I have been reading Andrew McCarthy's book the Grand Jihad. He repeatedly emphasizes freedom defined by individual choices to attempt to improve oneself versus the Communist and Islamistic definition of freedom as freedom from want or need.
He discusses the desire of Communists and Islamists to kill or repress anyone who does not comply with their taking life, liberty, or property to create the utopian freedom from want.
In the Islamistic mindset, a former Muslim is an apostates. The punishment for apostasy is death by execution or assassination.
Our problem with our borders and the risk of naturalized citizens with these ideals is impossible in our current method. Once a terrorist gets US citizenship he is difficult to treat like the enemy combatant or spy that he really is.
One of our best defenses is the Oath of Citizenship. A person who violates the Oath can have his citizenship revoked.
Clearly in the American experience we do not seek to require a person to conform to a state-defined religion or approved sets of religion. We want uniformly enforced laws without regard to the person's religion.
I have a simple proposition: amend the oath to add a line, "I swear or affirm that I do not seek nor am I currently affiliated with any group that seeks to physically punish or kill persons for not complying with specific political or religious beliefs. I further swear or affirmed that I have disclosed all past such affiliations in my application of citizenship."
This simple amendment would prevent Islamic terrorists from legally obtaining citizenship or keeping citizenship once the oath is taken. Past affiliation then do not prevent citizenship, but failure to fully disclose does. Current affiliation should prevent citizenship.
This pattern of oath makes sense. Islam allows Muslims to lie under oath to non-believers. The oath being enforced by God or Allah is not the point. The point is that perjury would be a basis for removing the protection of citizenship.
This oath would merely preventing foreign nationals from moving to the states as trained terrorists and obtaining citizenship under false pretenses. The naturalized Muslim father who kills his daughter for converting to Christianity or adultery can have his citizenship revoked.
The problem becomes for religious Muslims who earnestly want to be American citizens. By attending a mosque regularly, they would have to face the conflict of the Koran with the Constitution.
I will not presume how they would have to resolve the inherent conflict between those two documents to become an American citizens. They know the Koran and the laws of Sharia better than I do.
They should be forced to create a solution to the problem before becoming an American.
Similarly we would need to deal with the problem of American-born Muslim children under the XIVth Amendment's requirements. Such a non-American terrorist could bear and raise a child here. Such a child should not be required to swear an oath of allegiance.
My solution would be to prevent visas from being granted to persons not able to swear such an oath for entry unless under diplomatic passport. Diplomats' kids born in the US don't get US citizenship.
We should grant free immigration rights to those who wish to come here, so long as they are obligated to swear they do not seek physical punishment for apostates. The right of free exercise of religion remains without a cloak of First Amendment claims to physically coerce or threaten others to be part of that religion.
That is true freedom of religion, uniformly enforced.
