Islam and Sharia Law Can Not Co-exist in Western Cultures 2

Waves of Middle East immigrants is not new to Western Societies.
There have been several concentrated movements over the centuries in Europe and then the US and Canada more recently from the late 1880’s. Most of the waves were a direct result of conflicts between tribes, countries, and the Christian Middle Eastern faiths.

First Wave

In the last years of the 1800’s a few 10’s of thousands arrived seeking protection, many from these areas Christians. After World War I and the destruction of the Ottoman stranglehold a second group began to arrive on the shores of many countries.

In the case of the United States, immigrants from the Arabic region were mostly the educated, financially stable who professed to be Christians from the different regions of the Middle East. The first significant wave in the 19th-20th century of Arab immigration began in the 1870s and lasted until 1924 when the Johnson-Reed Quota Act was passed nearly ending immigration from this region for the time being.

The overwhelming majority of Arab immigrants during this period came from the Ottoman province of Syria, which currently encompasses the countries of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine. A predominantly Christian population, these Arab immigrants followed several branches of Christianity, primarily Maronite, Melkite and Eastern Orthodoxy.

During this period of time only five to ten percent of all Arab immigrants were Muslim, and an even smaller fraction were Druze. Many of the first immigrants from this region became involved in the New York and New Jersey garment industry. By 1924 there were 25 Syrian owned and operated silk factories in Paterson and West Hoboken,as well as businesses and industries in New Jersey and in New York.

Second Wave

After unrest and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire– From 1948 until 1966, only 80,000 Arabs officially immigrated to the United States mostly to escape the Israeli confict. Of these 80,000, the majority were ethnic Palestinians while the second largest group was made up of Egyptians.

This new group of immigrants differed greatly from their predecessors, most markedly in their religious backgrounds. 90 percent of all first wave Arab immigrants professed Christianity as opposed to only 40 percent in the second wave. Moreover, this group tended to be better educated, the majority of males having college degrees, and in much better financial states than the first wave immigrants.

Many of the Arabs that immigrated between 1950–1965 were members of the established elite in countries like Egypt, Syria, and Iraq who fled due to popular revolutions and the new regimes that came with them. Palestinian immigrants during this time commonly went to Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, or Syria before making the journey to the United States. The number of immigrants remained relatively small during the second wave of Arab immigration, primarily due to the restrictive immigration policies of the US.

Third Wave

In 1965 that all changed though with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. It was proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler (D) of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart (D) of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts.

Just as with the previous influx of Arab immigrants, the third major Arab immigration trend consisted of more Palestinians than any other group. The actual number of Palestinians who immigrated to the US during this time is not known because often the United States was not their first destination. Perhaps as many as a quarter of the nearly 800,000 Arabs were of Palestinian descent. The massive Palestinian exodus was further motivated by the 1967 Six Day War and other uprisings.

Aside from Palestinians, Lebanese made up the next biggest group of immigrants during this time. From 1965 to 2005 around 135,000 Lebanese came to the United States. The overwhelming majority, roughly 120,000, came after the commencement of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975. Furthering the emigration from Lebanon was Israel’s 1982 invasion. Egyptians and Iraqis also immigrated to the United States in large numbers during this period. From 1967 to 2003 more than 120,000 Egyptians have immigrated to the US. Of this population, around 50,000 were Coptic Christians. Also, since 1967, 108,000 Iraqis have come to the US. Many fled during the country’s drawn-out war with Iran lasting from 1980–1988.

Again, in keeping with the “brain-drain” trend of the region, a large portion of these immigrants were educated professionals not willing to serve in the army. Harsh United Nations sanctions following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait further deteriorated Iraq’s economy, increasing emigration. Between the first and second US invasions of Iraq roughly 53,000 Iraqis immigrated to the United States.

A sizable portion of Iraqi immigrants during this time were Chaldean Christians. For instance, in Detroit alone from 1960–2003 the Chaldean community grew from 3,000 to 80,000, out of a total population of around 150,000 Iraqi Chaldeans in the US as of 2006. Large numbers of Syrians and Yemenis immigrated to the United States during this wave as well. Since 1967, some 36,000 Syrians have immigrated to the US.

Then life began to change in the Mid-East as Islam re-emerged more harsh and restrictive than before. It’s laws and structure were mobilized not into a single country but determined to retake the lands split apart by the treaties concerning the Ottoman Empire.

Then was born a massive plan of not only the Mid-East but of worldwide domination. Taking to heart the teachings of Mohammed they devised and began executing a plan to make this world takeover happen. Included in this plan was making sure to actively and quietly infiltrate, change, and remake laws on all levels of country host governments until final takeover.

One directive was to slowly seed communities, intergrating but not assimilating until numbers and influence built up enough for a second stage. Then they expected their followers to set up enclaves of pure Arabic muslim communities, educating and maintaining strict inner city communities where Westerners were prohibited from entry.

Once done, these communities developed plans on how to change and conform local, state, and federal governments to accept their ways, religion, and laws. There was no assimilation or crossing of ethnic or religious lines allowed from that point on except as needed to further their cause. Sharia law was recognized in those enclaves and by this time to an extent in governments. As these enclaves gained strength of purpose and numbers, violence between Islamic and Western cultures began to escalate. Their Sharia was in direct opposition to government judicial systems.

As a side note, the need to assimilate or blend cultures and socially acceptable behavior is a definite risk if any were to attempt to move away from the enclaves as that is seen as an abandonment of Islam and the punishment is death.

Higher drain on government resources happen in enclaves as the more civilized countries try to train, educate, and prepare these living in enclaves to assimilate which so far has not appeared to be in any way successful.  From the little I can gather, they learn key methods to drain the most possible money from the nation’s resources like welfare and housing, and food until they have bankrupted the country then conveniently step in to “help” their new country pick up the pieces. Is it fueled by hatred and mistrust on both sides?  Absolutely.   Can either side win a peacefil solution?  In my opinion, No.  Countries attempt to bend to provide more inclusion yet activities and actions negate any benefit while giving rise to more violence.  So long as a religious group of this magnitude supports violence and extremism while pushing a specific agenda of taking control of the world, there can be no peacefull coexistence.

These enclaves set up their own education systems from early childhood to colleges. Classes and training in the schools is rarely of a kind or coexistent with education outside. In otherwords, as the enclave grows and gains strength it becomes a new “Islamic” armed country for the world of Islam. Studies seem to suggest that immigrants from these regions or enclaves have been increasingly less educated since 1965 according to Western culture standards but definitely more immersed in Islamic teachings and rumored training for aggressive takeovers of the host countries.

There are several examples where problems are ramping up between the currently established enclaves and locals here in the United States already though not yet to the same disastrous extent as Europe. The best reasoning for removing the threat of enclaves within a country including restrictions to immigration numbers, education, and governance can be seen in how they overrode some of the European countries since mass migration began there.




About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Islam and Sharia Law Can Not Co-exist in Western Cultures 2

  1. Clyde says:

    Damn good post, Uriel. The one thing the left, and muslims have in common is a HUGE disdain for the TRUTH. Good work.

  2. Kathy says:

    Great piece, Uriel, and the video is an eye-opener. It’s takes the work of hidden cameras like this guy used, to get to the truth, because the media, in all countries, won’t tell us the truth.

    Indeed, France is adapting to islam, instead of the other way around, and the idea that their cathedrals could be converted to mosques isn’t far fetched at all. The fact that our national cathedral was used for a muslim prayer service is a sign of how easy it is for them to convince others and their governments to cooperate..all in the name of tolerance and freedom of religion of course.

    The French people demonstrate, as do the people in Italy, Denmark and Germany, but their words fall of the deaf ears of their lefty governments. They’re cast as haters and their demonstrations are too late.

  3. Blessed B says:

    What is needed for the countries with muslim only enclaves is not to allow any group to have separate enclaves….there has to be a mixture of ethnicities within an area.

    Canada does not have no-go zones. A community must have a mixture of ethnicities. Only 60% of any one group.

    This can be checked through the land titles office which is public record…… Provincial and Federal Gov’ts can keep track of what ethnicities are in any one area.

    • Kathy says:

      Umm, I dunno about that – how do you regulate a neighborhood’s mixture of ethnicities and still call it a free country? The government gets to tell me which side of town I can live/buy property in?

      We just need a government that’s for us and not complicit in the muslim takeover, and we need it retro to when this encroachment started. We’ve been missing that for a very long time, as have many other countries.