Refugee immigration is a very polarizing subject in many countries right now, except the oil-rich Gulf states where there are no refugees, in spite of the fact that Qatar needs and has accommodation for 70,000 right now. But they will draw workers for the construction of Olympic venues from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc; none from Syria.
My own position on the whole migrant issue is very firmly straddling the fence - that's probably why I find it so painful! The need for rescuing people from war-ravaged Syria and Iraq is obvious and God help us if we ignore that need - we will have to answer to Him.
Which begs the question, Why are American Christians so dead-set against it? Well, some of the answers are below, nevertheless I can't help but be perplexed as to why Americans would fear a mere 10,000 immigrants. Americans own at least 25 guns for every one of those immigrants. Christ's command to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and house the homeless, leaves me very concerned that American Christians are acting less and less like Christ every day.
But there are many concerns beyond the refusal of Gulf states to accept any refugees. These concerns are not sufficient for me to be emphatically opposed to refugee immigration, but they should certainly not be ignored.
The first concern is the probable embedding of ISIS operatives among the migrants. France has identified at least two of the suicide bombers who blew themselves to Hell outside the Stade de France last week, as having come through Greece and being processed as migrants. The other day Sweden arrested another migrant who arrived in that country in September, for plotting an act of terrorism in Sweden.
That's three that we know about, which is a pitifully small number compared to the hundreds of thousands of migrants entering Europe over the past few months. However, most migrants have yet to find even a semi-permanent accommodation, so it would be much too soon to expect such operatives to plan and execute an act of terror. Also, it does verify that there are terrorists among the migrants as expected.
Thorough vetting needed
This, however, need not be a problem with thorough vetting of asylum seekers. Applicants have to be questioned about their religious beliefs! If done properly, it should be possible to identify those Muslims who have been radicalized. Perhaps a cartoon picture of Mohammed would reveal a persons true character. (That's going to stir up some comments). This may require some changes in immigration laws to be able to question applicants in such a way, but is necessary in my opinion.
Single young men, or married young men without children need to be vetted much more vigorously than those with children. There must be adequate proof of paternity in such cases. Women with children probably need little vetting and pre-teen children none at all. This last group, children and their mothers, and the elderly should be quickly processed, while the remainder investigated much more thoroughly.
One of the things for which they should be investigated is whether they are true war refugees or just economic refugees. There are many among the migrants who come from countries other than Iraq or Syria, who simply want a better way of life than possible in their own countries. Most African applicants fall into this category, although Christians from some Islamic countries definitely deserve asylum. For proof of that simply look at the number of Christians who have been tossed overboard into the Mediterranean by Muslims on their boat.
It's slightly crazy that Muslims would leave Muslim countries where there is poverty and war, and come to Christian countries where they hate everyone to the point of murder, for the opportunity to better their lives. And they bring their failed religion that is responsible for the poverty and war in their home countries, to countries with working economies. This cannot be a good thing for some European economies or peacefulness.
They also bring their cultural traditions like child brides (Mohammed approved pedophilia); honour killings, female genital mutilation, and a penchant for instant mass insanity should someone suggest that another has burned a Quran. It is this remarkable volatility that instantly turns moderate Muslims into murderous fanatics that frightens me more than anything - instant mass radicalization.
In Britain, they have determined that the latest generation of youth and young adults are considerably more devout than their parents. A devout Muslim is one who is much more easily radicalized than than a nominal Muslim.
Another cultural tradition they have brought to Europe is the idea that they have a right, if not the duty, to gang-rape any girl who dresses immodestly in public. Immodesty to Muslims is anything a girl wears that does not render her invisible.
They also have the right, under Mohammed, to do whatever they wish to a girl who is "in their right-hand"; that means under their power. So any Muslim man who manages to get an European girl into his car or apartment, has the right, from Mohammed, to do whatever he wants with her, whether rape, beating, or trafficking to other Muslims.
It's not a coincidence that Sweden went from a country with one of the lowest rates of rape in the world to the second highest in 30 or 40 years. Nor is it a coincidence that that ratio has increased in nearly perfect parallel to the increase in immigration from mainly Muslim countries. Police in Oslo, Norway have stated that every single violent rape that occurred in that city over the past 5 years, was committed by a Muslim.
Do you see why I don't particularly want an increase in the Muslim population in western countries. There is also the fact that many radical Muslim clerics have stated quite willingly that Islam will absorb all of Europe, simply by immigration and birth rates. Such is the case in France and Belgium, and some even say Britain, where Muslims will be a majority within one or two generations - without increased immigration! Most of Europe is recklessly driving at break-neck speed toward cultural extinction and the imposition of Sharia law.
|Most fgms are done by non-|
professionals without anesthetic
Trouble is, taking any kind of action against Muslims just increases their argument of victimhood. That, in turn, incites more 'moderates' to become radicalized, and encourages new Muslims to take action against the common enemy - everybody that isn't them.
Sounds pretty hopeless, I know. I won't try to convince you that the situation isn't very serious. As a Christian, I believe we are in the 'last days', prophesied by many Biblical writers, and, as such, things will get worse, much worse, before it gets better at the return of Christ. Deterioration may not occur linearly; we may be able to hold off much of it for decades; the answer to that may lie in whether we can reduce the increasing rhythm of fear and terror, along with the increasing number of countries so affected.
I hope I have made you aware of the danger, at least; its imminence will reveal itself soon enough.