Let’s be honest this frenzy of “compassion” for Syrians can make Australia even less safe.
The Abbott Government said yesterday it would take in an extra 12,000 Syrian refugees.
Know two things about this response to the invasion of Europe by these “refugees” from the Third World — there are now more than 4,000 people every day and half of them claiming to be Syrians.
First, Australia’s intake will not stop this invasion. No, the word has spread to as far as Nigeria and Bangladesh that Europe’s fences are down. It has been suggested that Iraqi airlines have even had to put on an extra three flights a day to Istanbul to deposit more Iraqis on the edge of Europe and its riches.
Look at the “refugees” you see crashing through Europe’s weak borders, or check the statistics of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Is it normal for 72 per cent of “refugees” from war to be men — and predominantly young, fit men you might expect to defend their country rather than flee it? And consider: how many relatives will they later send for? So, no, Europe’s crisis will continue until it, too, turns back the boats. What checks are being carried out to ensure these refugees are actually from Syria?
But, second: in making this gesture, we risk making Australia even less safe.
Amazingly, even the people loudly demanding we take in more Syrian Muslims implicitly concede that danger. Sydney Islamic leader Ahmed Kilani warned that favouring Christian refugees over Muslim risked more terrorism here. Is that a threat?
“The Government keeps saying it is worried about people being radicalised. What do you think young Muslims are going to think when they see who can come in and who can’t?”
Maher Mughrabi, foreign editor of The Age, said the ominous same.
“Arab communities of this country are already bitterly divided by this (Syrian) conflict and the Government’s response to it.”
“If Muslims here feel that the blood of their brothers and sisters in Syria does not cry out as loudly as that of other communities, I worry about the long-term consequences.” Is that a warning or a threat?
Or take Australia’s Anglican Primate, Archbishop Philip Freier. He wants 10,000 more Syrian refugees, but advises against bombing the Islamic State for fear that Muslims here could launch an “asymmetrical response” — a terrorist attack. Once such people assured us there were too few jihadists to worry about. Now they warn there are too many to offend.
Oh, and Australia should import potentially more?
True, Prime Minister Tony Abbott yesterday winked that he will take only Syrian refugees from “very persecuted minorities” — code for Christians. Yet even Abbott dared not say so openly. In fact, he flinched at the first hostile question at his press conference, saying he was also thinking of “Muslim minorities”.
The bottom line is that a country should be able to pick and choose who they want to enter their borders and who they don’t. How well are these refugees going to assimilate into the lifestyle of their adoptive country? The vocal minority (of any viewpoint) or the media should not dictate immigration policy to elected governments. The UK prevents the entry of “refugees” from France and yet this passes almost without comment, yet Hungary and Macedonia are subject to media wrath for doing exactly the same thing.
But if the polls are right, Labor will next year form government and take over this immigration program and its foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, insists the “basis of our policy should not discriminate on religion or ethnicity or gender”.
Has Labor learned nothing from the Fraser government’s blunder in responding with “compassion” to Lebanon’s civil war in the 1970s?
Then, too, government ministers privately urged prime minister Malcolm Fraser to accept only Christian refugees, given how Lebanese Christians had thrived here. Fraser ignored them and nearly 20,000 Lebanese Muslims, many from poor and tribal areas, soon came instead.
The consequences are with us today. True, most are good citizens, but gun crime today is rife in Sydney suburbs with large Lebanese populations. Crime rates are high.
More seriously, of the 21 Australians jailed for terrorism offences, at least four were born in Lebanon and seven were born to Lebanese families.
Let’s not make the same mistakes all over again.
Australia’s political class has for years been too dishonest to admit that when you import people, you import their culture. People importing their culture is fine, but all too often their hatreds come with them.
But our politicians must ask pragmatic questions when deciding which of the millions of the world’s refugees to help.
Who will make best use of our help by fitting in? And who will best repay our charity by enriching Australia, not hurting it? You can’t make such guesses without considering culture and religion — factors that influence the behaviour of the refugees’ future children, too. A study in the UK has suggested that immigrant’s children are more likely to radicalised. They feel that they neither fit the lifestyle of their home or adopted country and are easily swayed by persuasive and radical argument. However, you cannot refuse to offer assistance to people for fear of what their children “might” do!
I know, this makes a politician seem mean and “racist”, but what is their highest duty? To merely seem good, or to protect Australia’s best interests?
Source: Andrew Bolt, The Daily Telegraph (as edited)