A Constitutional Right to Muslim Migration
The difference between government and tyranny.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
The United States Constitution makes Judge Richard Posner yawn.
”I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution,” he once wrote.
“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart,” Judge Posner suggested, couldn’t have grasped our high tech world. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, according to him, “do not speak to today.” He dismissed it as a document based on “what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.”
Judge Richard Posner is a smart guy. And he’s no 18th-century guy. Instead he was born in 1939. That means that he speaks to today. Unlike old fuddy duddies like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
As the judge of the future, Posner’s birth, a little more than a century after Jefferson’s death, qualifies him to tackle the bold new legal problems of tomorrow. Judge Posner discovered gay marriage in the Constitution. Or rather he discovered that marriage, like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, was more 18th century nonsense and that Judeo-Christian values were a “tradition of hate.”
Now Judge Posner has discovered a bold new right. The right of Muslims to settle in Indiana. This was one of those rights unforeseen by even the smart 18th century guys who lacked Pos’ legalistic savvy.
In his screed, Posner accuses Governor Pence, who has resisted Muslim migrant dumping in his state, of believing “without evidence” that some Syrian Muslim migrants “were sent to Syria by ISIS to engage in terrorism and now wish to infiltrate the United States in order to commit terrorist acts here. No evidence of this belief has been presented, however; it is nightmare speculation.”
Actually a nightmare speculation would be that Judge Posner will still be on the bench in the 22nd century issuing similarly stupid screeds. It’s a nightmare speculation because it’s wildly unlikely.
ISIS Jihadists coming to America as Syrian Muslim migrants just requires following a straight line.
Two of the Paris attackers had come posing as Syrian refugees. They had been dispatched by ISIS. ISIS was kind enough to tell us as much. “We have sent many operatives to Europe with the refugees.”
What are the odds that they might just be doing the very same thing to the United States?
Even the refugees themselves are warning that there are Islamic terrorists among them. But, like the United States Constitution and the institution of marriage, none of that impresses Judge Posner.
He’s too smart to waste time on the facts. Who cares what ISIS or the refugees say?
“As far as can be determined from public sources, no Syrian refugees have been arrested or prosecuted for terrorist acts or attempts in the United States,” Posner crows.
There’s the case of Younis Al-Jayab, back in January. But Al-Jayab didn’t get around to carrying out an attack. He merely went to aid ISIS while writing, “O Allah grant us martyrdom for your sake while engaged in fighting.” But that could mean anything. We really must wait until a Syrian Muslim migrant murders 50 people in a gay nightclub before assuming that we shouldn’t draw any conclusions.
Posner then goes on to imply that opposition to migrant dumping in Indiana is racist and that if Governor Pence is worried, then “he should communicate his fears to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.” That’s like suggesting anyone worried about Judge Posner’s state of mind should communicate those fears to Judge Posner. That’s a problem posing as a solution.
Judge Posner insists that excluding migrants from a terror state is discrimination. Having first invented a right to gay marriage, the ‘Pos’ followed that up by inventing a right for Muslims who support beheading them to settle in Indiana. The two rights are contradictory. You can have gay marriage or you can have a whole lot of Muslim migrants. But these two invented rights are in a primal state of conflict.
The progressive utopia in which gay nightclubs and Muslim populations can coexist and team up against those mean conservatives is a left-wing fantasy. Much like price controlling your way to prosperity.
When Trump called for a Muslim migrant ban, it was suddenly discovered that Muslims had a sovereign right to migrate to and settle in the United States. Laurence Tribe, Obama’s judicial adviser, insisted that the ban was unconstitutional. But there is no constitutional right for Muslims to move to America.
At least not in the actual Constitution. But Tribe is the author of “The Invisible Constitution.” His invisible Constitution is a “gyroscopic” entity in which anything that progressives dream of can be found. This magically invisible Constitution also matters much more than the boring old written Constitution.
It’s this invisible Constitution which affords a right for Muslims to migrate to America.
At Loyola, Judge Posner said, “I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today.”
The question then is what does guide our behavior? The obvious answer is Judge Posner. Instead of a Constitution, we have a Posnertuition.
What is the guiding light of the Posnertution? Judge Posner wrote in the Yale Law Journal, “I think we can forget about the 18th century, much of the text. We ask with respect to contemporary constitutional issues, ask what is a sensible response.”
What is a sensible response? Judge Posner’s idea of sensible response is to disregard the facts about Islamic terrorism and inflict his own will on Indiana. Most dictatorships are governed by the sensible responses of the dictator. The Constitution was meant to make America into a different sort of place.
What Judge Pos and Larry Tribe fail to realize though is that without the actual Constitution, there is little to stop some other fellow from declaring that Posner was probably a smart fellow back when he graduated from Harvard Law back under JFK, but that his “sensible” responses are unsuited to 21st century problems like ISIS. And that he ought to make way for a millennial judge who can solve them.
The same authority that is illegitimately leveraged to impose Muslim migrants on Indiana can be leveraged to do all sorts of things that may be against the text of the old Constitution, but which can fit into a new invisible dark matter Constitution composed of a new set of judicial agendas.
And Judge Posner might not like some of those agendas at all.
Those 18th century guys were actually pretty smart. They understood the usages and limitations of power. They knew that the difference between tyranny and government is consent.
The American people have not consented to dumping the Syrian Civil War into this country. Their protests have been dismissed and ignored. The progressive elites baffled by the rise of Trump refuse to understand that his rise is a direct result of their own behavior.
The EU elites slammed the door on any rational conversation about migration. And then Brexit came. Because the question was not whether the mass migration would end, but how it would end.
Judge Posner insists that Indiana can’t even pull funds for Syrian migrants from Exodus, a local VOLAG, because he doesn’t think that there is a real threat. But he fails to understand that the question is not whether migrant dumping will end, but how it will end. Trump is one answer. There may be others that he will like even less.
“It’s funny to talk about the oath judges take to uphold the constitution since the Supreme Court has transformed the Constitution in its decisions. The oath is not really to the original constitution, or to the constitution as amended. It is to some body of law created by the Supreme Court. You can forget about the oath. That is not of significance,” Judge Posner has opined.
Much of the country wouldn’t find that oath nearly as amusing. Let alone the image of justices swearing to uphold their own power over a populace with no say in their appointments. There is an obvious reason why our elites favor the migration of populations where tyranny is commonplace.
Importing Syrian Muslims is a convenient way of undermining the Constitution. But those elites who promote the practice might wish to consider whether their invisible Constitution might not fall to the Koran.