1000 reasons why one might caution against a govt action but the govt is already enormous and, since Lincoln, has long ago ceased to be a republic and because the govt could start to kill us in our homes intentional ways, the Mahometans coming here are already doing that.

    Those opposing Trump’s actions ought to tell us how many dead Americans killed by Mahometnas are they willing to accept to keep alive our “values.”

    Scott Adams has said 1000 per year.

    IANS says, not one.

    Remember when Bush said, we fight they over there so we won’t; have to fight them here?

    Is it now the better part of wisdom to invite them here so they can kill us here also?

  4. We should place a moratorium on all immigration until we lower national unemployment to 1% and poverty to 5%. We don’t need 1 million plus new immigrants per year entering this nation. This is the 21st century, and we need immigration policies that meet the needs of 21st century Americans. Time to put our own first. I don’t care if those coming are pale white Poles, Arabs, or Ugandans- if you are here for a job, tough love buddy. Too many Americans are unemployed and mired in economic failure.

  5. Like some have already pointed out, this really is not a 1st amendment crisis due to the status of the people in question, nor would I consider it a slippery slope since nations have very broad natural rights when it comes to their borders.

    The much great danger in the wake of terrorist attacks with in our borders is the sustainability of the second ammendment in practice.

  6. Obviously all immigration should be halted.

    Making appeals to the US Constitution seems specious to me. That contract was abrogated long ago. The enemy has been pretty open and honest that it no longer considers it binding. So we are foolish to put binders on ourselves while the enemy runs roughshod over us. When all parties agree to be subject to the Constitution, then we can subject ourselves too.

    Not that it matters much; immigration isn’t a constitutional matter. The nation has a long precedent of case law and practice where people have been denied entry for any variety of reasons, including religious belief.

    • Heck the immigrationof Catholics and Jews were limited at some points, was it not, precisely at times when they were dying like flies because of anti Catholic and anti Semiotics government policies in their native lands? Our government had not one good excuse to deny refuge to victims then, but they sure do have plenty of good reasons to deny aggressors now.

  7. The Trump issue, at least over here in the UK, is not about politics, but rather free speech, something which for whatever reason is being rapidly encroached on in Europe.

    We are now at war. France, the Russian Federation, Australia and now even coy UK. are at
    war. But there are so many people who will tell you it is not nice to actually say so.

    Our Aircrews go out each night and risk their lives, but we mustn’t make too much of

    And the enemy is ISIL, part of Saudi Arabian/ Sunni, backed, supported, finance, and
    supplied Islam.

    As for polls we all know now that people are poll-sophisticated, Muslims more than anyone. Of course you give a “nice” answer to the pollster, but in the voting booth or postal vote and in the mosque or other gatherings it will be a different matter.

  8. If I may respectfully point out, what you have here is the potential to introduce another problem on top of the existing problem of secularization. So you might be looking at it the wrong way by saying you have two options. You really don’t have an option in the fact that at some point, the Church is going to be persecuted by the secular State. It is just going to happen if the Church stands firm on all issues (or persecution might never happen given the current trend of not standing firm on any critical issue). So what you have an option of doing now is choosing whether you want a persecution to happen like what is happening in the middle-east.

  9. We’re going to tip-toe around this issue until terror attacks are a daily event over here in the US. We are not a serious people, and unfortunately many more will suffer because of the absence of seriousness in how we deal with Islam.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...