The level of discourse swirling around Virgil Goode's comments regarding Muslim immigration is abysmally low. All of the sources that I've seen a) deliberatly misunderstand what Goode was saying by pointing out that Keith Ellison is not an immigrant, and b) deliberately avoid the main issue.

The main issue is immigration by Muslims, and what limits and requirements we should place on that. Should we allow unfettered immigration from Muslim countries? Would those who criticize Goode care to affirmatively argue for importing one million devout Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan? If they aren't willing to do that, then they're just doing a Politically Correct dance around the main issue.

A case in point is the USA Today editorial "Ugly voices tarnish debut of Congress' first Muslim: Swearing-in of Minnesota's Ellison is chance to win hearts and minds." Let's all join hands and sing it... together:

Keith Ellison's election to the House, as the chamber's first Muslim, provides the United States with a grand opportunity to showcase its credentials as a nation of opportunity, equality and diversity.

What a great story to tell the Muslim world...

Ellison upped the chance to polish America's image for religious tolerance, as well, when he said he'd use Islam's holy book, the Quran, at his ceremonial swearing-in this week.

...Tolerance and religious freedom are at America's heart. So is the nation's embrace of people from all countries and cultures.

Wonderful, wonderful words. Somewhat like a love sonnet I might write to a supermodel. She, unfortunately, might respond with a TRO.

In other words, if we import people who do not buy into said "tolerance and religious freedom", then we're negligently endangering said "tolerance and religious freedom". It's a two way street, but USAToday is only looking one way.