Honest Questions about Immigration Some Won’t Answer

Muslim Ban

“Xenophobe, Racist, Bigot, Islamaphobe”  Those are some of the insults often hurled at people who would like some constraints on Muslim immigration.

I’ve even seen “white-nationalist, unchristian, Nazi, Hitler”

Ok, let’s dial it back a bit shall we?  Wow.

Image result for well that escalated quickly

Barack Obama did impose a ban on Iraqi immigration during his term as well.  How come he wasn’t called those names?

But leave that aside, that’s just a warm up question.

The honest question to those people who call people those names:

1.  “Would they let strangers live in their home?  If not, why not?”

– Because it’s not safe
– fear of being assaulted
– They might rob me.
– They might be a financial burden.
– They might negatively affect the culture of the household.

Now it’s their turn to be called a xenophobic, bigot, heartless, racist, etc.

2.  Why not call them those names?

Because their concerns are very valid.  Those are exactly the same concerns people have about Muslim immigration.  In addition to terrorism concerns.

People should not be called names for wanting basic things like safety.  That disregards their agency.  Which in itself is kind of a bigoted, disrespectful, compassionless, lacking in understanding, etc.

3.  Are the concerns really valid?

We don’t have to guess.  Europe has provided us with a great case study for us to learn from.  Europe has let in million of Muslim immigrants in the last few years, largely due to the Syrian refugee crisis.  How has it gone?

Not well to put it mildly.

Muslim immigration has caused a rape crisis all over Europe.  In the UK “sex-grooming” Muslim gangs target, rape and pimp out young women or girls.
This is endemic of Islamic culture.  In some Muslim countries women can legally be killed for things like turning away from Islam, disobeying a man or refusing an arranged marriage.
Women are treated like second-class citizens or property, not equal to males.  Some Muslim clerics justify rape because women were not covered head to toe.

Crime is disproportionately represented in Muslim males.

44% of prison inmates in England are Muslim.  Despite only 5% of the population being Muslim.
70% of prison inmates in France are Muslim.  Despite only 8% of the population being Muslim.
9.4% of prison inmates in America are Muslim.  Despite only 1% of the population being Muslim.

Unemployment rates are high.  Immigrants often do not have skills or know the language.  This results in the majority being served by welfare.  This is at the expense of the taxpayer and national debt of these countries.

That’s not even to mention the problem of terrorism.

It’s so bad in some European countries they have started paying Muslim immigrants to go back to their home countries.

Europeans know it.  A poll of 10 European countries showed that after experiencing the effects of Muslim immigration for years, an overwhelming majority of Europeans want to put an end Muslim immigration:

Image result for muslim immigration
Image result for muslim immigration

Here is the hardest question yet:

4.  How many X number of rapes, assaults, murders, terrorist attacks are acceptable in exchange for accepting Muslim immigrants into the country?

That is the reality of the choice.  It’s much easier to close one’s eyes to the realities of the world.  But that is the mentality of a 5-year-old girl who wants to invite everyone to a tea party and expect the best.

We’re not 5 anyone.  It’s time to grow up.

Not facing these issues honestly is a form of escapism.  Escapism is rooted in selfishness.  True compassion and love faces and makes hard decisions.

5.  “what about the immigrants?”

We can help them where they are.  It costs 1/12th the amount to help someone in the middle east in their own land rather than importing them into America.  Their own country where they are more familiar with the language and culture.

Because as we’ve seen by the example of Europe, Muslim immigration into western cultures does not work very well. It’s time we grew up as a country and admitted what Europe already has.  Because the escapism crybaby tantrums don’t help anyone.

trump not racist

Share this article: Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

2 thoughts on “Honest Questions about Immigration Some Won’t Answer

  1. I have been known to be called a liberal from time to time, despite my stands on topics like Unions and Living Wage. I would be happy to answer your questions in this article.
    #1 “Would they let strangers live in their home? If not, why not?
    Personally I would not….I don’t know them. If they had been investigated and vetted by my government I still would not as I like to run around my house in my underwear and would never subject them to that. Would I let them live in my neighborhood? That is the real and logical question, and yes, I would. Would I mind if they lived in my city? Of course not, why would I?

    2. Why not call them those names
    Why would you? I like my privacy and do not want to share it with strangers. They are not known to me, it is not because of their race, religion or national origin, it is simply an act of unfamiliarity.

    3. Are the concerns really valid?
    Of course they are…..IN EUROPE. While your stories and statistics are quite alarming and appalling, they are for Europe where the immigrants were not vetted and there was no system for resettlement. I will give you the process as outlined in US: A: The United Nations determines whether an individual is designated a refugee, and assesses his/her vulnerability for determining resettlement prioritization. B: Those designated as refugees undergo a series of medical screenings, biometric data collections (like fingerprinting, retinal scanning, DNA sampling, etc.) and background checks with no fewer than 8 institutions. This process can take 18 months or more. Refugees do not have a choice of where they are resettled. C: Once approved for resettlement, refugees sell remaining possessions, and prepare for travel. They are subject to additional
    screening upon arrival in the U.S. D:In the U.S., resettlement agencies help refugees with housing, furnishings, and food, paid for from the one-time sum of about $1,000 each refugee is allocated.
    Work authorization is issued. The refugee has 90 days to become self-sufficient. E:Refugees participate in English classes, employment placement programs, and receive case management to help them integrate. After 6 months, they must begin paying back resettlement airfare costs. F:After 12 months, refugees are
    allowed to–and expected to–apply for a green card. After 5 years, he or she may apply for citizenship.
    Does any of that sound like what the refugees had to go through in Europe?

    4. How many X number of rapes, assaults, murders, terrorist attacks are acceptable in exchange for accepting Muslim immigrants into the country?
    How many times is it acceptable to get struck by lightning? The odds are greater that will happen than you becoming a victim of a crime by a Syrian refugee. The Cato Institute places the following odds on be killed by a refugee in a terrorist attack….For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year. The National Bureau of Economic Research has a study that concluded this….The perception that immigration adversely affects crime rates led to legislation in the 1990s that particularly increased punishment of criminal aliens. In fact, immigrants have much lower institutionalization (incarceration) rates than the native born – on the order of one-fifth the rate of natives. More recently arrived immigrants
    have the lowest relative incarceration rates, and this difference increased from 1980 to 2000.

    5. “what about the immigrants?
    It’s a little hard to help them where they live when they are fleeing war torn countries and advancing armies that want to kill them. Does that even make sense?

    Here are the links to some of the figures I stated. I know I will not change any minds but maybe 1 person will think that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn’t be as bad as they thought.

    https://www.heartlandalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fact-Sheet-Refugees.pdf?gclid=CPaBhrbhvNMCFQx6fgodcOoKMw
    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis#full
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf

    1. Thank you for answering the questions, when I posted this on facebook no liberal person would.
      1. You didn’t really answer this one though. You changed the question.
      2. It is unfamiliarity AND because of safety. I hope you will admit that. But yes you are right, there is no reason to call you names about it. However that’s what the leftwing does to people who want border controls for very legitimate reasons. The point is calling people those names because they want safety is unfair.
      3. It is true the vetting process is better in America. But even our leaders admit that we cannot vet many of the people coming over because how can you when many Islamic countries don’t keep good records on the people? Are you supposed to rely on someone’s word? “are you a terrorist?” “no sir.” “Well case closed, your accepted.” That seems kind of silly no?
      But regardless of the vetting, Muslims still have committed a disproportunate amount of terror attacks, it is something like you are 30,000x more likely to be killed in a terror attack by a Muslim than by a non-Muslim. That’s not good. Crime stats are also disproportunate, Muslims are much more likely to commit crime and much more likely to be on welfare. Because they don’t have skills normally or mastery of the language. So what good does it do America to allow them in? They are net drain on the national debt and increase crime rates and occassionally blow up in terror attacks. Which leads to 4.
      4. You didn’t answer this one either. And I will commend you for attempting to answer, but you really didn’t answer some of these. And the reason is because if you did, it would expose the fault of allowing Muslim immigrants. I’ve seen the “struck by lighting” type arguments before. And it’s also unlikely you’ll get polio. So does that mean we should abandon polio vaccines because there is a greater chance of being struck by lightning? No of course not. One of the reasons the chances of getting killed in a Muslim attack in America are low is because our government spends a great amount of money and human resources to protect us from it. They’ve stopped hundreds of plots. But to you, since the statistics say it’s like being struck by lightning, then we should give up all that protection? Of course not, and I doubt you’d say that. But you DO say that about allowing more Muslim migrants. Which will increase the dangers and will increase the terror attacks, crimes and people on welfare. Of which you did not answer how many is acceptable.
      The correct answer is: I will accept a rate of terrorism, crime, rape and welfare dependency that is equal to or less than the current population. Muslims do not qualify for any of those 4 criteria. Therefore they should be shut. “oh that’s so mean!” Ok, well what’s your number then? How many X number of those things do you accept in exchange for allowing Muslims in? That is the real questions. Liberals never address that question. It’s too real. They more often call people who face that question honestly a name.
      5. A safe haven can be made, it wouldn’t be done right in the middle of a war-torn area, they have spots they can choose and it would be much less costly than importing people.
      Also, you act as if Muslim migrants won’t be a big deal or cause problems. However they have caused problems in every country they’ve migrated to. So you’re really not in alignment with history. You’re HOPING that our vetting process would mitigate those problems. But you really don’t know. It’s just a guess. And you’re willing to risk people dying in terror attacks, willing to risk women and children getting raped (btw, 100,000’s raped by Muslims in england alone), willing to risk more people being the victims or crime, and willing to have more dependent people on welfare……. and these aren’t really risks, they are certainties as the vetted Muslims we have already do those things at very disproportunate rates. Also, go tell the Jews in Germancy in 1930 that their chance of being killed by a Nazi are the same as a lightning strike. Why is that wrong? Because you can’t look at past statistics and automatically assume those stats will remain the same going forward. Especially when you want to keep adding risk factors like liberals want to do. And why? Why do that? I think your failure to answer some of the questions shows that you already know the position is faulty, and you kind of weasiled out of a few of those. But I appreciate your response.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *