One difficulty in the U.S. immigration debate is the mass of people who hold positions contradictory to their heuristics. Namely, there are some who want to import non-Christian people in the name of Christianity.
Mahmoud Khalil is one such import. A graduate student and green card holder, Khalil was arrested recently on the grounds that he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization” after he organized pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.
It did not appear that the authorities had much reason to arrest him if the claim was criminal activity; free speech certainly seemed to be on his side. At that, the purpose here was not to determine whether we could deport him rightfully. But the power of the United States to deport noncitizens, such as pro-Hamas foreigners who make the “global intifada” their entire purpose, should at least be fathomable.
It is not that we should consult pure religious discrimination for immigration policy. The fact of the matter, though, is that there are groups of immigrants who have hatred for America and who choose to stay here anyway. Some people see this fact and disregard it in a secular-Left manner of evaluating the situation. Others welcome it and then justify the choice by using Pope Francis as the anti-President Donald Trump. These constitute the problem at hand.
Presumably, their mental shortcut is to see the dignity of the whole person “for the protection and defense of those who are considered less valuable, less important or less human.” This idea is Christian, through and through. And yet, the same advocates want to pursue their goals separately from Christianity.
The boundary for their Christian influence is set by selective listening to the pope. Christianity has no place in running the country, says the liberal Catholic — but it does make good points sometimes. All vigor goes to the idea that Pope Francis is anti-Trump, and the vigor dies there: The zeal for Christian modes of reasoning does not extend to the next steps, such as what it would look like to apply the framework as a whole. Refuge for intensely persecuted Christians, a matter the media suppresses, would be one consideration.
Instead, they take the reactionary route of nonintegration. And in doing so, they treat the pope exactly as they treat the U.S.: Reap the fruits of Christian influence and turn them into an entirely new and radical project.
TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO HELP HIM END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
As we have seen on the progressive side of the cause for Palestinians, sympathies lie expressly against everything that constitutes Western civilization. What we end up with in practice is increasing numbers of Muslim migrants hostile to it. It is no coincidence that immigrants who refuse to assimilate are many of the same who turn bits of America into miniature versions of an occupied Palestinian state.
If the Christian rhetoric were consistent, it would be more than fathomable that unrestrained anti-American activity is something to dissuade. As it is, spite for the administration gets in the way.