Khizr Khan: a Wrong Approach to Immigration
During the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan delivered a politically-fueled narrative about his son—a Gold Star hero who lost his life fighting bravely in Afghanistan. His speech reflected the true patriotism of his family and the courage of a Muslim American. To my surprise, Khan did not restrain himself from making sweeping, largely inaccurate statements, attacking Donald Trump for not reading the constitution and for making no sacrifices.
Despite my true respect and admiration for the Khan family, I cannot be more frustrated and enraged with the way Hillary Clinton’s campaign and liberal media outlets exploited the heart-wrenching story of this grieving family. Instead of commemorating Humayun Khan and alleviating the family’s struggles, the Democratic National Convention baited Mr. Trump and used the death of an American soldier to spur a controversy. As expected, Trump responded inappropriately, making comments that sharpened Ghazala Khan’s sorrow.
Democrats have it wrong: it’s not about restricting Muslims, but rather about restricting terrorism.
Mr. Khan’s speech demonstrates the ignorance of the Democratic Party towards the spread of ISIL and other terrorist groups. Unfortunately, Khan’s story does not represent that of all Muslim Americans, and nor does it justify the loosening of immigration rules. At a time when ISIL storms trucks into streets in Nice, takes civilians hostage in Bangladeshi bakeries, and blows up buildings in Afghanistan, the United States must focus its attention on rooting out ISIL and preventing its infiltration into Western society. While Humayun Khan serves as a poignant reminder of the patriotism of many Muslim Americans, he cannot eradicate the growing presence of ISIL from our country’s agenda. It is upsetting that neither of the candidates has proposed a viable solution for destroying ISIL and installing stability in the Middle East, and it is even more upsetting that Democrats refuse to even mention it.
Many Democrats have repudiated Trump for his stance on Muslim immigration. While his initial proposed ban on all Muslims deserved disapproval, his revised stance—banning Muslims from certain territories—correlates with the opinions of most Republican politicians. Though I am skeptical about the implementation of such a vague plan, I believe that temporarily restricting immigration from volatile regions like Northern Iraq or Afghanistan would mitigate the security concerns of many troubled Americans. Democrats have it wrong: it’s not about restricting Muslims, but rather about restricting terrorism.
According to a CNN article written on August 2, Khan’s company specializes in immigration and international business law, implying that Khan has both a personal and financial interest in preventing a Trump presidency. Why would Khan turn the sacred image of his own son into a hot political controversy? Why would Khan deliver a touching tale, only to follow it with abject remarks about Trump’s “black soul”? The heroism of an American soldier is so precious, that it cannot be juxtaposed with rude ad hominem assaults or public policy discussions.
Yet the government’s priority should be the protection of American lives, and not the lives of people aspiring to enter the United States.
When Khizr Khan pulled out a copy of the constitution, he asked Trump to look for the words “liberty and equal protection of law,” implying that the US government should not discriminate when letting immigrants into the country. Yet the government’s priority should be the protection of American lives, and not the lives of people aspiring to enter the United States. When those two conflict, the government must prioritize the former. If anything, I wonder if Khan looked for the words “equal protection of law” when the FBI and Justice Department listed all of Hillary’s wrongdoings and then prescribed no punishment. More importantly, I wonder why Khan opposes an immigration policy that would prevent the same terrorists that murdered his son from entering the USA.
Khan’s sacrifice is the highest sacrifice one can make for our country. No presidential candidate has ever made sacrifices that could rival or eclipse that of Humayun Khan’s. Yet, while Khizr Khan scorned Trump for making no sacrifices, I asked myself the question: Has Hillary Clinton made any sacrifices? If anything, Hillary has sacrificed her integrity by consistently changing her policy positions (i.e. accepting Bernie’s policies), receiving sketchy donations through the Clinton Foundation, and lying about her emails. This is not to say that Donald Trump is any less corrupt than Clinton, but rather to point out that Khan’s argument fails on logical grounds.
Whereas Democrats rejoice in the oratorical prowess of Khan’s speech, I skeptically approach his assertions. I do not deny Humayun Khan’s gallantry and valor, but question why his father would use him to gain exorbitant power and influence in the presidential race. Of course, Trump’s response was inappropriate, but does he not have the right to be angry (though perhaps not vocally) at erroneous statements about his views?
Khizr Khan has grown to become more than just a dad remembering his brave son. He now serves as a powerful critic of Trump’s policies on many media outlets. Is this what Khan wanted in the first place, when he signed up to speak at the Democratic National Convention?