How Can We Make It Politically OK to Talk About Limiting Muslim Immigration?

From American Thinker

Every so often, there is a massacre.  Sometimes the monsters who commit them have names like Dylann Roof, but more often than not they have names like Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez or Nidal Malik Hasan.  Given the fact that the vast majority of people in America are Christian, and only a small minority are Muslim, the preponderance of Muslim mass killers only further highlights the disproportionate number of killers who come from that community.

Let’s be very direct: a substantial minority of Muslims in the world support terrorism and genocide.  That has to be true for organizations like ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and so on to exist.  These are large organizations, and they cannot exist without members and supporters, most (but not all) of them from countries in the Middle East.

Does it make sense, then, that we allow immigration of Muslims into the U.S.?  Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a Muslim Palestinian immigrant from Kuwait.  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon, was a Muslim immigrant from Kyrgyzstan.

They both killed many people.  And they are not the only ones.  Most Muslims we let into the United States will not become mass murderers.  But the problem is that a substantial minority of them sympathize with mass murderers, and some of those will go on to actually become mass murderers.  And the biggest point to make is that there is often no way for authorities to distinguish between a “conservative religious Muslim” and a “conservative religious Muslim who will commit mass murder.”

Given that, does it not make sense that we should limit immigration of Muslims into America?  If this were World War II, would we admit immigrants from Germany?  If this were the 1950s, would we admit immigrants from Korea, or from North Vietnam in the 1960s?  Of course not.  Because we were at war with them.

Let’s be frank: we are currently at war with a extremely violent and radical minority of the Muslim population of the world.  When they are off the battlefield, they are often impossible to identify.  Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was not on anyone’s radar.  He seemed like a normal middle-class boy (well, normal except for the marijuana and the use of a “white powdery substance” under his nose that he told the police was caffeine powder).

Given that, why can’t we speak frankly and say, “We don’t know who these killers are in advance.  But quite frequently they are foreign-born Muslims, some of whom we are at war with, or more to the point feel that they are at war with us. Why shouldn’t we have a discussion about limiting their entry into the United States?”

You know, if we had white immigrants from South Africa, and a minority of those were mass-murdering blacks in America, you can bet that immigration would be stopped immediately.  Why should this be any different?

If people can be made to understand that open borders and the importation of Muslim refugees has a part in mass murders, perhaps minds can be changed.  Politicians call dismissively for “better screening,” but how can you really look into the background of thousands of people from a third-world country?  Unless they are already on a terrorist watch list, what the State Department does is basically take them at their word.

If people could be made to realize that this “screening” is a sham, perhaps minds could be changed.

Above all, we have to fight the racism or “Islamophobia” tag.  A phobia, after all, is a fear not based in reality.  But this fear is based on a very real threat.  We take our first steps when each of us speaks out.  The left silences us by making us afraid to talk.  But if enough of us start talking about it, it will create a space that will be acceptable.  That’s what Mark Levin does, making topics acceptable so other hosts can talk about them.  And on a smaller scale, you can do it, too, in your own community with your friends and neighbors.  (Unless you live in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or D.C.)

Sharia Unveiled has the breakdown:

According to U.S. Census Data, the United States admits roughly 100,000 Muslim immigrants legally each year, representing the fastest growing block of immigration into the United States. Tennessee, in fact, is home to one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the country, causing the President to give a recent speech there in favor of expansive immigration. The Mayor of Nashville has launched a New American Advisory Council to help facilitate the legally-sanctioned transition from the previous inhabitants of Nashville to the new ones.

Both of Tennessee’s Senators, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), helped pass the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill which would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next ten years.

Unlike illegal immigrants, legal immigrants invited into the United States with green cards are granted automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Obama ‘Flooding’ US With ‘Huge Surge’ Of Muslim Immigrants

Pew Research has estimated that immigration will cause the population of U.S. Muslims to more than double over the next two decades—from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030. This demographic change is entirely the product of legal admissions–that is, it is a formal policy of the federal government adopted by Congress.

Another major source of Middle Eastern immigration into the United States is done through our nation’s refugee program. Every year the United Stated admits 70,000 asylees and refugees. Arabic is the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The importation of Middle Eastern immigrants through the nation’s refugee program has led to the development of pockets of radicalized communities throughout the United States.

Minnesota, for instance, which has the largest Somali population in the country, has struggled to stem terror recruiting. The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported that six men from Minnesota were arrested and charged attempting to fight alongside ISIS. During the last two years alone, more than 20 Somali-Americans from Minnesota have left the U.S. to fight alongside terrorists under the banner of ISIL.

Similarly, as National Review has reported, “Dearborn, Michigan is home to just under 100,000 people, about 40 percent of whom are Muslim. In 2013, a leaked government document revealed that more people from Dearborn were on the federal terrorist watch list than from any other city except New York.”

The head of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Union, Kenneth Palinkas, recently warned about this very issue: “It is also essential to warn the public about the threat that ISIS will exploit our loose and lax visa policies to gain entry to the United States. Indeed, as we know from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, from the Boston Bombing, from the recent plot to bomb a school and courthouse in Connecticut, and many other lesser-known terror incidents, we are letting terrorists into the United States right through our front door.”

He listed a number of terror attacks in which the attackers were immigrants voluntarily imported into the United States, including the Boston Marathon Bombing. None of these attacks would have occurred but for immigration sanctioned by the federal government.

News reports show that this is similarly emerging as a problem in Florida. A recent piece in The Tampa Tribune reveals that Florida now leads the nation as the number one state resettling refugees.

As one Floridian community liaison manager with Refugee Services estimated for The Tampa Tribune, Florida settles 27,000 refugees, on average, per year.

According to the federal government, Florida resettled 43,184 refugees in 2013.

While most of these refugees settling in Florida arrive from Cuba, many arrive from Middle Eastern countries. According to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, the next largest countries to resettle in Florida after Cuba are (in order) Iraq, Myanmar (Burma), the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Colombia, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, and Palestine.

The Tampa Tribune reports that many of these Muslim refugees are carving out their own Muslim communities within Florida (similar to what refugees have done in Dearborn and Minneapolis): “Many of the refugees finding homes in the Tampa Bay area are Muslim because the region has an established Muslim community.”

The Tampa Tribune also notes that most of these refugees, precisely because they are invited in legally by our government, will go on to seek citizenship. Tampa immigration lawyer B. John Ovink told The Tampa Tribune, “Citizenship is straightforward. Once they enter as refugees or are granted asylum, they apply for permanent residency, the proof of which is a green card. It’s pretty automatic unless something changes in their country of origin and they are forced to go back. But I haven’t seen that happen in the 22 years I’ve been practicing law.”

On the heels of these developments, two Republican Senators– Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Dan Coats (R-IN)–have announced plans to substantially increase immigration from countries with large Muslim populations as a condition of a new highway bill. They are proposing to attach “highly-skilled” immigration bills from last Congress, which would expand the number of STEM workers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)–large numbers of whom come from countries with large Muslim populations like Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia. The Tennessee killer was himself an engineering student.

Similarly, presidential contender Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has also introduced immigration legislation that would substantially increase opportunities for Muslim immigration by creating an uncapped green card program for foreign students specializing in STEM fields while tripling the number of H-1B visas. One of the fastest growing groups of foreign students are from Saudi Arabia, helping propel the foreign student population to an all-time high.

Senator Rubio’s statement on the terrorist attack in Tennessee did not mention anything about Islam.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The question: how can you really look into the background of thousands of people from a third-world country? 

The Answer: Actually they don’t need to be on any watch list to look into their background. Canada already is looking into all backgrounds of muslims wishing to immigrate to Canada. Our Intelligence Agency ( CSIS) is working with the Israeli Intelligence Agency ( Mossad) and their backgrounds are being scrutinized for any criminal activity or terrorist ties. They don’t get into Canada until this is done and they have been given a clearance to do so. Even our student visas and refugees are scrutinized.

Let me ask this. If you were a terrorist, would you try to go to a country where you knew your background would be heavily scrutinized before hand or would you go to a country where you know that your admission in is a cake walk? Would you go to a country where there are no safe enclaves ( no go zones) for you to hide in or one where there are many scattered across the country? A country where even your next door neighbour, who happens to be muslim, might report your behavior to the authorities, or a country where that very rarely if any possibility happens? A country that says that you can not bring your barbaric cultural customs with you and your assimilation into the country’s culture is paramount or a country that will defend your barbarism against it’s own citizens? If I were a terrorist…I’d pick B country every time!

Is this profiling…perhaps…but this is now how we do things in Canada and the way that must be done to have some assurance that a country is not allowing in terrorists.

Throwing open your doors to all is not the way to assure anything but your demise! Would any citizen of Canada or America open their front and back doors wide and yell out “Everyone welcome, come on in”? Not if you have a single working brain cell! You know that is only asking for big trouble! Most folks I know would keep their doors locked and be standing armed with shotguns to any fool stupid enough to try and come into their home!

So….If a country is really serious about protecting their citizens, then there has to be some means and standards to follow when unknown individuals wish to come into the country.

The statement: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was not on anyone’s radar. He was definitely on someone’s radar but no one bothered to look into his background further than what was presented before them. If you had all the American Security Agencies and law enforcement working together and sharing information, I would bet they would have found lots of information on him before he went jihad!

The biggest problem my Southern cuzzins are facing is an Administration that is hell bent on bringing down America. Until that can be fixed…there isn’t anything much that can be done…except perhaps…..keeping your powder dry and praying that you won’t be needing it! But eh…that’s just my opinion.

~Blessed B~

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to How Can We Make It Politically OK to Talk About Limiting Muslim Immigration?

  1. Hardnox says:

    Powder is dry.

  2. Kathy says:

    I have always thought that profiling was a key tool we should be using to our benefit and not the political pariah that it’s painted to be. There was a big scuffle about it being used in Arizona a couple of years ago and of course it got swiftly hushed up.

    When you look at who’s committing the majority of the crimes in this country, how can you NOT use it?

    Not until we get a new regime in the WH will there be any discussion of limiting immigration, and it’s doubtful there’ll be much talk of it even then. Not with so many Rs pushing to allow more of them in and speed up the process.

    • Blessed B. says:

      IMHO…I don’t see the problem with scrutinizing who is wanting into the country. The government has lots of information and data on almost every person that lives within the country anyways….so why not gather information on someone wanting in? A government could even have it stipulated on the immigration form that intensive background checks will be performed. If the person doesn’t want that done due to terrorist ties or being a criminal trying to evade the law….then they don’t need to come into your country. They can find some other country to run to.

      I’d really like to know why so many R’s are pushing for speeding up the process and letting them in. With high unemployment and food stamps being at an all time high already due to O’s anti-American agenda…where do they think the monies is going to come from to pay for all the extras that they are letting in?

      I can understand if they would speed up the process for refugees but even then an intensive background check should be done so that you aren’t letting in criminals.

  3. vonmesser says:

    It will only be politically OK when we start using the term out loud whenever it needs to be mentioned. And when we start challenging – all the time – the non-users.

    • Blessed B. says:

      I think that maybe the answer vm. Stop being so worried about offending someone and stop being so PC…. that would go a long ways just in itself.