Should we profile muslims entering the country?

The Enemy Within

We all like to think we judge people as individuals. I do. Most of us do. That’s how a decent, open society works—case by case, person by person. But when you start noticing patterns—when enough people from certain backgrounds consistently seem out of step with the culture around them—it’s not prejudice to ask why. It’s common sense.

When it comes to immigration from parts of the Middle East and Muslim-majority regions of Africa, there’s a recurring issue that can’t be ignored: an inability—or sometimes outright refusal—to integrate. That doesn’t mean they’re all dangerous. It doesn’t even mean most are. But it does mean the ideas they bring with them matter. Because ideas shape behavior.

Many of these societies are deeply tribal—not just in terms of ethnicity or family allegiance, but in mindset. Tribalism says: We’re right because we’re us. You’re wrong because you’re you. There’s no shared truth, no mutual respect—only in-groups and out-groups, loyalty and betrayal. This mentality is often reinforced by religion, especially when Islam isn’t just a belief system but a totalizing force that dictates law, culture, and identity. In many cases, questioning it is not just frowned upon—it’s fatal.

Western liberal societies thrive on pluralism. On freedom of expression. On letting people be weird, wrong, offensive, or just different. That only works when everyone agrees to live and let live. But if someone walks in with the belief that blasphemy should be punished with death, or that apostates deserve execution, or that women and non-believers are inherently inferior—they’re not just “different.” They’re incompatible.

And it’s not just theoretical. Some Muslim communities here in the U.S. have already shown where their loyalties lie—not with the Constitution, not with democratic values, but with a foreign religious legal system. In places like Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, there have been attempts to apply elements of Sharia law, particularly in family and civil matters. In Dallas, Texas, a so-called “Sharia court” briefly operated, outside the reach of the American legal system. And in one notorious New Jersey case, a judge initially used Sharia principles to excuse spousal abuse, until the decision was overturned.

These aren’t isolated quirks. They’re signals—clear ones. Signals that some of these people never intended to assimilate, never planned to embrace American values, and never had any business being admitted in the first place. By their own actions, they’ve made it obvious: they’re not interested in fitting into the system—they want to change it or replace it. That’s not just cultural friction. That’s a hostile posture.

This is where we face something far more dangerous than a simple immigration problem. These are American citizens now—people born here or naturalized—who reject the very foundation of the society they live in. When they advocate for Sharia law, or show sympathy for extremist views, or raise their children to see the West as an enemy rather than a home, they are not just “different.” They are the enemy within. They wear the passport but reject the contract. And worse yet, they often operate under the radar.

Some strains of Islamic teaching include the idea that deception is acceptable when dealing with non-believers—a doctrine known as taqiyya. Under certain interpretations, lying is not only permitted, it’s considered wise if it protects Muslims or serves the advancement of Islam. Pair that with the long-game mentality—the belief that Muslims should quietly propagate and expand their presence until Islamic law can eventually dominate—and you’ve got a ticking ideological time bomb dressed up as multiculturalism.

You can welcome people in without giving up your right to defend what works. That means asking hard questions, and while we can’t perfectly vet for values, we must still be vigilant. Vetting shouldn’t just be about criminal history—it’s about ensuring that newcomers can coexist in a society built on mutual respect, diversity of belief, and freedom of worship. This means drawing a firm line: You’re welcome here, but only if you can live alongside those who don’t think like you, believe like you, or worship like you.

We must be especially cautious when letting in people from regions or cultures with histories of radicalization, and yes, this means greater scrutiny of Muslims. Profiling, though uncomfortable, serves an important purpose in this regard: It helps ensure that we don’t endanger what’s worked for so long.

Some may argue this is unfair, but survival is never about fairness—it’s about preserving what works and protecting our way of life.