Privilege implies responsibility. Conservatives realize quite well that it is not laws, or not laws alone, that best guard our freedoms but mutual trust and common understandings. Which is not to say that laws are unimportant. Indeed, they become more important the more mutual trust and common understandings go by the board.
The trust that people have in parents is a result of the fact that most parents don't abuse their children. The trust that people have in parents in raising their children is a result of a common understanding--however loose--of what constitutes good motherhood and fatherhood.
Conservatives are quite rightly concerned that parental rights be maintained. In fact, our best hope for influencing the future lies in the education and upbringing of our own children, and we rightly feel horrified and chilled by liberal statements to the effect that parents have no right to raise their children in ways that conflict with a liberal view of society.
For this reason, the Home School Legal Defense Association and its spin-off group, Parentalrights.org, constantly warn about possible dangers to parental rights and strongly urge support for a parental rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What does all of this have to do with Muslim immigration?
Consider the following problems: How well can you trust parents whose cultural context excuses honor killings? We now have in Canada a defense attorney about to argue that a murderer's sentence for the murder of two people should be lessened because of "provocation." What was the "provocation"? His sister got engaged without her family's approval. (See also here where Islam Said, brother of Texas honor-murder teenage victims Sarah and Amina, defends their father's actions.) How well can you trust parents who mount a Moroccan "cultural" defense of daughter-beating on the grounds that it was "for her good"? How well can you trust parents whose cultural context calls for genital mutilation of their young daughters, whether secretly in a Western country or on summer trips back to the homeland? (See here, here, here, here, and here, and that's just for starters.)
Does this mean that I think Muslims in America should not have due process, should not be legally treated as innocent until proven guilty? No, it means I think they should not be in America.
All home schoolers know the harm it does to home schooling when there is some story in the media about a home schooled child (or supposedly home schooled child) who has been abused, about crazy parents who let their child die in a diabetic coma because they believe only in prayer for illness, and the like. It does harm to all parents' rights when trust in parents is undermined. And it undermines trust in parents when a particular culture routinely abuses that trust in ways that are understandably abhorrent to men of goodwill. Since liberals refuse to make any distinctions among cultures, abuses of parental authority and of the privacy of the family will simply lead to crackdowns on all parents. This is already the case in Germany, where home schooling is attacked on the grounds that it creates "parallel societies"--a clear allusion to German worries about unassimilated immigrants.
For this reason, those of us who support parental rights need to recognize the danger posed to us by the continual importation of people from an alien culture which excuses abuse and mistreatment of women and children. Our liberal enemies will never make distinctions. They will not say, "We should be especially alert to the danger of female genital mutilation among Somali immigrants." Instead, when they hear a story of a child narrowly saved from being taken back to Africa to be mutilated, they will say, "This is why all children need to be in school. So they can be watched by people outside of the family."
As things presently stand, membership in the Home School Legal Defense Association is not restricted to Christians. This has been to their credit in the past, and I am not urging them to change it. After all, changing this policy would mean, beyond doubt, endless wrangling over what constitutes a Christian, wrangling over creedal formulations, and questions about how to grandfather present members. Moreover, the HSLDA has such a strongly Christian (even Protestant evangelical) cultural "feel" to it that it is unlikely that a lot of Muslims will want to join. However, I do urge that the HSLDA consider and try to head off the worrisome possibility that they might end up having to defend a Muslim family that really was abusing its children for cultural reasons. One possible approach would be to publish articles alluding (with or without naming Islam) to religious defenses of child and wife beating, mutilation, and honor killing and expressly stating that the organization will not defend any member if the organization's own lawyers become convinced that the member has in fact committed such abuses.
Beyond that, the time has come for conservative American parents to consider the danger posed to them by immigrant cultures that, to put it bluntly, make traditionalist parents look bad. It is in our interests to support the ending of Muslim immigration, thereby blocking a route by which the public will plausibly be made suspicious of parental rights and of countercultural groups.