Thursday, May 18, 2006

Let Us Make Them All Welcome

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

While you're here, take a look at some of Fjordman's essays on the sidebar (he tells us another one is due shortly). And if you're an ageing hippy, see the Baron's top post, Quick, Flush the Stash!. It's about how "safe" we are when the Coast Guard's SOP seems to be to give plenty of warning to incoming cargo ships that they'll be inspected.


The Wall Street Journal is reporting the beginnings of what could be another sea change for Europe. Remember the 1930’s when so many of Europe’s intelligentsia came to America to escape Fascism? Albert Einstein was one; Karen Horney was another. Our intellectual ranks and our universities were enriched as Europe’s totalitarian rumblings caused the educated ranks to flee to safer shores.

It seems to be happening again. In addition to Hirsi Ali’s imminent departure from the Netherlands, there is a growing feeling that Europe is not safe for those who dissent even a little from the received wisdom of the bureaucratic state, or dare to confront the Muslim taqiyya so prevalent there:

Across Europe, dozens of people are now in hiding or under police protection because of threats from Muslim extremists. Dutch police say politicians reported 121 death threats last year. The number this year will likely be much higher. Geert Wilders, a right-wing member of parliament who also lives in a high-security apartment owned by the state, says he has received 120 menacing emails and letters since January. One of the latest reads: “Oh you cursed infidel! Don’t think you are safe from our mighty organization....It is our wish to kill you by decapitation. Your infidel blood will flow freely on cursed Dutch streets!”

[…]

In Germany, several researchers, journalists and members of Parliament receive police protection because of threats by radical Muslims. Hans-Peter Raddatz, an Islamic-studies expert under police protection, recently moved to the U.S.

Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, is also mulling a move to America, at the urging of friends and security contacts. He set off a global storm by publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Twelve Danish cartoonists who drew the caricatures are staying out of public for fear of attack.

The article doesn’t mention Paul Belien’s predicament at Brussels Journal. Belgian authorities say he should be tried and jailed for his writings, claiming he inflamed some off-the-wall adolescent to go on a shooting rampage.

Do you really think this kid was reading an online news journal? No, I don’t either. But they have to have someone to blame, just as the Dutch have scapegoated Hirsi Ali.

Well, let’s make them all welcome, shall we? Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave -- despite the ACLU attempts to the contrary -- they would be kindred souls and we would be enriched by having them here.


Hat tip: LGF commenterAbu Maven

34 comments:

Twin of Athling said...

I would caution those who think they know this woman to look a little closer. Yes, she has insulted Islam. Perhaps rightly at that. But what else do we know about this woman?

Would you feel the same way about her if you also knew that she despises not only Islam but also Christianity and Judaism? That she is a devout atheist and radical feminist? That both she and her family admits to many lies she told to gain entry into the Netherlands. To say nothing of the man she married simply to get a passport. The pathetic fellow still seems to love her.

These are the things I have heard of her. Perhaps I have been misinformed. I hope that is the case.

NoDhimmitude said...

I sure hope there is a lot of space "over there", considering that there are not so few of us actively considering emigration at one point or another..

-get AHA over there, and I hope we will soon se a new type of visa, "dhimmi refugee" :)

- hopefully this will not be extended to our current politicians, academic professors, and journalists with a proven "multi culti" membership..

FluffResponse said...

Welcome them? Sure. But their exile is not good news.

Europe is the source of much of who we are as a country. Given the nukes in Britain and France, we have even more reason to want the continent to return to its Christian and Enlightenment values and to act as a bulwark against Islam. But what can we expect, when even the Catholic Church asks the Christian faithful to embrace the Muslim immigrants?

The loss of Europe's anti-sharia people reminds me of what happened (for example) to Persian Zoroastrians, who lived with little fear of a few Muslim neighbors, but (as the numbers of Muslims grew) came to live with taunts, then threats, then threats fulfilled. The Zorastrians would move to other villages, only to face the same pressures.

The American immigration laws are likely to allow millions of anyone to come in. (According to the Heritage Foundation, nearly 100 million will come over the next 20 years, if the Senate gets its way.) Given the lack of knowledge about Islam (and the leadership's insistence on describing this political system as benign), the immigration laws will make no attempt to distinguish between the people who flee sharia and those who embrace it.

Does this sound like a recipe for eternal vigilance? Or are the people who are fleeing sharia the new Zoroastrians, joining their kind in new villages where the same pressures will be felt a year or ten in the future?

Sissy Willis said...

While I support Hirsi Ali's courageous stand in the face of Eurabia's creeping dhimmitude, I am also persuaded by Paul Belien' warning of her possible blind spot:

Hirsi Ali is right to oppose the inhumane treatment of women and homosexuals in Muslim societies. But she is wrong where she equates any criticism of feminism and “gayism” by religious people to inhumane treatment at the hands of Muslims . . . But the question must be asked whether, by fighting religion in general through state imposed “measures,” she and other liberal European secularist religion-haters, are not undermining Europe’s capacity to counter Muslim extremism from a healthy Christian foundation.

An unholy comparison

David said...

Twin..."Would you feel the same way about her if you also knew that she despises not only Islam but also Christianity and Judaism? That she is a devout atheist and radical feminist?"

The question isn't how I would "feel" about her; the question is whether I think she has the right to hold and express her beliefs without fear of violence. And yes, I do.

Why do the concepts of free speech, after 200 years of growing acceptance, suddently seem so difficult for many people to understand.

Dymphna said...

Hirsi Ali is not without her blind spots. Seems to me that many disaffected Muslims become atheists. As for the rest of her baggage, she merely adopted the socialist outlook of many, if not most, Europeans.

While it does not take away from her courage, her views add nothing to her wisdom. It will be interesting to see how she makes the "fit" with the American Enterprise Institute. I don't predict a long and happy arrangement...

Evan said...

I have read that more and more Dutch are leaving, not just those well-known people who are explicitly threatened. IIRC they are going to Australia, Canada and Britain rather than the U.S. (perhaps because of the more extensive welfare states), but they are leaving just the same.

An American friend of mine has lived in Amseterdam for years, and the last time I spoke to her she was thinking seriously about leaving the city and country she loves because of the violence in the streets between competing gangs of the flower of Amsterdam youth. An American gay man (whose name escapes me) who had lived there for years got some press attention when he said that he was coming back to the U.S. because he felt safer in Jesusland than in Holland.

David said...

It's noteworthy that both Holland and Belgium declared their neutrality in WWII. It didn't help; they were both invaded and occupied anyhow.

In the case of Belgium, the attempted neutrality had very serious consequences--French military planning had been based on close co-operation with Belgium, which was negated when Leopold III revoked the Franco-Belgian treaty in 1936. "This policy should aim resolutely at keeping us apart from the quarrels of out neighbors," said the King.

cathyf said...

You missed an example probably more important the Einstein. Enrico Fermi's wife Lora was Jewish, and they escaped early to Chicago. Without him, we probably wouldn't have had the bomb. With him, the Axis most certainly would have.

cathy :-)

Papa Ray said...

Does she get a "path to citizenship"? Does she get in the "Back of the Line"?

Papa Ray

eatyourbeans said...

I got mixed feelings here. True, the Hirsis, Beliens and others are in hiding for crossing Islam and its quislings. That's one thing.

But all these others who just want to cut and run because they're scared? They wouldn't stand and fight for their own countries, why should we give them another?

Like I said, I'm torn here.

NoDhimmitude said...

@eatyourbeans:

its not about cut'n'run due to fear.

its about admitting that you can not stand up and fight islam, and at the same time be the target of the very society you wish to preserve and defend.

and at some point you must ask yourself, looking at "our" politicians, academics, professors and "experts", journalists and what have you, is this something worth fighting for? Or is it equal to fight in the service of quisling? or the vichy regime?
-seriously..

if everyone around you keep ignoring your warnings (which today is quite alike the situation in the late 1930s around europe, many warnings written, spoken, but largely ignored), at what time are you allowed to save yourself, knowing that those around you are walking straight off the cliff?

or is so that just because I lover many of them, and the cities etc we have, I too must walk off that cliff?

- no thanks...I take my beloved family and leave the asylum before it get torched..

NoDhimmitude said...

@eatyourbeans:

just a small followup :)

- should there ever be a counterstrike, a true anti-jihadi mass movement across europe (and I am quite sure there will be, but things will get lot worse, and a lot more violent before that), I will be among the first to return and support such a measure in any way I can. But to possibly sacrifise myself and my family on the alter of PC? Never..

- and I really really really hope all our quislings, dhimmicrats and so-called "experts" will be denied the possiblity of escape, but alas, we all know they will be, like the dutch expats, the first to abandon ship, bringing their disease with them..

Twin of Athling said...

"The question isn't how I would 'feel' about her; the question is whether I think she has the right to hold and express her beliefs without fear of violence. And yes, I do." -David

Very well then. Apparently further explanation is required for some. Thoughts/ideas produce feelings. Hence, the common euphemism for using the term "feel" in place of "think." But, of course, I very plainly see your intention here. Those who say "feel" are thought to be not "thinking" and are therefore basing their logic, or rather lack of it, on mere "feelings" instead of intelligent reasoning. Sometimes I use the word "feel" instead of "think" and sometimes the reverse. Does that about cover it?

Ms. Ali, within certain bounds, has the right to express her beliefs in the form of free speech. Likewise, I have the right to judge her based on that speech. Nothing difficult to understand about that. If what I have heard about her is true, then I would not be quite so welcoming of her to our shores. We have enough Leftists in high places.

eatyourbeans said...

@ NoDhimmitude:

I believe you. It's just hard to see 2500 years of civilization abandoned without firing a shot in its defense.
Do many of the silent Europeans feel like you or are they still asleep?

David said...

twin....the "feel" and "think" distinction wasn't my main point, which was rather the danger of a climate in which people are subjected to death threats because of their opinions.

I agree that we have more than enough leftists here, but we could always use more people with courage.

Archonix said...

I suspect, when exposed to a more libertarian atmosphere, Ms Ali might well begin to shift in the right direction politically. She's lived in a coutnry where the only accepted point of view is the authoritarian Left; the entire place is soaked with leftist thought. It's hardly surprising that she adopted this way of thinking while living there. Without any real alternatives she didn't have a choice. No information apart from left-wing propaganda about the Evil Right, see.

ljm said...

How about something really radical...like introducing her to Christianity ? Maybe making sure she has read the Constitution of the United States of America ? Surely this should be ordinary introduction to living in America....

NoDhimmitude said...

@eatyourbeans:

i fear the vast majority is still asleep.

Actually, the trend is already there, albeit not so big yet. I read Holland have som 35000 emigrants a year after the whole van gogh affair. In sweden, native swedes, mainly young couple with children, the ones that actually work for a living, are leaving the worst citys.

The "elite" have moved in to their all-white, priviliged areas a long time ago (and yet the irony is lost on them).

But even if this is the case, a large majority of those that move fail to recognize, or at least voice, the reasons that led to their decision, and maintain their naive positions on this important issues. The level of selfdelusion among the vast majority is quite amazing actually.

But, there are indeed an awakening happening, and I do hear more and more often among well educated and upstanding people, collegues, friends that are looking at the future for themselves, their children, and does not like what they see, looking for options.

I dont believe in europe getting completly lost. but a lot of bad things will happens , and a lot will be destroyed, before a path that will lead to a "better" future will be taken.

There are currently, I believe, 3 main questions that will impact the future directions of europe:
1. Turkey, EU or not?
2. Iran, nuclear or not?
3. How far will the european gvmts limit freedom of speech, etc before serious political resistance will be mounted?

The loss of AHA is in my point of view something to be expected, a clear pinpoint on just how bad the situation is. But, our loss, your gain, and I do believe she can do more good there then here at this time.

Eric Grumbles said...

In discussing AHA and the other intellectuals fleeing Europe, I think one of the things to recognize is that courage, resolution and love of liberty can be found in many people, whether of the left or the right politically. For examples, let's consider Enrico Fermi, Albert Einstein, George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens from the Left. Certainly without Einstein and Fermi it is arguable whether the USA would have developed an atomic weapon prior to the tyrannies of the Nazi Reich or the Soviet Union. George Orwell was able to sway the majority of Britain's socialists to support Winston Churchill, which made a significant difference keeping Britain in the fight against Germany. He later was instrumental in making clear to many on the left in both the US and UK that the Soviet Union was a "revolution betrayed" and should be opposed by both left and right in the West (read 1984 realizing his view of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin as evil and that it was written in 1948, that's rather eye opening). Christopher Hitchens is filling much the same role on the left today that Orwell did in the 30's and 40's.

Aside from that, freedom of speech and belief is one of the key differentiators between the West, Islam and the socialist state. Rather than opposing AHA coming to this country, we should welcome her because we are a tolerant people who oppose the violent censorship of Islam and the creeping PC censorship of the socialist bureaucracy. To do otherwise because she is not of your religion aligns you with something that you supposedly oppose. Tolerance does not mean that you cannot have your say in opposition. But implying that we should not accept someone that rejects Christianity, for example, is not a position of tolerance. Nor is it supportive of free speech.

Would you, then, oppose me being able to speak freely? To remain in this country? I am not a "conservative" and I am an atheist. You might say that my philosophical beliefs are closely aligned with Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Would you, then, reject Paine as one of the greatest intellectuals of the Revolution, indeed as a key element in making it happen (according to Jefferson and Adams, who definitely knew the score) because he opposed Christianity? Or, would you count yourself fortunate that he laid the intellectual foundation, in "Common Sense", that led to the American Revolution?

Would you wish this country to be narrowly accepting only of those in opposition to evil that also align with your own beliefs? Because that is how a statement such as If what I have heard about her is true, then I would not be quite so welcoming of her to our shores. implies.

Another commenter goes even further: How about something really radical...like introducing her to Christianity ? Maybe making sure she has read the Constitution of the United States of America ? Surely this should be ordinary introduction to living in America....

The second statement is moot, since anyone desiring citizenship must pass a test on American history and politics that most Americans born in this country can't pass. The first statement is blatantly unconstitutional. I have to wonder how you can oppose religious tyranny in one breath, and then in the very next suggest it.

Eric Grumbles

Dymphna said...

Eric Grumbles--

Well said. Why would she need to be "introduced" to a religion? Atheism is in itself a belief and one to be respected. I don't pretend to understand it, as I'm sure my Catholic upbringing would leave her unmoved.

This battle is not about religious belief, it is about pluralism, and *that* I do believe in as a working principle in this country. Otherwise, the Mennonites and the Amish would be long gone. Not to mention the ashram down the road from here.

Pluralism is not the multi-culti "tolerance" which in actuality tolerates very little beyond its own little checklist of acceptable credos.

I will argue with her on any number of points, but I will defend her right to hold those points.

My sense is that she is a courageous woman but I do not find her political leanings congenial to my thinking so I think I'll just wave hello as she passes by.

Mark Spittle said...

It's worth noting that Ali is not being forced out of Europe because of her views, as indicated by this post. Rather, she is at risk of being deported from The Netherlands because it has been discovered that she is an illegal immigrant in that country --- she lied to obtain citizenship, and never revealed the fact until after she had established citizenship and a position in the Parliament.

I'm curious how the same anti-immigration conservatives who read (and write for) this site will square their sudden love for illegal immigrant Ali when she comes here.

But, then, seeing as how Pajamas Media hires an immigrant anchor baby like Michelle Malkin to push an anti-immigration position, I guess hypocritical posturing is all the rage here.

Pathetic.

TheDoctorOfLove said...

>Mark Spittle.

She is being forced out of Europe because of her political views. Her status as an illegal immigrant is a pretext, and hardly notable. If her views were more acceptable to the elite, her status as a refuge would be touted, and her legal status ignored.

Insofar as her status in the US, I'm guessing it won't be illegal.

Dymphna said...

Mark Spittle--

I always admire well-chosen nics. My compliments.

Hypocrisy denotes a lack of congruence between one's words and one's behavior. Ipso, facto, this blog and its writers and contributors are not hypocrites.

If you believe AHA is being booted out of the Netherlands because they suddenly "discovered" she was an illegal immigrant, you haven't been reading Dutch editorials or blogs. Her status has been known for years. She is being booted for the same reason they kicked her out of her apartment: she's a security threat for those around her and it's become an inconvenience.

I suspect that should she continue to be as outspoken about her view of all religion as evil, and her extreme feminism (understandable, given her personal history), she will leave the AEI and find refuge in an academic setting. There her views will be in the mainstream.

I'm not sure what your rant about Michelle Malkin has to do with *illegal* immigration. Your point? Is it that legal immigrants may not comment on the situation? Whom do you permit to speak, Mr. Spittle?

BTW, no surprise, but you missed the point of this post entirely. Not surprising, since you arrived with your own agenda.

Judith said...

"It will be interesting to see how she makes the "fit" with the American Enterprise Institute. I don't predict a long and happy arrangement..."

Why? Is the AEI Christian? Is the AEI mysogynist? Did they extend the invitation without having read any of her writings or listened to her speeches? I think they know what they want and what they are getting.

Also, I would hardly characterize Ali's feminism as "extreme," unless you think denouncing honor killings and wife-beating and forced marriage is extreme. She is just a middle-of-the-road secular liberal, who is unapologetic about classical liberal, Enlightenment values. Which makes her very threatening to some American conservatives as well as European liberals, I guess.

I pointed this out on a previous post, but the Dutch helped create Enlightenment values. The Golden Age of Dutch prosperity owes a lot to the Netherlands welcoming those persecuted by the Spanish inquisition, many of whom had entrepreneurial talents that were not welcome in Spain. This openness helped shift the balance of power from Spain to Holland. This ushered in a vibrant culture of arts and scientific experimentation and philosophy: Erasmus, Leuowenhoek, Spinoza, Rembrandt. In that Holland was similar to the USA in our day: becoming powerful through attracting the most thoughtful venturesome minds and encouraging individual achievement. Those are the values Ali advocates, she has been very explicit about this.

Judith said...

"An American gay man (whose name escapes me) who had lived there for years got some press attention when he said that he was coming back to the U.S. because he felt safer in Jesusland than in Holland."

Bruce Bawer - he just wrote a book about it.

Eric Grumbles said...

Dymphna: I will argue with her on any number of points, but I will defend her right to hold those points.

Exactly right. And this is the point that so many supposed conservatives cannot seem to grasp. As evidenced by those who wish to require an introduction to Christianity for atheist immigrants or to rethink allowing someone to enter the country that holds beliefs they don't like. This sort of thing is simply the opposite side of the coin of PC censorship. It is certainly not what I spent a decade in the military defending. I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say until my dying breath. Even if you don't wish to grant me the same right.

On a more personal note, I did mention I would be around from time to time. Somebody's gotta keep folks on the path of righteousness. ;-)

Mark Spittle said...

My point is very clear and unambiguous.

You (Dymphna) argue against illegal immigrants coming to the US. You desire to deport them and conduct "citizen arrests" (your words). Yet when another country does exactly that against someone who happens to share your agenda against Islam, you instead welcome that person.

Whether or not Ali makes the Dutch uncomfortable over her views on Islam is beside my point, and does not take away anything from the fact that you are willing to dismiss or make excuses for her illegal immigration status, but not willing to do the same for Mexicans trying to enter this country.

If Mexico is as "corrupt" and evil as you say, then why not excuse the Mexican immigrants on the same basis: they are fleeing to the US to escape a "corrupt" government, after all.

Hence, hypocrisy.

My simple solution to the problem can be found here.

Dymphna said...

Mr. Spittle--

My remark about citizens' arrests was made in high irony as a response to Mexico's laws about the ability of citizens there to apprehend anyone they think is illegal. I was saying "tit for tat." If you had read that remark in its context that might have been comprehensible to you. The whole section in that post was dealing with the incredible inflexibility and hostility of the Mexican govt toward our citizens. Our consulates are recommending that Americans not visit there because of the number of kidnappings of business men and tourists right in broad daylight.

Read the whole post. Or not. But this is the last cherry pick of yours that I'm going to respond to.

We ain't marching to the same drummer, son.

Eric Grumbles said...

Mark,

although I favor something very few "liberals" or "conservatives" do, which is unrestricted immigration, I have to give some credit to most conservatives position on the topic. They tend to oppose general, illegal immigration but support illegal immigrants fleeing oppression and tyranny. Which Ali certainly was. Dymphna strikes me as falling into that category of conservative and I would not say it's hypocritical. Even though I disagree with her fairly vehemently on immigration topics.

Aside from that, Ali's illegal status in The Netherlands did not become an issue until she threatened their entirely unstable status quo of appeasement and PC censorship. At that point, suddenly her immigration status became an issue. As has been pointed out in this very thread of comments, something you are unwilling to take into account at all. Further, Ali isn't an illegal immigrant to the United States, so far as I know.

Eric Grumbles

Dymphna said...

Judith:

AHA rec'd several offers. She turned down the Brookings because they didn't have enough money. She turned down John Hopkins bec. it was too small. She chose to take the AEI offer even though they are not a close philosophical fit. That's why I predict the arrangement will eventually be called off by both sides.

I don't know why the AEI made the offer since I haven't been to their site to look at their reasoning. However, I do know she is very feminist and gay-rights and they are not. That's why I predict she'll end up in academia, as it is more congenial to her thought.

Here is an email from Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal, just before he fled Belgium because he was being threatened with arrest for stating his ideas about the dangers of secularism. He has followed her case closely and agrees the "illegal status" was a mere convenience for the Dutch:

Dear Dymphna,

She proposed to change the Dutch Constitution [re religious schools], but changing the
constitution is not easy and she needed the support of her own party for it, which she did not get.Consequently, there was no vote on the proposal.

As you know, I have been very critical of Hirsi Ali because, owing to her personal experience with Islam, she equated islam with religion and concluded that religion in general is bad, while I believe that it is not religion but secularism that is killing Europe.

The AEI is a conservative think tank. Although I disagree with Hirsi Ali and think that her anti-religious ideas are dangerous and
incompatible with conservatism, there is, however, one thing that has to be said about her: she was/is a very courageous woman. If the ordinary European had just a tiny bit of her courage, we would not be in the mess that we are in today.

Why have the Dutch turned against her? Perhaps because the Islamists
want to kill her and threaten the Dutch with terrorism because of what she says. Hence, what do the Dutch do? They throw her out!

I repeat: I disagree with her, I think her ideas are dangerous, but the mere fact that people want to kill her for her ideas make it a moral duty to take her into your home. If this is the reason why the AEI is taking her in, they should be praised for it.

As for me, I am going abroad for a fortnight, hoping that things will
have calmed down here by the end of May.
Thanks for your support,
Paul


As I said before, my disagreement with AHA is what seems to be a blind spot about pluralism -- which includes respect for all the shades of belief and unbelief across the spectrum. AHA has said that religion in and of itself is an evil and should be eliminated, beginning with banning religious schools. She is free to say these things and I am free to disagree with them. Fortunately, our Constitution does not support her understanding of this subject.

That said, I have no quarrel with her being here, though I doubt she will be able to live with less security. There are some very determined people who want her dead. The same ones who killed Theo van Gogh because they couldn't get to her -- as the killer said in court.

Nahanni said...

I play Ever Quest. Despite what most of you think it is not a "kids" game. Most of the people I play online with are 30+, have jobs, families etc. Some are IT people, some work in medical care , some are in the service (one is a pilot in the Air Force), some are stay at home moms, some are college kids and one is even a Philosopy professor.

I have a regular group of people that I have played EQ with for 5+ years. It consists of 4 people from The Netherlands, 3 in the U.K., 5 from Canada, 2 Aussies, a Croat, an Italian, a guy who lives in Singapore, a Swiss and a Greenlander (Danish) along with Americans from all parts of the country. In that grouping I have put up with some good natured America bashing on their part from time to time but recently something strange has occured with them. I am now starting to get /tells (person to person communications) from some of them really asking me what America is like to live in because they want to come here. Real questions not just "airy-fairy" ones. If I would have suggested to any of these people 5 years ago that they would be thinking of moving to the U.S. they would have laughed their butts off at me. I ask them why they all of a sudden want to move here and the response is pretty much the same. They are afraid of what is going to happen and they know that their governments will not do a thing to stop it. I ask them why not stay and fight to change things and their response is that the only way it will change now is by a bloodbath, it is too far gone. They also feel they need to leave soon before the immigration laws change-they want to get out while the door is still open.

Do I blame them for wanting to leave? No. Why? Because I, like them, believe the time to peacefully rectify the situation is long past. I do not blame them for wanting to make sure they and their families are safe, it is human nature to do so.

Mark Spittle said...

I read your entire posts, and fully understand your "high irony," but in the end you did call for "citizen arrests." Even ignoring that post, you have made your point over and over on this site that illegal Mexican immigration into the US is bad and must be corrected. It continues to be disingenuous to conveniently "forget" that position when it comes to another illegal immigrant, Hirsi Ali, only because she shares your views against Islam.

Again, whether or not her illegal immigrant status was tolerated (some would call that "amnesty") and then that toleration revoked (some would call that "no amnesty") is irrelevant. Her status as someone who has lied to get into a country illegally is documented and admitted. She is, therefore, no different from someone fleeing Mexico using false documents, false statements, etc.

Unless you are now supportive of immigrant amnesty, the very thing the Dutch had granted Ali.

Let me put this simply: if Mexican immigrants were fleeing Muslim oppression, rather than corrupt capitalism, would your position change? And if so, what does that say about the arguments that Mexicans take jobs, deal drugs, etc.... because those (alleged) problems wouldn't change if the motives for immigration were different.

Dymphna, you can take your ball and jacks and go home, or you can discuss this and defend your position logically. But remember: for every person who posts here, there are probably a few hundred who lurk and read, and some of those are wondering the same thing. Rather than keep pretending I'm some idiot who has no reading comprehension skills, you should support your position.

(For the record, Michelle Malkin's father came to the US with his pregnant wife. At the time, immigration from the Pacific was highly restricted through very a conservative quota. However, a few months later, Michelle's mother gave birth... to an immediate US citizen, granting rights upon the entire family. Now Malkin would have us believe such "anchor babies" are bad, that birthright citizenship should be illegal -- even to "legal" immigrants-- and people like her own father are to be deported. Thus, the connection to folks saying one thing about immigration, and then contradicting it later.)

paul said...

The Dutch have scapegoated Hirsi Ali.

First they drove her to the highest point of media attention by the liberal VVD party gave her a seat in Parlement before the election three years ago.

The old party garde like Wiegel and Dijkstal who are to blame for the failure of labor participation of the non western premodern newcomers from Muslim countries to a post modern kapitalistic society and turning Holland in a prison industri have wiped the dirt of their hands on her blaming with Islam bashing and polarisation.
The goat was ready to be trown off the klif.

Then the same VVD drives her out of the land by minister Verdonck stripping Ayaan of her Paspoort as a ritual sacrafice for the moloch Eurabia to please it's muslim inhabitant's.

Now the Dutch Cabinet minister Donner
says the do not pay for the cost of protection in Amerika and first they said the Dutch State would protect
her regardless of the place.