Anti-jihad libertarian Pam Geller speaks the word “immigration”!

I have several times pointed out that Pamela Geller, one of the most vocal and visible of American Islam critics, has never called for reducing or stopping (let alone reversing) Muslim immigration—a failure, I have said, that renders practically meaningless all her warnings about the threat posed to our country and civilization by Islam. Now, for the first time ever, Geller has said something, albeit something quite vague, about restricting Muslim immigration. On April 11 at her Atlas Shrugs blog she writes:

The indignity and debasement of a woman in a burqa is profound. I look at what might be a woman, who knows what’s in that cloth coffin, and I weep for the women, the culture, the society that mandates it. And worse yet, extols the dress of the chattel.

These laws in Europe seem to me but a bandaid on a life-threatening illness. But it is something. The real objective, I should think, is to make these countries less attractive to Muslim immigrants.

Why not just impose limits on immigration from Muslim countries?

First, let’s acknowledge that Geller has broached a centrally important subject she has never broached before, so this represents progress. Unfortunately, the comment is without content. “Limits” on immigration can mean anything. What kind of limits is she talking about? She doesn’t say. Geller thus follows the example of her anti-jihad partner Robert Spencer, who over the years has from time to time recommended doing something about reducing Muslim immigration, but has done so in the form of rhetorical questions (like Geller’s above) and parenthetical asides, never in the form of a worked-out, specific position. And then he would proceed to cast aside the idea altogether, as he did when he formed an anti-jihad organization with Geller last year and among its 23 action planks immigration was not even mentioned.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 15, 2011 11:13 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):