Op-ed: The Muslim registry that wasn’t

  • By Rich Lowry
  • Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:16pm
  • Opinion

The first thing to know about Donald Trump’s alleged proposal for a Muslim registry is that it isn’t a Muslim registry.

This has been lost in a freak-out that has some brave souls already promising acts of civil disobedience to disrupt and overwhelm the prospective registry. The controversy tells us much more about how the media will cover the Trump administration — i.e., through the lens of a fact-free hysteria — than about the administration’s immigration-enforcement agenda.

The source of the fracas is a comment from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Trump immigration adviser and (excellent) candidate for Homeland Secretary director, to Reuters. Kobach noted that the administration might reinstate a Bush-era program tracking visitors to the U.S. from countries with active terrorist threats. This suggestion was spun into a first step toward herding our Muslim neighbors into internment camps.

Kobach was referring to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, which placed special requirements on adult male visitors from countries like Saudi Arabia. Implemented after Sept. 11 — when, you might recall, adult male visitors from Saudi Arabia toppled the World Trade Center — it collected fingerprints and photographs when visitors from the select countries arrived and required them to check in periodically to confirm that they were abiding by the terms of their visas.

It also required that certain individuals from these countries who were already here go through a process of “special registration,” including an interview with immigration officials.

This is a far cry from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order 9066 setting in motion the Japanese internment of World War II.

It is true, as the critics point out, that the selected countries all were, with the exception of North Korea, majority Muslim. But any program concerned with international terrorism will, inevitably, focus largely on Muslim countries (although European countries like France and Belgium have developed an indigenous terror threat). The 9/11 hijackers, notably, all came from majority Muslim countries.

It is said that the Bush program didn’t lead to the prosecution of any terrorists. According to the Migration Policy Institute, “The New York Times reported in 2003 that, out of roughly 85,000 individuals registered through the NSEERS program in 2002 and 2003, just 11 were found to have ties to terrorism.”

Although tracking down anyone here who has ties to terrorism isn’t necessarily something to sniff at, the Bush program proved best-suited to identifying visa overstayers. Of the 85,000 initial registrants, nearly 14,000 were put into removal proceedings. For the critics, this is an indictment. Liberal website Vox complains that the program “made it easier to deport someone who then overstayed his visa than it would have been to deport him if he’d refused to register at all.”

But why shouldn’t it be easier to deport visa-overstayers, who constitute about half of the population of illegal immigrants? If we are serious about our immigration rules, our approach to visa-overstayers from all countries should be much more restrictive and hardheaded.

The requirements of the Bush program were watered down over time until it was suspended by the Obama administration in 2011. But the program wasn’t illegal or unconstitutional (the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor). Nor was it immoral — foreign visitors should be subject to any reasonable strictures we impose in exchange for the privilege of coming here.

That the so-called Muslim registry is now a thing, a subject of high dudgeon and hot debate, is testament to how the same media that complains about “fake news” is committed to manufacturing and driving its own narratives only loosely connected to reality. Whether the Trump administration revives a version of the Bush program or not, a similar campaign of obloquy will be directed at all of its immigration enforcement measures. It will have to pursue its agenda against a backdrop of media hostility and constant misinformation.

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

More in Opinion

The Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. building is photographed in Juneau. (Clarise Larson/Juneau Empire file)
Opinion: State cannot afford better schools and also big PFDs

Most legislators believe more state money for local school districts should be on the list of essential services.

A sign welcomes employees and visitors at the Kenai Peninsula Borough administration building on Tuesday, March 17, 2020, in Soldotna, Alaska. (Photo by Victoria Petersen/Peninsula Clarion file)
Opinion: Fair property taxes, oh my

Our local tax system is not perfect, but it does represent an attempt to fairly balance community interests.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, a Nikiski Republican, speaks in favor of overriding a veto of Senate Bill 140 during floor debate of a joint session of the Alaska State Legislature on Monday, March 18, 2024. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire)
Capitol Corner: Education looms large in fast-paced start to session

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

Meg Zaletel (Courtesy)
Opinion: Housing shouldn’t be a political issue — it’s a human right

Policies and budget decisions that impact housing impact people’s well-being.

Therese Lewandowski. (Photo provided)
Point of View: Let’s raise equal rights for women

There is much more to our gender inequality story.

The Alaska State Capitol is seen in this undated file photo. (Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire)
Larry Persily. (Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: U.S. should treat tariffs with a cold shoulder

The problem is that the U.S. imposes tariffs on what we buy.

A campfire can be seen at the Quartz Creek Campground in Cooper Landing, Alaska, in May 2020. (Clarion staff)
Opinion: What carbon capture and storage might mean for Alaska

Could Alaska be the next leader in carbon capture and storage?

Promotional image via intletkeeper.org.
Point of View: Learn efficiency at upcoming Homer Energy Fair

Energy conservation and efficiency have multiple benefits.

Congress holds a joint session to certify the election results of 2024 on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 6, 2025. President-elect Donald J. Trump has waffled on his preferences for how his party tackles his agenda, adding to the uncertainty for Republicans. (Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Opinion: The moral imperative of our time

Trump has made it very clear that he wants to control what the news media publishes.