By Hugh Fitzgerald
In general, Western countries should not make refugee status available to Muslims who continue to identify themselves as Muslims. If they claim that they are ill-treated under a Muslim system, perhaps because of political despotism, or perhaps because of inshallah-fatalism, or perhaps because of the mistreatment of women that is not only “cultural” but is reinforced by Islam, when it is not entirely caused by it, or perhaps because they just prefer life in the advanced West where there is great legal and social solicitude for the individual, that is all the more reason to make them either openly recognize the Muslim roots of the miserable condition of the countries from which they come, and so abandon Islam, rather than come to the overpopulated, overtaxed, disrupted and far too-tolerant and too-generous societies of the Western world, and bring their troubles to us.
The first thought should always be: what does the admission of such people, who call themselves Muslims, do to perceived Muslim numbers, and therefore to Muslim power? We have example after example of Shi’a Iraqis and Kurdish Iraqis (see Nashville, Tennessee) who claimed to be “refugees” from Saddam Hussein, and who of course are no longer “refugees” and could go right back to Shi’a-controlled parts of Iraq, or Kurdish-controlled parts of Iraq. But they stay. And the evidence suggests that they do not abandon Islam, but are disruptive and hostile and even, and not infrequently, downright dangerous to us — to the Infidels who naively hand out that “refugee status” to all kinds of people.
Need one point out the effect on such places as Lewiston, Maine, of the Somalis now in our midst? Foundation and government grants intended for “immigrants” have at times been monopolized by Muslims who quickly learn how to manipulate groups intended to support or promote “refugees” for purely Muslim ends. There is the increase in expense for welfare benefits, as the Jizyah is complacently relied on. There is the hostility and disruption in the schools. There are the louche activities of every kind.
What are these Somali “refugees” actually refugees from? They are refugees from the misrule of Islam. Yet they bring their Islam with them. And that spells trouble for all non-Muslims. Why should we admit those who continue to be adherents of and devout believers in a Total Belief-System that inculcates the notion that for us, the Infidels, there can only be, at best, the permanent status of dhimmis under Muslim rule — that is, a status, when Muslims rule, of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
Why should we do anything at all, in any way, to make that threat larger? It makes no sense.
As for those who came from Iraq as “refugees from Saddam Hussein,” need one point out that Saddam Hussein is gone, and there is no reason to continue to remain as “refugees from Saddam Hussein,” especially not if, among for example those Shi’a “refugees from Saddam Hussein” are those who are great admirers of Shi’a theocracy or, if not, admirers of the demagogic likes of glowering Moqtada al-Sadr.
Take the case of Somalia, often described — always without any explanation of what that phrase means — as a “failed state.” Somalia is indeed no longer a unified state, but one where warlords and their kalashnikov-toting bezonians compete for power. The despotism that Islam encourages, or does nothing to discourage, is found there in abundance. There is also the absence of a national consciousness, that Islam, by insisting on loyalty to a trans-national Umma instead of to a nation-state, and to fellow citizens of that state, encourages. In Somalia today all this has had the seemingly paradoxical but easily explicable effect of encouraging loyalty instead at the level that humans can understand — that is, to those most immediately at hand, to family and extended family and to tribe or sect. And inshallah-fatalism helps to explain why there is economic stasis in any Muslim societies where the easy unmerited wealth of oil or gas is not to be found. This stasis is sometimes relieved by Infidel aid (see Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan) or by a cultivated connection to an Infidel economy (see Tunisia in relation to France). Nevertheless, there is more or less stasis and hopelessness. And indeed such inshallah-fatalism may also explain the failure of even the most fabulously rich Muslim states, such as Saudi Arabia and the sheikdoms, to develop something beyond rentier-economies, or to lessen their total dependence on foreign wage-slaves to do all the real work.
No, the case of Somalia is instructive. Whatever the misrule in Somalia, it is misrule that comes out of Islam, and the attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, unrescued by oil wealth or the Jizyah of Western foreign aid. Whatever the condition of Somalia, it is folly for this country, or any Infidel land, to admit any more Somali “refugees” — whether to Minneapolis, where they were two years ago busy organizing and voting for Keith Ellison, now the standard-bearer for Islam in Congress, or in Lewiston, Maine, where just a few years ago the Mayor was hounded as a monster for daring to suggest that the influx of Somalis was bankrupting the city and depriving native Mainers (Maine is a poor state) of aid that they needed. But he was right. He was, in fact, understating the problem. For those Somali immigrants need a level of support, though they never paid into the system. And with their wives (and sometimes hidden wives) and many children (Somali cabdrivers will boast of how they or their friends can fiddle the system, can hide a wife or two), they tax the system of benefits, local and state, beyond what anyone ever contemplated.
Start making policy that is based on a clear understanding that adherents of Islam are bearers of an alien and a hostile creed, and that the more such adherents there are, the more difficult — automatically — life becomes for the indigenous Infidels, and for other, non-Muslim immigrants, as well.
Somali Muslims who settle in the non-Muslim Western world (especially Italy and the United States) inevitably add to the demographic problem, even if they were hard-working blahblahblah. All immigration from Somalia should be barred, permanently. We owe Somalis, Iraqis, and others absolutely nothing. Let them stay in their own countries, or move to other Muslim countries, where since they share the supremely defining feature of Muslims — that is, their belief-system — they may join fellow members of the Umma al-Islamiyya among whom, by the way, are many of the recipients of the most fabulous transfer of wealth in human history. Surely Saudi Arabia and the Gulf statelets, not to mention Iraq and Iran and Libya and Algeria and other members of OPEC, can take in some fellow Muslims. Isn’t that what the whole idea of that single “Umma” is all about?
Loading ...
