Mark Krikorian, in order to argue that the United States should close its borders to all but the most desirable immigrants, is making his case for reducing future immigration by warning against Islam and Muslims living in the United States.
Media Matters -Writing on the website of National Review, Krikorian attacked Islam as “a unique danger to our Republic” and advocated for “the use of undercover agents to infiltrate” mosques and Muslim organizations “and track their activities.” He concluded: “If a large and growing Muslim population represents a threat to liberty — and I believe, with [Herman] Cain, that it does — then that’s yet another reason to reduce future immigration.”
From his July 18 blog post on National Review Online’s The Corner: Yes, of course, Islam is more than just a spiritual system — it’s also a political system, a system regulating economics, war, the subjugation of infidels, personal hygiene, and every other aspect of life. And of course radical elements — i.e., orthodox Muslims — are behind the construction of many, if not most mosques in the West.
Both of these facts make Islam a unique danger to our Republic and are arguments for enhanced scrutiny of mosques and all Muslim organizations, the use of undercover agents to infiltrate them and track their activities, a resumption of the use of ideological exclusion in visa and immigration matters, and the categorical rejection of all special demands, whether wearing a hijab in a driver’s license photo or giving legal authority to sharia courts in family-law matters.
Krikorian previously asserted that the only way to produce ” ‘moderate’ Islam” in countries like Iran is to wholly separate Islamic societies from the West and allow a “tsunami of violence” to overtake the people living under “Islamic regime[s].” Indeed, while discussing the future of Islam in an August 19 post on National Review Online, Krikorian wrote that Islam is “a failure as an ideology and way of life in the modern world” and added that “[o]ur long-term strategy, then, should be to create two, three, many Islamic republics, each one inevitably an example of Islam’s bankruptcy.”
In a subsequent NRO posting on August 22, Krikorian again referred to the “bankruptcy of Islam as a modern political ideology” and wrote that Islam will only change if “we pursue” “separationism,” which he defined as “the isolation of Islam from the rest of the world through military action, restrictions on immigration, and other means, presumably including a radically more aggressive search for alternative automobile fuels.”
Krikorian went on to explain that by isolating countries like Iran, “whose people have had quite enough of Islam,” the “Islamic regime[s]” will “unravel” and citizens will turn to other faiths. Krikorian went on to assert that the “remaining fundamentalists will start beheading newly Christian school children and raping newly Zoroastrian women and blowing up newly constructed Bahai temples, intensifying the existing popular disgust with the Islamic faith and thus accelerating conversions to other faiths.” Eventually, according to Krikorian, “the various keepers of Islam will see the need for a new version of the faith that people won’t abandon — thereby ushering in the long-awaited but ever elusive “moderate” Islam.” He concluded:
It will take a lifetime to work its way through the Islamic world, and we must do our best to ensure that relatively few of our own people are killed in the inevitable tsunami of violence that is coming, but there really isn’t any alternative.