YOUNGSTOWN, OH — Republican nominee Donald Trump gave a speech in Ohio earlier this week focused on immigration and terrorism. In it he detailed how he would overhaul the entry procedures for foreigners entering the United States. This is one of those times where we have to turn a critical eye to the things he says—not because we oppose him, but because even as the best choice he can still be wrong. Trump is a means and nowhere near the end.
To be fair, there were some very good things in this speech. For starters, he linked the Islamic terror attacks in the United States and Europe over the last two years, including Brussels, Nice, Orlando, Paris, and Rouen. This is important because it signals our civilizational solidarity with Europe against the Islamic threat and we want this paradigm adopted. And crucially, he pointed out that not only Muslim immigrants but their children can cause problems.
Trump repeated his usual line about having to be able to identify the enemy in order to fight him, something so simple yet so deliberately dropped by our current leaders, dubbed “Obama-Clinton.” But on immigration restrictions and how he plans to go about it, Trump is a mixed bag and we should acknowledge this. See the transcript for the more details, but here are the key Trumpist immigration policies:
- implementing an “ideological screening test” that modernizes the criteria we used during the Cold War, specifically rejecting admission for those “who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law” and “those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred.”
- temporarily suspending visa processing for “some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism,”
- empowering federal officers to root out “Radical Islam” support networks in the United States and deport “guests in our country that are preaching hate ”
- encouraging assimilation to American culture by “promot[ing] the exceptional virtues of our own way of life--and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same”
The test as a practical measure is pointless. Muslims can just taqiyya their way through it. It also opens up some weird angles for narrative collision for both camps. Trump himself and his supporters are widely considered to “support bigotry and hatred” by the left, so he’d be banned under his own rules from entering the United States were his enemies in power (and they very well could be after he serves one or two terms). On the other hand, since the left widely opposes banning the Muslims whom this rule is supposed to cover, they are in the awkward position of having to say they support Muslims “who support bigotry and hatred” gaining entry to the United States. By any objective definition, Muslim societies do not meet secular liberal standards of tolerance and equality, but third worldism means they have to be let in.
So the ideological tests will cause a signaling firestorm, but in practice are not helpful. If you know you have to say I love freedom, LGBT people, and the Constitution to get into the country, I imagine you will. As for letting in “only those who we expect to flourish in our country--and to embrace a tolerant American society,” this could mean anything from Swedes to Christian mestizos to Asian tech workers. In other words, it’s still the “Muslim ban,” but it won’t keep anything else out.
Score: D. Completely useless as it is circumventable and only avoids being an F because it will cause cognitive dissonance on the left, which is fun to watch at least.
Refusing to process visas from countries with terrorism problems is a great idea. Initially many of us thought this was a way of not using the term “Muslim,” since that has bad optics when trying to court moderates—but now he’s gone ahead and said we have to ban “Radical Islam” anyway. In any event, banning terrorism exporters means banning immigration from the entire Muslim world more or less, as most of these countries have experienced a terror attack in the last 5 years. It also lets us target non-Muslim countries which have large Muslim minorities and terrorism issues, such as France and Belgium, which are demographically-speaking on track to joining Africa and leaving Europe if nothing changes. The biggest problem with this proposal is that he calls it temporary—it should be permanent. In practice it very well could be permanent, since kebabs are gonna kebab, and the president has legal authority to ban any class of foreigners from entering the country at his personal discretion, without any approval from Congress or the Sanhedrin. But it could also be limited to 4-8 years, since like the ideological screening proposal, it only works as long as nationalists control the government.
Score: B. Very good idea but unless it is institutionalized it could end with Trump.
The federal inquisition against “Radical Islam” is an unequivocally good move. These people have to go back and the government needs the power to do it. Some of these kebabs we have, the authorities don’t even know where they are. We don’t have as many public events as we used to. Barack says unprotected immigration has nothing to do with it but I don’t agree. All joking aside, there is no reason to have any tolerance for violent foreigners. Or their offspring. There is nothing they add to our society that is worth this. Every kebab imported or born here makes this country less White and more at risk of Islamic terror attacks. This was a non-issue prior to 1965, Islamic terrorism and the expansion of anti-Western Islamic ideology in our own borders. You can thank the (((Hart-Celler Act))) for the San Bernardino and Orlando shootings. The perpetrators were post-'65 immigrants or their spawn. And held to the standard of secular liberalism and religious ecumenism, almost all forms of Islam are “Radical Islam.” Maybe the Ahmadiyya sect will slip through, but they’re the Episcopalians of the Muslim world anyway.
Score: A. I would not do anything different. In fact, I would expand it to include naturalized and anchor-born Muslims as well.
Championing assimilation of immigrants and their children to American values and culture, as opposed to the unmentioned but implied multicultural approach that de-emphasizes American unity, is something that sounds like a good idea in a sane world. Alas, ours is not a sane world. For example, if 90-100% of immigrants were Europeans moving to a majority-European society where the majority of children were European and the population overwhelmingly spoke one language, it would not be impossible to forge them into Amerikaners over a generation or two. But we don’t live in that society. We live in an America that is facing a rising tide of color. We live in an America where most immigrants and most children are non-Europeans. Who is being assimilated to what exactly? We want the Weimerica Shopping Center shut down, not expanded. What this will result in is an amorphous mocha biomass of mystery-meat people who speak English and think voting and gibsmedats are neat. No thanks.
Score: F. I have to fail him on this; we don’t want to become a monocultural but multiracial/multi-ethnic society, let alone a far-left one. Not only would it not work, but attempts to do so would create a vastly inferior level of civilization than we have now. We are nationalists, not brazilianists.
Trump is still the best option on the ballot, even when he falls short. (If I had to grade Clinton I would probably give her an F on everything). But there is potential for “the next Trump” to offer something better if Trump wins in November and moves the Overton window further right. For example, an Immigration Act of 2025 could cancel the 1965 law, and revive the quotas of 1921 and 1924 so that immigration from outside Europe is slashed to almost nothing. Ideally of course, we want an ethnostate, where there would be no debate on banning immigration from the third world, full stop. But the Leviathan on the Potomac isn’t going anywhere any time soon.