Wednesday, February 11, 2009
On Monday I posted that Obama had issued an Executive Order to spend $20.3 million dollars to assist in the immigration of Muslims from the Gaza strip of Palestine. Since no Muslim country will take them I opined that his intent is to bring them into the US.
The question, of course, is why he would want to bring hundreds of thousands, 99.9% of which will possess no marketable job skills beyond untrained labor, given that even when our economy was booming there were few jobs available and almost none now. I say that he sees them as reliable voters… watch how quickly they become naturalized citizens… to assist him in remaining in power in 2012 and perhaps longer if he can get the Constitution changed.
So all this piffle that follows any discussion concerning the spread of Muslims and their effect always evolves to discussions about religion and good/bad Muslims, etc., etc., but that actually has nothing to do with anything. It matters not if the Muslims are good. The net effect is always bad.
Before we can discuss immigration, the base question becomes, “Do you want your country’s culture and laws to remain basically unchanged?” If you don’t care they are changed then you will have no problem with unlimited immigration by groups that are outside the existing culture and laws. If you do care then you will be opposed.
And the actual country doesn’t matter, nor the groups. When small groups enter they are easily assimilated. As the groups become larger, assimilation becomes harder because the larger the group the more identification there is with the culture and country of the past. Thus in the late 19th century and early 20th we had Little Italy, Chinatown, Irish enclaves in Boston and New York as well as the Jewish Garment District in New York. All were known to have problems and all were known to have high crime rates.
However, several things pushed them into the existing “American” culture. The first was that there were no major newspapers or journals in their native languages, although there were some small papers. Communication with family and friends left in the “old” country was slow and expensive. All official communication was in English, and schools were in English. In addition there was a large need for unskilled labor and land was being given away. All external pressures pushed the immigrant towards learning English and becoming “American.”
Although of less importance, at that time, the basic religions were Christian and Jewish…and the immigrants came from countries in which a secular form of government existed. And yes, the demands of the Jewish faith stressed the bubble as did some of the Catholic Church’s demands. But on the whole these were marginal.
In addition, the vast majority of the immigrants came from legal systems that were based on either English Common Law or the Napoleonic Code.
That is no longer true. There are numerous radio stations/TV in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic as well as newspapers. We not only dial 1 for English we skip channel 11 for Spanish…Ballots are printed in non-English and signs are printed in various languages.
From a purely commercial view these things may be good. But for having a unified society with, basically, a common culture, it is not only bad, it is stupid.
Now, let us back track to Europe.
Amazingly, much of what can be said of the US can be said about Europe. It was a secular society based on English Common Law or Napoleonic Code or some variation thereof. But even more surprising, Europe was even more nativist than the US. Oh, I know many spoke several languages as a practical matter, but on the whole they were ferocious defenders of their homelands as the various wars fought through 1945 show.
After WWII, Europe prospered under the protection of the US and a funny thing happened. The protection came to be resented, mostly encouraged by members of the far Soviet Left. The developing welfare state(s) needed unskilled labor. At the same time, peace and improvement in health care caused a boom in the Muslim population. It was a merger; it turns out, made in Hell.
Immigrants were welcomed. Social benefits were plentiful as were jobs. The Europeans, even less religious than ever before and more secular, saw no problems with Islam and its gun bearer, Shari Law. And as the Muslim population was small, there were no large demands by them. And even worse, the governments made no attempt to push assimilation. They were still nativist and they were use to ghettos for the Jews, why not the Muslims?
Time, as it is said, went by. And since the governments had not pushed assimilation many second generation “European” Muslims did not think of themselves as French or German. They thought of themselves as Muslims. Worse, the economy had been bad for years. Unemployment was and is high and there is almost no demand for unskilled labor. That was and is a perfect receipt for developing an underclass that is under educated, bitter and envious.
Even worse, the European Union, in an attempt to pull a “country” together from the various pieces has pushed various speech codes and “hate” laws to the extreme trying to insure that the French do not insult the Flemish who do not insult the Germans who do no insult the Wallons. I trust you get the idea. But like most roads to Hell these good intentions prevented honest criticism among the groups and sheltered Muslims who needed the criticism most of all. Yet to do so subject the person criticizing to attacks and arrests. It was, and is, PC on steroids and diversity run wild.
And the various Islamic sects have done so by sponsoring schools, providing Imams that rant and attack. The picture includes riots in France, Denmark, England and Norway over such “insults” as cartoons and movies. With predicable attacks upon gays, rapes of non-Muslim female “honor” killings, etc. It has become a witch’s brew of diversity run wild and used by the extremist Muslims for their own purposes.
Worse, in a recent poll 42% of all Muslims in England think they should be allowed to go their separate way and develop their own society. That, of course, is nonsense. Islam is expansionist. The English must either force assimilation or be devoured.
So you see, the issue isn’t about good or bad. It is about numbers and a religion, Islam that is not only expansionistic; it has a history of expansion by conquest and is one of the least tolerant religions. The issue isn’t about freedom of religion; it is about freedom from Islamic religion. The radicals although small in number, aided by the extremists by largely obeyed by the “moderates” because of fear have the bit between their teeth and are constantly on the offensive.
They rule through peer pressure brought by the preaching of the Imams, terror of the extremists on the moderates and a European culture who has been abject surrender for two decades or so.
To understand this you must first know Islam is not a religion as we think of it; it is a system of living that controls all aspects of a Muslims life. And it does not tolerate other faiths. Thus whenever and wherever Muslim reaches a certain mass it starts to demand changes in its favor and control. And it is perfectly happy to discuss settlement of its demands while it prepares a list of new ones.
Some say that Europe is lost. These numbers aren’t exact, but somewhere around 2050, if the current trend continues, the population will be a majority of Muslims. But based on political control and the weakness of the native Europeans the Muslim population will be running things much sooner.
The issue of immigration should always be discussed thoroughly because of the economic and societal impacts on the existing citizens. The Muslim immigration into the US must be doubly reviewed. Not because they are “good” or “bad” but because the results of Muslim immigration have been uniformly bad in Europe and because the US is merely an extension of the Europeans, although more open and, on the whole, more liberal.
And because we can already see the results of increases in the Muslim population. They range from schools in San Diego segregating boys and girls and sponsoring times for prayers to technical schools in Minneapolis/St. Paul providing foot washing facilities for prayer services to taxi cab drivers refusing to carry dogs and/or people who have alcohol to a private school in Virginia teaching that it is okay to steal from and/or kill Jews.
And now we can turn again to Obama’s EO and ask, “Why?” He is an educated man, well informed so it is reasonable to assume that he knows these things. And once you come to that conclusion the only logical one is that he doesn’t care or that he sees these things as a positive.
As time goes on we will, unfortunately, understand his position. Both are bad.
The above is an expansion of a comment I made in the Tennessean.