Preemptive Defense

America,Islam,Just War,War


The president is cocksure about the need to keep America’s borders open. He is as confident about unleashing his version of the STASI secret service on nationals and non-nationals alike within the United States. Vanquishing foreigners in faraway lands is yet another of his drunk-with-power “defensive” strategies. However, Bush ought to acquaint himself with the duty of a constitutional government: repel foreign invaders. It is incumbent on him to attempt to stop potential enemies of the U.S. before they enter this country. Unlike preemptive assault in the absence of a clear and present danger, preemptive defense is perfectly proper.
Thus Bush might have reinstated the pre-1965 national-origins restrictions in immigration policy. A culturally coherent immigration policy is the logical complement to rational profiling. Both are defensive rather than offensive.
Thomas Jefferson warned J. Lithgow in 1805 about the desirability of welcoming “the dissolute and demoralized handicraftsmen of the old cities of Europe.” Jefferson feared that immigrants under “the maxims of absolute monarchies”—and he was not talking about the monarchies of Buganda or Ethiopia—may not acclimatize to “the freest principles of the English constitution.” What would he say about arrivals from Wahhabi-worshiping wastelands whose customs not only preclude “natural right and natural reason,” but include killing their hosts?!
The state compels Americans to bear the consequences of a multicultural, egalitarian, immigration quota system, which divides visas between nations with an emphasis on mass importation of people from the Third World (more often than not of the Islamic faith). It brands as xenophobes patriotic Americans who reject open borders and indiscriminate immigration and demand that rational profiling be conducted at America’s ports of entry. Yet after refusing to restrict admission into the U.S., government proceeds to spy on these “worthies” once they’re in the country.