Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Jordan’s Queen Rania told Europeans that they could either take in the Syrian refugees that her country doesn’t want or the refugees would turn to terrorism. And what if these “refugees,” like so many of the other Muslims who had settled in Europe over the years, decide that they like terrorism anyway?
A tenth of London approves of ISIS now. Support for the Islamic State among the younger population in the UK, where Muslim demographics predominate, reaches as high as 14 percent.
What will it look like when tens of thousands of Muslims from the homeland of the Islamic State are added to the population? How much support will there be for Islamic terrorism a decade from now when the mass Muslim migration has fundamentally reshaped the UK’s religious demographics?
A recent poll of Syrians showed that 22 percent believed that ISIS had a positive influence on their country. And that’s only the level of support for the most controversial Jihadist group there. They haven’t bothered to measure the level of support for more “moderate” Jihadist groups like the Al-Nusra Front, which is linked to Al Qaeda, or even the Islamic Front, whose components were included in the Free Syrian Army. The Sunni rebels backed by the West are universally Jihadist fighting forces.
Even the New York Times admitted that, “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”
How much support do the Sunni rebel groups have among the refugees? 1 out of 5 would be bad enough, but the numbers for the entire Sunni Jihadist opposition are likely to be a lot higher.
And these Jihadist groups are terror risks almost as much as ISIS. A Syrian migrant at the Gates of Hungary was caught musing, “If the Free Syrian Army was here, they’d shoot that helicopter down.”
But plenty of FSA fighters are already in Europe or on the way there. How many of them will turn to terrorism in Europe? Even one is too many. But Europe is expected to take them in and find out later.
That’s not an argument for taking in more Syrians. That’s an argument for taking in zero refugees.
Muslim refugees in the United States have been a consistent vector for terror. Taking in tens of thousands more just makes the problem even worse.
Queen Rania tells us that we must either take in Muslim migrants or face Muslim terror. But if we stopped taking in more Muslims, we wouldn’t be facing so much Muslim terror. You don’t make a boat more seaworthy by drilling a bigger hole in it. Europe is taking in more Muslim migrants to appease a terror threat that would not exist if it stopped the tidal flow of Muslim migration to its borders.
No amount of “preventing violent extremism”, outreach, profiling, airport scanning and mosque surveillance will ever be enough as long as immigration provides fresh recruits for the Jihad.
UNHCR refugees with terror ties have already been caught by Norway. More are being found in Europe. But even if you could somehow catch all the terrorists, there is no way to intercept future terrorists who will only turn to Islamic violence once they are safely living in Europe.
Instead of doing the sensible thing, European countries are not only taking in “refugees”, but they’re even taking back Muslims from Europe who went to join in the fighting in Syria before deciding to come back. Not only is Europe taking in unknown terrorists, but it’s taking in known terrorists and trying to reeducate them out of their “extremism” before they go off on another killing spree.
But the surest way to stop them from killing isn’t to have some blonde social worker accompanied by a Taqiyya Imam preach to them about “moderate” Islam. It’s to keep them out of the country.
Queen Rania offers Europe a choice between Muslim refugees and Muslim terror. Historically, Europe has gotten both, taking in Muslim migrants and getting Muslim terror anyway. The most reliable way to stop Muslim terrorism is to stop Muslim immigration. No refugees, no terror.
And that’s something Queen Rania knows. Even as she lectures her European hosts on labeling the Muslim migrants with “with blunt pejoratives, as if some lives have lesser value than others. Invaders. Marauding foreigners”, her country has worked hard at keeping down its own Muslim brethren.
Her Hashemite Kingdom, a foreign transplant, has done everything it could to disenfranchise and expel the Palestinian Arabs who, unlike her husband’s family, actually belong there. Generations of Muslims have lived in Jordan without ever receiving citizenship. There are hundreds of thousands of stateless children in Jordan. Instead of taking them in, Jordan stripped citizenship from 1.5 million “Palestinians”.
Jordan is no more willing to accept the huge numbers of Syrians it has been burdened with than it was willing to accept the huge numbers of Palestinian Arabs already in the country. It’s not a matter of money. Not when the Jordanian king can order a $1.5 billion theme park built to cater to his whims.
But the refugees risk tilting the demographic balance in Jordan toward a Muslim Brotherhood takeover.
Jordan doesn’t want Palestinian Arabs or Syrians because it fears terrorism, violence and a takeover. Instead its rulers would like Europe to accept those risks while lecturing it on its intolerance for refusing to commit suicide. Jordan, like its Saudi masters, wants Europe to take in the Muslims that it fears.
Jordan and Turkey may have been forced to host huge numbers of Syrians, but they aren’t giving them citizenship the way that America, Canada and Europe are expected to. Turkey calls its 2 million refugees “guests”. Jordan tries to use the UN to move them out as fast as possible to European countries.
Muslim countries claim to care a great deal about their Palestinian Arab brethren, but no Muslim country has been willing to take them all in permanently. The same is true for the Syrian Arabs. Instead they are being calculatedly transformed into a stateless people to be inflicted on the gullible West.
No Muslim country wants to permanently take in large numbers of foreigners even when those foreigners share their religion and culture. No Muslim country wants to host people who support terrorist groups. And who can blame them? We don’t want to do it either. And why should we?
Why are we expected to permanently take in Muslims that the Muslim world doesn’t want?
What does the Muslim world know that we don’t? It knows that no refugees means no terrorism. After the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs for siding with Saddam. When the PLO took over parts of Israel, Jordan stripped Palestinian Arabs of citizenship.
Muslim countries have been very pragmatic about tossing their own cousins out the door the moment they show any signs of causing problems. Meanwhile Europe takes in known terrorists in the hopes of teaching them the joys of “moderate” Islam.
If we ought to learn anything from the Muslim world, it’s immigration policy. The United States ought to have the immigration policy of Mexico and Europe ought to have the immigration policy of Jordan.
Instead of trying to find out how many of the Syrians we are taking in support ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups, we can spare ourselves the effort by only taking in genuine Christian refugees while letting Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia figure out their own Muslim refugee problem.
Because the surest way to keep Muslim terrorists out is not to let any Muslim immigrants in.
