If you ingest a beverage that is only 1% poisonous, will it matter that 99% of it was clean?

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Are U.S. presidents charged with protecting American lives or protecting American vanity—especially when the two clash? Put differently, what’s more important: our security or our ability to “feel good” about ourselves?

Consider the two leading presidential candidates’ positions on Muslim immigration after the Brussels terror attack.

Donald Trump continues “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Conversely, Hillary Clinton continues to offer fine platitudes without practical solutions: “I know that Americans have every reason to be frightened by what they see, we’ve got to work this through, consistent with our values,” she said after Brussels.

Clinton is correct that it’s an American value not to discriminate by religion. However, a troubling implication arises when this value is scrutinized in the context of Islam: Even if most Muslim migrants will not engage in jihadi terrorism and other subversive acts, some most certainly will. This is an established fact, one that Clinton knows: ISIS operatives are passing for refugees and “non-ISIS” refugees are committing acts of violence and rape across Western nations. And both ISIS and its millions of likeminded supporters are motivated by Islamic teachings.

Nor does it matter if only a teeny tiny percentage of Muslim migrants harbor such animus. If only 1% of a beverage is poisoned and you ingest it, will it matter that 99% of it was clean? No, you will still suffer. The only sure way to preserve your health is not to put it into your body in the first place.

Of course, the liberal elite will never take such logic into account. After all, they are the ones most shielded from the consequences of their own starry-eyed ideals. Instead, no name, no face Americans—statistics, like the 14 killed in San Bernardino in part by a Muslim refugee—will continue paying the price for politicians, celebrities, and other media talking heads to grandstand about “our values.”

What of Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering America “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on?” While antithetical to the lofty and utopic platitudes offered by most politicians, it would actually work. A “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” would prevent Muslim wolves in refugee clothing from entering into America.

Put differently, the only sure way of not dying from Russian Roulette is—don’t play Russian Roulette.

Does this mean that America has no obligation towards true refugees? No. It means that there are far superior alternatives, for all concerned. Remember, this refugee crisis was supposedly precipitated by the Islamic State. Rather than passively accepting what ISIS sends to America—some of which is tainted and will be harmful to its body—the U.S. should annihilate the genocidal terror state. Instead of playing ISIS’ game, the U.S. should end the game, quickly and decisively.

Then, instead of having to start anew in some foreign land, true, displaced refugees would happily return to their homes and families, in peace and safety. Such would be a win-win for all—except for the savages who deserve no mercy.