Confronting the weekend's massacre at a gay nightclub in Florida, presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump moved to the left of typical Republicans lawmakers on gay rights — and skidded far to their right on immigration.
Trump decried the Orlando shooting as a terrorist attack perpetrated in the name of radical Islam, which was to be expected. But the presumptive Republican nominee also said the shooter's decision to "execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation" constitutes "an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity."
"Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT community," Trump proclaimed.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
But Trump also defended his call to temporarily stop Muslim immigration. He even went a step further, saying, "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats."
This is a bizarre combination of positions in American politics. But in Europe, it wouldn't be so unusual. Pim Fortuyn, for example, was an openly gay Dutch politician who campaigned against Muslim immigration on the grounds that it was endangering the Netherlands' cultural liberalism. (He was later assassinated by a left-wing activist who said he wanted to protect Muslims.)
Now, America and Europe are plenty different. The American Muslim population is smaller and generally more assimilated than Europe's. But in recent years, Americans have been killed and injured by Muslims living here who have become radicalized, just as has happened in Europe.
Here are two things that are simultaneously true, but are often seen as contradictory: Western countries have had trouble assimilating Muslim immigrants, subsets of whom are drawn to acts of terror; many Muslims are fully assimilated and few engage in terrorism.
Jihadism exists, even if it's the exception rather than the rule. And the combination of active jihadist networks and alienated young men with an internet connection living in the Europe or the U.S. can be dangerous. It takes exceedingly small numbers of people to perpetrate atrocities like those in Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris, or even 9/11.
Better immigration screening would certainly help. But as was the case with Orlando shooter Omar Mateen and San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, the radicalization may take place in the second generation rather than the immigrant one. No system for vetting potential entrants into the United States can possibly predict what immigrants' future offspring will do.
Nothing Trump has proposed would have stopped these particular incidents. But a more selective immigration policy could, over time, keep the problem from getting worse. This is a demographic that has grown due to immigration, and stricter admission criteria plus lower admissions, not just better screening, could potentially help manage the problem.
But how do you discuss this without offending our Muslim fellow citizens here and our Muslim allies abroad? In addition to the standards of moral decency, even Trump concedes the cooperation of both groups are necessary to defeat radical Islam.
Addressing these issues is tremendously difficult, even if led by a careful and sensitive public leader. Trump is neither careful nor sensitive. He described the Orlando-born shooter as Afghan-born, even though the text of his speech contained no such error. The section on American Muslims was ambiguous and could be perceived as threatening. There is obviously a better way to talk about this than offensive chest-thumping about banning all Muslims. Instead, how about acknowledging that Muslims partner with the West against radical Islam, and are frequent victims of Islamist violence themselves?
A candidate who refers to people born in the United States as if they are actually residents of their ancestral homeland might not be the best person to rethink our immigration policies. Unfortunately, he is the only one offering to fill the job.
And despite Trump's clumsy, sweeping proclamations, his blustery rhetoric should not obscure what is a very real problem that demands solutions.
