Bryan Fischer
April 8, 2010
Time to restrict Muslim immigrants to U.S., send them back home
By Bryan Fischer

(It should be noted that the American Family Association has not taken a position on this issue.)

Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels spent hundreds of hours counseling Muslim youth in Danish prisons, and shared what he learned about Muslim culture in a recently published book, Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist's Experience from Copenhagen. An astonishing 70 percent of the prison population in the Copenhagen youth prison are men of Muslim heritage.

The Danes spend 300,000 euros ($400,000 U.S.) a year on social problems created by Muslim immigrants. It would be a far better use of those funds, he argues, to use them to send Muslim immigrants back to countries which share their fundamental values, where perhaps they can serve as ambassadors for more free and democratic societies in their countries of origin by taking with them some of the ideas and ideals they observed in the West.

Sennels recounts some of the sobering lessons he learned about Islam in an interview with EuropeNews, which you can read here.

His sobering conclusion, with which I agree: the integration of Muslims into Western societies is "impossible."

It's time, he says, to "immediately stop all immigration of people from Muslim countries to Europe until we have proven that integration of Muslims is possible."

And secondly, he believes that we should help current Muslim immigrants "build a new and meaningful life in a society that they understand and that understands them." This means, he says, "to assist them in starting a new life in a Muslim country."

Here are the takeaways for the United States. First, the most compassionate thing we can do for Americans is to bring a halt to the immigration of Muslims into the U.S. This will protect our national security and preserve our national identity, culture, ideals and values. Muslims, by custom and religion, are simply unwilling to integrate into cultures with Western values and it is folly to pretend otherwise. In fact, they remain dedicated to subjecting all of America to sharia law and are working ceaselessly until that day of Islamic imposition comes.

The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?

In other words, simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S.

Sennels explodes several myths of Muslim integration along the way.

First, he points out that there is a vast difference in cultural background between those who grow up in a Muslim culture and those who grow up in a culture whose values have been shaped by Christianity. There is, he says, "extremely disproportional anti-social and anti-democratic behavior among Muslims." The Danish Bureau of Statistics discovered that Muslim countries take the first eight places on the top-10 list of criminals' country of origin. Denmark the home country comes in number nine on its own list.

Second, he concludes that Muslim criminality is caused by Islam or "Muslim culture" rather than by social problems in the countries to which they immigrate.

For example, a sudden explosion of anger is something that causes shame in a culture shaped by Christianity. But in Islam, it is exactly the opposite. If a man's honor is offended in some way, a Muslim is "simply expected to show aggression and often also verbal or physical revenge." So while anger lowers your status in a place like America, it elevates your status in a Muslim subculture.

Even more telling is the strong identification Muslims have with Muslim culture, an identification that supersedes any affiliation with their new country. In Germany, for instance, only 12 percent of Muslims see themselves as more German than Muslim, while in France and Denmark, only 14 percent of Muslims see themselves as more French or Danish than Muslim.

Chillingly, Sennels discovered that prolonged exposure to Western culture doesn't mitigate this as we might hope. There are "no differences of opinion...among Muslims who are born and raised in Muslim countries and the opinion of their children who are born and raised in Danish society."

Thus Muslim ghettos are nurturing "a powerful and growing opposition to Western culture and values."

The third myth he explodes is that the percentage of Muslims with extremist views is small. His experience, in the wake of the deadly riots by young Muslims in 2008, is quite different. Muslims who did not practice the Islamic religion in their daily lives lit fires and attacked the police, and justified it on the grounds that Danish society, by reprinting the Mohammed cartoons, had "proven itself to be racist and against Islam and Muslim culture."

The fourth myth he explodes is that it is poverty among immigrants which leads to social problems. In reality, he says, it's exactly the reverse. It is the social problems they create for themselves that lead to poverty. He discovered that among most Muslims there is a "very low focus on supporting one's children in school and on one's own education," and a lack of motivation for creating a professional career. All this combines to produce endemic poverty among Muslim immigrants. In a word, what is missing is the Protestant work ethic. And that is because, well, they're not Protestants.

Sennels concludes that "there is no research in Europe" that supports the view the Muslim integration is even attainable. "[F]or the largest part integration...of Muslims is not possible." those who argue otherwise are not "bas(ing) their judgment on facts."

The overarching explanation for the virtual impossibility of Muslim assimilation is that "[t]he Muslim and the Western cultures are fundamentally very different." Muslims, in his extensive experience, are either incapable or unwilling to make the changes in basic personality structure that are necessary. Those that do undergo a "long and exhaustive struggle" internally and "often pay a high personal price on the outer level" (think Rifqa Bary here) "because their Muslim friends and families despise and/or disown them for leaving their culture."

It's often been observed that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We are watching a dismal historical experiment in uncontrolled Islamic immigration unfold before our very eyes in Europe, and watching European culture disintegrate before our very eyes. Let's learn and apply the lessons from Europe. If we do not, it may soon be too late to save what is left of American culture.

Update: My conversation with an integrated Muslim

A caller by the name of Imran called my radio program today as I discussed my immigration concerns regarding Muslims. He himself is a Muslim, but admitted that he is not really a practicing member of his faith. He thinks Israel should have a right to exist, although he believes some serious inaccuracies and outright fallacies about both history and current events there. And he condemns Palestinian acts of violence against Israelis. Such condemnation has been rare in the conversations I've had with Muslims.

Imran regards George Washington as the father of his country, and seems pretty well assimilated into American life. But he also admits that he has Muslim extremist friends, here in America, who know the Koran much better than he does, and admits that he is not able to refute what they say. Thus it seems he represents no threat to our security simply because he is not a devout Muslim.

My point all along has been that the more devout a Muslim becomes, the more of a threat he becomes to our national security. And we just can't know when a "moderate" Muslim, like Maj. Hasan, will suddenly decide to get serious about his faith and wind up going jihadi on Americans.

The question then, which regrettably I failed to ask Imran, is this: how can we tell the difference between the Muslims we don't have to worry about (such as Imran) and the ones we do (such as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan)? I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer to that question. Once Muslims help us to find a foolproof way to identify the troublesome Muslims, it might make sense to loosen immigration restrictions. Until that day comes, unrestricted Islamic immigration remains a threat to our national security.

© Bryan Fischer

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

 

Alan Keyes
'A Bucket Brigade': The most simple, feasible way to take back America!

Stephen Stone
Do your part to impeach and remove Obama

Laurie Roth
Falsely accused Jonathan Fleming gets out of prison after 25 years--Now what?

Wes Vernon
The war on terror: whose side are we on?

Alan Caruba
Obama's Muslim Brotherhood agenda

Cliff Kincaid
Is Vladimir Putin the new Reagan?

Bryan Fischer
Rick Perry's path to the White House may run through the Oklahoma border

Chris Adamo
Democrats selectively invoke the "rule of law"

Laurie Roth
Obama and the progressives are committing suicide all over the place

Bryan Fischer
If the president wanted to destroy this country, this is how he'd do it

Gina Miller
Liberals in California target judges with Boy Scout ties

Judie Brown
Asexual human reproduction

Michael Bresciani
Revival in America? -- Not an option, it is a necessity

Rev. Austin Miles
Brain-bending: atheist and Christian views on life compared
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez

DaleToons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites