At the outset, it should be emphasized that the late Captain Humayun Khan was by all indications an outstanding young man, a stellar scholar at the University of Virginia and and a brave officer in the United States army, who fell at the hands of Islamic extremists in Iraq. All honor and praise should be rendered to the memory of Captain Khan.Captain Khan came to the attention of many Americans when an appearance was made by his father, Khizr Khan, at the recently concluded Democratic National Convention. Mr. Khan, who is supposedly a graduate of Harvard Law School, brandished a paperback copy of the United States Constitution and called certain proposals that have recently been made to bolster the security of the United States "unconstitutional.". Hearing his assertions, I found it more than a little curious that he should grumble about the constitutional knowledge of others, as I found his own acquaintance with the U.S. Constitution to be lacking.
As pointed out on numerous occasions, there is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about building a border wall, or, for that matter, limiting Muslim immigration from certain countries that have spawned Islamic terrorism. Those who are not citizens or aliens legally residing in the country but, instead, are seeking to enter have no claims on the guarantees of the United States Constitution. For example, a Muslim citizen of Pakistan turned down for a visa could not claim religious discrimination under the 1st Amendment, as such a person is not a citizen or a non-citizen lawfully living in the United States.
Further investigation on Khizr Khan reveals that his law practice is devoted in large part to facilitating visas and assisting fellow Muslims with citizenship problems, what one normally would define as immigration law. It would seem, too, that Mr. Khan has links to two law offices, one in New York and another in the District of Columbia; however, one of those offices proffers no information at all on Mr. Khan. In attempting to make a case that no immigration restrictions should be placed on Muslims and that a border wall should not be built, could not Mr. Khan be shaping his views by virtue of his own pecuniary self-interest?
There is also the possibility of a great deal of relevance in Mr. Khan's past history as a defender & proponent of Shariah or Koranic law, a system which treats women as inferiors, calls for capital punishment for homosexuals, does not accept the concept of freedom of religion and is, for all practical purposes, a monolithic & authoritarian system of oppression. Having lived under Shariah law for six years of my life, I can bear witness that it is in no way compatible with a society which bases itself on toleration, diversity and intellectual freedom. One wonders, then, why Khizr Khan and others of his persuasion would forego residence in Muslim countries where Shariah law is paramount. Is it not possible, dear readers, that Mr. Khan might have clandestine motives for residing in America other than his admiration for American history, culture & values? Finally, let us hope that Mr. Khan's questionable forays into politics do not besmirch the laudable example of his son, Captain Humayun Khan.
Deo Vindice!
John B. is a retired college and university instructor, dean and provost.
