Last week the Department of Justice asked the court to overturn a decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii that limited the temporary travel ban on refugees from six Muslim-majority countries.
The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Supreme Court reporter Kevin Daley wrote that U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson found that an enforcement rule excluding grandparents and a variety of other familial relations from exemptions to the ban is invalid.
Muslim families have a proven history of colluding with each other to commit jihad, and we must take that threat serious. The Supreme Court must not loosen the restrictions on the travel ban.
Those that know me personally and that keep up with me on social media know that I am extremely close to my family. Faith and family are two pillars of my happiness, and protecting those things is a top priority for me.
While I can sympathize for the families affected by the temporary travel ban, it’s simply not an option in the current state of affairs to expand the “bona fide relationship” to include other family members.
Islamist jihadists have a history of familial collusion in the planning and execution of deadly attacks around the globe, and until there is a strict policy set in place, no further dilution of this protective order should be allowed.
A History of Collusion
In September of 2016, Ahmad Khan Rahami attempted mass murder with homemade bombs placed in NYC and NJ. Pipe bombs were even found at the Elizabeth train station, just outside of Union County College where I was teaching at one point – I used that station many times earlier in 2016.
Despite reports that Rahami’s father alerted authorities, there were also reports that he was clueless. Rahami was living with his father in a house full of family whilst building and testing bombs in the backyard – hard to believe no one knew.
I don’t think I need to retell the story of the Boston Marathon bombing, but let’s not forget that two brothers were the masterminds behind the attacks.
Nepotistic jihad also came into play in the deadly 2015 Paris terror attacks at the Bataclan Theater and nearby locations that killed 130, and the subsequent attacks at the Brussels airport. Again, brothers were responsible for planning and executing the attacks.
San Bernardino a husband and wife – both Muslim – murdered free people at a workplace party.
After months of searching for her, Noor Salman – the wife of the Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen – is facing federal charges which include aiding and abetting Mateen’s material support to ISIS.
I can continue, but I think the point has been made: jihad is a family affair and it is our best interest to tighten policies on travel and immigration from Muslim-majority nations.
As I’ve noted before, mass Islamic immigration have created a dangerous situation in the U.K. and Europe.
According to a 2016 ICM poll of 1,081 randomly selected British Muslims aged 18 and over, two thirds would not inform the police if they thought someone was involved with terrorism and The Times reports that intelligence officers identified 23,000 jihadist extremists in the U.K.
With 3 million Muslims living in the U.K. as of 2016, the aforementioned stats suggest about 2 million U.K. Muslims would provide safe harbor to terrorists.
How many of these two million would have a familial relationship with said terrorist?
According to Pew Research Center, there were about 3.3 million Muslims of all ages in the United States as of 2015. How many American Muslims would not inform authorities if they knew someone was involved with terrorism?
As I’ve stated earlier, I sympathize for those that cannot see family due to the high-risk situation at hand, however it’s not appropriate to allow travel and/or immigration from high risk nations on the basis of sympathy. There is a proven threat, and it’s a risk we just cannot take.
James Merse is a healthcare communications professional from Northern New Jersey and teaches communication courses at community colleges. Follow him on Twitter: @JamesMerse