Why We Can't Really Vet Refugees In Any Meaningful Way And Why Japan Doesn't Have To
There's the Islamic principle of taqiyya, lying to advance the cause of Islam. (A related concept is kitman, lying by omission to advance Islam.)
From the link above:
From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset. Leaders in the Arab world sometimes say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then say something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.
It's an Islamic value -- a good and holy thing to do this sort of lying to advance Islam...like to get into a country so you can murder the "infidels."
So, how could we possibly ask questions that would determine whether a person has been "radicalized"?
This isn't like testing for typhoid.
It's guesswork.
As a person who deeply values civil liberties, especially those this country stands for, and as a person who would like this country to be a humanitarian refuge, I don't have answers to the problem of how we vet the migrants fleeing from Islamic countries. (These immigrants are far more likely to end up wanting to slaughter us for Allah than, say, people coming here from Iceland.)
Japan's answer? Cherson and Molschky write:
What Japan did to avoid problems related to Muslims was much simpler and cheaper; Japan is practically closed to Muslims.Officially, immigration to Japan is not closed to Muslims. But the number of the immigration permits given to the applicants from Islamic countries is very low. Obtaining a working visa is not easy for adepts of Islam, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region. As a result, Japan is "a country without Muslims."
There is no reliable estimate on the Japanese Muslim population. However, claims of thirty thousand made by some researchers are without doubt an exaggeration. Some claim that there are only a few hundred. This probably amounts to the number of Muslims openly practicing Islam. Asked to give an estimate on the actual number of Muslims in Japan, the ex-president of the Japan Islamic Association Abu Bakr Morimoto replied, "To say frankly, only one thousand. In the broadest sense, I mean, if we do not exclude those who became Muslims for the sake of, say marriage, and do not practice then the number would be a few thousand."
One of the leaders of the Muslim community in Japan, Nur Ad-Din Mori, was asked: "What percentage of Japan's total population are Muslims?" He responded, "The answer at the moment is: One out of a hundred thousand."
Japan's population is 130 million people, so if these Muslim leaders are correct, then there must be around 1300 Muslims. But even those Muslims who obtained immigration permits and lived many years in the country have very poor chances of becoming Japanese citizens.
Japan officially forbids exhorting people to adopt the religion of Islam (Dawah), and any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytizing to a foreign and undesirable culture. Too active "promoters of Islam" face deportation- and sometimes even a jail sentence.
The Arabic language is taught by very few academic institutes; I could find only one such institute: The Arabic Islamic Institute in Tokyo. But even the International University of Japan in Tokyo does not offer courses on Arabic or Islamic languages.
Importing the Koran in Arabic is practically impossible, and the only one permitted is the "adapted" version in Japanese.
Until recently, there were only two mosques in Japan: Tokyo Jama Masjid and Kobe Mosque. Now, the total number of Muslim praying sites in Japan is counted in some 30 single story mosques and about a hundred apartment rooms set aside for prayers.
And Japanese society expects Muslims to pray at home: no collective "prostrating" in the streets or squares; in Japan, for such "shows" the actors can get pretty high fines, and in those cases Japanese Police consider "serious", the participants can be deported.
Quite often, Japanese companies seeking foreign workers specifically note that they are not interested in Muslims. There is not even a trace of a Shari´a Law in Japan, and halal food is extremely difficult to find in there.
The Japanese tend to perceive Islam as a "strange and dangerous religion" that a true Japanese should avoid, and the recent murders of two Japanese nationals, Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, by ISIS have not contributed to any improvement in the opinions of the Japanese on this matter.
And the most interesting thing in the Japanese approach to Muslims is the fact that the Japanese do not feel any guilt for such a "discriminatory" approach to Islam, and they evidently do not think they should apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they perceive their religion. Arab gas and oil- yes, and Japan maintains good relations with Arab exporters. But Islam - no, and Muslim immigration- neither. Islam is something that is suitable for others, not for Japan, and therefore the Muslims must remain outside.
And Muslims in Japan do not riot, they do not brand the Japanese "racists", they do not burn cars, smash windows, behead Japanese soldiers for having been in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else on Earth - and not a single Japanese has been victim of a Muslim terrorist attack on Japanese soil in the last 30 years.
Well, we are not Japan. So anybody have any answers?
I do.
I keep reading about gays getting raped in refugee camps. Take in 10,000 gay Syrians.
Muslims are extremely unlikely to pretend to be gay as it might get them killed by other Muslims.
Gays are extremely unlikely to become radicalized and are extremely likely to appreciate being in the West.
Put them somewhere like Detroit where they could revitalize the neighborhood.
NicoleK at December 10, 2015 12:06 AM
must have an interview in person. On the interviewers desk are a "Piss Christ" and a "Piss Koran/Quran". If the interviewee is upset by the Piss Christ or equally upset at both, they're probably fine. If they just up an threaten to chop your head off over the Piss Koran, deny them entrance.
mer at December 10, 2015 3:44 AM
I like your idea mer but that should be a "Piss Christ" and a "Piss Mohammed".
Ltw at December 10, 2015 4:44 AM
There is no law that says we cannot close our borders to Muslim immigrants. Islam is not a race! That's my solution. Syrians refugees need a place to stay? That's a problem, of course, but not every problem in the world requires the United States to intervene.
Patrick at December 10, 2015 5:40 AM
Personally, I'm fine with the rest of the world calling us racist zenophobes. I say close our borders, period. Take the time needed to set up a coherent immigration strategy, including permanent refusal of those whose life beliefs are incompatible with the American way of life (Islam, for example). Eliminate the fiancé visa.
Syria is full of violence? Maybe Syrians need to fight for Syria. Plenty of women and children were killed in some pretty brutal ways during the American Revolution and, no doubt, the civil war as well. We didn't all flee to Canada and Mexico. Women can hold guns.
Japan is the most "racist" country on earth, and also just about the most peaceful. There's a lesson to be learned there. Like tends to get along with like. Also, pay no attention to the rest of the world and do what keeps your people safe.
All the people bleeting about the US and gun violence will get nowhere until they will acknowledge the reason ours is so high: but doing so gets you called racist and shouted down.
momof4 at December 10, 2015 5:58 AM
NicoleK,
That is a fantastic idea. On top of that, we can take children under the age of 8, by putting them up for adoption in the U.S. That would greatly decrease the likelihood of radicalization.
spqr2008 at December 10, 2015 6:35 AM
I think there is some projection going on here. Japan is racist in a disgusting way, not in the way Americans get accused of being "racist".
It's peaceful but the culture itself is awful. Like it's fun as a tourist or if you're a white man that's into boning. But you could be of Korean descent, that's lived there for several generations, is a model well educated citizen and never be accepted.
Ppen at December 10, 2015 6:45 AM
The problem with Nicole's idea is that they can lie about that too. Remember that Islam places no moral constraints whatsoever on the pursuit of jihad; things that would otherwise be prohibited are permitted for jihadists. The end justifies the means.
The Constitution places no limits on who we do or don't issue visas to. The media is ripping Donald Trump for his statements, but they are overlooking the point: if a person's beliefs are incompatible with American values (whatever the source of those beliefs is), there is no reason we should let them in, and no provision of the Constitution says we have to. After the overthrow of the Shah and the kidnapping of the Americans in Iran in 1979, President Carter closed the U.S. to Iranians, completely. And some who were already here were deported. Nobody considered that a Constitutional problem. It's a well established point in common law, going back to well before the United States existed, that visitors and people trying to immigrate do not have the full set of rights of citizens.
(As far as settling gay Syrians in Detroit: If they really are gay, well, Dearborn's right next door. So that might not be a good idea.)
Cousin Dave at December 10, 2015 6:51 AM
Like the article says at the top, they have no qualms about lying if it will further Islam. I think you'd have to coerce something blasphemous like have them draw a picture of Mohammed, and I doubt that will ever pass the PC police.
I say take all the disenfranchised - gays, Christians, orphans, widows.
I look at it like this -- I reasonably think my neighborhood is safe. But I lock my door, put on an alarm at night, and have a yapping dog for pure reasonably safe is not really safe enough. Why on earth should we do anything less for our borders?
gooseegg at December 10, 2015 8:18 AM
Eliminate the fiancé visa.
I disagree with pretty much every, single thing momof4 wrote in her post above, but at least she's fucking consistent.
I've seen so many people bleating about the female San Bernadino shooter and how that proves we need to tighten restrictions on refugees. Bitch got in on a fiance visa, which is actually pretty damn easy to do -- friend of mine got paid $5,000 (by the family) to marry a guy she'd never met (except for on Skype).
But I digress -- If people want to pound their chests about blocking the refugee hole, they have to advocate plugging the fiance-visa hole, too. But nobody wants to do that because they personally know a lot of people married to people from other countries, so they go on and on about blocking refugees only.
Oh, and Japan? Pretty much impossible for anyone from outside to get citizenship. Just ask any American white kid who did the JET program after college and then wanted to stay forever.
sofar at December 10, 2015 8:20 AM
I like "consistency" because it gives everyone a benchmark/starting point for discussion.
Right now Dems/Libs/MSM have a free ride on being "right". BS!
We know that in Belgium and in France that there are Muslim neighborhoods where police/firemen/rescue personnel do not go into due to "cultural" issues.
So why do we want Muslims from those neighborhoods here? W/no vetting? No discussion on that. Just "Oh that's racist." Might be common sense too. Let's discuss.
Bob in Texas at December 10, 2015 8:33 AM
Look up 8 USC 1182.
It is alleged that the president can forbid whomever he pleases from entering the country.
Apparently, the same sheep who now hate the Dukes of Hazzard because CNN told them to have not noticed that religious practices may be forbidden if they violate the law.
Radwaste at December 10, 2015 8:51 AM
It's peaceful but the culture itself is awful
Japan is one of my favorite places to visit, but my boyfriend have had some, uh, experiences there as foreigners. It is simultaneously a place that treats foreigners the BEST (You look lost -- Get in my car, I'll drive you to your hotel! Here's some free food! Oh you're from America and speak a few sentences in Japanese? Here are some ceramics as a gift!) and the WORST (Getting escorted out of the restaurant by the owner after after being seated and getting the crossed arms and a loud "NO! GET OUT" when trying to enter a business that's clearly open). While the good experiences have happened no matter who I'm with, the bad experiences are more likely to happen when I'm with my (Indian) boyfriend. Granted, we've gotten some of the same bad treatment in other countries, too.
As a friend who lives there put it (after expressing disappointment we'd had those bad experiences), it's generally considered OK and NOT something you have to apologize for if you don't want foreigners or a certain race to enter your place of business. While most people will secretly agree that the business owner is being a jerk, they respect their right to decide who their customers are.
sofar at December 10, 2015 8:54 AM
Ltw,
That would work too.
mer at December 10, 2015 9:56 AM
They CAN lie about being gay but probably won't, as it is dangerous to do so. The ones we know are gay have been raped... take them.
NicoleK at December 10, 2015 11:54 AM
The problem as I see it, is immigration for the west has taken on the identity of a human rights issue.
It never should have been allowed to become so.
It is first and foremost, an agreement between two countries on which rights and privileges the other country will extend each other's citizens.
It was not only right and legal for the US to intern Japanese citizens they deemed a danger for the duration of World War II;
Japan has the right to do the same thing, as long as the treatment of those citizens was humane. (It wasnt)
It is very very hard for anyone not of Japanese birth to become a citizen over here. (Muslim or not). It always has been.
A little easier to live here permanently but you will open yourself up to being taxed out the wazoo even on income not earned in Japan.
Unfortunately the socialist whiners in the US, have succeeded in turning immigration into a human rights issue, because it benefits them politically to do so.
Isab at December 10, 2015 12:51 PM
I have no problem with non-governmental businesses letting me know they don't care to serve me. I'd rather you let me know that, than despise me silently and let me spend my money there. (and my husband, and kids, are not white, color-wise, so it's not like it's an issue that would never affect me, I don't want to be spending money somewhere that secretly looks down on my kids)
Free should mean: Free to refuse service, and Free to refuse to buy. We no longer have either freedom, in the US.
So a Japanese restaurant owner flapping his arms and scowling me out isn't going to phase me at all.
momof4 at December 10, 2015 4:37 PM
Again, look here at existing law.
Radwaste at December 10, 2015 6:19 PM
It's peaceful but the culture itself is awful.
________________________________
From a letter to Newsweek (years ago), in response to an article on racism in Japan:
"I am half black, half Japanese. I've lived in Japan. The people are the kindest in the world - if you are 100% Japanese."
And this has a fascinating anecdote (black Canadian woman in Japan meets a half-African, half-Japanese toddler and...)
http://whoa-im-in-japan.com/2011/09/blacks-in-japan-she-was-scared-of-me/
And, for the record, I have a half-black, half-Japanese cousin in Long Island - but I suspect many would not guess he's part Asian.
lenona at December 11, 2015 10:13 AM
We live in a very rural part of Japan near a large American Airbase that has been In operation for 70 years.
Most of the local people have daughters married to Americans, and a many of the service members have connections to Japan.
Our treatment here is spectacularly good. I am sure in Okinawa it would be less good.
Isab at December 11, 2015 1:10 PM
"And this has a fascinating anecdote (black Canadian woman in Japan meets a half-African, half-Japanese toddler and...)"
It seems like typical 2-year-old behavior, stranger anxiety. Not everything is racial. My white cousin's kids cried at white me when I went to their house when they were two. What was different? Mum and Dad wear glasses, I didn't.
crella at December 11, 2015 1:58 PM
Except that the FATHER said:
“No, whenever she sees a black face, or anyone not Japanese, she gets scared. She’s only used to me.”
lenona at December 12, 2015 10:44 AM
And?
Can he read his toddler's mind? If that's true, then babies who live in racially homogenous countries don't cry at all...
Was my cousin'g kids' crying racially motivated?
crella at December 12, 2015 7:23 PM
What momof4 said.
60s era civil rights law has accustomed Americans to the idea that the government can force association between private entities in the name of "equality". This incredible broaching of individual rights was justified in the name of "social justice" - and typically has become a big-government bugaboo that is not going to go away unless challenged.
America througout most of its history was just like Japan - private citizens and businesses were free to decide who they would associate with.
And this was not considered a matter justifying government intervention.
Ben David at December 13, 2015 5:42 AM
And how exactly would things be better for black people if the Civil Rights Act had not been passed? Just because things aren't TERRIFIC, right now, for the average black person, hardly proves that it was a mistake.
lenona at December 13, 2015 10:58 AM
Leave a comment