this sums thing very well in my book. but if you OPPOSE any of this. you are BEAT over the head about how you are: unchristian, Islam_phobia , hates BROWN people, fears others not like them Blaaa blaaa blaaa. it's really past time for the people to WAKE up to these elected Asses who are doing this to us while you are watching American Idol. VOTE out these progressives and NO MORE like Hillary, Bernie the commie loving old fogies
snip;.
Why Mass Muslim Migration Eviscerates Western Liberalism
Candidates, Congress, and the public are concerned about how Muslim refugees may affect national security. They should also consider how refugees will affect our culture.
By
Mitch Hall
For the past few months, the question of admitting tens of thousands of Syrian refugees has rocked the American political landscape, and predictably the issue has been remarkably polarized.
Many on the Left
including both Democratic presidential candidates, have advocated for a massive domestic resettlement effort, while those on the Right favor either granting asylum only to Christian refugees or admitting no refugees.
On February 3, Congress joined in the debate through a
public hearing hosted by the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee. The hearing, which analyzed Canada’s plans to screen and admit 25,000 Syrian refugees, invoked the testimony of both Canadian and U.S. experts, including U.S. border officials. This scrutiny of our northern neighbor’s refugee plans is evidently Congress’s attempt to check for flaws in the Canadian system (which could result in potentially violent migrants living dangerously close to the United States) and to better understand whether the Obama administration’s vetting program will be effective.
The Senate’s hearing comes hot on the heels of terrorist acts perpetrated by Middle Eastern immigrants across the globe, which have seriously complicated the conversation on Syrian refugees.
Last month, for instance, an Islamic State operative from Syria
killed 10 Western tourists through a suicide bombing in Turkey, and on New Year’s Eve a group of 1,000 confirmed Arab and North African asylum-seekers robbed and sexually assaulted literally
hundreds of women in Cologne, Germany. Even in the United States, the federal government recently arrested two Iraqi-born refugees, in
Sacramento and
Houston, for plotting with terror groups and lying about their activity.
As the hearing demonstrated, the controversy surrounding refugees in America has focused almost entirely on the potential threat to national security, and the possibility—or probability, rather—of ISIS capitalizing on open borders to plant insurgents into the country.
While these points are undoubtedly legitimate and signify cause for concern, the potential cultural implications of a large-scale Muslim migration into the United States have, on the whole, been relegated to the sidelines of the national conversation. This part of the discussion is equally important, however, because it exposes how open borders are quite contrary to liberal Americans’ own values and interests.
A Culture Antithetical to American Values
According to
available statistics, the vast majority of Syrian refugees that have been admitted to the United States since 2011 are Muslim, and given the fact that only about 10 percent of all global refugees are Christian, it’s safe to infer that the majority of refugees settling in other parts of the globe are also Muslim.
Many liberals have apparently forgotten how marginalized groups are treated in the majority-Muslim countries of the Middle East.
In their rush to appear as compassionate champions of Syrian refugees, many liberals have apparently forgotten how marginalized groups are treated in the majority-Muslim countries of the Middle East. According to a
report by the World Health Organization in 2013, rates of domestic violence are the highest by far in the Muslim countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
It’s only been within the past 15 to 20 years that women have gained access to political rights and offices in some of these countries, yet despite this, women are still openly harassed in public, completely undermined by many of their states’ legal systems, and severely restricted from basic civil rights, particularly the freedoms of choice and expression. Incredibly, it’s
still not uncommon for young women to be forced to marry someone who rapes or assaults them—a reality that stems from regional religious and cultural views of honor.
Gays have it even worse than women. Homosexual behavior and LGBT expression is either illegal or severely restricted in all countries of the Middle East besides Israel, and punishments include lifelong imprisonment or execution. Indeed, Israel is the only country in the region that recognizes same-sex marriage, provides for adoption by same-sex couples, and allows gays to serve in the military. As for transgender individuals, the Left’s darling new minority group? Only Israel, Iran, and Syria provide legal recognition for changes in gender identity.
Is it really the progressive thing to do to grant indefinite sanctuary to individuals who are committed to such fundamentally different ways of life?
Recent events in Europe show that incoming refugees are not so quick to abandon their native cultural attitudes. Last month, gay refugees in the Netherlands
had to be moved to separate facilities after other refugees attacked them, and across Europe
facilities are being built specifically for LGBT refugees because of at least a hundred reports of assault.
The Cologne attacks clearly demonstrate that many refugees have no qualms assaulting and robbing women, and several other European countries have been dealing with a spike in rapes in migrant-heavy areas for the past several years. This has lead some,
like Norway, to institute classes at asylum centers teaching refugees how to treat women properly.
While this may help prevent further attacks, it likely won’t be that easy for refugees to conform to Western cultural standards so quickly. After all, many have grown up in extremely patriarchal societies where any scantily clad woman is understood to be a prostitute and even the slightest display of skin is taken as an invitation for sex.
Is it really the progressive thing to do to grant indefinite sanctuary to individuals who are committed to such fundamentally different ways of life? This is a question that liberals—especially women and gays—should ask themselves before jumping into the open border abyss.
A Potential Long-Term Problem
all of the article here:
Why Mass Muslim Migration Eviscerates Western Liberalism
