Converging Bigotry: Nativist Movement Begins to Focus on Muslim Immigration – Imagine 2050, 1/31/14, by Patrick Flanagan.
Fact Check: Imagine 2050 is a radical left-wing website which superbly illustrates the illogic and hard-wired bias of the left on immigration. Continuing this dubious tradition is an article with the title above.
It stridently attacks the idea that there can be anything wrong with large-scale Muslim immigration to the United States. Why? Because, according to Flanagan, opposition to it stems from “bigotry” and “baseless, packaged fears.” The author, as many other leftists, seems to enjoy flinging the word “bigot.” But it would be most instructive for him and them if they took time to look up the meaning of the word.
According to Webster’s the definition is “A person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.” So is it “blind and intolerant” to oppose Muslim immigration? Actually, no. In fact there are many good reasons to do so, particularly if we value the heritage and liberties we cherish as Americans.
Despite the absurd claim of a former U.S. president, Islam is not a religion of peace. From its beginning, inspired by its prophet and scriptures, Islam has advanced by the sword and forced its opponents into servitude and silence. Today in Europe, Muslim immigration is causing discord and threatening the cultural cohesion of some nations.
Is it really “blind and intolerant” to notice these problems and try to avoid them here in the United States? In truth, the real bigots are those who use charges of bigotry and other name-calling to silence this and other reasonable questions. Another term the left uses to stifle dialogue is “nativist.” One must wonder what is so wrong about people having a special love for their countries and cultures and wishing to preserve them.
In any case, according to Flanagan, “nativism” is unacceptable because it resists “the new.” But does new necessarily mean better? And just who is to decide? Under the theory of government called constitutional democracy, citizens (also known as natives) have the right to determine what the future of their countries should be.
Leftists claim to support democracy, but only when the votes go their way. If not, they propose to rule by decree, just as President Obama has been doing in a number of areas, including immigration. Their goal is to import a new electorate, one they believe they can manipulate to vote “properly.”
This might not be so easy to do with Muslims, who strongly disagree with the left on such issues as gay rights and feminism. But leftists seem willing to take the risk. They view Islam, overall, as an ideal battering ram to destroy the traditional America that they so blindly and intolerantly hate.