The Teeth in Newt’s Call to Test and Deport Sharia Muslims

The other day in Wurzburg, Germany a 17-year-old Afghan refugee boarded a train carrying a knife and ax. Then he went to work. Four passengers -- Chinese tourists -- are in serious condition. Others were less seriously injured. Many aboard the train were treated for shock. The kid’s Lizzie Borden routine was accompanied by his shouts of “Allahu Akbar.” Beforehand, in a video, he had declared himself a soldier of the caliphate. Among his possessions was a homemade flag that resembled an Islamic State banner. German police gunned him down as he attacked security while attempting to flee.

The attack, reports Reuters, is “raising more questions about Chancellor Angela Merkel's open-door refugee policy.”

In fact, reports Reuters:

A leader of the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) said Merkel and her supporters were to blame for the dangerous security situation because their "welcoming policies had brought too many young, uneducated and radical Muslim men to Germany".

Welcoming policies, indeed. The problem of jihad in Western Europe and the U.S. is, in part, among Muslims permitted to enter. But it’s also among Muslims already here in the U.S. and throughout Western Europe. It’s about more than the perpetrators; it’s about their sympathizers and supporters, and about Muslim communities that remain silent about the killers among them, whether from fear, sympathy, or religious loyalty. 

Last week, in the wake of the Nice truck attack that killed 84 innocents and injured scores of others, former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich called for testing Muslims for Sharia-compliance. Those who are compliant should be deported, stated Gingrich.

Newt didn’t go into details. A policy that systemizes the vetting and removal of Sharia Muslims would go a long way toward diminishing terrorist threats to the homeland. It would act to penetrate and disrupt tightly knit Muslim communities, where terrorist plots percolate.

Practically, how would removal be achieved? There are two principal means. Certainly, the United States government has a right to revoke visas. Guests of the United States must abide by our laws. Holding beliefs -- Sharia -- that are intended to supersede the laws of the United States, and that pose threats to the security and lives of Americans, are actionable grounds.

The other way is through the revocation of naturalization. Within U.S. legal code, there exist processes for revoking naturalized citizenship. Under U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services, titled: INA: ACT 340 - REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION, Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451], causes and process are explicated.           

As recently as this May, the federal government sought to revoke the naturalized citizenship of Mohamed Idris Ahmed, a Somali cleric. The grounds: failing to possess “good moral character.” The prosecution was premised on lies made in Ahmed’s application for citizenship. He didn’t mention that he had two wives and his travels abroad. The latter might give us a strong hint why the feds chose to act.

This court exchange from a May 8, 2016, Columbus Dispatch report:

Yvonne Jarrett, a former INS official who reviewed and signed off on Ahmed's application, said records show he did not have a passport with him.

One of Ahmed's attorneys, D. Wesley Newhouse, asked Jarrett why she wouldn't press an applicant who didn't have a passport about travel.

"It's face value," she said. "They're under oath.                                                           

"If any applicant tells me they've been out of the country 13 times, to the Middle East and northern Africa, that would definitely raise a red flag," Jarrett said. [Italics added]

The cleric, despite spin from the Islamic Association of North America, is suspicious due to his lying about his journeys to jihadist hotspots. Not only does Ahmed merit revocation of citizenship but expulsion from the U.S., though expulsion isn’t an automatic. Per the Columbus Dispatch report, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement makes that call.   

Though the laws exist for the revocation of naturalized citizenship, it may require refinement in order to speed up processes and hasten revocations of Sharia Muslims.

Trump vows that as president that he’d get serious about who is allowed into the country and clamping down on the illegals in our midst. But the other shoe to drop is the Gingrich proposition. Mechanisms need to be put in place to deport Muslims who in any way contribute to the great existential threat to innocent Americans today. 

Newt is developing a strong alliance with Trump, and his rumored to be on the radar for a key role in a Trump administration, means his call for testing Sharia Muslims and deporting them hasn’t been ignored by Trump. Trump may have been apprised of Gingrich’s proposition beforehand. 

Embracing Newt’s call for testing and deportation of Sharia Muslims is no great leap for Trump. This report from the leftwing website “ThinkProgress” about remarks Trump made to "60 Minutes"’ Leslie Stahl:

“You know -- the Constitution -- there’s nothing like it,” Trump told Stahl. “But it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I’ll tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are territories and terror states and terror nations that we’re not gonna allow the people to come into our country.”

“And we’re gonna have a thing called ‘Extreme vetting,'” Trump added. “And if people wanna come in, there’s gonna be extreme vetting. We’re gonna have extreme vetting. They’re gonna come in and we’re gonna know where they came from and who they are.” [Italics added]

“Extreme vetting” is as applicable to the Muslims among us as to those wishing to enter the U.S. According to the Pew Research Center, as of January 2016 there are an estimated 3.3. million Muslims in the U.S. Many are natural born, others are naturalized, and still others enjoy legal immigrant status.

One of the two Muslim killers in San Bernardino was an American. Syed Rizwan Farook was natural born; his “wife,” Tashfeen Malik, was a permanent resident. The Orlando killer -- Omar Mateen -- was natural born. Theirs were acts of treason, which a President Trump can and should pursue against -- living -- citizens, be they would-be or actual perpetrators and conspirators. 

Hillary Clinton supports a dramatic increase in Syrian refugees into the U.S. That’s no real surprise. Speaker Paul Ryan, ever the compassionate conservative, has criticized Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for wanting to seal off the nation to Muslims, immigrants and refugees. Ryan is currently backpedalling on the Muslim refugee issue in his reelection campaign. Trump has modified his call on Muslim immigration somewhat, in that he’ll take into account country of origin. But Trump’s concession isn’t much of one -- thankfully.

It’s unimaginable that President Hillary Clinton and Republican speaker Paul Ryan would combine in any meaningful way to staunch the flow of Sharia Muslims into the U.S., much less act vigorously to ferret out those already here. It would take a President Trump, along with, perhaps, Homeland Security chief Newt Gingrich, to put the spurs to Ryan and congressional Republicans to act in a concerted fashion, bringing to bear the full weight of the federal government to better secure the nation from jihadists who receive support, directly or not, from Sharia Muslims.

But are Americans sufficiently pressed by the peril to elect Donald Trump president, and then fully support Trump in taking hard actions to preempt slaughters of more innocents here? The question haunts.