Refugees and the Road to Hell

 

imageI don’t like writing on this topic. The coming season represents a celebration about a child whose very existence came under intense political pressure and violence within two years of his birth. Had it not been for the fact that His parents managed to flee as refugees into Egypt until His enemy was dead, we would never have heard of the man who would later be called Jesus Christ. History would have been very different, and the world would have been at a loss incomprehensible. No serious Christian can forget this.

I am not heartless to the countless refugees haunting and trying to break past Europe’s doors to avoid tyranny and death. Or the migrants who seek a better life for both them and their families. How can I be? I am Irish: my country’s history is littered in religious and political violence which many of my countrymen died or fled from. Millions of Irish have been refugees in the past, fleeing British tyranny, oppression, and starvation. Thousands more wanting a better life traveled and died getting to America.

But, in addition to being an Irishman, I am also a history teacher and a conservative who prides himself on basing decisions on a rational policy. This is not like previous refugee crises because this one doesn’t only stress the host society as it struggles to feed and clothe its guests, but also threatens its safety from the people it proclaims to help.

I am not taking here about the Christian refugees (the world’s forgotten genocide), or the Yazidis, or any other religious minority in the Middle East. I’d be happy to host any of these peoples as, I dare say, would many of you. The age of substantial numbers of the Christians in the Middle East is over. They have to be protected here. I think we all can agree that the West has a moral duty to help these people; above all else, our politicians helped create their current mess. Besides, these groups will integrate.

Which brings me to my title. I know it is not fashionable to say, but I don’t want any more Islamic immigration into Europe for the time being. I’m not saying this out of bigotry either. I don’t like Islam, but I also know that many Muslims are decent people.

It’s just, well, this … baggage. There is, and remains, a significant level of violence and a lack of integration among a significant minority of Muslims. Contrary to what President Obama said, many of them share the values of 7th century Arabia more than those of the West.

Since its founding, Islam has periodically been at war with the West. Its worst factions desire to turn Rome into what was once Constantinople. Its worst atrocities created the Crusades. Today, its worst faction — ISIS — works to build a worldwide caliphate. To do so, they have re-started the slave trade, killed thousands, raped many young girls, and embraced genocide on Christians and other minorities. They openly boast about getting Islamists into Europe posing as refugees to create violence, as we’ve now seen in at least one case among the Paris attackers.

Now, many Muslims are aghast at this. That’s true, and not all of this is Islam’s fault either. Europe has had a terrible track record of integrating, in part because its leaders and elite do not take religion or its values seriously. As liberal secularists, they despise religion — specifically, Christianity — but since they can’t do anything about it in short term, they weaken it by degrees. Part of this is to encourage diversity and multiculturalism and weaken remaining foundations through liberal policies.

The current catastrophe facing Europe is that, while majority are absorbed over time into European society, too many Muslims remain resolutely alien to the liberal secular culture. Too many of them retain the values, cultures, and traditions of their homelands which — thanks to airline travel and satellite television — they are still living in. They don’t want to integrate and the demographics give them an enormous advantage. Europe is becoming less Christian and more secular yes but, in long term, I fear Islam will ulimtately be the ideology that benefits from this.

Their co-religionists’ actions across the Middle East, and the general lack of protest by Islamic leaders against the violence done against Christians, has sapped my sympathy for their plight when they come under attack. Yes, I know many decent Muslims hate what ISIS does, but many have no problem with it, and a few would do the same or similar actions if given the opportunity. That is what happened to the Christians in Iraq and Syria: their neighbors turned on them.

So, let’s lay off the denouncements of Islamophobia. When Muslims gather in small numbers, they can be grand, no question. Waterford City in Ireland has small numbers and they add to the place. But in large numbers Muslims in non-Muslim nations are often a problem; it’s a historical fact.

I will add this. I read Claire’s post earlier, and I am not unsympathetic. But times like this call for the head not the heart; besides, my heart has gone cold to Islamic refugees. That said, I am sympathetic to taking in refugees from Christian, Yazidi, or those from other persecuted backgrounds.

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    What makes even less sense is importing the problem to America.  When I hear “how can you be so heartless as to not let the refugees in?” I point out that they aren’t lined up at the border, WE HAVE TO GO GET THEM!

    • #1
  2. Paddy Siochain Member
    Paddy Siochain
    @PaddySiochain

    I would have posted on this had I known more. Am shocked, literally shocked.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427044/christians-isis-genocide-obama-administration

    • #2
  3. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Paddy Siochain:I would have posted on this had I known more. Am shocked, literally shocked.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427044/christians-isis-genocide-obama-administration

    I do not understand this. This is an outrage. The important part of “humanitarian” is “human.”

    • #3
  4. Crabby Appleton Inactive
    Crabby Appleton
    @CrabbyAppleton

    A perfectly legitimate concern is the certainty that Islamists will exploit the situation and send terrorist actors with the “legitimate” migrants. The so-called vetting process is not possibly 100% reliable, so the question to advocates of accepting scores of thousands (!) of migrants is what is an acceptable failure rate?

    • #4
  5. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Paddy Siochain: I am not taking here about the Christian refugees (the world’s forgotten genocide) or the Yazidis or the Kurds (there should be a Kurdistan by now) or any other religious minority in the Middle East. I do not have a problem with hosting any of these peoples – and I dare say many of you would either.

    My understanding is that a lot of Christians in the region long ago threw their lot in with the Assads who — as I believe Claire has said elsewhere — are just as cruel as ISIS, only less flashy about it. A lot of them are also extremely anti-Israel and/or downright anti-Semitic.

    Basically, while I agree that different levels of scrutiny are likely warranted toward Christian and Muslim refugees, I think we need to be careful not to stereotype too much in the former’s favor.

    • #5
  6. Paddy Siochain Member
    Paddy Siochain
    @PaddySiochain

    Better the evil you know Tom then the one that will murder you and gang rape your daughters.
    I doubt many of us if faced with same dilemna could be neutral between the two. Although many are anto semitic out of arab nationalism not religion. Besides though they will integrate here in the West now.

    • #6
  7. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Paddy Siochain: I doubt many of us if faced with same dilemna could be neutral between the two.

    Very fair point.

    Paddy Siochain: Besides though they will integrate here in the West now.

    Most likely. Then again, plenty of Muslims have done so.

    • #7
  8. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    I really don’t see how any sane person can take a good look at the dumpster fire that is Europe right now concerning Muslim immigration and not have second thoughts about imitating them.

    • #8
  9. Paddy Siochain Member
    Paddy Siochain
    @PaddySiochain

    So much for no religious tests Obama. You utter incompetent.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156396414090354&id=95475020353

    By the way people the article was edited, but not by me. And its also not on main feed which is weird. It has since been promoted now. I thought edited articles went there.

    The OP’s title was refugees/ migrants. Many are migrants from outside Syria and not refugees.  And it was:

    The road to hell is filled with Good Intentions. There should be no more Islamic immigration into Europe.

    Its much sexier though more provocative.

    • #9
  10. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Concretevol:I really don’t see how any sane person can take a good look at the dumpster fire that is Europe right now concerning Muslim immigration and not have second thoughts about imitating them.

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    There is a difference between letting in a relatively small number (10,000 – 25,000, depending on the whims of the day) of carefully-screened refugees, and the mass importation of economic migrants that Europe has allowed over the past few decades.

    My personal position hasn’t really changed: As long as my government doesn’t slack off on screening applicants to ensure they’re genuine refugees, I’m not all that worried.

    Sadly, I have zero faith in the current government meeting that condition.

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    Further: Even Syrian refugees say it’s not easy to identify the fakes among them

    • #10
  11. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Misthiocracy:

    Concretevol:I really don’t see how any sane person can take a good look at the dumpster fire that is Europe right now concerning Muslim immigration and not have second thoughts about imitating them.

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    There is a difference between letting in a relatively small number (10,000 – 25,000, depending on the whims of the day) of carefully-screened refugees, and the mass importation of economic migrants that Europe has allowed over the past few decades.

    My personal position hasn’t really changed: As long as my government doesn’t slack off on screening applicants to ensure they’re genuine refugees, I’m not all that worried.

    Sadly, I have zero faith in the current government meeting that condition.

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    This is legitimate but I think some investigation will show that the same kind of moral arguments for admitting them were used then too.

    I have zero faith in any government screening these applicants really although I doubt the current one would even try very hard.

    • #11
  12. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Paddy Siochain: I am not taking here about the Christian refugees (the world’s forgotten genocide) or the Yazidis or the Kurds (there should be a Kurdistan by now) or any other religious minority in the Middle East. I do not have a problem with hosting any of these peoples – and I dare say many of you would either.

    My understanding is that a lot of Christians in the region long ago threw their lot in with the Assads who — as I believe Claire has said elsewhere — are just as cruel as ISIS, only less flashy about it. A lot of them are also extremely anti-Israel and/or downright anti-Semitic.

    Basically, while I agree that different levels of scrutiny are likely warranted toward Christian and Muslim refugees, I think we need to be careful not to stereotype too much in the former’s favor.

    Okay Tom, what Christian sect from the Levant has created an organization that has voiced its desire to, how was it put, “taste our blood”? What Levantine Christian group can you point to that is comparable to ISIL, al Qa’ida, or the Muslim Brotherhood (remember civilization jihad)?

    • #12
  13. Roadrunner Member
    Roadrunner
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: My understanding is that a lot of Christians in the region long ago threw their lot in with the Assads who — as I believe Claire has said elsewhere — are just as cruel as ISIS

    This is very misleading.  It is not an endorsement of Assad but rather a statement of what it means to be a non-Muslim citizen in an Islamic state.  They are less than 8% of the country and are dwarfed by Muslims which are 92% of the country.  I imagine that Syrian Jews prefer Assad as well.  Any secular state in the Middle East treats Christians better than any Islamic State.  After we “liberated” Iraq, Christians were pretty quickly under the gun.  Sadly they were better off under the cruel Saddam Hussein regime.  Like the rape of boys in Afghanistan we have just watched these abuses very quietly.  Our policies in the Middle East have benefited the evil over the weak.

    • #13
  14. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Robert McReynolds:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Paddy Siochain: I am not taking here about the Christian refugees (the world’s forgotten genocide) or the Yazidis or the Kurds (there should be a Kurdistan by now) or any other religious minority in the Middle East. I do not have a problem with hosting any of these peoples – and I dare say many of you would either.

    My understanding is that a lot of Christians in the region long ago threw their lot in with the Assads who — as I believe Claire has said elsewhere — are just as cruel as ISIS, only less flashy about it. A lot of them are also extremely anti-Israel and/or downright anti-Semitic.

    Basically, while I agree that different levels of scrutiny are likely warranted toward Christian and Muslim refugees, I think we need to be careful not to stereotype too much in the former’s favor.

    What Levantine Christian group can you point to that is comparable to ISIL, al Qa’ida, or the Muslim Brotherhood (remember civilization jihad)?

    There is none. I never suggested as much and I’d appreciate it if you’d re-read my comment.

    What I said — and what I’m fairly sure is correct — is that many of the Christian communities in Syria have long-ago thrown their lot in with the Assads who are awful, awful people. I implied and stand behind the implication that “Christian” does not necessarily imply “easily assimilable into the small-l liberal West.”

    I was also wrote:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: I agree that different levels of scrutiny are likely warranted toward Christian and Muslim refugees, I think we need to be careful not to stereotype too much in the former’s favor.

    • #14
  15. Liz Member
    Liz
    @Liz

    Concretevol: I have zero faith in any government screening these applicants really although I doubt the current one would even try very hard.

    Forged Syrian passports are apparently common and easy to obtain. Reporters from the The Daily Mail,  The Telegraph, and Dutch News all were able to purchase forged passports. The Dutch reporter had his passport made up with the Dutch prime minister’s name and photo. Because some of the forgeries use real, stolen documents, they create huge difficulties for screeners.

    • #15
  16. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Secularism is agnosticism in practice. It’s a dodge. Jews, Christians, and Muslims who identify themselves as secular are those who live and talk the same as atheists. They are people who subscribe to a religion culturally or academically, but are not moved by that religion.

    I’ve had a handful of Muslim friends over the years. Though they would fast for Ramadan and observe other rituals, they were generally secular. They were good people because they were secular.

    That’s the problem at its root: Islam itself. When a Muslim lives like Mohammed, the religion’s penultimate role model, that person is tribal and brutal. When a Christian lives like Christ, that person is meek and charitable to all. When a Jew lives like Moses, that person is charitable and just. Mohammed only preached peace before he was powerful enough to slaughter and enslave those who opposed him. The foundation of Islam is antithetical to peace and justice.

    I’m not suggesting that Islam should be banned. But it should not be welcomed and should be argued against. Some religions are objectively better than others. America’s founders were not secularists and wrote about the dangers of Islam. Promotion is not establishment. Rebuttal is not intolerance.

    Refusal to invite more Muslims to immigrate does not prevent us from offering alternative forms of aid, such as establishing safe zones around the region. Christians are called to care about their enemies. We can help them without living with them. That said…

    • #16
  17. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Two things are unalterably true to me: (1) the “refugee” crisis (which is only the latest migration event) represents an existential threat — at least as the term refers to America as many of us understood her to be, and (2) we will not stop it. I commend to you reading about brood parasites(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite). It seems an apt description of what is about to befall us.

    One quote from above-referenced article:

    It has often been a question as to why the majority of the hosts of brood parasites care for the nestlings of their parasites. Not only do these brood parasites usually differ significantly in size and appearance, but it is also highly probable that they reduce the reproductive success of their hosts. The “Mafia Hypothesis” evolved through studies in an attempt to answer this question. This hypothesis revolves around host manipulations induced by behaviors of the brood parasite. Upon the detection and rejection of a brood parasite’s egg, the host’s nest is depredated upon, its nest destroyed and nestlings injured or killed. This threatening response indirectly enhances selective pressures favoring aggressive parasite behavior that may result in positive feedback between Mafia-like parasites and compliant host behaviors.[13]

    We are  faced only with bad choices. I am old enough not to expect to be around when, or if, the country re-establishes the sort of freedoms and relative safety and security that were common (and common sensical) in my youth.

    • #17
  18. RyanFalcone Member
    RyanFalcone
    @RyanFalcone

    I just don’t get it. Millions of people are fleeing less than 100K lunatics and most of these fleeing people are men of fighting age who just months earlier were screaming “Death to (insert name of location they are now fleeing to)”. It just doesn’t add up to me. I’m starting to think maybe we shouldn’t trust these folks. I’m sure that not all of them want to exterminate us though.

    I’m wondering how “compassionate” a surgeon would have to be to find a patient with a growing malignant cancer and instead of cutting it out at great pain to that patient, gently strokes the patients hand and says “There, there. We are going to inject the cancer throughout the rest of your body so that the healthy cells can more effectively absorb the cancerous ones until you are healed.”

    • #18
  19. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Roadrunner:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: My understanding is that a lot of Christians in the region long ago threw their lot in with the Assads who — as I believe Claire has said elsewhere — are just as cruel as ISIS

    This is very misleading. It is not an endorsement of Assad but rather a statement of what it means to be a non-Muslim citizen in an Islamic state. They are less than 8% of the country and are dwarfed by Muslims which are 92% of the country. I imagine that Syrian Jews prefer Assad as well. Any secular state in the Middle East treats Christians better than any Islamic State. After we “liberated” Iraq, Christians were pretty quickly under the gun. Sadly they were better off under the cruel Saddam Hussein regime. Like the rape of boys in Afghanistan we have just watched these abuses very quietly. Our policies in the Middle East have benefited the evil over the weak.

    Assad is the lesser of all evils in Syria, including our own “moderate” rebels. We should have learned our lesson after deposing Kaddafi, but, we’re stupid, and learn nothing.

    • #19
  20. civil westman Inactive
    civil westman
    @user_646399

    Thank you, Paddy. You are a voice of reason confronting facts known to all except those willfully blind in service of the zealotry inherent in multiculturalism.

    Our president(sic) lectured us yesterday that not letting “refugees” settle in the Untied States – with no limiting principle whatsoever – is inimical to “who we are.” Just what constitutes us? According to Obama, surely NOT our written Constitution, which he ignores at every turn.

    Phobias are imagined fears, not fears based in reality, experience and loudly repeated expressed intentions. You bet I fear Islam; I have read its constituting documents. I hear precious few denunciations of violence from the purported large majority of peaceful moderates among them.

    As to “vetting,” a word intended to be a soporific for us, the great unwashed, what does this mean in practice? Are we to believe that bureaucrats, like those so competently and compassionately running Amtrak, the US Post Office, Obamacare (pick your favorite), will thoroughly “vet” those wishing to be admitted. Just how do they plan to do that, given the state of anarchy in Syria? Will they contact their counterparts in the Assad government? A warlord cited as a reference? The local imam at his former mosque? BTW, why do all the photos – straining to show a lone child – show the vast majority of those seeking “refuge” to be young men of military age? From what I have read, all that is required to be admitted is to lie successfully to two interviewers.

    • #20
  21. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    Crabby Appleton:A perfectly legitimate concern is the certainty that Islamists will exploit the situation and send terrorist actors with the “legitimate” migrants.The so-called vetting process is not possibly 100% reliable, so the question to advocates of accepting scores of thousands (!) of migrants is what is an acceptable failure rate?

    If our vetting process is at all similar to Europe’s even 50% reliable would be a grand slam.

    According to Molenbeek’s former mayor, until a few days ago Mohamed Abdeslam, one of the suspects in the Paris attacks, worked in the municipal immigration department.

    • #21
  22. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Roadrunner: This is very misleading.  It is not an endorsement of Assad but rather a statement of what it means to be a non-Muslim citizen in an Islamic state.

    I grant there’s some truth in that, though it doesn’t obviate them of moral responsibility. Assad’s not just some nasty character, but a particularly nasty character who’s an Iranian proxy.

    • #22
  23. Pelayo Inactive
    Pelayo
    @Pelayo

    Crabby Appleton:A perfectly legitimate concern is the certainty that Islamists will exploit the situation and send terrorist actors with the “legitimate” migrants.The so-called vetting process is not possibly 100% reliable, so the question to advocates of accepting scores of thousands (!) of migrants is what is an acceptable failure rate?

    The acceptable failure rate is 0%.  It only takes a handful of terrorists to set off a bomb and kill dozens of victims in crowded places.  The Boston Marathon bombing is a perfect example.  Two crazy brothers did a lot of damage.

    • #23
  24. The Question Inactive
    The Question
    @TheQuestion

    This is clearly a case of what is called the “double effect” in moral philosophy.  Letting Syrian Muslims in to the U.S. is to do two things: 1) provide refuge to thousands of innocent people, and 2) create a security breach that terrorists can use to their advantage in staging attacks on American soil.  Most people favor the first but not the second.  Is the first effect worth the cost of the second effect?  Are there things we can do to mitigate the second effect, like using refugee camps?  I’m not qualified to make that cost-benefit analysis, but that’s the choice we have.  Very few people actually favor rejecting innocent refugees.  They only reject the terrorists.

    • #24
  25. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    civil westman: As to “vetting,” a word intended to be a soporific for us, the great unwashed, what does this mean in practice? Are we to believe that bureaucrats, like those so competently and compassionately running Amtrak, the US Post Office, Obamacare (pick your favorite), will thoroughly “vet” those wishing to be admitted.

    The current process in the US requires somewhere between a year and 18 months to process a single refugee.

    That seems pretty fair to me.

    Sadly, my Prime Minister wants to fast-track our process to get 25,000 of ’em in before January 1.

    • #25
  26. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Pelayo:

    Crabby Appleton:A perfectly legitimate concern is the certainty that Islamists will exploit the situation and send terrorist actors with the “legitimate” migrants.The so-called vetting process is not possibly 100% reliable, so the question to advocates of accepting scores of thousands (!) of migrants is what is an acceptable failure rate?

    The acceptable failure rate is 0%. It only takes a handful of terrorists to set off a bomb and kill dozens of victims in crowded places. The Boston Marathon bombing is a perfect example. Two crazy brothers did a lot of damage.

    Of course, the Tsarnev brothers never went through the United States’ year-long refugee vetting process (though their parents did).

    • #26
  27. Roadrunner Member
    Roadrunner
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: I grant there’s some truth in that, though it doesn’t obviate them of moral responsibility. Assad’s not just some nasty character, but a particularly nasty character who’s an Iranian proxy.

    Putting moral responsibility on people that live in between a rock and a hard place doesn’t seem right.  If you want to point to all those Muslim young men walking into Europe, now your talking.

    Tom, what is your religious background?  Just curious.

    • #27
  28. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Furthermore: Here’s a primer on the United States’ vetting process for refugee applicants.

    Once would hope that this standard of scrutiny will be maintained for all US refugee applicants through 2016.

    The refugees who have flooded into Europe have never received this level of scrutiny, which made it much easier for terrorists to hide among them.

    From another article about the vetting process, here’s an illustration of how the EU has failed to vet its applicants:

    About 80,000 Syrian refugees applied for asylum in Europe in the year ending July 2015—94.5 percent were admitted, compared to an overall admission rate of about 64 percent. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 95 percent of the about 70,000 refugees from Albania and Serbia had their applications rejected.

    • #28
  29. The Beard of Avon Inactive
    The Beard of Avon
    @TheBeardofAvon

    I found myself wondering this morning how much the vetting process would be improved by passing a law stating that anyone at any level of government who was involved in the vetting / approval process would be guilty of depraved indifference manslaughter should someone they approved commit an act of terror.

    • #29
  30. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    Does anyone on Ricochet actually believe that immigration should be allowed to alter the ethnic make-up of a nation?

    In 1965 our legislators swore to us that the immigration reform law they were debating would not do that. Events proved that they lied. But today our legislators tell us it is illegitimate, that it is borderline immoral to oppose immigration that will further the fundamental ethnic transformation they deceived us about in 1965.

    Is it?

    Is it just illegitimate and immoral for the United States? After all, no one – I repeat, no one – is asking Japan or China or South Korea or India to take any of these refugees. The first three of those nations never allow immigrants to change their ethnic balances, their ethnic homogeneity, despite having huge, vibrant economies. Are they “special?”

    Personally, I’d prefer to reverse the transformation that has afflicted the US in the last 50 years, one which has made us less united and communal, among many other negative characteristics. My ideal immigration and emigration reform policies would strive to engineer a return to the ethnic breakdown of pre-1965 America.

    To quote from a song sung by five sandy-haired youths who lived in a place once known as the “Golden State:”

    “Wouldn’t it be nice?”

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.