MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Updated! Donald Trump, Muslim IDs, and Mike Huckabee's Falafel Fixation

The GOP succumbs to nativist hysteria in the wake of Paris attacks.

UPDATED 10:54 A.M.: Scroll to bottom for video of Jeb Bush pushing back on his party's increasing nativist, anti-Muslim rage.

Only a few days ago, former Arkansas governor and low-polling presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told Fox News that "it's time to wake up and smell the falafel."

The governor meant it was time to shut America's borders to Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Easterners in the wake of the Paris attacks. In this call, Huckabee has been joined by virtually all the Republican candidates, especially Donald Trump, who is even musing publicly about creating special identification for Muslims and new, more intrusive surveillance of the same. The actual details of the process by which refugees get vetted, little-known until now, should be enough to scare off most terrorists, given that it takes about two years to make it through all the steps and there are infinitely easier ways to enter the United States. Which isn't to say that refugees shouldn't be vetted for all sorts of reasons—it's just that they are already.

This is happening even as the relationship between Syrian refugees and the Paris attacks has become less clear. While two suspects are unaccounted for, the remaining killers who have been fully identified all were French or Belgian nationals. One was found with a fake Syrian passport and had been sighted on Leros, one of the islands packed by people fleeing Syria. But his exact nationality and identity is unknown at this point (even as the obvious fakeness of his document suggests it would not pass scrutiny of far-tougher UN and US screening inspections rather than overwhelmed Greek outposts). While some of the attackers had traveled to and from Syria and other hotspots in the Middle East, it's not fully clear yet where they were radicalized. More important, though, as even French terrorism experts acknowledge, the principal problem in France is not infiltration per se by outsiders as it is economic, social, and political conditions in France that create "home-grown terrorists."

But since Huckabee's falafel jibe, other would-be Republican presidents have gone to the mattresses to excoriate the idea that Syrian refugees should find a soft shoulder in these United States. There's no constitutional right to refugee status, they say, and wouldn't the displaced prefer to be closer to home on the off-chance that things will settle down soon? Haven't we accepted enough already, maybe too many, and it's clear that Obama really hates America and wants to see it destroyed before he leaves office anyway. It's not as if the past dozen years of U.S. foreign policy have contributed to the region's instability or anything.

Generally hostile to immigration under the best of circumstances, characters such as Ted Cruz allowed that Syrian Christians might be OK, especially kids, while Chris Christie bid down compassion to the zero limit when he declared even orphaned toddlers were too dangerous to allow. Even after it's become clear that it takes years and requires the highest level of safety checks imaginable for refugees entering the United States, the GOP has stood fast to saying no to accepting Syrian refugees.

Though a critic of U.S. foreign policy and largely responsible for putting the kibosh on President Obama's plans to bomb and/or invade Syria a few years ago, Rand Paul has called for closing borders not just to Syrian refugees but to people entering the country from places that haven't required visas for decades. Paul pointed to two Iraqis living in his hometown of Bowling Green, Kentucky as proof that refugees engage in terror plots. Neither was accused of plotting actions within the United States, but in 2011, they conspired with undercover FBI agents to send weapons to Iraq (it remains unclear whether the FBI first approached them). A third refugee, from Uzbekistan, was arrested in Boise, Idaho in 2013 on terrorism-related charges; again, he was being handled by FBI agents too, suggesting that the J. Edgar Hoover's legacy agency may well be behind many of the terror plots we read about in the papers.

In investigating the question as to whether the U.S. refugee program provided easy cover for terrorists seeking to enter the United States, the Washington Post's Fact Checker writes

A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S.  None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges.

This is more than the zero number Reason reported a few days ago, for sure, but nothing justifying the freakout evinced by Republican presidential candidates. Especially given the fact that neither of the two known plots came close to fruition. After all, they were being managed by government agents.

Reason TVReason TV

When it comes to GOP overreaction to the Paris attacks, Donald Trump, who has surged ahead again in recent polls, tops everyone else. From a Yahoo interview with the billionaire developer:

“We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Trump would not rule out warrantless searches in his plans for increased surveillance of the nation’s Muslims, Yahoo reported Thursday.

He also remained open toward registering U.S. Muslims in a database or giving them special identification identifying their faith, the news outlet added.

“We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump continued. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

In pushing such measures, Trump not only has the support of a majority of Americans (who are against resettling Syrian refugees by a two-to-one margin in recent surveys) and a majority of Republican governors, but also the support of small-town mayors such as David Bowers, the Democratic mayor of Roanoke, Virginia. Bowers went so far as to invoke Franklin Roosevelt's internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during World War II in expressing his fears of Syrian refugees:

I'm reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.

Such a statement is not simply stupid but spectacularly stupid to anyone who can google information about the extent of Japan's empire circa 1941. And even then, Bowers reveals more than he knows when he likens the need to quarantine America from a new race- or ethnic-based peril.

As Roger Baldwin, the longtime head of the ACLU, wrote in his introduction to a 1967 history of Japanese internment, "There was not one single instance of sabotage or espionage [among Japanese Americans], despite all the charges and suspicions." On the flip side, there was not a movement to intern German and Italian Americans of recent vintage on the East Coast despite many public displays of ethnic and ideologoical sympathy for their mother countries. For christ's sake, the German American Bund sold out Madison Square Garden in 1939. And as historian Eric Muller wrote in his daming 2004 Reason review of Michelle Malkin's truly awful In Defense of Internment

Over the last several decades, historians have shown that the chief causes of the Japanese American internment were ingrained anti-Asian racism, nativist and economic pressures from groups in California that had long wanted the Japanese gone, and the panic of wartime hysteria. As the Presidential Commission on the Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians said in its 1981 report to Congress, "The broad historical causes which shaped [the decisions to relocate and detain Japanese Americans] were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." 

Muller concludes that it's always a mistake to think that one either uses pure rationality or pure emotionalism when setting public policy, especially during times of terror and fear. "Racism and hysteria are irrational lenses through which people see their world, including its military threats."

We're clearly in the grip of hysteria right now, only a few days after a horrific bombing of a city that is in its way as emblematic of modernity and "the West" (what ISIS or al Qaeda would call "the far enemy") as New York or London. 

Updated at 10:54 A.M. Jeb Bush sings a different tune on CNBC:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Excellent piece, Nick. If only people were listening.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Ha!

  • Quixote||

    I would urge all the presidential candidates to make it clear that in addition to taking radical measures to block access (including on Twitter, Facebook and Telegram) to actual physical terrorists, there will no longer be any toleration in this country for inappropriate satire, or for "intellectual" guerrillas who stir up controversy with trigger-speech and twisted, micro-aggressive words. New York prosecutors, working together with academic officials at NYU, have taken some important steps in this direction, but we need a nationwide movement that will build on the progress made so far. See the documentation of America's leading criminal satire case at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • AJx||

    It's a terrible article, which makes a series of pretty bizarre assumptions for a libertarian magazine:

    1) The government is able to vet people perfectly so that it will always know whether they are terrorists or not.

    2) The current refugee crisis has nothing to do with the Paris attacks.

    3) The US should accept more refugees (whatever the cost or security risks, which are downplayed in the article).

    4) The CIA or intelligence services are responsible for many (or all) of the terrorist plots which refugees have engaged in.

    5) The current proposals limiting refugees are comparable to interning Japanese-Americans in World War II.

    None of the above assumptions is correct. The reality is:

    1) The government is quite often incompetent. I thought Nick realised this.

    2) The current evidence indicates that the Paris attackers probably did use the refugee crisis to get into Europe, but it's not yet entirely clear.

    3) The US is well within its rights not to accept refugees. Taking in refugees will have an economic cost and will pose a security risk - that risk might be minor, but it's not nothing.

    4) This is nonsense and based on a very incomplete dataset. I don't think Nick really believes this.

    5) Again, obvious nonsense.

    AJ

  • Crusty Juggler||

    1) The government is quite often incompetent.

    This is the main problem with everything the government does.

  • AJx||

    I agree! That seems to be the one belief shared by most/all the people here at Reason. Which is why it's so strange for Nick to write an article which presupposes that the government can perfectly vet all refugees and decide which ones are potential terrorists.

    As for the Paris attackers using the refugee crisis, the French Prime Minister said today: "These individuals took advantage of the refugee crisis ... of the chaos, perhaps, for some of them to slip in" to France. He may be a government official, but it seems likely that he knows a little bit more about this crisis than Nick.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I think the apprehension over letting in refugees (or immigrants in general) is overwrought, but it is not without merit.

    John Kerry and Barack Obama said it is okay, so it is okay?

  • AJx||

    I agree that the risks are significantly overstated, but those risks are not nothing. So the question is whether the US (or any other country) has a moral obligation to let in refugees in the knowledge that doing so will increase the risks of a terrorist attack on their people?

    Personally, I believe that the government's first responsibility is to its people, and so would err on the side of caution. There's also the economic and social costs to weigh up, which can be quite significant (perhaps not for the US which hasn't taken many refugees yet, but look at a country like Sweden to see what can happen).

  • BigT||

    "I agree that the risks are significantly overstated, but those risks are not nothing. "

    So I smell a Precautionary principle?

  • ThomasD||

    "Nick... presupposes that the government can perfectly vet all refugees..."

    No, Nick doesn't believe that, he just doesn't care about that. Nick sees the fight over active resettlement of refugees by the government as an extension of the open borders argument.

    So, not being willing or able to make any distinction between the two it's open borders uber alles.

  • trutherator||

    This is not open borders, it is government sponsored refugee welfare-ism. They are trying to "fundamentally transform America" and its culture into something totally different.

    The GOVERNMENT with YOUR money and MINE will play Cupid and put its resources into matching the "refugees" with "sponsors". But these are "sponsors" who would not have invited them.

    How many advocates of flooding the neighborhoods of America with trouble, repeating France's brutal awful experience with the same thing (thinking back decades not just recent Paris): How many of them will invite them into their own protected gated "communities".

    At least the socialist Pope will take in two families. Maybe they'll be Catholics. He's not sponsoring anybody else with his billions.

  • Loki||

    Yeah, this article is pretty much proggie level DERP, for all the reasons you point out. And this is coming from someone who usually agrees with much of what Nick writes, but he's gone off the deep end lately when it comes to open borders and now the Syrian refugee issue.

  • Jahgro||

    It's a pretty standard Libertarian view. You must be a republican pretending to be a Libertarian.

  • ThomasD||

    Active resettlement of refugees by the state, using public monies, is not part of any libertarian conception of open borders.

    You must be a proggie pretending to be a libertarian.

  • Jahgro||

    Bull, taking in refugees has always been Libertarian. Fucking neocons like yourself always try to change libertarianism.

  • dconlaw1||

    Glad to read your comment, Loki. I have tremendous respect for Nick G. and wondered whether my thinking, along the line you mention, was off kilter.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    1) Crtl+F "perfect"... the only instances I find are the two times you used it. Who's claiming the government will "perfectly vet all refugees"?

    2) What evidence? As Nick says, most of the attackers have been identified as European nationals. You're making this a central objection when what is "not entirely clear" so far supports Nick's argument.

    3) It would be nice for someone to make the cost argument regarding refugees; the objection is that few are doing that, choosing instead to fear-monger about terrorists. It's also notable that, if it is brought up, it seems to only be said about Syrian refugees, not the 60,000 refugees coming from elsewhere.

    4) Some have been (it's the FBI, not CIA). You're using much sloppier language than Nick, you know.

    5) ...Now I have to ask what article you've been reading. A sitting mayor invoked the Japanese-American interment policy. "Obvious nonsense?"

  • AJx||

    1) The clear implication in the article is that the government carries out checks on refugees and will be able to determine who is a potential terrorist and who is not. He doesn't use the word "perfect", but he also doesn't seem to recognise the possibility that the government might screw up. For a libertarian magazine I find that very strange.

    2) The recent comments of the French Prime Minister: "These individuals took advantage of the refugee crisis ... of the chaos, perhaps, for some of them to slip in" to France. The Syrian passport found at the scene of one of the attacks, which has been linked to one of the attackers. The French police have said that some of the attackers underwent training in Syria. There's a lot of evidence if you want to look for it. As I said, the current evidence indicates that the Paris attackers probably did use the refugee crisis to get into Europe - we don't know for sure, but it's looking very likely. Nick's second paragraph downplays this and ignores the evidence, presumably because he (like the liberals) wants to break any link between the refugee crisis and the possibility of terrorism.

    3) There are economic, social and security costs to taking in refugees. If someone genuinely believes that those costs are worth it then let them make the case. What I don't like is people pretending that those costs don't exist. Nick's article doesn't engage in this point at all and instead just claims that the US should be taking in more refugees.

  • AJx||

    4) Nick cites three examples and then claims that the FBI: "may well be behind many of the terror plots we read about in the papers." (Apologies I wrote CIA not FBI in my post - written in a rush). I quoted the "many" used by Nick and so didn't use sloppier language at all. My point is that the three examples he cites are nowhere near enough to make this sweeping assertion. Again, he is guilty of downplaying any security risk posed by refugees / migrants from Middle Eastern countries.

    5) No the mayor didn't make a comparison, he said he was "reminded" of it (see the quote above). Nick is the one that carries out an actual comparison, which is (to me) obvious nonsense: a policy aimed at carrying out security checks on foreign refugees vs. a policy of locking up Americans of a particular ethnicity without charge. Are you really claiming that the two are comparable??

  • rocks||

    Refugees are by definition people who the government takes responsibility to take care of. Taking in refugees is essentially taking in welfare takers. This is the exact opposite of libertarianism.

    Immigration should be available to people who want to come to America to work hard and take care of themselves in an open and free environment. That is how immigration worked for the first almost 200 years.

    Refugees are NOT that form of immigration, yes it should be stopped. Freedom is not agreeing to take care of everyone on the planet. That is serfdom for the tax paying middle class.

  • Jahgro||

    EEEK, we must be afraid!

    Grow a spine, you want big daddy to watch over you? You want government to protect you from terrorists, but at the the same time you don't trust the government to protect you from terrorists.

  • John||

    Grow a spine and die so people like you can feel good about themselves

  • Jahgro||

    I'd rather be free than live under a fascist government system that you want.

    Freedom comes with risks. Don't worry, I'm sure if you ask, big daddy government will help you sleep at night.

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    Yes, freedom comes with risks. And the chances of anyone dying in a lightning strike are greater than dying by terrorism.

    And I'd like to keep it that way.

    To ignore reality is illogical.

  • Jahgro||

    What is illogical is your xenophobia. Libertarians don't shut them off from the world, and we don't turn our backs on refugees. Only xenophobic republicans like yourself do that.

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    It's when establishment libertarians go all Gillespie that I shake my head and grimace.

    It's silly season at Reason.

    Let's ignore the fact that there are people who really don't give a fuck about Free Minds and Free Markets (besides Bernie & Donnie) & are homicidal enough to bring about their own vision of Utopia.

  • Suicidy||

    It's a shitty piece. and not even accurate. Trump never said he wanted a Muslim database. Some reporter brought it up. He said he would CONSIDER a number of things. But Reason and Nick hate Trump so much they can't stick to the facts. And for that matter, Reason is largely devoting it's energy to hit pieces on GOP candidates. I don't even like most of these people, but holy shit, save some vitriol for the progs.

    Which brings me to my next point. Reason is devolving quickly into just another progressive mouthpiece. I guess it's more important to get invited to the cool kids parties than it is to really stick up for individual rights.

  • dconlaw1||

    You are 99% right, Suicidy, imo.
    I would only add that the clever two-step by which Nick G (whom I admire greatly to this point) disseminates the Yahoo smear without (he thinks) leaving his own fingerprints is so vomitatious as to be Hannity-esque.

  • Craig Smith||

    Good to know. Was actually about to Google that about Trump.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Listening... to Nick?

  • Thymirus||

    It is my sincere and utmost hope that should political authorities release orders to detain civilians without justly issued warrants, or in groups, or to relocate Americans forcibly, among other innumerable variants of these heinous acts of tyranny, American servicemen will refuse those orders without exception -- and atop that, in accordance with their sacred duty as sworn guardians of the Republic, will mutiny in pursuit of the violent removal of insurrectionist command elements, civilian and military alike.

  • sarcasmic||

    If comments by ex-servicemen on this forum are any indication of what current servicemen would do, they'd likely follow orders with extreme prejudice.

  • Thymirus||

    If that's true, fuck. Who's ex-military here?

  • sarcasmic||

    John, for one.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    He is ex-military ? Thought he just had a war boner.....

  • sarcasmic||

    I seem to recall him saying he was an officer, though I don't remember which branch.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Well, I learned something new today. You sure he didn't just say he was the reincarnation of General Patton ?

  • Suicidy||

    ME!

  • Loki||

    They'd probably be more likely to use local police SWAT teams to carry out such orders. They're just as well armed as the military and far more likely to carry out unconstitutional orders.

  • sarcasmic||

    True. Most cops couldn't give a shit about the Constitution, or even the law for that matter.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Interesting question honestly. I've never imagined being told to arrest islamites nor even thought of it. The progressive movement in government and the lunatic fear appears more focused on native citizens and especially ones who are white and armed. I always imagined being told to go round up peoples firearms, then watching the shit show as a huge portion of the military refuses.

    If the military was told to round up islamites I'm not sure how much push back there would be. Remember, many in the military actually have lived for long periods of time in islamic nations and seen first hand the horror and corruption. I've seen taliban shoot people to make examples of them. I've seen the insane misogyny displayed where women are treated like cattle, where education is evil and the madrasas pump out zealots. I would want nothing to do with islam in America. I've also made great friends with muslims, most of whom are not devout at all. We invited a visiting Officer from one of the gulf states out to a bar as a joke. He smiled and said "no, no, I can't drink.....but if you want to come hang out at my apt I have a bottle of Johnnie Walker we can all drink." Some very nice people, many caught up in a horrible situation where islam makes things worse.

    Now, I doubt most of these refugees are any security concern, nor would accepting 10,000 have any affect on the nation.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Here's something Trump actually said: SPARKS, Nev. -- Donald Trump softened his tone on marijuana legalization on Thursday, saying at a political rally that states should be allowed to legalize marijuana if they chose to do so. Trump reaffirmed that he supports making medical marijuana available to patients who are very sick. (That's the Gomorrah Post. Remember where you DIDN'T hear it first).

  • Mike Laursen||

    When one is arguing to clamp down on immigrants of a certain ethnicity, one should not mention that ethnicity's tastiest dish.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Time for Gillespie to trade in that jacket for a cocktail dress.

  • Anomalous||

    I love the smell of falafel in the morning.

  • John||

    Reason's plan for dealing with Islamic terrorism seems to be "don't invade Iraq in 2003".

  • Citizen X||

    It was a good plan then and it's a good plan now!

  • John||

    If you have a time machine

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Worked in 2001.

  • dconlaw1||

    Am I reading too much into your terse comment to sense you're suppressing an urge to openly advocate boots on the ground? If so, for plan ANYTHING ELSE even if it doesn't make sense to you because y'know why? Another invasion is dumb with a capital W.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "Which isn't to say that refugees shouldn't be vetted for all sorts of reasons—it's just that they are already."

    Wait, I thought there was a waiver program for certain countries?

    Isn't that what the current debate in Congress is about?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    No, I'm wrong, the waiver program is for the "I promise I'll leave after 90 days" visa program.

  • John||

    Yes it is. But don't bother Nick with your bourgeois facts. He is giving the revolutionary truth.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    We need that waiver program for most visitors because it bolsters the tourist industry, commerce, and academic exchange.

    However, it's been suggested that there *not* be waivers if you've been in certain war zones in the past few years.

    So if you've been in one of those war zones, you can still apply for the 90 day visa, but it will take longer to process.

    Have I correctly summarized this fascist proposal?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Incidentally, John, I'd respectfully suggest that you tone down the intelligence- and motive- questioning.

    The comments are the place to note facts which the original article may have, shall we say, under-emphasized.

    But subtle in your sarcasm - like me - did you see my subtle fascist joke above?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    But *be* subtle

  • John||

    Yup. It is totally just like locking up millions of Americans.

  • John||

    They have been vetted and we can have total confidence the government hasn't fucked that up. Nick has suddenly discovered government isn't so incompetent after all. I wonder what other wonders Nick thinks government can deliver

  • ||

    Maybe Nick _will_ write that "Libertarian Case for Hillary Clinton" piece ?

  • Loki||

    Heh. At this point Nick should do that just to troll the commentariat. Just for LULZ.

    *Not that there is a "Libertarian Case for Hillary Clinton" that could possibly be made. There isn't one, other than maybe "might as well go ahead and burn the rest of this shit down so we can start over" but the same argument applies to most of the Republican field as well.

  • Suicidy||

    If we're going to start over, why not execute all the progs first, instead of enduring HRC? Or at least mass deport them to Venezuela, or Antartica. But not the good part of Antartica.

  • John||

    By Nick's logic, Roosevelt's failure to subsidize the resettle hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German nationals was just racist hysteria. You know what is stupid and irrational? Basing policy on false metaphors like comparing the interment of American citizens to the refusal to admit foreign nationals. This is an article only Vennemen could love. A new low.

  • Jahgro||

    We get it, you aren't a libertarian. Why do you always troll the comment sections?

  • John||

    We get it you are an idiot with poor reasoning skills. Why do you troll here?

  • Jahgro||

    Wow, you copied what I said. You're too clever by half.

  • Suicidy||

    Indeed. We can't afford the people we already have here. So we're doubling down on more foreign indigents. And from countries filled with Islamic xenophobes. Maybe if we didn't have $19 trillion in debt and were doing things like taking care of our veterans, who actually are due services for actual work they performed.

    It's like my friend's wife coming home with armloads of Nordstrom bags. Having bought shitloads of expensive stuff at a 'sale', and proclaiming "Look at all the money I saved you!". While going further into debt to buy all the shit.

    How is any of that libertarian?

  • Jahgro||

    Veteran here, 99% of the veterans in this country are doing much better than these refugees.

    You do have one thing in common with Islamic xenophobes though, you both are xenophobic.

  • dconlaw1||

    How is anything Suicidy said xenophobic?
    Easy for you to toss off accusations but this one is baseless.
    So is your statistic claiming 99% of vets (thousands of whom are homeless and strung out and/or on disgraceful medical waiting lists) are doing MUCH better than young healthy Syrians who choose flight over fight in their homeland.
    I mean that wall of human flesh snaking into Europe can't include many George Washingtons or Paul Reveres now, can it?
    Let me guess: while serving you weren't known for accurate marksmanship.

  • ||

    You idiot 22 American Veterans a day are committimg suicide because they can't get the healthcare they need and are owed.

    22 a day dickhead and those are the government's numbers.

    Google it yourself. I'm not wasting my time trying to educate the ignorant.

  • Jahgro||

    Like I said, 99% are doing fine. I didn't fucking say all fuckwad. Do you know how many veterans there are?

    You didn't dispute a fucking thing I said.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    And again not one word on just how much it costs the taxpayers to import and support these refugees.

    Of course, Democrats don't care. It's just another excuse the welfare state.

    The Republicans being the stupid party are fixating on the security issue while the issues of dependency among the refugees and the waste of money is a slam dunk.

    And Nick? Who knows what Nick is smoking?

  • John||

    Nick suddenly loves welfare and believes in government competence.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Oooh, that might be a good book title.

    "How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love The Welfare State"

    Catchy!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Suddenly? Fiscal restraint only applies to fighter jetz and millenials paying FICA.

  • Drake||

    We use borrowed money to import welfare recipients (who have been indoctrinated into an anti-freedom ideology since birth) - then we achieve Libertopia!

  • John||

    Because nothing says Liberty like middle eastern culture.

  • ||

    And again not one word on just how much it costs the taxpayers to import and support these refugees.

    And for some reason none of the commenters has decided to look this up.

  • Ivan Pike||

    Washington Post

    Although the administration can unilaterally set a numerical goal for the refugees it wants to accept, it is up to Congress to agree to fund the resettlement. In the current fiscal year, it cost $1.1 billion to bring 70,000 refugees to the United States, put them through an orientation program run by refugee charities and have them dispersed throughout the country. It was not immediately clear how much more it will cost to bring in more Syrians.

  • Suicidy||

    And how do we have the money for this bullshit, but not any money to pay existing obligations to our veterans? Which is not welfare, but contractual obligations for their service.

  • Drake||

    I'm more concerned that none of the Reason writers will even mention the cost - much less research it. I don't expect this level of enthusiasm for wasting my my money here.

  • morganovich||

    ooh, i know!

    let's make them wear crescent moons stitched onto their clothing!

    that worked out really well for the last guys who tried a program like that.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not going to bother with a link, but when I was browsing the Daily Fail there was a headline about Trump wanting a mandatory Muslim registry.

  • Lee G||

  • sarcasmic||

    nice

  • lap83||

    mmm delicious flaky Turks

  • Suicidy||

    No, he doesn't. Some reporter brought it up. It is NOT one of Trump's ideas.

  • John||

    James Totanto had an Iowa Hawk level tweet today

    "Ben Carson's plan to defeat ISIS

    1. Stab them
    2. Beat them with a hammer
    3. Remove half their brain"

    If only reason could be that awesome.

  • Loki||

    Donald Trump, who is even musing publicly about creating special identification for Muslims

    You know who else created a "special identification" for a religious minority...

  • sasob||

    One of the Popes way back there?

  • Suicidy||

    No, he isn't.

  • dconlaw1||

    Fight for truth, Suicidy. Neither Loki nor Nick heard The Donald "musing publicly about creating" this Muslim Registry. Why? Because he didn't fucking say it.
    I thought this article was just a nasty by-product of Nick reacting viscerally to The Donald the same way I do to the sight or sound of vomitatious Sean Hannity.
    But as I re-read NG's artfully deceitful phraseology (blaming Yahoo; taking special care not to leave his own fingerprints) it causes my blood to boil.
    I now tend to join in your earlier remark that it has become important in NG's life for him to be invited to the cool kids parties. Must be something in the Washington DC water.
    Jim Webb, Bob Dole and, for that matter, John Kerry came back from war decorated and boldly speaking their mind only to have a few years in DC turn them mealy-mouthed (Webb, most recently, opposing the Iran deal; Kerry -- who was articulate even though mainstream liberal -- became the world's most crashing bore; Bob Dole morphed into Elizabeth Dole) Saddest of all, a true hero, Chuck Hagel underwent a SpeakMyMind-ectomy.
    Someone tell Nick G. "It is happening again" (Twin Peaks) before it is too late.

  • Drake||

    Mohammed?

  • ||

    You're not suposed to type his name because that's too much like a picture. .

    Or say it or even think it you infidel.

    If you were a good Muslim you would know that.

    Off with your head

  • sasob||

    Generally hostile to immigration under the best of circumstances, characters such as Ted Cruz allowed that Syrian Christians might be OK, especially kids

    Oh really? I am not particularly fond of Cruz, but I had thought it was just illegal immigration to which he is hostile. Or perhaps some folks don't think any immigration should be illegal.

    As for Trump - I've been wondering for some time if he shouldn't be sporting a little dead caterpillar on his upper lip.

  • Suicidy||

    Syrian Christians are a persecuted religious minority, given the rise of ISIS. So there might actually be some case for bringing some of them here. Maybe. But there is zero need to import their Muslims here. Plenty of oil rich Islamic countries in the region should be taking them in. Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are loaded and have plenty of room to house them. And they don't have gigantic national debts.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    How are the wealthy Muslim countries responding to this situation? You know, countries like Saudi Arabia? I don't think it's unfair to expect them to pitch in, especially since it's not as long a journey for the refugees and the culture is Muslim rather than the bizarre mix they'll find here.

  • AJx||

    They are taking effectively zero refugees (except Turkey and Lebanon). It's really quite astonishing.

  • kbolino||

    Why would they want to take the refugees? They are funding the people they're fleeing from.

  • Suicidy||

    Why would WE want them?

  • Timon 19||

    1. Falafel is delicious.
    2. Falafel is just as Israeli/Jewish as it is Palestinian/Arab.
    3. Why is Mike Huckabee a complete goof?

  • sarcasmic||

    3. Why is Mike Huckabee a complete goof?

    I've never met a bass player that wasn't. Do goofs choose the bass, or does the instrument turn people into goofs?

  • ||

    Mostly the former I think. Kinda like how irresponsible immature people choose drums.

  • Suicidy||

    I've always wondered the same thing about really shitty drivers of Chrysler mini-vans and the mini-vans themselves. Are shitty drivers drawn to those rolling road blocks? Or is there something about the mini-van that sucks out the soul of the driver?

  • dconlaw1||

    I know exactly what you're saying about bass players BUT Huckabee's folksy gee, aw shucks, "I'm just a chubby down-home cornpone Like-me-please-dammit! preacherman" is smarmy in a way not linked to kinkiness associated with playing bass.
    The mystery to me is how Bill Clinton could pull it off and be likeable -- even when lying his ass off so bad he had to bite that upper lip to suppress laughter -- while Huckabee is just distasteful. Maybe that comes from playing sax?

  • ||

    Clinton was a political Santa Claus with a bag of goodies over his shoulder.

    If Huckabee loaded up a bag he would be well received by many of his distractors.

  • Eric Bana||

    There seem to be two objections related to the refugees--security and cost.

    I think the security objection isn't well-founded. As cited, the percentage of refugees who would likely be terrorists is exceedingly small. Moreover, the terrorists can come in other ways if they don't come in as refugees, so barring refugees doesn't even solve the problem. Republican presidential candidates are sounding the security-hawk alarm, which is disappointing.

    The second concern of cost and who pays for it is a legitimate concern as it is for every issue. Personally, I'm not opposed to allowing in refugees per se, so while I would prefer largely private means of dealing with this, the humanitarian toll these people have gone through is too much to ignore turning them away.

  • sarcasmic||

    The other day my wife was falling for immigrant-terrorist hysteria, and I said to her that it's like gun control. Banning guns won't stop determined criminals from getting guns, though having them legal does make it easier for criminals to obtain them. Likewise banning immigration won't stop determined terrorists from getting into the country, though immigration will make it easier for them to get in. What both have in common is that only those who follow the rules are penalized, because determined bad guys cannot not be stopped. While that didn't make her feel that much better, it did make her think.

  • pronomian||

    It's the friggin news man. They can't report anything without sensationalizing it. Watch it for an hour and you'd think we are under siege, something out of the movie Red Dawn, the first one, which was good, not the crap second one, or there's machine gun jeeps driving around shooting people like in third world countries. My wife started to think the same way as yours. I told her, we aren't afraid to die, everyone dies and you can't believe what the news says anyway or you'll be paralyzed even going out the door. The news makes watching reality shows a breath of fresh air.

  • Suicidy||

    That is completely not the same thing. Holy shit, what a piss poor analogy. I suppose some people's commitment to open borders is so insane that any common sense or pragmatism goes out the window.

  • ant1sthenes||

    The difference is that having guns legal also makes it easier for non-criminals to get them, which both actively and passively reduces crime.

    Having more immigration from areas with bad guys makes it easier for bad guys and proto-bad-guys to clique with their own and reduce exposure to Western social norms, and adds a lot of hay in which to find the needles, but doesn't work to check terrorism in any meaningful way.

    It was an idiotic comparison from Shkiha and doesn't bear repeating.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    If I gave you a bowl of M&M's and told you only 1% were poisoned, how many would you eat?

  • Eric Bana||

    You're analogy is not apt. To make it more apt, it would be like this: "There is a bowl of M&M's with 1% that is poisoned. A large portion of the 1% of the poisoned M&M's is going to get into your stomach one way or another whether you eat the other M&M's or not. How many would you eat?"

    I've gotta go. You can have the last word if you like.

  • dconlaw1||

    @Eric Bana: No you don't have to go. You just took a dump on the Comment section with that convoluted load

  • MWG||

    Wow, how do you survive everyday life? Do you ever drive, ingest food you don't personally grow and prepare yourself? Are you vaccinated? Do you ever leave your mother's basement?

    Pants shitting, indeed.

  • Suicidy||

    No, it's a logical analogy.

  • pronomian||

    Uh, the 99% that weren't poisoned?

  • dconlaw1||

    No. No. Wait. The "second concern" is cost and your response is, "I don't mind paying"?
    It's not about you. YOU don't owe $19 trillion. Those of us, and our kids, who will have to pay for new immigrants owe that money.
    So your comment should read: "Second concern? Sorry folks. Me no can answer it."

  • Hank Phillips||

    The differences I can discern between jihadists and republicans are that mohammedans seem to prefer weed and smack to Bud Light and Crown Royal, and they like Mo better'n Jesus. This business of blowing people up is normal GOP policy since Nixon. Both parties have already told ICE, DHS, BP, EOIR and INS that anyone who so much as ever held a marijuana seed is brandable with "moral turpitude" and therefore inadmissible. So the technically sweet solution is to force (or require) each mohammedan to prove (with certified translations of all evidence) that they have never so much as looked at a joint in order to be allowed into These States. Business as usual, no racial profiling, no religious discrimination and no chance for appeal.

  • Careless||

    How stupid do you have to will yourself to be to think that it's relevant that it might have been a fake Syrian passport?

  • Number 2||

    "On the flip side, there was not a movement to intern German and Italian Americans of recent vintage on the East Coast despite many public displays of ethnic and ideologoical sympathy for their mother countries."

    Not true. There were internment camps for Italian Americans. If I recall correctly, Gino Marchetti, the Hall of Fame defensive end of the old Baltimore Colts, spent part of his youth in such a camp. They may not have been as extensive as the Japanese internment, but it did exist.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Yes, in altruist v. altruist wars it's difficult to tell the sides apart. Stories like "Who Goes There" (Hollywood's "The Thing"), and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" are testimony to how badly they frighten each other. From Cuba's reconcentrados, through Treblinka and Majdanek, it is amazing to observe how collectivist brotherly love translates into actual practice once given the force of law.

  • pronomian||

    just drag a koran on the ground behind you. You'll know quick who is and who isn't and if one tries to kill you for it you'll know who's the radical.

  • Suicidy||

    Or burn a bunch of them. After announcing it on Facebook.

  • TimothyLane||

    Muslims come from a culture of misogyny and religious intolerance. A large percentage believe that murdering apostates and blasphemers is correct, and also believe that women who don't dress properly (i.e., covered up so as not to tempt those males who are incapable of resisting temptation) deserve whatever happens to them. As a community becomes more Muslim, these attitudes become the norm, even for non-Muslims (including outsiders who happen to visit the community). Perhaps you might consider that a few years ago, an advocate for moderate Islam in Buffalo became enraged at his daughter's impropriety, which led to one of those nice Muslim honor killings. And the gang rapes of Rotherham are another reminder of the price of allowing large numbers of Muslims into any community. If you like that sort of thing, let hem all live in your neighborhood.

  • Hank Phillips||

    When I started reading Tim's comment I thought it was about Republicans, and there are already too many of them and Dems in my neighborhood. These Muslims you speak of, are they some sort of GOP splinter organization like the religious state Tea Party folks?

  • Careless||

    Congratulations on making yourself look like an idiot.

  • Nick W B||

    Well...
    Jeb Bush for president I guess...

  • mtrueman||

    The Bush family have usually been pretty sound and sober on matters like these.

  • dconlaw1||

    @mtrueman: "sound and sober" meaning support for amnesty and enough good sense (i.e. duplicity) to camouflage it under garbled talk about being "comprehensive"
    And you, trueman? Are you drinking the kool aid like Nick G? No concern over the cost of being world's DayCare when we're already broke from playing GloboCop?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Death sentence for hemp kingpins sound sober to me. Now that the stuff is becoming legal the Bush policy could morph into a eugenics program offering the Final Solution in the War on Dope.

  • woodNfish||

    Reason joins the rest of the LSM in spreading lies about Trump in a fake story started by a DNC shill at yahoo news. Trump never said any of this.

  • dconlaw1||

    Thank you woodNfish. You are correct. More to the point, and more sadly, this is not just Reason generically, but Nick Gillespie whom I respect a lot.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Forgive my inattention, but would you please elaborate on how Nick earned your respect?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Let's assume every word ever printed about Trump Perot in the machine republican and democratic press is true. It still leaves him less stupid, dishonest and bigoted than the rest of the ku-klux looter republican wannabees all put together! At least the voters are bright enough to appreciate THAT obvious fact. Hell... it shows there may even be hope for a 26% libertarian share of the vote. What's to lose by trying?

  • dconlaw1||

    Nick Gillespie, you're better than this. You attribute the following to a Yahoo report: "He also remained open toward registering U.S. Muslims in a database or giving them special identification identifying their faith, the news outlet added."
    You are promulgating a lie.
    I doubt your curiosity was not piqued sufficiently to wonder, "Is that true? Trump said he's open to a religious registry?"
    If you looked into it you would have found (or will find, if you really are ignorant of this brouhaha) that it is a lie.
    btw, the Reason I think this is a clever two-cushion shot on your part and not an innocent mistake is the stilted way you manage to convey Yahoo's misimpression without (you thought) exposing yourself to the charge of unfairly nailing The Donald.
    Just because you disagree with someone is no cause for lowering your journalistic standards.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Nick is "better than" something identifiable in polite company? Citation needed.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Alone in the entire slate of God's Own Party christianofascist wannabees, the independently wealthy boob not part of the soft machine dares to say he "likes" libertarians. Naturally, Nicky's gang proceeds to attack his pant legs like so many rabid rats. For a Republican magazine this would make perfect sense, just as forcing women to breed by pointing guns at doctors makes perfect sense. But even stipulating that every word Reason has parroted about Trump were true, Trump Perot is STILL the brightest and best the prohibitionist party has to offer. I want to hear more, from the rooftops, about the "lotta good ideas" Trump thinks libertarians have. If the GOP decoy placed to draw attention away from the LP were to actually win instead of taking the Nixon campaign bribe money and quitting, we could repeal looter campaign subsidies and asset forfeiture in one fell swoop.

  • ||

    No one is forcing women to breed unless you count the rapey rapists white college boys.

    Or the makers and sellers of alcohol who force women to get drunk and do things they regret after sobering up.

  • Hank Phillips||

    It is true that ku-klux machine politicians have lately failed to overturn Roe v. Wade or elect major mystical bigots actually able to muster enough votes to threaten pregnant women and doctors at gunpoint. Indeed, I hope they keep trying, at least until voters break out the tar and feathers to make the election outcomes stick a little better.

  • You people 1||

    It is important to understand the words in proper context. In Mike Huckabee's Christianese, the word "falafel" has a specific meaning. It's proper definition in that polite family context is a particularly foul smelling, silent, malodorous emanation from the rectum of a pontificating, self righteous Christian elder. Its roots lead one to believe that the listeners are to "eat it" with a smile as if it is dining fare.
    To use it in a sentence: Mike Huckabee serves up the tastiest falafels ever. Please, sir, may We have another!

  • Hank Phillips||

    falafel, Amer. pron: feel-awful, as the Republican Prohibition Party felt when the black Socialist from Kenya beat their candidates twice in a row. --libertariantranslator

  • Non-ideologue||

    It would be nice to know who the republican nominee will be. That way, it would be easy to know if what Trump, Huckabee or any of the rest have to say about anything is relevant or important to anything or not. Guess the same is true of the other side . . . .

  • Hank Phillips||

    It will doubtless come as a surprise to followers of Reason's republican presstitutes that Trump Perot has endorsed the 21st Amendment for marijuana. That's right. Reason scribblers have doubtless been too busy assailing non-machine republicans and pandering to ku-klux plans to coerce pregnant women to notice such a thing. But it's on the Dilbert blog bigger'n Dallas! Trump is the fake GOP candidate who said on camera to the editor-in-thief who hates objective philosophy, that he "likes" libertarians and thinks they have "a lot of good ideas." When was the last time Rand (back-alley abortions) Paul said on-camera that he "likes" libertarians and thinks we have "a lot of good ideas"?
    Nixon rigged elections in 1971 to eliminate the LP from viability. The LP must therefore replace God's Own Prohibitionists outright. Just as flash crashes in the stock market suddenly show government looting made securities worthless, so a flash vote can give libertarians a 26% share of the vote. This is the tipping-point at which a party becomes "major" for the Nixon bribes enacted in 1971. I'm not saying it's likely, but only cowardice can make it impossible. At the very least some honest journalism could repeal Nixon's corruption of elections.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online