by user Don Pesci
This guest blog was written by Natalie Sirkin
Assimilation—a cultural unification of the American population—has been challenged by an anti-assimilationist ideology, which is called “multiculturalism” . . . and which is specifically identified with the Hispanic community -- One Nation, One Standard
In an enlightening autobiography, Herman Badillo explains the nature of Hispanic immigrants. An orphan, Herman Badillo, by chance, by a keen brain, and by determination, rose to be Deputy Mayor of New York City and the first Puerto Rican in Congress. He analyzes Hispanic non-assimilation and its background, the “five century siesta” of Spanish civilization. He offers arguments relating to the immigration bill which the Senate is now debating, that apply to Latin Americans and Pakistan.
Badillo asserts that Mexicans haven’t been helped by U.S. government programs. The fundamental problem is education. Mexicans do not value it. They do not assimilate. The latest arrivals, Mexicans have strong family values and a strong work ethic but the highest drop-out rate from school of any ethnic group, the largest share of the poor, the highest rate of pregnancy of unmarried girls, and they are prone to gang-violence. Twentieth-century and earlier immigrant groups have assimilated into our culture. Mexicans do not and have not had experience in participatory democracy.
The huge increase in immigration being now contemplated will cost us heavily as we have to pay for their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and welfare. An analysis by Heritage Foundation economist Robert E. Rector puts the annual cost of each Hispanic immigrant at $19,588 from the start, for a yearly total of $89 billion. They are costly, but if you had a choice, would you prefer Muslims?
Though Mexican immigrants fail to assimilate, Muslims go further. They refuse to assimilate. They pressure us and the West to adopt their customs and culture, including child marriage; lashings, stonings, and honor-killings of women; anti-Semitism; special rights for Muslim workers of American firms; terrorist-like behavior at airports and in airplanes. They have begun demanding Sharia law to substitute for existing civil law. Some look forward to world domination.
The Koran, bible of the Muslims, directs and dictates their attitudes and behavior in all spheres of life. The merest criticism of anything Muslim is a cause celebre frequently calling for death of the critic. They claim to be victims of discrimination, and many, whether out of political correctness or ideology or a concern for civil liberties, believe them, failing to recognize a fundamental problem.
The Koran calls for jihad against infidels who are unwilling to convert to Islam. It condemns to death Muslims who do not participate in jihad. Neutral Muslims are in danger of being radicalized. A recent Pew survey finds that a fourth of young Muslims approve of suicide bombing, and over half believes 9/ll was not committed by Muslims. We hear of rare outspoken critics like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Oriana Fallaci, willing to risk their lives in open opposition to the Islamists. They probably won’t believe that the three Fort Dix illegals planning to blow up a fuel pipeline destroying JFK Airport are Muslims.
Then there are anti-Islamists we never hear about, who openly protest. They believe the Islamists care more about ideology than their faith and see their methods as totalitarian. Telling about them is a documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, commissioned by the Public Broadcasting Corporation, which paid for it ($675) but will not permit it to be shown unless the story-line is changed to praise the Islamists. The documentary has been blacklisted, its makers believe. Those who sign up on its website---free the film.net---will see the documentary if that becomes possible.
Late news: On May 25, PBS announced it will permit Islam vs. Islamists to be shown in Oregon. What is wrong with them? This is the subject of C-SPAN’s Sunday night (June 3) Q-and-A program on Channel 18, an interview with Frank Gaffney who is associated with the documentary-makers. A transcript can be read on C-SPAN’s website, Q-and-A.org
Islamists are “more akin to a fanatical religious cult which recruits by actively brainwashing impressionable people with the propaganda of hatred and lies,” according to British journalist Melanie Phillips. A case appeared in the June 2 New York Times, A Journey to, and From, the Heart of Radical Islam in Britain. A young British Muslim who could not assimilate joined the terrorist organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir, which calls for a caliphate in Muslim countries. This organization is well known in Britain, where, however, the authorities have refused to outlaw it. It is radicalizing large numbers of young Muslims on campuses, in youth clubs and elsewhere, according to Phillips, whose book Londonistan and website are a treasure of information.
The British have had much more experience with Islamists than we but have not taken appropriate measures. Officials put Islamists’ rights first, even where the Islamists are foreign nationals.
The civil liberty lobby argues that taking strong measures will fuel murderous resentments. Islamists make the same argument. Only recently did a British official dare to take issue with Muslim women’s wearing headscarves when appearing in government offices. Last week in a headscarf case an American judge awarded the Muslim complainant $285,000 to compensate her for the anti-religious attack.
The British government has failed to stop the spread of Sharia law. British police refuse to enter a mosque. The government will not deport a terrorist to any country that does not measure up to British standards on human rights, so terrorists are not deported. They are confined to their homes from which they regularly escape. Islamists constitute a threat greater than Great Britain has ever known, says Phillips. We must learn from their experience. Immigrants who do not assimilate are a danger to our culture and civilization