A few weeks ago, I wrote an article describing Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law and why most opposition to it is misled or misleading in its criticism.
Now, some weeks later, both opposition and support for the law have spread across the country and even down into Mexico, with Mexican president Felipe Calderon calling the law “backward” and issuing travel warnings for Mexicans traveling to the state of Arizona. Uhh, excuse me, Presidente Felipe, what exactly are you criticizing? Did you forget the tenets of your own country’s immigration laws and policies?
Did you conveniently forget that Mexico mandates that all levels of law enforcement (which includes the Mexican military) must enforce the national immigration laws? Is Calderon ignoring the fact those laws are in many ways tougher on both legal and illegal immigration than are immigration laws in the United States? Being in Mexico illegally is a felony which will put the offender in jail for at least two years. All potential immigrants must be able to contribute positively to the Mexican economy, society, and the general well-being of Mexico. Those who aid in illegal immigration and those foreign visitors who violate their visas or enter Mexico under false pretenses are either imprisoned or deported, or both.
So Mexico clearly has no issues with enforcing tough, sensible immigration laws. Why, then, is President Calderon hating on Arizona? Mexican politics may be rife with corruption, but this is hypocrisy of the highest order from our southern neighbor.
The most glaring aspect of this criticism from the Mexican president is the way in which he implies that Arizona’s law is racist and/or promotes racial profiling; it is a way of expressing racial solidarity with his people, the Mexicans and Chicanos, against those pesky white Arizonans who dare to enforce America’s immigration laws. Why else would Calderon make such statements, considering his country’s own immigration policies? Mexico’s laws are very harsh on other Central American immigrants who come to Mexico illegally. The Arizona law isn’t explicitly aimed at Mexican immigrants, no matter what the law’s opponents claim. In this way, President Calderon of Mexico acknowledges that he has done nothing to close the spigot of illegal immigrants flowing north out of his country into the United States. He accepts the fact that Mexican immigrants are the most numerous of immigrants in the southwestern United States, and despite the crackdowns on illegal immigrants in his own country, Calderon cannot stand by while his people (many of whom are fleeing the violence and corruption of his country) may be forced to endure the enforcement of American immigration laws, which are not nearly as harsh as his own.
President Obama is set to meet with Felipe Calderon soon, and immigration is sure to be high on the agenda. Seeing as how both presidents have similar opinions on Arizona’s law, the outcome of such a meeting is worrisome at best. The fact that the American president agrees with the Mexican president’s opinion on a harsh American immigration enforcement bill in a state on the Mexican border belies where Obama’s allegiances lie.
This is not to say that Obama is in league with Mexico in some sinister way. But I can guarantee if one of Mexico’s Central American neighbors lodged a similar complaint to Felipe Calderon about Mexico’s immigration policies, Calderon would tell that country exactly where they could shove their complaint.
Arizona passed this law allowing its state and local law enforcement branches to enforce federal immigration laws because the federal government has largely failed at their task. The murder of rancher Robert Krentz is only one of a multitude of murders in Arizona by illegal immigrants. Arizona also now boasts one of the kidnapping capitals of the country, thanks to illegal immigration and the crime that comes with it. When people say that our southern borders are broken, many politicians laugh it off, like President Obama did in a speech shortly following the signing of Arizona’s law. I guess it’s easy to laugh about broken borders when one resides in Washington DC or Chicago. For Arizonans, though, broken borders are no laughing matter.
A country that cannot adequately control its borders is not sovereign. Border security and immigration enforcement are tasks that the federal government legitimately must undertake, since the national borders outline several different states. If the federal government fails in their task or outright refuses to secure the border, as has been the case now for decades, then it must be the state’s imperative to enforce those laws themselves. All the whining and gnashing of teeth over Arizona’s new law ignores the fact that the federal government is not and does not want to secure the borders without comprehensive amnesty to the tens of millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the US.
Many opponents of Arizona’s law claim that it is solely the responsibility of the federal government to enforce immigration policies and secure the border. I’d be willing to bet that most of those opponents also believe the responsibilities of health care and saving the environment lie with the federal government, too. Time and time again, the federal government has proven that, as its responsibilities, mandates, and subsidies grow, so do its incompetency and inefficiency (not to mention its outstanding debt). Combine that with an unwillingness to secure the border or enforce immigration policy, and we have disastrous situations like that in Arizona which require state and local action to help regain control of the problem.
I was somewhat surprised by cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle calling for all-out boycotts of Arizona. Granted, those cities are Democratic hotbeds of leftist politics, but rarely does one state or locality call for a boycott of another over state policy. This demonstrates the growing political divide in the United States. There will be a showdown, political or otherwise; I can promise you that. It is merely a question of when, where, and in which manner the showdown takes place.
This showdown will not necessarily be between Republicans and Democrats, or even between conservatives and liberals. Some conservatives opposed Arizona’s law, and I’m sure there exist some liberals who agree with it. A clash between Obama’s supporters and supporters of the Tea Party movement might be more accurate, but even that is a shaky description of what may be on the horizon.
The movie trailer that appeared in the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez film Grindhouse for the fake movie “Machete” has been recently redone in light of the signing of Arizona’s immigration law. The new trailer features actor Danny Trejo giving a warning to Arizona, followed by a trailer describing a movie in which Mexicans in the United States wage violent war against Americans who want to enforce US immigration policy and secure the borders. I’m sure there’s more to the plot than that, but politically, that’s what the movie was about.
Is Robert Rodriguez secretly organizing a race war between Chicanos and European-Americans? I doubt it. It’s just entertainment at the end of the day. But if the plot of the movie were reversed, with some white American protagonist waging war against criminal illegal immigrants, would that even make any airtime? How quick and strong would the condemnations come from every news network in America? Couple this new trailer for “you-fucked-with-the-wrong-Mexican” “Machete” with the calls for boycotts of Arizona and with Los Angeles high school teacher Ron Gochez’s call for revolutionary action to his Latino students, and we can see the political divide growing further.
I do not claim to know what lays beyond the horizon, folks. I leave such predictions to people like Gerald Celente and his Trends Research Institute (which, by the way, anyone looking for chillingly accurate predictions of national and global trends should check out). What I and many others can see, however, is a growing, bubbling, frothing, volatile dissatisfaction with the direction of American government. Each side of the political divide is blaming the other side for radicalizing and drifting towards the fringe. The result is gridlock in Congress and polemics by almost everyone in Washington DC. This happens often in times of economic turmoil. The recent senate primary wins, which include Rand Paul of Kentucky, show that the political status quo in Washington DC will not last much longer.
The American political scene has always hovered mostly around the center-right position, no matter who’s in the White House. Under Obama, however, American government has drifted to the center left, and have certainly increased the statism championed by George W. Bush; Obama’s supporters have backed him almost every step of the way. The so-called “radicalization” of the political right is merely a desire for true conservative principles of limited government, balanced budgets, and state sovereignty rather than the usual GOP appease-and-compromise strategy that has left no distinction between Democrats and Republicans.
So does something wicked this way come? Only time will tell. As the new Arizona law illustrates, however, if the federal government cannot do its job when it comes to the border and immigration, those who are affected the most and have the most to lose from government inaction will do the job instead.
While Presidents Obama and Calderon are meeting in DC bemoaning the “racism” of Arizona’s immigration law with their fingers crossed behind their backs, Arizonans will be securing their state and doing what should have been done in all states a long time ago.
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
May 19, 2010
April 28, 2010
The Looming Immigration Showdown (Part 1 of 2)
Finally!
After months of wrangling over health care, immigration is back in the political spotlight. It was only a matter of time, and both Republicans and Democrats quiver before the notion of addressing the issue. Both parties have something to lose in the immigration debate. Republicans who support amnesty and Democrats who do not will both lose votes. Both parties claim to support tougher border enforcement, but they've been pitching that line for decades now.
What sparked the thrust of immigration to the forefront of political debate in the United States? I'm sure a lot of people will point to Governor Jan Brewer signing a tough new immigration enforcement bill into law recently. I argue that another incident is at the root of the immigration debate renewal: the murder of 58-year-old Robert Krentz, a rancher in Arizona, by an illegal immigrant who then scuttled back into Mexico.
Krentz's death is not a statistical anomaly; it wasn't a glitch in the Matrix. Representative Steve King of Iowa released statistics in 2006 which suggested that twelve Americans were murdered by illegal immigrants per day. This would amount to 4,380 murders per year.
What makes Krentz's murder more poignant are the circumstances of his death. Apparently Krentz was checking the water lines and fencing of his family's property when he discovered a lone illegal immigrant. Krentz's brother has mentioned that Krentz had radioed to him that he had found an illegal immigrant, and was going to try to give him some water.
No one knows exactly what happened next, but Robert Krentz was mortally wounded. He managed to drive part of the way back to his ranch house in his ATV, but died with the engine running and the lights on before he got there.
Days before the killing, Krentz's brother Phil reported possible drug smuggling through their ranch property, which led local authorities to find 290 pounds of marijuana and eight illegal immigrants on the property.
Robert Krentz has become the new rallying figure for those in America who want something to be done about illegal immigration and crime. Whether Krentz would have wanted that is immaterial. It's one thing to sneak across our southern border, take advantage of civil services, and speak little to no English all the while. It's quite another to murder innocent Americans on their own private property.
Within weeks, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the immigration enforcement bill into law, igniting a firestorm of controversy, polemics, protests, riots, and boycotts by civil rights leaders.
So what's all the hullabaloo about? Opponents of the law claim that it will lead to racial profiling, discrimination, and Arizona becoming a police state. Any cursory glance at the law's provisions would quickly dispel such outlandish claims.
As it stands, the law merely provides local and state law enforcement with the legal means to enforce federal immigration laws. If any person with whom the state and local authorities come into contact is suspected of being an illegal immigrant, those authorities have the means to assess their legal status, and if they are found to be in the country illegally and are convicted of the initial offense that led to the authorities approaching them in the first place, then the illegal immigrant is transferred into federal custody.
The clauses in the law with which the law's opponents take issue are those which give local authorities the right to question a suspect's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion." Of course, for civil rights leaders like Al Sharpton and several Hispanic lawmakers in Congress, this means a de facto Nazi-Germany-Jim-Crow-police-state.
How ludicrous. A few things to consider:
1) The law gives state and local authorities the means to enforce federal immigration policy. There are no special powers given.
2) Since there are no special powers given in the law beyond what is already written, there will not be Arizona cops roaming the streets and rounding up Mexicans.
3) There are multiple clauses in the law that specifically prohibit racial profiling and which protect the rights of lawful, legal citizens.
4) Any officer proven to have acted solely on the basis of race will be punished, so Arizona cops actually have something to lose if they are guilty of racial profiling.
It's fascinating to watch how opponents of the law (which are comprised of both Democrats and Republicans, by the way) dance around these basic facts. If there hasn't been rampant racial profiling in Arizona beforehand (which we have to assume, since Al Sharpton and his ilk haven't opened their mouths about it until now), then why will this new law, which specifically prohibits and penalizes racial profiling, suddenly turn Arizona into a police state?
It won't. But claiming such gains a lot of political points and rallies the leftist troops.
Another claim by opponents of the law is that it will destroy any incentive that Mexicans had to cooperate with police investigations, since they would then run the risk of being apprehended or deported themselves. Of course, one has to wonder how much illegal immigrants cooperate with American authorities in the first place. My bet is that they don't. Besides, there is another provision in the law which allows a police officer to forgo assessing someone's immigration status if the officer feels that such an action will hamper police investigation efforts for other crimes.
The state of Arizona was forced to pass this law because of the federal government's inability to enforce its immigration laws in the border states. Ask Republicans, and they'll likely agree with that statement; ask Democrats, and they'll say it's a failure of the federal government to come to a compromise on the immigration issue in order to pass effective enforcement measures. Both points are correct, but it's important to realize that Congress hasn't reached a compromise on the issue because pro-amnesty legislators continue to push for "a pathway to citizenship."
"A pathway to citizenship"...that sounds so lovely, doesn't it? It brings to mind the Yellow Brick Road from the Wizard of Oz. But for those calling for such a "path", it amounts to amnesty, pure and simple. Those illegal immigrants put on this "pathway to citizenship" will not be deported or penalized for entering the country illegally; they'd probably be put to work picking vegetables or mowing lawns.
That's not being "racist". Most illegal immigrants find work in those fields, as well as in construction. These stereotypes come from somewhere. But how much more cheap labor do we need injected in to our majority-service economy? We need to be manufacturing and producing more high-quality finished goods. But that's a topic for another article.
Amnesty is the weakest solution to the 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States (and that's a VERY conservative estimate; others, like the company Bear Stearns, peg that number at about 20 million). The alternative is deportation, which is lambasted as inhumane, racist, and all other degrees of "bad" by proponents of amnesty. Another alternative, to do nothing about the illegal immigrants currently here, is unsustainable.
So what do we do? Stay tuned for Part 2 of this essay to find out.
After months of wrangling over health care, immigration is back in the political spotlight. It was only a matter of time, and both Republicans and Democrats quiver before the notion of addressing the issue. Both parties have something to lose in the immigration debate. Republicans who support amnesty and Democrats who do not will both lose votes. Both parties claim to support tougher border enforcement, but they've been pitching that line for decades now.
What sparked the thrust of immigration to the forefront of political debate in the United States? I'm sure a lot of people will point to Governor Jan Brewer signing a tough new immigration enforcement bill into law recently. I argue that another incident is at the root of the immigration debate renewal: the murder of 58-year-old Robert Krentz, a rancher in Arizona, by an illegal immigrant who then scuttled back into Mexico.
Krentz's death is not a statistical anomaly; it wasn't a glitch in the Matrix. Representative Steve King of Iowa released statistics in 2006 which suggested that twelve Americans were murdered by illegal immigrants per day. This would amount to 4,380 murders per year.
What makes Krentz's murder more poignant are the circumstances of his death. Apparently Krentz was checking the water lines and fencing of his family's property when he discovered a lone illegal immigrant. Krentz's brother has mentioned that Krentz had radioed to him that he had found an illegal immigrant, and was going to try to give him some water.
No one knows exactly what happened next, but Robert Krentz was mortally wounded. He managed to drive part of the way back to his ranch house in his ATV, but died with the engine running and the lights on before he got there.
Days before the killing, Krentz's brother Phil reported possible drug smuggling through their ranch property, which led local authorities to find 290 pounds of marijuana and eight illegal immigrants on the property.
Robert Krentz has become the new rallying figure for those in America who want something to be done about illegal immigration and crime. Whether Krentz would have wanted that is immaterial. It's one thing to sneak across our southern border, take advantage of civil services, and speak little to no English all the while. It's quite another to murder innocent Americans on their own private property.
Within weeks, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the immigration enforcement bill into law, igniting a firestorm of controversy, polemics, protests, riots, and boycotts by civil rights leaders.
So what's all the hullabaloo about? Opponents of the law claim that it will lead to racial profiling, discrimination, and Arizona becoming a police state. Any cursory glance at the law's provisions would quickly dispel such outlandish claims.
As it stands, the law merely provides local and state law enforcement with the legal means to enforce federal immigration laws. If any person with whom the state and local authorities come into contact is suspected of being an illegal immigrant, those authorities have the means to assess their legal status, and if they are found to be in the country illegally and are convicted of the initial offense that led to the authorities approaching them in the first place, then the illegal immigrant is transferred into federal custody.
The clauses in the law with which the law's opponents take issue are those which give local authorities the right to question a suspect's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion." Of course, for civil rights leaders like Al Sharpton and several Hispanic lawmakers in Congress, this means a de facto Nazi-Germany-Jim-Crow-police-state.
How ludicrous. A few things to consider:
1) The law gives state and local authorities the means to enforce federal immigration policy. There are no special powers given.
2) Since there are no special powers given in the law beyond what is already written, there will not be Arizona cops roaming the streets and rounding up Mexicans.
3) There are multiple clauses in the law that specifically prohibit racial profiling and which protect the rights of lawful, legal citizens.
4) Any officer proven to have acted solely on the basis of race will be punished, so Arizona cops actually have something to lose if they are guilty of racial profiling.
It's fascinating to watch how opponents of the law (which are comprised of both Democrats and Republicans, by the way) dance around these basic facts. If there hasn't been rampant racial profiling in Arizona beforehand (which we have to assume, since Al Sharpton and his ilk haven't opened their mouths about it until now), then why will this new law, which specifically prohibits and penalizes racial profiling, suddenly turn Arizona into a police state?
It won't. But claiming such gains a lot of political points and rallies the leftist troops.
Another claim by opponents of the law is that it will destroy any incentive that Mexicans had to cooperate with police investigations, since they would then run the risk of being apprehended or deported themselves. Of course, one has to wonder how much illegal immigrants cooperate with American authorities in the first place. My bet is that they don't. Besides, there is another provision in the law which allows a police officer to forgo assessing someone's immigration status if the officer feels that such an action will hamper police investigation efforts for other crimes.
The state of Arizona was forced to pass this law because of the federal government's inability to enforce its immigration laws in the border states. Ask Republicans, and they'll likely agree with that statement; ask Democrats, and they'll say it's a failure of the federal government to come to a compromise on the immigration issue in order to pass effective enforcement measures. Both points are correct, but it's important to realize that Congress hasn't reached a compromise on the issue because pro-amnesty legislators continue to push for "a pathway to citizenship."
"A pathway to citizenship"...that sounds so lovely, doesn't it? It brings to mind the Yellow Brick Road from the Wizard of Oz. But for those calling for such a "path", it amounts to amnesty, pure and simple. Those illegal immigrants put on this "pathway to citizenship" will not be deported or penalized for entering the country illegally; they'd probably be put to work picking vegetables or mowing lawns.
That's not being "racist". Most illegal immigrants find work in those fields, as well as in construction. These stereotypes come from somewhere. But how much more cheap labor do we need injected in to our majority-service economy? We need to be manufacturing and producing more high-quality finished goods. But that's a topic for another article.
Amnesty is the weakest solution to the 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States (and that's a VERY conservative estimate; others, like the company Bear Stearns, peg that number at about 20 million). The alternative is deportation, which is lambasted as inhumane, racist, and all other degrees of "bad" by proponents of amnesty. Another alternative, to do nothing about the illegal immigrants currently here, is unsustainable.
So what do we do? Stay tuned for Part 2 of this essay to find out.
December 1, 2009
The Seeds of Swiss Minarets
One of the best comments I’ve recently heard from a person who disapproved of the latest Swiss vote on minaret construction was something like “only a symbolic victory over symbolism can be a Swiss victory.”
That comment alone made me laugh heartily…guffaw, even. That tickled my funny bone.
The popular vote to ban the construction of any new minarets in Switzerland has polarized opinion, with half of everyone supporting the Swiss people’s efforts to preserve the unique character of their nation, and the other half bemoaning the alleged intolerance and bigotry of the Swiss people.
The opponents of the vote have a point: the banning of a religious symbol is discriminatory, and it will make Muslims angry. What the opponents have gotten completely wrong is the reasoning that such discrimination is a mistake or “evil” in some way.
The Swiss have had it pretty good so far in the past few decades. With a culture that reflects a blend of European influences, multiple official languages, and unwavering neutrality, internal and external conflict with and within Switzerland are rare. As most articles have pointed out, Islam is the second most popular religion in Switzerland behind Christianity, and most Islamic activity that occurs in Switzerland is under the radar. Thus, to many, the banning of minarets is a rough-palmed slap in the collective face of Switzerland’s Muslim community. This is true, but only to the extent that one assumes the premise that the Muslim community in that country is going to expand to an extent that would require the building of more and more mosques and minarets. Otherwise, the banning is symbolic only, and we know how Muslims react to symbolic offenses (see: the Danish Mohammed cartoon scandal).
The supporters of the vote claim that the minaret is a political symbol implying creeping Sharia law and Islamic dominance. This is like saying that crucifixes on top of churches are political symbols implying Judeo-Christian dominance and the supremacy of God’s law. Both assumptions are both true and not true, because the fact of the matter is a building is just that: a building. What it means is only what people give it. To some Muslims, a minaret in a country that’s ethnically and culturally homogenous (Western) may indeed be a symbol of coming Islamic dominance; to others, it may be a proud symbol of their faith. To others still, it might just be a building.
But the banning of minarets is indeed symbolic. It is a majority of the Swiss telling the world that Switzerland is Switzerland, and they will determine the character of their country. It’s that same majority telling the Muslim minority in their country that they are welcome to practice their faith, but that they reside in Switzerland, not Saudi Arabia, and that the Swiss intend to uphold that distinction. It is a decision to preserve the cultural integrity of their nation, not just to deny Muslims their right to worship (which the vote has nothing to do with).
The political left hates this. To them, the idea that the Swiss are defending their culture and the character of their nation is bigotry, intolerance, racist, and any number of buzz words used by that crowd. The left loves to boast of the “tolerance” and good-heartedness of the Swiss people, and how much this vote has destroyed that image. Politicians are rushing to overturn the vote in some phony, cockamamie “human rights” court. “The multicultural nature of our country is what makes it great!” claim these people. How ridiculous.
Supporters of the vote rightly claim that Muslim-dominated countries are extremely intolerant of other religions and cultures, and that the Swiss are trying to prevent what will be an increasingly anti-Swiss attitude among a potentially growing Muslim population there. Opponents argue that to sink to the intolerant level of those Muslim countries is merely answering barbarism with more barbarism. Once again, the opponents of the vote are right, but for the wrong reasons.
Switzerland has had the good fortune of having a relatively tame, quiet Muslim community. There have been no terrorist attacks, no Muslims calling for the murder of a Swiss popular figure, and no burning of the white-crossed Swiss flag. People are now concerned that these acts of terrorism will now come since this vote has been passed. What the opponents of the vote basically are saying is that they are terrified of Muslims, and that Europeans should do every possible thing in their power to avoid offending them. It’s as if the teachers on a school playground told the other kids to do whatever the school bully says, because he will beat up all the kids if they don’t and the teacher is powerless to do anything about it. That argument, simply put, is absolute 100% concentrated cowardice.
France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany. What do all these countries have in common?
Did you guess it?? If you guessed “a burgeoning Muslim population that is increasingly self-isolated, violent, anti-Western, and politically powerful, which is also set to overtake the native European population by sheer numbers in the near future,” you’re right!
Not so long ago, the populations of the aforementioned countries began opening immigration to all corners of the globe. After World War Two, any ethnic or cultural homogeny was indefensible as a good thing, for such a thing was too reminiscent of Nazism. For years after the last shot of the Second World War was fired, Western Europe remained ethnically and culturally homogenous, with a few exceptions. Europeans hailed the new age of peace and cooperation after two horrible intercontinental wars.
Now, in 2009, the multicultural experiment for which no one voted is failing. The French, British, Dutch, and most other Europeans thought that it didn’t matter whether or not their countries’ populations were made up of boring old white Europeans, Africans, Arabs, or Asians; their country would still be theirs, still be recognizable, still be consistent in terms of values and culture. Anyone who still claims this is dangerously delusional. From “no-go areas” for police in London and Paris, terrorist attacks, assassinations of public figures, anti-Western rhetoric, and honor killings, the wave of immigration from the Third World has had zero benefits for any of these European countries. “Diversity” (meaning fewer people of European descent, as it is used these days) is not a strength; quite the contrary, the evidence actually supports the opposite.
And all of these horrible, negative effects did not come about because these European countries held a vote like the recent Swiss referendum. They came about because the culture of Islam is one of conquest and domination. The political left will blame the inherent racism and discrimination by the native European population for a sense of isolation and alienation among non-Europeans. That argument is a tired one, and operates under the false premise that foreigners shouldn’t feel like foreigners in a foreign land. Fewer and fewer people are drinking the Guilt Kool-Aid anymore.
Are there tolerant, friendly, peaceful Muslims? Absolutely. Without question. But as we’ve seen in the past decade in Europe and around the world, these examples are the exceptions, not the rule. Even if these good examples were the rule, I ask this: if the few exceptions to this peaceful model of Islam kill a few dozen non-Muslims in their own country, is the diversity still worth it? How about a few hundred? How about three thousand? Is diversity still our greatest strength then? How many people have to die in the name of Allah before diversity is no longer a strength to its champions, but a weakness?
I think the Swiss people have seen the devolution of European society in certain urban areas of the rest of Europe due to mass immigration, and I think they know on an instinctive level that what they see is not what they want Switzerland to become. So, yes, the vote is symbolic, but on a much deeper, more cultural level.
And who can fault them at this point?
“Islamophobia”…that’s a good made-up word. Champions of multiculturalism use this pejorative term to describe Europeans’ defense of themselves and their culture from the growing dominance of Islam literally in their backyards. The political left blames the recent Swiss vote on “fear,” just like when they use the terms “xenophobia” and “homophobia.” They like to accuse the opponents of “diversity” of cowardice and of acting out of fear, because it implies irrational thought. But to me, “Islamophobia” doesn’t describe an inherent wariness of radical Islam. Rather, the term describes the people who are terrified of offending Muslims in any way, for any reason, under any pretense, even if it leads to cultural suicide. The real Islamophobes are those who allow radical Muslims to do any damn thing they please in Europe and the United States without resistance for fear of violence and “unrest in the Muslim community.”
And under the leadership of such Islamophobes, radical Islam has permanent footholds in Europe. The deaths will not stop, nor will the terrorism in the name of Allah, nor will the growing parallel Muslim communities within urban Europe. Native Europeans’ birth rates are falling (or stable at almost zero), and in addition to a steady flow of Third World immigrants, those immigrants also have much bigger families and higher birth rates. The Europeans are being beaten in their home turf, and there could come a day where Islam will officially dominate the continent without the need for a jihad. Just read the statements of various Muslim imams both in Europe and around the world. The recent Swiss referendum was just a seed of cultural reawakening in Europe, a growing awareness of the dangers of unfettered immigration for the capitalist purposes of a cheap work force.
Let the seed grow, lest Europe be lost.
That comment alone made me laugh heartily…guffaw, even. That tickled my funny bone.
The popular vote to ban the construction of any new minarets in Switzerland has polarized opinion, with half of everyone supporting the Swiss people’s efforts to preserve the unique character of their nation, and the other half bemoaning the alleged intolerance and bigotry of the Swiss people.
The opponents of the vote have a point: the banning of a religious symbol is discriminatory, and it will make Muslims angry. What the opponents have gotten completely wrong is the reasoning that such discrimination is a mistake or “evil” in some way.
The Swiss have had it pretty good so far in the past few decades. With a culture that reflects a blend of European influences, multiple official languages, and unwavering neutrality, internal and external conflict with and within Switzerland are rare. As most articles have pointed out, Islam is the second most popular religion in Switzerland behind Christianity, and most Islamic activity that occurs in Switzerland is under the radar. Thus, to many, the banning of minarets is a rough-palmed slap in the collective face of Switzerland’s Muslim community. This is true, but only to the extent that one assumes the premise that the Muslim community in that country is going to expand to an extent that would require the building of more and more mosques and minarets. Otherwise, the banning is symbolic only, and we know how Muslims react to symbolic offenses (see: the Danish Mohammed cartoon scandal).
The supporters of the vote claim that the minaret is a political symbol implying creeping Sharia law and Islamic dominance. This is like saying that crucifixes on top of churches are political symbols implying Judeo-Christian dominance and the supremacy of God’s law. Both assumptions are both true and not true, because the fact of the matter is a building is just that: a building. What it means is only what people give it. To some Muslims, a minaret in a country that’s ethnically and culturally homogenous (Western) may indeed be a symbol of coming Islamic dominance; to others, it may be a proud symbol of their faith. To others still, it might just be a building.
But the banning of minarets is indeed symbolic. It is a majority of the Swiss telling the world that Switzerland is Switzerland, and they will determine the character of their country. It’s that same majority telling the Muslim minority in their country that they are welcome to practice their faith, but that they reside in Switzerland, not Saudi Arabia, and that the Swiss intend to uphold that distinction. It is a decision to preserve the cultural integrity of their nation, not just to deny Muslims their right to worship (which the vote has nothing to do with).
The political left hates this. To them, the idea that the Swiss are defending their culture and the character of their nation is bigotry, intolerance, racist, and any number of buzz words used by that crowd. The left loves to boast of the “tolerance” and good-heartedness of the Swiss people, and how much this vote has destroyed that image. Politicians are rushing to overturn the vote in some phony, cockamamie “human rights” court. “The multicultural nature of our country is what makes it great!” claim these people. How ridiculous.
Supporters of the vote rightly claim that Muslim-dominated countries are extremely intolerant of other religions and cultures, and that the Swiss are trying to prevent what will be an increasingly anti-Swiss attitude among a potentially growing Muslim population there. Opponents argue that to sink to the intolerant level of those Muslim countries is merely answering barbarism with more barbarism. Once again, the opponents of the vote are right, but for the wrong reasons.
Switzerland has had the good fortune of having a relatively tame, quiet Muslim community. There have been no terrorist attacks, no Muslims calling for the murder of a Swiss popular figure, and no burning of the white-crossed Swiss flag. People are now concerned that these acts of terrorism will now come since this vote has been passed. What the opponents of the vote basically are saying is that they are terrified of Muslims, and that Europeans should do every possible thing in their power to avoid offending them. It’s as if the teachers on a school playground told the other kids to do whatever the school bully says, because he will beat up all the kids if they don’t and the teacher is powerless to do anything about it. That argument, simply put, is absolute 100% concentrated cowardice.
France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany. What do all these countries have in common?
Did you guess it?? If you guessed “a burgeoning Muslim population that is increasingly self-isolated, violent, anti-Western, and politically powerful, which is also set to overtake the native European population by sheer numbers in the near future,” you’re right!
Not so long ago, the populations of the aforementioned countries began opening immigration to all corners of the globe. After World War Two, any ethnic or cultural homogeny was indefensible as a good thing, for such a thing was too reminiscent of Nazism. For years after the last shot of the Second World War was fired, Western Europe remained ethnically and culturally homogenous, with a few exceptions. Europeans hailed the new age of peace and cooperation after two horrible intercontinental wars.
Now, in 2009, the multicultural experiment for which no one voted is failing. The French, British, Dutch, and most other Europeans thought that it didn’t matter whether or not their countries’ populations were made up of boring old white Europeans, Africans, Arabs, or Asians; their country would still be theirs, still be recognizable, still be consistent in terms of values and culture. Anyone who still claims this is dangerously delusional. From “no-go areas” for police in London and Paris, terrorist attacks, assassinations of public figures, anti-Western rhetoric, and honor killings, the wave of immigration from the Third World has had zero benefits for any of these European countries. “Diversity” (meaning fewer people of European descent, as it is used these days) is not a strength; quite the contrary, the evidence actually supports the opposite.
And all of these horrible, negative effects did not come about because these European countries held a vote like the recent Swiss referendum. They came about because the culture of Islam is one of conquest and domination. The political left will blame the inherent racism and discrimination by the native European population for a sense of isolation and alienation among non-Europeans. That argument is a tired one, and operates under the false premise that foreigners shouldn’t feel like foreigners in a foreign land. Fewer and fewer people are drinking the Guilt Kool-Aid anymore.
Are there tolerant, friendly, peaceful Muslims? Absolutely. Without question. But as we’ve seen in the past decade in Europe and around the world, these examples are the exceptions, not the rule. Even if these good examples were the rule, I ask this: if the few exceptions to this peaceful model of Islam kill a few dozen non-Muslims in their own country, is the diversity still worth it? How about a few hundred? How about three thousand? Is diversity still our greatest strength then? How many people have to die in the name of Allah before diversity is no longer a strength to its champions, but a weakness?
I think the Swiss people have seen the devolution of European society in certain urban areas of the rest of Europe due to mass immigration, and I think they know on an instinctive level that what they see is not what they want Switzerland to become. So, yes, the vote is symbolic, but on a much deeper, more cultural level.
And who can fault them at this point?
“Islamophobia”…that’s a good made-up word. Champions of multiculturalism use this pejorative term to describe Europeans’ defense of themselves and their culture from the growing dominance of Islam literally in their backyards. The political left blames the recent Swiss vote on “fear,” just like when they use the terms “xenophobia” and “homophobia.” They like to accuse the opponents of “diversity” of cowardice and of acting out of fear, because it implies irrational thought. But to me, “Islamophobia” doesn’t describe an inherent wariness of radical Islam. Rather, the term describes the people who are terrified of offending Muslims in any way, for any reason, under any pretense, even if it leads to cultural suicide. The real Islamophobes are those who allow radical Muslims to do any damn thing they please in Europe and the United States without resistance for fear of violence and “unrest in the Muslim community.”
And under the leadership of such Islamophobes, radical Islam has permanent footholds in Europe. The deaths will not stop, nor will the terrorism in the name of Allah, nor will the growing parallel Muslim communities within urban Europe. Native Europeans’ birth rates are falling (or stable at almost zero), and in addition to a steady flow of Third World immigrants, those immigrants also have much bigger families and higher birth rates. The Europeans are being beaten in their home turf, and there could come a day where Islam will officially dominate the continent without the need for a jihad. Just read the statements of various Muslim imams both in Europe and around the world. The recent Swiss referendum was just a seed of cultural reawakening in Europe, a growing awareness of the dangers of unfettered immigration for the capitalist purposes of a cheap work force.
Let the seed grow, lest Europe be lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
