Redstate

Destroy the rights of American citizens for a false sense of security, I would hope not.

I like the solution  'casualobservervations' provided much better.

Wage war on terrorists and extremists, not an entire religion.  Preferably taking into account that American citizens, no matter what religion they may be, have rights.  We are trying to protect the American people.  In doing so, we are protecting our culture of freedom and way of life.  If we remove those freedoms and way of life, we do a disservice in protecting the people.

1) "Wage war on terrorists and extremists, not an entire religion."

Nobody's talking about waging war against a religion, certainly not me.  I am suggesting we seriously revise our immigration policy to prevent future terrorists from coming here.

2) "Preferably taking into account that American citizens ... have rights."

No kidding.  The first and most important of those rights is the right to live.  A car bomb, as those in Iraq have discovered, is no respecter of persons.

3) "If we remove those freedoms and way of life ..."

Nobody is talking about removing freedoms.  My recommendations do not involve infringing on any of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. They concern reforming our immigration policies and increasing domestic counter-terrorism efforts.  Can you recommend any alternative to these common sense policies?

What Leverkuhn is proposing here is smart--and long overdue--security policy.  No one is advocating trampling the rights of Muslim citizens, or even non-citizen guests (who, we must agree, by their very nature, have less access to Constitutional rights and protections than do citizens).

The hard part in proposing these ideas is the point at which we have to acknowledge that terrorist intent exists in a particular segment of society concentrated in particular areas of the country.  Incidentally, one large Muslim community omitted from the list is the one in Northern Virginia-DC-Maryland.  Muslims are an integral part of my local community, yet I'm sure that among the hundreds of thousands here, there are a very few who are not so law-abiding who may have ill intent.  This is a sad fact, and one that must be delicately addressed...but it must nonetheless be addressed.  If any (new) terrorist attack were perpetrated here, surely innocent Muslims would suffer and die along with the rest of us Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

And I think what Leverkuhn has suggested is very delicate and level-headed as compared to how terrorists are located and combatted in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

To deny visas on a strictly ethnic/religious basis does not seem so common sense to me.  To only allow travel for the rich and powerful (your business exception) seems quite offensive to equal rights and gives government undue control over what businesses have an advantage in the area.  And declaring belonging to a ethnic background reasonable cause for suspicion and spying on your own people seems to be an extreme solution not to be taken lightly.

You advocate government population control by both religion and class.  You also want more government control on who can travel where, when, and how.  You suggest the federal government should have increased power to spy on its own people.  I certainly don't agree that this is a common sense approach.  To me, it sounds more like emotional over-reaction.

The fact is, if we are to have a free country we will always be vulnerable.  No matter what.  To chip away rights for a false sense of security seems to me like caving to what the terrorists wanted, which is that we change our lives and live in fear of them.  They want to divide the rest of the Muslim world from us.  They want cultural distrust and a culture war.  And exactly what it seems some are willing to give them.

Irish Catholics have certainly seen more than their fair share of terroristic violence.  I certainly don't see it being suggested we spy on their communities or limit their immigration.  And certainly no one should.

Levekuhn,

You are on the right track.  One step you have left out, which is long overdue, is if we determine that a noncitizen is a radical islamist, then they should be deported.

1) "To deny visas on a strictly ethnic/religious basis does not seem so common sense to me."

I never said the grounds for denying visas should be ethnicity or religion.  I said we should reject people who come from countries with a significant terrorist problem.  I would have no problem with allowing immigration to continue from certain Muslim countries that do not have a large terrorist presence.  I do not have a complete list of which countries would qualify, but I'm sure Kuwait and Qatar would make the list.

2) "You advocate government population control by both religion and class.  You also want more government control on who can travel where, when, and how."

Bull crap.  I never said anything about population control.  I spoke of the need for immigration reform. Population control refers to the use of birth control and/or abortion to control the size or composition of a population. You are either very dishonest, or you don't have a grasp of the basic terminology involved in this issue.

Once again, I never said anything about using religion as the basis of immigration reform.  I said that immigrants from countries known to have a large terrorist presence (that includes U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia as well as enemies like Iran) should no longer be able to enter the U.S. unless we are absolutely sure they pose no threat.  

I made two exceptions: businessmen and students.  Both would have to have letters of recommendation from the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Defense.  We need to allow businessmen into the country because we do business with the U.S.  We should allow a small number of students to enter because every well-educated Middle-Easterners who really understands the United States is one less terrorist we have to worry about. Unfortunately, we have to thoroughly vet all such student to make sure they pose no threat.

3) "You suggest the federal government should have increased power to spy on its own people."

Wake up, man.  They already have that power.  They can find out anything they want about anybody. But can't find out anything at all about everybody. The point is that there are nearly 300 million people in this country and the government can not possibly keep an eye on all of them. There aren't enough satellites.  There aren't enough cameras.  Most importantly, there aren't enough federal agents.  By a reasonable process of elimination we should be able to eliminate at least 90% of the population from consideration as potential terrorist threats.  When we decide which communities need maximum surveillance attention, something tells me we can safely eliminate Montgomery, Alabama, Salt Lake City, and the like. That leaves ... Buffalo, NY, NYC, Dearborn, MI, and several other cities with large Middle Eastern communities.  I know it seems unfair to sensitive types like you to place more agents, tap more phones, and develop more contacts in areas simply because of who lives there. But that policy is also more likely to keep you alive than pretending that a white man born in Colorado Springs is as likely to be a terrorist as an Arab man born in Damascus.

4) "The fact is, if we are to have a free country we will always be vulnerable."

No kidding. But just because you can't kill all rattlesnakes doesn't mean that you let them live in your home, eat your food, and sleep in your bed.  Vulnerability is no excuse for suicide.

BTW, your "Irish Catholic" argument is a non sequitur.  Neither the IRA nor any Irish terrorist group has ever carried out an attack on U.S. soil. They are certainly a threat to Britain, but as of yet we have no reason to fear duplicate IRA attacks in the United States.