In Part 1, I posed the following questions regarding the problem of Syrian Refugees:
- Are the refugees fleeing a war?
- Are they coming here for a better life?
- Do we owe them a better life?
- Are they coming here to conquer us?
- Is coming here the best way for them to have a better life?
- Can we know they are not terrorists?
- Can we discriminate against refugees based on religion?
- Does the West have an obligation to absorb every civil war torn population?
These Muslim refugees are not innocent victims fleeing a war. There is no war in Kosovo, and the majority were Kosovars in early 2015. Even now, the majority of Muslim refugees are from countries other than Syria and without wars.
Of the minority fleeing Syria lately, the majority of them, 72%, are fighting age men. And they are Sunnis, not the more endangered Christians and Infidels. These men are the rebels who tried to overthrow Assad and failed. If they stay, they will likely be imprisoned or worse by Assad. Assad's ally, Russia, is now actively involved in the fighting and that is a game changer. As Russia swooped in, the Sunni rebels swooped out. It's that simple. The Syrians who are seeking refugee status are fleeing a war they started and now have lost.
And yes, most refugees are seeking a better economic life than the one they currently have. They are aggressively seeking out countries that have the best welfare programs and job opportunities, which is why they insist on getting to Germany and the US for example.
But, do we owe them a better life? We have historically been very welcoming to immigrants in the U.S. Much of this occurred before we became a welfare state. Now that we are a welfare state though, it is increasingly expensive and politically divisive to welcome unlimited numbers of needy immigrants.
But these immigrants present a new question: Are they coming to conquer us? Islam has a word, hijrah (hejira, or hijra, etc.), which means emigration jihad. In other words a holy war conducted through demographic overthrow. The idea is to infiltrate the West and conquer it from within. The history of Islam is replete with such conquests, many of them successful. So yes, they seek to conquer the West.
If a better life is all they seek, is emigrating to the West the best way to achieve that? A better way is to create a better life for them in their homelands. It is actually cheaper too. This seems obvious, but there is no will to pursue this in the West, or from those engaged in hijrah.
Can we know they are not terrorists? Of course there is no way to screen terrorists, or potential terrorists from this wave of hijrah.
Which brings us to the real question: Can we discriminate against refugees based on religion? This is really an interesting question when it comes to Islam because Islam is not just a religion - Islam is also a violent political system. These two aspects of Islam are, in current practice, inseparable.
Of course in the U.S., we don't care which God you pray to or what holidays you observe. But if your religion is hell-bent on denying others their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we ought to discriminate against you. If your faith imposes it's ideology on others against their will, we ought to discriminate against you. But the duality of Islam is a paradigm we cannot wrap our minds around in the West. We are incapable of understanding the difference between a mere religion, and a religious political movement which incites violence.
The grey area in the U.S. is what constitutes "inciting violence". Courts have given wide latitude for hate speech in the U.S. and even allowed some speech which clearly incites violence. In other words, an Imam at a Mosque in the U.S. can basically implore his congregants to blow things up and kill thousands in the name of Islam, but as long as he chooses his words carefully, we cannot legally stop him.
Finally, does the West have an obligation to absorb every civil war-torn population? When the option of engaging enemies abroad is taken off the table, and when we are unwilling to identify the enemy amongst us, we have painted ourselves into a dangerous corner.
This is how democracies commit suicide.
But these immigrants present a new question: Are they coming to conquer us? Islam has a word, hijrah (hejira, or hijra, etc.), which means emigration jihad. In other words a holy war conducted through demographic overthrow. The idea is to infiltrate the West and conquer it from within. The history of Islam is replete with such conquests, many of them successful. So yes, they seek to conquer the West.
If a better life is all they seek, is emigrating to the West the best way to achieve that? A better way is to create a better life for them in their homelands. It is actually cheaper too. This seems obvious, but there is no will to pursue this in the West, or from those engaged in hijrah.
Can we know they are not terrorists? Of course there is no way to screen terrorists, or potential terrorists from this wave of hijrah.
Which brings us to the real question: Can we discriminate against refugees based on religion? This is really an interesting question when it comes to Islam because Islam is not just a religion - Islam is also a violent political system. These two aspects of Islam are, in current practice, inseparable.
Of course in the U.S., we don't care which God you pray to or what holidays you observe. But if your religion is hell-bent on denying others their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we ought to discriminate against you. If your faith imposes it's ideology on others against their will, we ought to discriminate against you. But the duality of Islam is a paradigm we cannot wrap our minds around in the West. We are incapable of understanding the difference between a mere religion, and a religious political movement which incites violence.
The grey area in the U.S. is what constitutes "inciting violence". Courts have given wide latitude for hate speech in the U.S. and even allowed some speech which clearly incites violence. In other words, an Imam at a Mosque in the U.S. can basically implore his congregants to blow things up and kill thousands in the name of Islam, but as long as he chooses his words carefully, we cannot legally stop him.
Finally, does the West have an obligation to absorb every civil war-torn population? When the option of engaging enemies abroad is taken off the table, and when we are unwilling to identify the enemy amongst us, we have painted ourselves into a dangerous corner.
This is how democracies commit suicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Behave.