Historical analogies are the last refuge of politicians seeking to justify a policy indefensible on its own merits. Such is the case when it comes to determining policies towards prospective Muslim immigrants. Proponents of allowing these refugees into the country are in difficulty. It seems (1) that the FBI says they cannot be vetted properly because of the destruction of records in Syria and other war-torn countries, (2) terrorists have infiltrated the ranks of refugees in other countries and may well do so here, (3) if even a small number of such terrorists pass through our imperfect filter, they can kill and maim thousands before being apprehended, and recruit others to their cause.

       In the face of those facts, proponents of accepting Muslim immigrants liken pleas to close our borders to them to, first, the decision to turn away Jewish immigrants fleeing the death camps of Europe, and second, to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Neither of those is even by the wildest stretch of imagination analogous to the problem created by Muslim immigrants seeking entry here.

       The Jewish immigrants posed no threat to America, unless you count their threat to State Department Arabists who feared antagonizing the Saudis and others, or to the anti-Semites then so numerous and vocal in the U.S., not least of all President Roosevelt, who at one point in his career helped establish a quota for Jews at Harvard and complained that they "over-crowded" many professions according to new research by Rafael Medoff, Director of the Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington. But not a suicide bomber or knife-wielding maniac in the crowd. And the 110,000 interned Japanese were mostly American citizens, many born here, entitled to constitutional protections to which non-citizens, Muslim and others, have no claim. Moreover, history suggests that Jews asking for refuge wanted nothing more than to assimilate, as their predecessors had done so successfully, and that Japanese-Americans were so thoroughly committed to the American way of life that they had become farmers so successful that California racists lusted after their land and homes. A significant number of Muslims, on the other hand, have not successfully assimilated into the societies to which they fled, nor have their offspring, witness problems in Belgium, France and other European countries, not to mention this country.

       Why, then, are we faced with tales of WWII Jews and Japanese-Americans when considering appropriate policy toward Muslim immigrants? Yes, if we had it to do over again we might (only might, alas) not send Jews back to Hitler's ovens, or imprison American citizens because militarists in the country they or their parents and grandparents had fled decided to bomb Pearl Harbor. But a desire for a policy mulligan in those cases has no relevance to the policy problem we face today. If we are to retain our role as a safe haven for refugees we should stop looking for non-existent analogies and devote our energies to solving the problem of identifying the potential terrorists among the larger number yearning for safety, figuring out how to find those who overstay their visas, and  how to assimilate peoples who in unfortunately large numbers do not share our belief in, among other things, equal rights for women.