The scoop on birthright citizenship

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

When Donald Trump revealed his immigration policy this week, the aspect of the plan that got the most attention was his desire to deport the American-born children of illegal immigrants. Under current US law, children born in the United States automatically become US citizens. In his plan, Trump says that this policy, “birthright citizenship,” is the “biggest magnet for illegal immigration.”

Birthright citizenship is also called “jus soli,” which means “the law of the soil.” Like many aspects of American law, it has its roots in English common law. In Calvin’s Case, a 1608 ruling, the court determined that a Scotsman born under the reign of King James of Bible fame, whose rule united the kingdoms of Scotland and England, was also an English subject. The court found that “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection.”

The Naturalization Act of 1790, the first US law addressing immigration and naturalization, did not specifically address the citizenship of aliens living within the United States, but the fact that English common law subsequently became US common law was referenced in an 1866 federal circuit court decision in the case of United States v. Rhodes. Justice Noah Swayne wrote, “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.” The only two exceptions, Swayne wrote, were the children of ambassadors and the children of slaves.

The slave question had been raised nine years earlier by the Dred Scott decision, generally considered one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. In that case, the Court ruled that slaves were not US citizens and struck down the ability of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories.

Earlier, in 1830, the Supreme Court had specifically endorsed jus soli in the Sailor’s Snug Harbor case. The Court held that the infant son of a loyalist, born in American-occupied New York City, was a US citizen by birth, even though children born after the British occupied the city were not.

After the Civil War, the 13^th and 14^th amendments were passed to effectively overturn the Dred Scott decision. The 13^th amendment made slavery illegal while the 14^th amendment extended citizenship rights to former slaves and banned former Confederate officials from holding public office.

Section one of the 14^th amendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first clause of the amendment specifically codified the traditional birthright citizenship of common law. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” hearkens back to Calvin’s Case and Justice Swayne’s decision in US v. Rhodes. Under this view, being born in a country automatically makes one subject to the laws and jurisdiction of that country.

Even before Donald Trump burst onto the political scene, some Republicans were challenging birthright citizenship for illegal aliens on the grounds that immigrants who were in the country illegally were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government.

The Heritage Foundation makes this case by claiming that Senator Jacob Howard (R- Maine), author and proponent of the citizenship clause, specifically pointed out that Indians were excluded from citizenship because they owed their allegiance to their tribe and not to the nation even though they were born within the geographical limits of the United States.

Other historians point out that Howard also said that the 14^th amendment was intended to mirror the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Sen. Howard was also a strong supporter of this law and indicated that it was the basis for the 14^th amendment. The Act stated, “… all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States….”

Birthright citizenship has been established since 1898 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Ark was born in California to Chinese citizen parents. Ark moved to China with his parents after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, but returned to the United States, the only home he had ever known. Four years later, he visited his parents in China and, upon his return, was not allowed to enter the US on the grounds that he was not a citizen. 

The Supreme Court ruled that a child whose parents “have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.” Ark’s parents, who were citizens of China, were not excluded from being under the jurisdiction of the United States.

While the Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but the Wong Kim Ark case would seem to settle the question of whether having parents who are citizens of a foreign country would prevent birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court rejected this theory more than a century ago.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced a bill this year, H.R. 140, which would define a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as a US citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident alien residing in the US or an alien performing active service with the US military. By redefining the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction,” King and the bill’s proponents hope to legislatively end the ability of illegal aliens to anchor themselves in the United States with a native born child.

A possible problem with this strategy is that the second clause of the 14^th amendment reads “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….” King’s bill, which would effectively abridge the birthright citizenship rights of the children of illegal immigrants, might well be considered unconstitutional under the 14^th amendment.

With the present balance of power in Congress, King’s bill is unlikely to pass the Democratic filibuster. If it were approved by Congress, it would face a certain veto by President Obama. If it became law, it would almost certainly be challenged in court.

If King’s bill were ruled unconstitutional, the next step would be to amend the Constitution to change the 14^th amendment. A constitutional amendment must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. An amendment repealing birthright citizenship would have no chance of passing the current Congress where Democrats control enough seats to prevent the amendment from even being considered.

An alternative method of amending the Constitution is by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. At last count, 27 states had passed a call for a convention of states, seven short of the necessary number. An amendment proposed by a convention of states, also called an Article V convention, would still have to be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Only 13 states are needed to block an amendment and Democrats control more than enough state governments to prevent the redefinition of birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, a number of Republicans have signed on to oppose birthright citizenship. Among the major presidential candidates, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal have expressed support for redefining birthright citizenship according to CNN. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who had supported a bill to eliminate birthright citizenship as a congressman, now opposes the change.

As noted by NPR, birthright citizenship is practiced almost exclusively in the New World where populations are made up largely of immigrants. Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries provide automatic citizenship for babies born within their borders.

Any attempt to change the traditional US policy of birthright citizenship faces an uphill struggle. If the change somehow makes it through Congress, it is almost certain to be challenged and struck down by the courts. For the near future at least, birthright citizenship is here to stay.

A common sense approach to immigration reform

By now it should be clear to everyone that the current immigration system is broken and beyond repair. Illegal immigrants flock across the border with seeming impunity. Businesses depend on the labor of these immigrants, even as many US citizens leave the work force or are forced to work part-time jobs. Even legal immigrants like the Tsarnaev brothers can travel between the United States and terrorist training camps abroad without the knowledge of federal authorities. Perhaps worst of all, at President Obama’s implicit invitation, many unaccompanied immigrant children have made a dangerous journey the southern border to throw themselves on the mercy of the American welfare state. A solution to these problems requires a common sense approach and a bipartisan compromise

Democrats and Republicans disagree on the solutions to these and many other problems faced by Americans. What’s more, the current balance of power in Washington in which Republicans control the House of Representatives and Democrats control the Senate and White House guarantees that neither party can force its own solution on the other. Many conservatives hold out hope for a Republican Senate majority after this year’s elections, but, even with the most optimistic projections, the GOP will not hold a majority large enough to override President Obama’s almost certain veto of a partisan immigration bill. The only viable solution to the immigration problem requires compromise.

To reach a compromise, leaders of both parties must overcome the angry voices of fringe elements of their base. Republican leaders answer the demagogues of the right who attack any attempt at immigration reform as “amnesty.” Democratic leaders must work around those on the left, including the president, who see immigration as a wedge issue with which to paint Republicans as racists and who would prefer to have open borders.

A wise man once said that a true compromise means that everyone is equally unhappy. In a compromise, both sides have to give up something. The thing that conservatives must give up is the notion that a border security bill must come before any other aspect of immigration reform.

There are two reasons that this is true. First, immigrant labor is needed by the businesses that make up a large part of the Republican coalition. Cutting off the supply of immigrant labor will only succeed in pushing these businesses toward the Democrats in spite of the left’s anti-business policies. Second, it is mathematically impossible for the GOP to pass a standalone border security bill with Democrats in control of the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House.

For their part, the Democrats must agree to enforcement triggers and border security provisions that cannot be reversed or ignored by the president or future Congresses. No one trusts President Obama to do the right thing on immigration. No one trusts Congress not to defund border security in the future.

Any immigration bill must include border security measures that would prevent a future influx of illegal aliens. In the age of terrorism, this is a national security issue rather than an economic one. Fencing is needed along much of the southern border along with increased numbers of Border Patrol agents. A better system of tracking legal immigrants who overstay their visas is also desperately needed. Like a standalone border bill, a bill that focuses solely on bringing current illegals into the system could not pass the current Congress.

Both parties must bend on how to address the problem of illegal immigrants already in the United States. Hard-line conservatives insist on deportation while hard-line liberals want a quick path to citizenship. The path to a compromise lies in the middle.

There are many reasons that deportation won’t happen. The American people are sharply divided with many polls showing a majority in opposition to deportation. Many illegal immigrants who came here as children don’t even speak the language of their native countries. Many adult illegal aliens have been here for years or decades and have established homes and businesses. In many cases, they tried to immigrate legally, but would have had to wait for years or decades. Public opinion will not tolerate families being split up as illegals are deported and legal resident aliens remain.

Public opinion also does not favor amnesty and granting citizenship to illegals. Most Americans agree that illegal immigrants did break our laws and must pay their debt to society. Although most Americans support a path or legalization or citizenship, such support is often contingent on meeting requirements such as passing a background check, paying back taxes and fines, and showing English proficiency.

The answer lies in the middle path of granting a measure of legalization to illegal aliens that is short of citizenship. This does not mean amnesty, which is a pardon or forgiveness for a crime. Under a path to legalization, which is supported by a majority of Americans as well as a majority of Republicans, illegal aliens would have to prove residency and show a clear criminal history, pay fines, and be subject to long waiting period before having any chance at citizenship.

This middle path would ensure that the punishment would fit the crime. Entering the United States illegally is a crime, but it is not a felony or a misdemeanor. According to the US code, it is an infraction akin to a traffic ticket and is punishable by a fine of not more than $250. Deportation or jail time is an excessive punishment for the crime of illegal immigration as currently defined by US law. This is especially true in light of the fact that illegal immigration has, for decades, been conducted with the tacit approval of both the US government and the American people.

The punishment for current illegal aliens must be severe enough to discourage future illegal immigration, but fair enough that illegals will choose to take part in the process rather than remain in the underground economy. There should be a grace period after which penalties for applying for legal status are more severe.

Conservatives must realize that if the current crop of illegal aliens are denied a fair chance at the American dream, their children will be birthright citizens who will bear a strong grudge against the Republican Party. If it is to remain relevant, the GOP cannot continue to write off large majorities of minority voters.

Once there is agreement on the major points of securing the border and how to handle illegal immigrants already in the US, agreement on other details should be easier to obtain. The law should be amended to elevate the crime of crossing the border illegally to felony status with automatic deportation for future illegal aliens.

In return for a secure border, legal immigration should be increased dramatically. Migrant workers should be encouraged to work in jobs that Americans won’t take as part of a guest worker program. Graduates of American colleges and universities with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math should automatically receive a visa with their diploma. Currently, many US educated students are forced to go abroad after they graduate where they take jobs that directly compete with American companies. It should be easier, faster and safer for an honest, hardworking immigrant to enter the US legally than illegally.

A strong majority of Americans believe that immigration reform is desperately needed. In the current climate of Washington, a bipartisan compromise is the only plan that has any chance of becoming law. A compromise bill that includes enhanced border security, a tough but fair approach to current illegal immigrants and an increase in future legal immigration should be able to win support of majorities of both parties and houses of Congress, while proving to the American people that the federal government is not totally and irretrievably broken.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

What to expect from the Obama birth certificate hearing

Earlier this month, a Georgia judge set the stage for a confrontation between President Obama and attorneys representing the birther movement. In the case, David Weldon, a Georgia citizen, had filed a complaint questioning the legality of Obama’s placement on the ballot due to their belief that he is allegedly not a “natural born citizen.” A Georgia judge refused a request by Obama’s lawyers to dismiss the case and set January 26 as the date for a hearing.

As illustrated by the comments on a recent Examiner.com article, many birthers believe that this case will result in the dismissal of President Obama and the rescission of all the legislation and executive orders of the past three years. They should disabuse themselves of such foolish notions.

Article II of the Constitution makes only three requirements for eligibility of a president. First, a president must be a “natural born citizen.” Second, he must be 35 years old. Lastly, he must have been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years.

The Constitution does not define what a “natural born citizen” is, but the evidence is that Barack Obama is one. Although he had released a short form birth certificate in 2008, in 2011 Obama released his long form birth certificate that shows that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became America’s 50^th state on August 21, 1959. Therefore, Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the fact that he was born in the United States and “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (14^th amendment).

There is other circumstantial evidence to support the information on the birth certificate as well. Obama’s birth announcement was in not one but two Honolulu newspapers in 1961, the Sunday Advertiser and the Star Bulletin. A Honolulu obstetrician actually remembers discussing the birth of Obama according to Snopes. The combination of a Stanley giving birth (Obama’s mother’s name), the first black student at the University of Hawaii, and the “musical name” of Barack Hussein Obama apparently made the birth memorable.

On the other hand, the evidence against the birthers is mounting. Several purported Kenyan birth certificates have been proven forgeries. Likewise, claims that Occidental College records showed that Obama, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, was awarded a scholarship for foreign students was revealed to be an email hoax. Occidental has not released his records at all. A claim that Obama’s grandmother said that he was born in Kenya is taken wildly out of context. The full transcript makes it clear that she said that Barack Obama was born in the U.S.

Obama is also a natural born citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen. In the Wong Kim Ark case (1898) the Supreme Court ruled that the only native-born children excluded from citizenship were those born to foreign diplomats, born on foreign public ships, born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of enemy territory, or to Indian tribes which were excluded from U.S. jurisdiction.

Birthers argue that, because Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and British subject, Barack Obama is a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. According to FactCheck.org, Obama did indeed hold dual citizenship as a child. After Kenyan independence, however, the Kenyan Constitution prohibited dual citizenship. Dual citizens lose their Kenyan citizenship at age 23 unless they renounce their non-Kenyan citizenship and take an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Obama never did so.

Dual citizenship does not affect Obama’s status as a natural born U.S. citizen. In Afroyin v. Rusk (1967) the Supreme Court ruled that “"Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." Again, in Vance v. Terraza (1980), the Court ruled that citizenship must be surrendered voluntarily. Barack Obama has never renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Even if Barack Obama were not a natural born citizen, there is no legal remedy for his removal from office at this point. If such a fact were determined prior to the 2008 election, or ideally before his election to the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate, he could have been kept off the ballot, but the Constitution makes no provision for removing a president from office because he is ineligible.

According to the Constitution, there are only two ways to remove a president from office. The first and most obvious way is to have him lose his re-election attempt. The second method is impeachment, which is addressed in Article II Section 4.

Grounds for impeachment and removal from office include “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Being ineligible to hold office is, perhaps ironically, not grounds for impeachment. This is especially true in light of the fact that Obama has no personal knowledge of his birthplace. No one can remember the time and place of their birth.

Even to allege fraud on the part of the president, which is arguably not a “high crime and misdemeanor,” prosecutors would have to prove that Obama had the intent to deceive, not with regard to his radical agenda, but with regard to his birth certificate. Obama can plausibly make the claim that he thought that he was born in Hawaii because his parents told him so and gave him a Hawaiian birth certificate.

Further, in the impeachment process the House of Representatives makes the original finding of guilt, but the Senate has to vote to remove the official from office. Given that the Democrats control the Senate, can anyone seriously believe that they would vote to remove a president of their own party on such as flimsy basis? By the time the Republicans gain control of the Senate, Barack Obama will hopefully be out of office as well.

The Constitution does not give the judiciary the power to remove any elected official from public office. It would therefore be unconstitutional for a judge to exceed his authority and remove President Obama from office. This is a good thing. It would set a terrible precedent for an unelected judge to overrule the will of the people and their electoral college.

Even if President Obama were impeached and removed from office, it would not erase the damage of the past three years. People who believe that all of the Obama-era legislation and executive orders would magically disappear are deluding themselves.

Article I Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that “if any Bill shall not be returned [vetoed] by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law” unless Congress adjourns before the ten days is up. The president does not have to sign a bill for it to become law. Even if President Obama is not eligible, the members of Congress who voted for legislation such as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the Dodd-Frank financial reform were eligible to hold office and voted to pass legislation that was legally binding. These bills would have become law even without Obama’s signature.

When the hearing is held in an Atlanta courthouse on January 26, the judge’s hands will be tied. The only question that he is legally entitled to decide is whether Barack Obama is eligible to appear on the ballot for Georgia’s 2012 presidential election. When Obama’s lawyers present the president’s Hawaiian birth certificate, the judge will rule in their favor.

Read this article on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/what-to-expect-from-the-obama-birth-certificate-hearing

Does new law allow for indefinite detention of US citizens?

Many Americans are concerned about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress in December 2011. Rumors have spread around the internet that the NDAA contains a sweeping assault on civil liberties that includes the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism.

H.R.1540, “the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,” was signed into law by President Obama on December 31, 2011. According to Govtrack.us, the House passed the bill in May 2011 by a vote of 322-96. It passed the Senate in December 86-13.

Both votes were passed by strong bipartisan majorities. The only member of the Georgia House delegation to vote against the bill was Rep. John Lewis. All other Georgia representatives, both Republican and Democrat, voted for the bill, as did both of Georgia’s senators.

The controversy centers on sections of the bill that would purportedly allow the U.S. government to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial or even being charged. An alert by the ACLU from November 2011 says, “The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.” The alarmist cry was picked up by conspiracy mongers such as Alex Jones and even mainstream talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

If true, the claims would be very disturbing. The right to habeas corpus, which requires the government to give cause or evidence to imprison people, is a fundamental part of American law. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Imprisoning Americans without evidence would clearly be unconstitutional.

Section 1022 of the bill, “Military custody of foreign a-Qaeda terrorists,” allows the military to “hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” Paragraph (2) specifies that the law covers people who are determined to become a “member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and who “have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States.”

Missed by the alarmists, however, is paragraph (b) of Section 1022. Paragraph (b) (1) explicitly says “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” [emphasis added]. Paragraph (b) (2) further states that the law “does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States… except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

Further, in the preceding section (1021 “Affirmation of the authority of the armed forces of United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the authorization for use of military force”), the authors of the legislation also specifically excluded U.S. citizens from the detention law. Paragraph (e) says, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

When the bill is examined in its entirety, it is clear that the conpiricists and alarmists are wrong. The NDAA does not allow the government to arrest and imprison American citizens without charge. Instead, the law allows the military to hold captured foreign terrorists who are captured abroad while engaging in hostile acts against the United States. In short, the law appears designed to prevent the extension of habeas corpus rights to terrorists who are not U.S. citizens or legal aliens and who are captured outside the United States.

Additionally, the law provides for a waiver in Section 1022 (a) (4). This paragraph allows the president to submit to Congress that a waiver of the requirement to hold the terrorists prisoner is “in the national security interests of the United States.” Therefore, prisoners can be released from military custody by the president if he deems that they are no threat.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/does-new-law-allow-indefinite-detention-of-americans

The Enemies Within

It hasn’t been long since Major Nidal Malik Hasan became the most recent jihadist to launch a terror attack on US soil. The unique thing about Major Hasan’s attack, in which he murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas was that he was not only a US army officer, he was a US citizen who was born and raised in the United States. Prior to Major Hasan’s attack, terrorist attacks in the US were primarily carried out by foreign terrorists.

The weeks since the Fort Hood attack have brought the discovery of more American jihadists within the United States. A developing story involves the Somali-American communities in Seattle and Minneapolis. Over the past few years, numerous Somali-American men have disappeared from their homes without a trace. At least three of these men have been turned up dead in Somalia. One of these men, Shirwa Ahmed of Minneapolis, gained the dubious distinction of becoming the first American suicide bomber when he detonated a car packed with explosives in front of the Ethiopian embassy in Somaliland on October 29, 2008, killing 20 people.

The FBI believes that the Somali men are leaving the US to train as terrorists and wage jihad. Some, like Ahmed, ended up in Somalia with al-Shabaab (“the youth”), an al Qaeda affiliated group fighting the Ethiopian presence in Somalia. A second Somali-American is believed to have carried out a suicide bombing against African Union peacekeepers in Somalia on September 15, 200, killing twenty-one.

Another American, David Coleman Headley of Chicago, was recently arrested on charges that he was a spy for the Lashkar, a Pakistani terror group. Headley, whose original name is Daood Gilani, is of Pakistani descent and spent his early childhood in Pakistan. Along with Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani businessman, Headley is accused of helping to plan an attack on a Danish newspaper that published cartoons about Mohammed and helping to coordinate the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India that killed more than 160 people.

Finally a group of five American college students from Washington were arrested in Pakistan in early December 2009 as they tried to make contact with Pakistani terrorist groups. The families of the men became concerned after discovering a farewell video in which they stated the need to defend Muslims. A Pakistani report states they “were of the opinion that a jihad must be waged against the infidels for the atrocities committed by them against Muslims around the world” [cnn]. The men had previously tried to contact terror groups through internet sites such as Facebook and Youtube.

Together with Major Hasan, these discoveries show a disturbing trend. They show that American Muslims are increasingly vulnerable to radicalization. In the past, this sort of radicalization has been seen in the Muslim communities of Europe, but has been rare in the US.

The cases have several factors in common. First, the terrorists in all cases come from a Muslim background. All were American citizens. Some were native born, while others immigrated and became citizens later in life. Additionally, a common theme among many of the jihadists is that their friends viewed them as normal Americans and could not believe their association with terror groups.

It appears that the radicalization can be traced to local mosques and religious awakenings. It has been revealed that Major Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorists. Shirwa Ahmed and the other Somalis typically disappear after becoming involved in local mosques. David Headley became heavily involved in Islam after a series of drug arrests in the 1990s and moved to an area of Chicago known for Muslim immigrants. He attended a local mosque with Rana there. Finally, the Washington Five were all members of a youth program at a mosque in Alexandria, Virginia.

While not nearly all Muslim-Americans are at risk for radicalization, we do have to realize that out of the 1-2 million Muslims in America, there could well be thousands who are quietly becoming radicalized via radical internet websites or local mosques. In 2007, Pew Research polled Muslim Americans and found that five percent of American Muslims had a favorable view of al Qaeda. A further 27 percent responded that they did not know or refused to answer the question (Inside the Revolution, p. 144). Further, when asked if suicide bombings against civilian targets were ever justified, thirteen percent indicated that suicide bombings were justified “sometimes (7 percent), often (1 percent), or rarely but not never (5 percent).” An additional nine percent refused to answer the question. The numbers increase for Muslims between 18 and 29 years old. These younger Muslims also tend to be more radical and more religiously observant.

Estimates of the total Muslim population of the United States vary widely, but approximately 1.5 million seems to be an accepted figure [adherents.com]. This means that as many as 75,000 Muslim Americans have a favorable view of al Qaeda and a further 405,000 are unsure or refuse to answer. Additionally, some 195,000 Muslim Americans believe that suicide bombings against civilian targets are justifiable with an additional 135,000 refusing to answer. Other polls show that these percentages are even higher in other countries.

It would be very easy for homegrown terror cells to form and train via the internet and launch terror attacks on their fellow Americans. Timothy McVeigh, the original World Trade Center bombers, and the DC Sniper illustrate how easy it is to use common items for terrorist attacks. Stolen or legally purchased firearms or bombs created from common items with an internet instruction manual could wreak havoc in numerous cities and small towns around the country. Dozens of small-scale attacks scattered around the country would maximize terror.

The good news is that the silent majority of Americans of Muslim faith is beginning to show more support for the US government. In the case of the Washington Five, their families alerted the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that has often been believed to be an apologist for terrorist groups. In this case, CAIR referred the families to the FBI.

Many, probably most, American Muslims do not share the radical desire for a worldwide Islamic caliphate. They have no desire to live under Sharia Law. They do not want to see suicide bombings and terror attacks become commonplace in the United States.

These arrests underscore the importance of establishing and maintaining close ties between the law enforcement community and the Muslim communities. Counter-terror and law enforcement must become aware of what is happening within the walls of mosques around the country. Likewise, steps should be taken to monitor or shut down websites that recruit and indoctrinate young Muslims into terror groups. The threat is real and cannot be ignored. Neither can the threat be countered without the help of loyal American Muslims.

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704517504574589841594836308.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/09/23/somalia.bombing.american/index.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/44231707.html?elr=KArksUUUU
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126057977267688241.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_deceptive-answers-at-the-airport-led-to-david-headley-s-arrest_1321788
http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/david_headley_feet_in_the_east_and_west.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579888,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/11/pakistan.americans.profiles/index.html?eref=time_us
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam_usa.html
Rosenberg, Joel C. Inside the Revolution. Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, IL. 2009