The government faces new embarrassment over Britain’s porous borders with the revelation that one in four terrorist suspects arrested in Britain is an asylum seeker. ...From turn-of-the-century figures, Great Britain receives about 100,000 asylum applications each year, of which about three-fourths are deemed to be legitimate. By contrast, there are over 1.5 million Muslims in the UK, the majority of whom are of Middle Eastern or Central Asian descent. Roughly then, foreign-born asylum seekers represent 8% or so of the British population but 24% of identifiable terrorism suspects. They are dispropotionately bad (three times so), even by Muslim standards.
A Home Office analysis of those arrested under antiterrorism laws from 2001 to 2005 found that almost a quarter – 24%, or 232 out of 963 – had previously applied for asylum.
Home-grown terrorists are undoubtedly a problem. But terrorists are more heavily concentrated among new arrivals than they are among the settled British Muslim population at large. This isn't surprising, as an astounding 92% of British imams are foreign-born, and only 6% of these British prayer leaders speak English as their primary language. Further, that so many identified terrorist suspects are asylum seekers reveals Britain's current trends in granting asylum to be unwise, irrespective of whether or not it is worse than the settled Muslim population.
The British need to realize that by taking in asylum seekers, they are domestically placing themselves at risk--a voluntary risk that is totally avoidable. The public needs to be aware of that. The question of admitting those fleeing from their homelands shouldn't be shrouded only in compassionate rhetoric. To obfuscate the matter in such a way is a dereliction of moral responsibility. If you take in a wandering pit bull to give the dog a nice home, it's essential you be aware of what that might entail. And a significant number of these ones see Mecca, not London, as their master.
This troubling revelation comes as the US expects to take in 7,000 Iraqi refugees by the end of September. Until now, the US had been stingy on the Iraqi asylum-granting front, taking in tens to the low hundreds (totaling less than 800) in each of the five years in which the war in Iraq has been taking place. Why, while little Sweden is ingesting 8,000 Iraqi refugees annually, has the US refused to open up? Concerns over national security, not surprisingly:
The United States has been unable to accept more Iraqis in part because of the time needed for background checks, which have become more stringent since 9/11, Ellen Sauerbrey, assistant secretary of State, told USA TODAY.Some 2,000 of those 7,000 will be headed to the Detroit metro area, home to 300,000 people of Middle Eastern descent (incidentally, this doesn't strike me as the most prudent way to go after assimilation into the broader American culture). How many of these people will harbor hostility towards the West that might make itself known in the form of terrorist activity? Perhaps very few, as most of these refugees will be women and children who are considered sympathizers to the US' actions in Iraq. Then again, how many is too many?
National security is the safest way to argue for more restrictive immigration policies, as it's the angle least susceptible to moralistic criticism. But there are other concerns less spectacular but ultimately more important, like culture. RP also reports on a heinous murder that occured recently in London:
A father who ordered the killing of his daughter after finding out she had a boyfriend has been jailed for life.I wonder how many of the Iraqi refugees to the US will be Christians. The more the better.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was raped and tortured before being strangled and buried in a suitcase in Birmingham. ...
Ms Sood, who specialises in Asian family cases, told BBC Radio Five Live "honour crimes of some sort" whether or not they resulted in death, were becoming more common in the UK.
"But certainly honour crimes are being perpetrated in the hundreds every year," she said.
The Kurds are the closest thing we have to allies in Iraq, despite the tension brewing between Kurdistan and another putative ally, Turkey, over the activities of the socialist-nationalist PKK operating in part out of Iraq's Kurdish north. Yet Kurdish society (and Islam in general) is not compatible with Western values, as the aforementioned story about honor killings attests.
It's past time for the West and the Muslim civilizations, which have been in conflict since almost the time of Islam's birth in the Seventh Century, to be separated from one another. No more immigration from the Islamic world into Europe, North America, or Australia. Do as France is doing under Sarkozy's leadership, and attempt to buy out the most impulsive (least intelligent/productive) legal Muslim residents. Forcibly remove those in country illegally. Developing economically viable energy alternatives to oil must become a national priority.
What is par for the course in Muslim cultures is revolting to Westerners and our concepts of personal liberty, isonomy, and inalienable rights. Conversely, from North Africa to Pakistan, Muslim majorities want us to back off. Disconnecting is better for both of us.