OPINION:
A couple of months ago, freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, Texas Republican, made what should be classified as an anodyne observation about the comparative values of various cultures and societies: “We’ve got to recognize that not all cultures are equal. They’re not all compatible with America’s governing framework, they’re not all equally moral, they don’t all have equal dignity.”
Mr. Gill subsequently sharpened the point in a congressional hearing focused on fraud in Minnesota by asking simply: “Does large-scale Somali immigration make Minnesota stronger or weaker?”
Despite the usual harrumphing about the inherent value of all societies and similar arguments from the harrumphing class, no one really addressed his point.
This lack of interest in pursuing an answer to an important direct question — Is immigration, legal or otherwise, from certain places in the best interest of Americans? — stems primarily from the fact that everyone involved knows the answer is no. Most of us understand that not all societies in the world are equal or morally equivalent. Many do not even operate under the same moral code. Some may not, for the most part, be compatible with America’s governing framework.
Mr. Gill has noted that after a decade in the United States, about 80% of Somali-immigrant-headed households are still dependent on government assistance, compared with about 7% of native households.
At a bare minimum, this suggests some assimilation challenges. That does not even address the question of widespread fraud by some of the Somali community in Minnesota, but it is bad enough that even the reliably shady Gov. Tim Walz decided he could not run for office again with the scandal hanging over his head.
The question of whether the cultures involved are compatible is not academic. For some, it is a matter of life and death. This very week, Europe endured two separate acts of religious terrorism. In Berlin, a celebration of homosexuality was attacked by a van (what else?) driven by Abdul Ballout. The toll: one dead and 29 injured.
Two days later, in Paris, three women, one of them pregnant, were stabbed by a jihadi in broad daylight. His explanation? “Allah commanded me.” Seems reasonable enough.
On a final note, back here in the States, there is legitimate concern about the rise in antisemitism, but it is usually cloaked in rhetoric that makes it seem as if religiously motivated violence is an act of Mother Nature disconnected entirely from human agency.
Causation associated with shifts in public sentiment over time is always difficult to ascertain. That said, in 1950, there were probably fewer than 100,000 Muslims in the United States. Currently, there are about 5 million. Not all of them are in favor of a pluralistic society that includes Jews.
The tricky thing about representative government is that it requires citizens to be willing to face evidence and fact patterns they might prefer to ignore.
Unfortunately, you cannot have a nation without meaningful and defensible borders, or without the ability to decide who is and is not a citizen, and who should and should not be one.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.
Follow the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.