Only in America could our political class be so obtuse and so intransigent in their failed policies that they would rapidly increase Muslim immigration at a time when Islam is going through so much turmoil.
For the past year, the media has focused the contours of the Muslim immigration debate on the straw man question of completely banning Muslims from our shore. It’s akin to their focus on rape in the abortion debate, rather than abortion on demand, including partial-birth abortion and harvesting of baby organs with taxpayer funds.
The same thing applies to the immigration debate. While the Left seeks to focus attention on a complete ban, as if it is conservatives are trying to do something out of the ordinary, they are obfuscating the reality that Muslim immigration is the fastest growing segment of our annual intake. As I describe in detail in chapter seven of Stolen Sovereignty, mass migration from non-European countries with such different cultures is something we’ve never done even during the most open periods of immigration. Is it too much to ask that we don’t step on the accelerator of the very antecedent to homegrown terror?
Consider the following information that has come to light this week:
Half of admitted refugees are Muslim
According to Pew, the U.S. admitted 38,901 Muslim refugees in fiscal year 2016, accounting for almost half of our total refugee intake. This is the most on record, and most likely, the most in our history in a single year. The breakdown by county is as follows:
Burma (Myanmar) (3,145);
Other countries (3,741).
The Islamic countries of the Persian Gulf have still declined to admit any refugees of the same faith. Over 99 percent of the refugees from Syria were Muslim, even though six percent of the country’s population is Christian and they best fit the legal definition of a persecuted minority. The number of Muslim refugees only stands to increase in the new fiscal year because the State Department announced a 25,000 spike overall — with the increases by region coming mainly from Muslim countries.
Predominantly Muslim countries account for 16% of LPRs
In recent years, Pew estimates that Muslims account for roughly 10 percent of the one million green cards handed out annually. However, based on the most recent numbers from 2014, that number has likely increased.
Using DHS data obtained by the Immigration Reform Law Institute, as reported first by Paul Bedard, one can break down the number of green cards granted to predominantly Muslim countries on an annual basis.
Paul Bedard calculates some 242,961 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries came to the U.S. on a green card in 2014; 24% of all LPRs that year. Using a baseline that only includes 14% of the green cards issued to immigrants from India (corresponding to the percent of Muslims in the country), Bedard comes up with 178, 403 from Muslim countries. That is a 29 percent increase from 2008.
For the purposes of keeping this exercise limited to predominantly Muslim countries, I eliminated India altogether. The total number of green cards granted to individuals from predominantly Muslim countries drops to 163,472, or 16% of total 2014 LPR admissions. It is safe to say this is a close reflection of the total Muslim immigrant population that arrives via green card on a yearly basis. That is still well over the 10 percent figure widely circulated by demographers and a sharp increase from the past two decades.
Immigrants from Muslim countries up by double-digits
The increase in green cards to nationals of Muslim countries is also showing up in Census data. According to a new analysis of Census data on immigration from the Center for Immigration Studies, “the sending countries with the largest percentage increases in immigrants living in the United States from 2010 to 2014 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent), Bangladesh (up 37 percent), Iraq (up 36 percent), Egypt (up 25 percent), and Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (each up 24 percent).”
Fastest growing language is … Arabic
Arabic is now the fastest growing language in the U.S., and particularly on college campuses. According to Pew, the number of Arabic speakers in the country has increased by 29 percent from 2010 to 2014. Given this trajectory, one can only imagine where these numbers stand two years later. Pew estimates that the Muslim population will triple by 2050 and double in just 15 years, surpassing the United States’ Jewish population by 2040. Immigration from the Middle East has become so potent that the Obama administration wants to create an entire new racial designation for “Middle Eastern people.” This will have far reaching consequences in making them a protected class with regards to election districts and affirmative action programs. The legal profession will have a field day.
No other generation would have accepted this unprecedented civilizational suicide, and such a sentiment would have been bipartisan.
Obviously not all Muslims are a problem, but numbers matter both in terms of the likelihood of admitting terrorists and the certainty that a large portion of them are adherents to Sharia supremacism. It’s also a cumulative effect of fostering a subversive culture in large numbers, as witnessed by Europe’s failed immigration policies. As we’ve noted before, while small numbers of immigrants can be assimilated, large numbers will invariably bring with them the values of the countries from where they came. And those values are not exactly what we seek to promote here.
When did the people ever vote for such a radical and dangerous transformation of America? When the immigration statutes were written in 1965, 1980, and 1990, they were sold to the people as efforts to bring in more European immigrants. Once enacted, however, federal agencies have essentially engaged in social transformation without representation. Imagine if Congress had to pass a bill vouching for this reality — a bill making Muslim immigration the fastest growing subset at a time like this? Do you think the American people would approve it and allow their members to vote in favor of it?
No other generation would have accepted this unprecedented civilizational suicide, and such a sentiment would have been bipartisan. Just consider Harry Reid’s comment following the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center and CIA headquarters. Back when immigration from the Middle East was just a trickle, Reid expressed hope that the attacks would jolt the political leaders “out of our complacency about the state of U.S. immigration policies” and that the events would “turn immigration” into “a high profile issue.”
It’s quite clear the Harry Reid of 1993 never envisioned the explosion in Muslim immigration that would occur during the ensuing two decades. Yet, he was still alarmed and demanded immediate action. Where are the political leaders in either party today?
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.