He thinks Mark Steyn's new book useful, if slightly overstated. He also has some useful extensions to the recommendations:

1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.

2. A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.

Read the whole thing.

Agreed entirely. Appropriate immigration quota from Pakistan, or any other country that has Islam as a state religion?

Zero. Nicht, nada, nought.

Another useful part of the process would be to expel all Muslim non-citizens immediately, or at least not to renew their work permits (called Green Cards in the States, I believe?)

"Not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the US, until...[conditions follow]"

Why would we want to limit free speech, particularly to this extent, within the United States? And looking beyond simply protecting the Bill of Rights, I'm not afraid of propaganda, nor should any American. So long as the 1rst amendment is intact, it is easy to counter any propaganda.

"We should insist on reciprocity..." or what? Or we should become like the people we are combating?

As for the commenter above who suggested expelling people, albeit non-citizens, on the basis of their religion, shame on you. How do you propose to test for religion? Even if you can think of a way (and I bet you can't), I'm glad that my government doesn't have any right to care one way or another about a person's religious views.

Back to Hitchens, I wonder (and I really don't have the answer) if the Helsinki Accords would provide a better model for how to deal with repressive dictatorships....

Eric Goldstein
www.GoHover.com

Eric:

I can think of several ways to test for religion; such as the wearing of garb that is only worn by one religion (burqas and hijabs for example), attendence at mosques, being filmed shouting threats and waving banners demanding "death to infidels"; the list goes on.

I don't know about the USA, but in Britain 40% of people identifying themselves as Muslims believe that Britain should be under Sharia law. This belief is not illegal. Doing something about it is; it's either treason or sedition, I'm not sure which.

The guiding principle should be: If you don't like the rules here, then leave. Don't bang the door on your way out.

A democratic government should and does have the right to care about someone's views, when those views are utterly incompatible with democracy.