The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Granting Asylum to Muslims Insane?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Parapundit’s Randall Parker reports that 24% of suspected terrorists in Britain are Islamic asylum seekers:

The government faces new embarrassment over Britain’s porous borders with the revelation that one in four terrorist suspects arrested in Britain is an asylum seeker. …

A Home Office analysis of those arrested under antiterrorism laws from 2001 to 2005 found that almost a quarter – 24%, or 232 out of 963 – had previously applied for asylum.

From turn-of-the-century figures, Great Britain receives about 100,000 asylum applications each year, of which about three-fourths are deemed to be legitimate. By contrast, there are over 1.5 million Muslims in the UK, the majority of whom are of Middle Eastern or Central Asian descent. Roughly then, foreign-born asylum seekers represent 8% or so of the British population but 24% of identifiable terrorism suspects. They are dispropotionately bad (three times so), even by Muslim standards.

Home-grown terrorists are undoubtedly a problem. But terrorists are more heavily concentrated among new arrivals than they are among the settled British Muslim population at large. This isn’t surprising, as an astounding 92% of British imams are foreign-born, and only 6% of these British prayer leaders speak English as their primary language. Further, that so many identified terrorist suspects are asylum seekers reveals Britain’s current trends in granting asylum to be unwise, irrespective of whether or not it is worse than the settled Muslim population.

The British need to realize that by taking in asylum seekers, they are domestically placing themselves at risk–a voluntary risk that is totally avoidable. The public needs to be aware of that. The question of admitting those fleeing from their homelands shouldn’t be shrouded only in compassionate rhetoric. To obfuscate the matter in such a way is a dereliction of moral responsibility. If you take in a wandering pit bull to give the dog a nice home, it’s essential you be aware of what that might entail. And a significant number of these ones see Mecca, not London, as their master.

This troubling revelation comes as the US expects to take in 7,000 Iraqi refugees by the end of September. Until now, the US had been stingy on the Iraqi asylum-granting front, taking in tens to the low hundreds (totaling less than 800) in each of the five years in which the war in Iraq has been taking place. Why, while little Sweden is ingesting 8,000 Iraqi refugees annually, has the US refused to open up? Concerns over national security, not surprisingly:

The United States has been unable to accept more Iraqis in part because of the time needed for background checks, which have become more stringent since 9/11, Ellen Sauerbrey, assistant secretary of State, told USA TODAY.

Some 2,000 of those 7,000 will be headed to the Detroit metro area, home to 300,000 people of Middle Eastern descent (incidentally, this doesn’t strike me as the most prudent way to go after assimilation into the broader American culture). How many of these people will harbor hostility towards the West that might make itself known in the form of terrorist activity? Perhaps very few, as most of these refugees will be women and children who are considered sympathizers to the US’ actions in Iraq. Then again, how many is too many?

National security is the safest way to argue for more restrictive immigration policies, as it’s the angle least susceptible to moralistic criticism. But there are other concerns less spectacular but ultimately more important, like culture. RP also reports on a heinous murder that occured recently in London:

A father who ordered the killing of his daughter after finding out she had a boyfriend has been jailed for life.

Banaz Mahmod, 20, was raped and tortured before being strangled and buried in a suitcase in Birmingham. …

Ms Sood, who specialises in Asian family cases, told BBC Radio Five Live “honour crimes of some sort” whether or not they resulted in death, were becoming more common in the UK.

“But certainly honour crimes are being perpetrated in the hundreds every year,” she said.

I wonder how many of the Iraqi refugees to the US will be Christians. The more the better.

The Kurds are the closest thing we have to allies in Iraq, despite the tension brewing between Kurdistan and another putative ally, Turkey, over the activities of the socialist-nationalist PKK operating in part out of Iraq’s Kurdish north. Yet Kurdish society (and Islam in general) is not compatible with Western values, as the aforementioned story about honor killings attests.

It’s past time for the West and the Muslim civilizations, which have been in conflict since almost the time of Islam’s birth in the Seventh Century, to be separated from one another. No more immigration from the Islamic world into Europe, North America, or Australia. Do as France is doing under Sarkozy’s leadership, and attempt to buy out the most impulsive (least intelligent/productive) legal Muslim residents. Forcibly remove those in country illegally. Developing economically viable energy alternatives to oil must become a national priority.

What is par for the course in Muslim cultures is revolting to Westerners and our concepts of personal liberty, isonomy, and inalienable rights. Conversely, from North Africa to Pakistan, Muslim majorities want us to back off. Disconnecting is better for both of us.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide One CommentLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What is going to happen in England over the next fifty years will bring tears to your eyes, I promise.

    Lefty loons never have to say they are sorry for the damage they do. They will blame the coming decline of civilization there on Brits and racism and answer it with a police state the likes of which will make one think of Soviet Russia. Maybe that was the plan all along. If you want to get rid of civil liberties with public support, introduce a violent element to society that everyone is afraid of and watch them support ANYTHING that will make them safe again (cops on every corner, cameras everywhere, microchips in human beings, few rights before law).

    What the left is counting on is the ability to rescue the birthrate of the patriotic in these nations, but they may be dissapointed that they will not be able to recusitate it when they want to, thus making themselves a minority in real terms and literally giving England away to the hordes in 60 years. Its amazing isn't it?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS