2 readers online now  |  69 million page views
You're invited: Join Daniel Pipes & MEF on a fact-finding mission
to Poland, Hungary & Austria. For more information, click here

Jeffrey Sheff's legitimate question

Reader comment on item: Europe's Civilizationist Parties
in response to reader comment: Europe's Islamization -- any alternative?

Submitted by Prashant, Dec 9, 2018 at 13:10

Dear Dr Pipes, in his post entitled 'Europe's Islamization -- any alternative?' Jeffery Sheff raised a legitimate question about both Islamic and non-Islamic immigration of people into Europe. His title used the world 'Islamic' but the contents of his message did not make an explicit argument based on any religion. His question is legitimate and I, as a thankful legal immigrant to the US, will reply to him from both religious and economic angles.

I entirely agree that controlling immigration to an acceptable level is the right and responsibility of any government. So any action that governments in Europe, USA or elsewhere take to control immigration should be supported by all right-minded people. Europe should control immigration into their countries and spend the resources that they save for the benefit of their own citizens. That is just common sense.

While legal immigration can be controlled, it is, unfortunately, not easy to control illegal immigration. No society can control all thievery. Without any ambiguity about it, illegal immigration is like willful stealing by some. We would like to eliminate all thievery but, often, fail to do so. The conditions in the poorest sections of Asian, Latin American, and African countries are so abject that if the western countries open their borders, all people from all countries will migrate to the West and we will become one homogeneous lot. So it is in the interest of the western societies if the (so called) third world countries are productive and prosperous so the need to emigrate subsides.

Governmental humanitarian aid to developing countries is a self-defeating argument. We went that route throughout the period between 1950 and 2000. It did not work that well. Aid is no one's birth right. Developing economies must raise themselves by themselves (I am stealing this phrase from Bhagvat Gita).

So what can the western world do? This is exactly the question that Mr Sheff asked. I would say that besides controlling legal immigration to their comfortable levels and controlling illegal immigration as much as possible, the western governments should not make it easy for illegal immigrants. The welfare to the illegal immigrants should be minimized. In addition, the old rhetoric that we do not want to impose our values on others should be curtailed. We must say that we want to politely spread our values because they are better. USA and Europe should support democratic nations and societies and oppose those nations that do not offer freedom of speech. Who the US (or any other country) chooses to be her friends is her prerogative. We should make it very clear that we do not like the nations that are not decent democracies. This milieu needs to be created around the nation and world so even leftists understand it well. The countries that do not give freedom of choice to their citizens must be decried by all. You are not a decent democracy if you do not have multi party elections every few years or if you have the name of a religion in your name.

This brings me to the religious side of this argument. Jeffery Sheff started his discussion with Islam in mind. Islam is a special case. First, it is an political doctrine amalgamated with religion. No country or people other than Muslims have the declared or undeclared agenda to convert the entire world to their way of thinking. Such is not the case with Islam. Muslims have an expressed desire to make the entire world Islamic. And worse, whatever Muslims convert to Islam, they protect using unfair means. It is enough to say here that most Islam-controlled nations are constitutionally Islamic and do not care much for democracy or human rights for their Muslim and non-Muslim citizens. Even women's rights in Islamic nations fall into 'different but equal' paradigm.

When it comes to Islam, it should be treated as a political issue and not a religious one. Is Islamic law different from secular laws? Why? Why is it better than secular laws shared in spirit by most non-Islamic countries? If it is good why can't it be adapted and adopted by all countries as a secular notion? If it is bad why is any country following it without debated adaptation? Ditto of Islamic social and economic practices. Is an Islamic nation democratic enough for a non-Muslim immigrant? If not, then it is not good enough (just as any other dictatorship is not good enough).

Western nations cannot accept all immigrants who want to emigrate their native states. They cannot overnight eliminate the economic reasons behind unnaturally high emigration/immigration. But they can advertise and advocate the modern democratic values that bring prosperity to all countries. That is what they should do.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submitting....

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (20) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Europe's Islamization -- any alternative? [162 words]Jeffrey SheffDec 7, 2018 13:48246424
1Jeffrey Sheff's legitimate question [786 words]PrashantDec 9, 2018 13:10246424
Nice analysis [127 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
M.L.LipsonNov 10, 2018 15:13245912
2A fourth point wrt [336 words]PrashantNov 14, 2018 00:09245912
Reaction. [79 words]AlbertE.Nov 9, 2018 23:02245891
2Theory vs the Real World [262 words]Sigmund DermanNov 2, 2018 14:04245772
Refreshing Observations [233 words]Al RodbellNov 6, 2018 20:37245772
Nationalist [24 words]Jan BlachaOct 31, 2018 21:46245755
Re: Nationalist [32 words]Globe ThrotterNov 9, 2018 15:02245755
Nationalism [21 words]John BlachaNov 9, 2018 17:04245755
Europa camina hacia la perdiciĆ³n... [75 words]alfonsoOct 31, 2018 15:52245751
1Nationalist, not civilizationist [125 words]G. LobeOct 25, 2018 16:01245698
1Regarding bloodlines [188 words]AnonOct 19, 2018 11:34245578
Hinge of History [181 words]JD WillOct 19, 2018 11:19245576
2What Needs Protecting And Why [237 words]DaveOct 18, 2018 21:10245557
1Patriotic Nationalism vs. the Uncivilized [184 words]RobertOct 19, 2018 00:43245557
1Yes, Nationalism Takes Many Forms [167 words]DaveOct 20, 2018 20:15245557
2Dialectics of Nationalism [275 words]RobertOct 22, 2018 16:16245557
2How Virtue Becomes a Vice [63 words]DaveOct 24, 2018 09:19245557
I guess culturalism has a point... [243 words]Peter HerzNov 3, 2018 23:24245557

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Jeffrey Sheff's legitimate question by Prashant

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2019 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)