Monday, February 6, 2017

Most Want Less Immigration, But Politicians Want More. Why?

(Note:  Politicians and media try to hide the information in this article from you.)

Most people, including immigrants, want less immigration:

Gallup Poll: Only SEVEN PERCENT Of Americans Want More Immigration

According to this survey: "majority of Americans (54 percent), including 52 percent of Hispanics, said it ought to be half a million or fewer."

Three quarters of Britons want less immigration – survey

A poll of Germans found 83% Say Immigration is the Country’s “Biggest Challenge”.

In Europe, 52% want lower immigration levels.

According to Pew, "Huge majorities in both Greece (86%) and Italy (80%) say they want fewer immigrants allowed into their countries. More than half in the United Kingdom and France hold this view”

Most Canadians want limits on immigration:  "70% of ... Canadian adults polled supported limits, and most Canadians who were born in another country (58%) agreed. Among those whose parents were not born in Canada, 66% were in support of limiting the number of...immigrants"


According to the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine in the U.S.:
  • "Mass immigration costs government $296 billion a year, depresses wages"
  • "The data show that immigrants take more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Although immigrants do boost the size of the economy, the gains are heavily skewed toward the immigrants themselves and to wealthy investors — not to native-born workers who end up competing with the new arrivals."
  • "...“It reminds us, the big beneficiaries of immigrants are the immigrants themselves, and American business. The losers tend to be the poor"
According to Center for Immigration Studies, immigrants use substantially more welfare than natives:

According to think tank Migration Watch UK:
  • "Mass immigration is costing Britain £17BILLION each year"
According to the Fraser Institute in 2005/2006 of Canada:
  • "immigrants on average received an excess of $6,051 in benefits over taxes paid...fiscal burden in that year is estimated to be between $23.6 billion and $16.3 billion."
  • "These estimates are not changed by the consideration of other alleged benefits brought by immigrants."
According to Politiko of Denmark:
  • "Non-western immigrants cost the treasury 33 billion. kr. per year"
According to Reuters:
  • "Soaring asylum numbers force Sweden to cut costs, borrow more"
[Update on April 16, 2017] According National Economics Editorial:
  • "Refugees Will Cost Sweden $18.6 Billion This Year—9.3x Over-Budget"

The World Happiness Report reported that the happiest countries are the smallest or least populated.

Many immigrants move from over-populated countries to sparsely populated countries.  Once they are in the new country, they do not want to see it become over-populated as well.

However, there are so many people in the developed world that it has become over-populated already.  There are 500 million people on that tiny European continent.

Millions of commuters in LA and New York wish there were fewer people on the roads.  There are signs of over-population in most countries, including the small Western countries.  Even Canada, one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world, shows signs of over-population.  The great lakes are polluted.  Ontario needs to ship its garbage to Michigan.  Much of the west is de-forested.  Grand banks off Newfoundland, which used to be flushed with fish, have been nearly depleted.  Canada needs to sell so much oil that their tar sands have become a huge polluter.

Most of the third world is exploding in population, causing the West to be used as a release valve.  Some say that immigration into the West will help world poverty.  This video explains how it will not.  It will not make a tiny dent.  If anything, it might worsen world poverty as the people who are most capable and likely to improve poor countries are leaving them.

This video explains how the current path of immigration will make the U.S. over-populated and worse off.  It also states:  "polls show that there was never a time when much more than 10% of Americans wanted higher immigration."


Based on these statistics, there is a positive correlation between population and corruption.  The bigger the population, the more corrupt a country is.  United States, with its excellent constitution and checks and balances, is still more corrupt than Canada.


Many tell you that immigration is needed because the West is not reproducing enough.  This is a big lie.  Japan does not believe they need immigration to compensate for their low native birth rates.  This video explains why.

Countries should be reducing their populations, not increasing them.  People in the developed world are the biggest consumers of the world resources.  Thanks to them, we have many of the problems in the world, such as pollution and animal extinctions.  Reducing their population is good for planet earth.


Despite the heavy costs, politicians continue to increase their populations, by ramming more immigrants down the throats of their citizens.  Why?
  1. They get more votes.  New immigrants tend to vote for the party that let them in.  (This was a brilliant political strategy by Ted Kennedy when he changed the immigration policy in 1965.)  Therefore, they see immigrants as a source of votes and job security (for the politicians, not for the voters).
  2. They can get re-elected if they grow the economy (GDP).  Growing the population grows the GDP.
As you can see, #1 is good for politicians, not for you.

# 2 is also good for politicians, not for you.

GDP is NOT the most important metric for the economic health of citizens.  GDP PER CAPITA (per person) is.  The U.S. has the biggest GDP, but Switzerland has a much bigger GDP PER CAPITA and Switzerland does not have nor need low-skilled, low-income workers.  Switzerland is one of the happiest countries in the world and they do not need low-income immigrants to pick crops for them.  China has a bigger GDP than Canada, Australia and European countries.  Yet, China's people cannot emigrate fast enough to the smaller GDP countries.  China will have a bigger GDP than the U.S., but Americans will still be happier than the Chinese because Americans have a bigger GDP PER CAPITA.

As this video shows, GDP PER CAPITA is not correlated to population growth.  Countries can grow GDP PER CAPITA despite population decline.  As this video shows, politicians and media have been lying for decades when they say that immigration is needed to support the aging population.

Most politicians do not know how to grow GDP PER CAPITA.  Growing GDP is simpler.  Just increase immigration.  After decades of increasing immigration, GDP PER CAPITA has not grown much or at all for most Western countries.  According to Pew, real income for the average American has been flat from 1964 to 2014.  According to Mises, real income has fallen over the past 16 years.  Therefore, all of this immigration has benefited mainly the politicians and not the citizens.


In addition to politicians, some of the media also push for immigration.  Why?  We can only speculate.  Media is usually controlled by large corporations.  They want to be able to hire foreign workers because they are cheaper for both high skilled and low skilled positions.  Hence, they can increase their profits.

Also, by growing GDP for the country, large corporations can increase their revenue and profits, even if GDP PER CAPITA stays flat or goes down.

However, what is in the best interest of large corporations is not necessarily in the best interest of the majority of the population.  By hiring foreign workers, they bypass many native workers.

Besides, Switzerland and Japan, have shown that foreign workers are not needed.  They have little to no immigration.  Yet, they continue to increase their GDP PER CAPITA, and Switzerland's GDP PER CAPITA ($79,242) is significantly higher than U.S.'s ($57,436) (source).


WINNERS from IMMIGRATION:  Politicians, big corporations and foreigners (immigrants)

LOSERS from IMMIGRATION:  Taxpayers and workers

Politicians are giving away pieces of the country to get votes or to help corporations, at the expense of workers and taxpayers.  Essentially, politicians are stealing pieces of the country from the majority, to give them away to foreigners, to benefit a minority.

The need for immigration is a big lie pushed by the politicians, corporations and the media.  Do not believe it.

Democracy is a myth.  The people do not get what they want.  Tell your politician what you want.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Top 6 Things that the World should do with Muslim Migrants

Justin Trudeau is the new celebrity politician.  In 2015, he was campaigning for the Canadian federal election.  When he, along with other Canadians, saw the Syrian refugees, he made a campaign promise to bring 25,000 into Canada.

250,000 Syrians have been killed.  Over 13.5 million Syrians need help.  The world should urgently help them.  But moving them to Canada, or most Western countries, should be seriously reconsidered or maybe even stopped.  In fact, it might be a huge mistake to do so.

Here are the top 6 things that should be done:


The only solution to this problem is to end the war.  The world (not just Western countries) should spend its money and resources to do whatever it can to help end the war.  Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.


According to Wikipedia, Turkey has taken 2.7 million, Lebanon has taken 1.5 million and Jordan has taken 1.4 million.  There are many Western countries who want to slow or stop the inflow of Syrians.  They can help do this if they provided much more funding to these three countries neighbouring Syria.

Besides, cost of living is far cheaper in these countries.  Hence it is far cheaper, on a per person basis, to help Syrians in these countries than to move them to Western countries.  So, for the same amount of money, you can help many more Syrians.  The world (not just Western countries) should pour much more money into these three countries as well as UNHCR and give incentives to these countries to enable Syrians to live and work.

It will be far cheaper in terms of transportation and cost-of-living for the Syrians to be living in Arabic countries than Western countries.  The Syrians will not need to learn another language (with the exception of Turkish), which can take multiple years for adults.  They will not need to learn new customs or a new culture.  When Syria is rebuilt, it will be easier and cheaper for the Syrians to return home.

If Syrians are not able to work in these three countries and if other countries do not want to accept Syrians, then the world should provide cost-of-living support to the Syrians in these host countries until they are able to work.

(Some have argued that the Muslim refugee crisis is due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and their meddling in the Middle East for the past few decades.  The U.S. made the mistake of removing Saddam Hussein, who ran a secular government.  Once this was removed, the Islamic forces were unleashed, which brought about the sectarian conflicts and the creation of ISIS.  So, it was a blunder that created unintended consequence.  If these critics are right, then the U.S. probably should be the largest contributor of money and resources for #1 and #2.  Others have argued that Iraqis are grateful for the removal of Hussein and that the blunders and divisive actions of the new Iraqi government are largely to blame.  We will leave this debate to someone else.  However, it is difficult to argue that the U.S. created the Syrian civil war, which has caused the majority of the Muslim refugee crisis.)


Germany extends a huge helping hand.  Saudi Arabia extends next to nothing.

Germany took in 1.1 million migrants in 2015.  According to The National Post, the following
countries have accepted zero refugees:
  • Saudi Arabia
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Qatar
  • Kuwait
  • Oman
  • Bahrain
Yet these countries are some the wealthiest in the world, where citizens pay little to no tax.  Some get money just for existing.  Many citizens do not work, as foreigners do all of the work.  According to CNBC:
  • "United Arab Emirates has one of the world's highest per-capita incomes at $49,000.  It has no personal income or capital gains taxes."
  • "Gas-rich Qatar is the world's richest country with GDP per capital of $102,800..."
  • "...Oman's oil revenue, which accounts for nearly 70 percent of its total revenue, rose 30 percent to $13.7 billion..."
  • " of the world's wealthiest countries per capita..."
  • "Bahrain...with no personal income tax..."
  • "Saudi Arabia, the world's number one oil exporter, doesn't impose a tax on salaries..."
According to InfoWars, Saudi Arabia Has 100,000 Air Conditioned Tents That Can House 3 Million People Sitting Empty Yet Has Taken Zero Refugees.

According to BreitBart:  "Amnesty International’s Head of Refugee and Migrants’ Rights, has slammed their inaction as “shameful”.  He said: “The records of Gulf countries is absolutely appalling, in terms of actually showing compassion and sharing the responsibility of this crisis… It is a disgrace.”  …Total donations from the Gulf States are believe to total £589 million, less than a quarter of America’s £2.8 billion, and a fraction of the £65 billion they spent on defence in 2012 alone. The UK has handed over £920 million so far, but the Prime Minister yesterday pledged to increase that figure to £1 billion. He also promised to take in thousands more refugees."

Even Muslims are censuring these rich Muslim countries, such as Brother Rachid in this video.

There are 4 main source of wealth for most countries:
  1. Hard Work
  2. Innovation
  3. Natural Resources
  4. Kill and Steal
These Arabic countries are rich mainly from #3.  Germany is rich from #1 and #2.  Saudi Arabia is so rich that they love showing off their huge yachts, which are among the biggest in the world.  Dubai also loves to show off its wealth.

They are Arab Muslim and much closer than Germany.  Yet, the Muslim migrants and refugees are pushing towards northern European countries, which are laden with debt, like most Western countries.

Western countries should spend money and resources to lobby these rich Arabic countries.  Maybe Western countries should even impose sanctions.  It is despicable and deplorable that so many Western countries are doing more to help Arab Muslims than these rich Arab Muslim countries.

Besides, it will be far cheaper and easier for Muslim refugees and migrants to live in Arabic countries than Western countries, as explained in #2 above.  Even Muslim refugees are censuring these rich Arabic countries (See RT's Testing the limits of Swedish generosity at 19:17 into the video).


As you can see from this map below, a large part of the world is Islamic, much larger than Europe.  There are dozens of Islamic countries (and expanding) in addition to the ones mentioned in #3 above.  Syria is literally surrounded by Islamic countries.  In fact, there are 49 countries in the world with Muslim majorities:

The world, including Islamic countries, should encourage Muslim migrants and refugees to migrate to these Islamic countries.  The world should provide incentives to both the Muslim migrants/refugees and the Islamic countries.  It will be far cheaper and easier for Muslim refugees and migrants to live in Muslim countries than Western countries, as explained in #2 above.


Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad ran secular governments and opposed Islamic politics.  When the West removed Saddam Hussein, sectarian fighting and Islam were unleashed and ISIS was created.  According to this Yazidi Iraqi, Iraq was better with Saddam Hussein ( at 21:35 into video).  According to Mehdi Hasan:  "In September 2011, a Zogby poll found that 42 per cent of Iraqis thought they were “worse off” as a result of the Anglo-American invasion of their country, compared to only 30 per cent of Iraqis who said “better off”."

If the West removes al-Assad, will something similar happen?  According to Wikipedia, Christians in Syria favor the Bashar al-Assad’s regime because of its appearance as a secular government.  The majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims, as is ISIS.  If al-Assad falls, will Syria implement Sharia law, remove any remaining freedom for Syrians and become even more anti-West?  According to Vice News (46:38 into video) and Dr. Bill Warner (5:50 into video), one of the biggest rebel groups is the Islamic Front, who hates al-Assad’s secular government.  They have implemented Sharia law already.  Another rebel group, al-Nusra Front, was created with the help from ISIS.

On this Vice News report (48:56 into video), Syria’s Islamic Front Sharia court says:  “After the
[Bashar al-Assad] regime has fallen, we believe that the Muslim majority in Syria will ask for an Islamic state.”  If both the Islamic Front and ISIS want an Islamic state and Sharia law, why is ISIS fighting the Islamic Front?  Syria's Islamic Front Sharia court says:  “…to start off by killing, crucifying [criminals] etc.  This is not correct at all.”  Vice reporter asks:  “What would you say is the difference between Sharia as you intend to implement it and Sharia implemented by ISIS in areas of Syria under their control?”  Syria's Islamic Front Sharia court says:  “One of their [ISIS] mistakes is before the regime has fallen, and before they’ve established what in Sharia is called Tamkeen [having a stable state], they started applying Sharia, thinking God gave them permission to control the land and establish a Caliphate.  This goes against the beliefs of religious scholars around the world.  This is what [IS] did wrong.  This is going to cause a lot of trouble.  Any who opposes [IS] will be considered against Sharia and will be severely punished.”  It would seem that ISIS does not believe in delaying the "killing" and "crucifying" but both groups eventually will.

According to this Vice News report called "Jihadists vs. the Assad Regime: Syria's Rebel Advance", Jihadists are among the rebel groups.  One of these groups is Al Qaeda, which has captured territory in Syria away from Al-assad.  One of the rebels (at 4:47 in the video) yells:  “I’m related to the lord Muhammad.”  They consider the al-Assad army to be “infidels”.  At 10:00 into the video, the reporter asks:  “Jaysh al Fateh has conquered a big part of Syria.  How will it rule the areas under its control?”.  The rebel says:  “The Sharia court will decide this.”  At 13:12 into the video, the rebels listen to a song that sings:  “Tell the crusader Americans, Syria will be your graveyard.  Our Front is victorious."

So, it seems that the Syrians want the same thing as the Talibans.  Is this war really about freedom or religion?  By getting rid of Al-Assad, are we liberating Syrians and providing them with freedom?  Not by Western standards.

David Wood also warns EU leaders about removing dictators in the Middle East in "The Paris Attacks: David Wood's Message to Merkel, Hollande and other EU Leader"

Therefore, “be careful of what you ask for”.

One of the ways to end the war is to stop trying to overthrow Bashar Al-assad, as repugnant as this might be.  Al-Assad and his army might be as bad as Saddam Hussein, but what comes after them?  Will Syria be better or worse without Bashar Al-assad?  We do not know for sure, but can only speculate.

Muammar Gaddafi used to block illegal economic migrants from going into Libya and from leaving Libya to go to Europe.  With Gaddafi removed, there is civil war, chaos and thousands of illegal economic migrants, with little education or skills, are using Libya as a launching point to go to Europe. 


Here are the top reasons why the West should reconsider the idea of taking in Syrians or Muslim migrants:


According to CBC, Canada will spend CAD 678 million to bring 25,000 Syrians to Canada, which works out to CAD 27,120 per Syrian.  Because everything is cheaper in Turkey, Turkey spends CAD 4,363 per Syrian  (According to Wikipedia, Turkey spent EUR 8 billion on 2.7 million refugees.).  Therefore, if Canada spent CAD 678 million on Syrians in Turkey, Canada would help 155,398 Syrians (CAD 678 million divided by CAD 4,363).  That is 6 times more Syrians than the 25,000.  However, this is not as effective in buying votes for Trudeau.


CAD 678 million is a lot of money but it’s a tiny bandage.  There are 13.5 million Syrians who need humanitarian aid (source).  Why is Canada helping only 0.18%?  What about the other 99.82%?  Is Canada creating inequality among the Syrians?  Don’t Westerners hate the 1%?  Why do 25,000 Syrians get to win the lottery but not the other 13.475 million?  Even Germany's intake of one million is less than 10% of the Syrians that need help.  Will Germany be able help many more Syrians by spending their money instead in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan?


According to United Nations, a refugee is one "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country" and an economic migrants are those who "choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families".

According to the Toronto Sun:
"...Yazedis and Christians in Syria would be the most persecuted in their own country. Yet many accounts confirm that Yazedis and Christians avoid refugee camps because they fear some or all of them could be dominated by Islamists...Furthermore, not everyone fleeing Syria is a victim of war. Some are probably economic migrants who have joined the refugees in camps where no amount of investigation can separate the genuine refugees from those seeking affluence and broader opportunities....according to the UNHCR, "Global migration patterns have become increasingly complex in modern times, involving not just refugees, but also millions of economic migrants. But refugees and migrants…are fundamentally different, and for that reason are treated very differently under modern international law.""
Based on information from CBC, Canada is bringing economic migrants, not refugees.

CBC shows that Canada is bringing a Syrian family with 8 children who left Syria three years ago and have been living peacefully during those three years in Jordan.  They have been renting an apartment, working on an olive farm and had a baby while in Jordan.  They may be classified as poor people, but they are not  threatened with persecution.

According to CBC:
"Syrians who've arrived in Canada mostly do not come from refugee camps.
Only about 10 per cent of Syrian refugees are in formal refugee camps in the countries surrounding Syria, according to the United Nations refugee agency. The rest are living everywhere from rented apartments to farm fields."
According to Rebel Media, Canada is taking in fake refugees.

These Syrians are poor people, but they are no longer refugees.  The countries that truly took in refugees are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

Therefore, the West is really helping migrants jump the immigration queue.

One might think that Syrians must be fleeing persecution if they are willing to risk their lives by fleeing Turkey to go to Greece.  They are not.  Turkey is not persecuting Syrians.  Syrians are fleeing Turkey to get a better life.  It is possible that fewer Syrians would be going to Greece if smugglers told the truth.  Smugglers regularly lie about the safety of the trip, size of the boat and the number of passengers.  When the drowned boy washed onto the beach, his father was likely a smuggler and lied.  According to Reuters and The Daily Telegraph via Zerohedge:
“…father might not have been a fleeing migrant after all, but rather a people smuggler and Aylan [boy] might have been on the boat not because his family intended to save their child …  but rather because profiting off of other people’s misery was his father’s chosen profession and he often brought his family along for the ride.” 

According to National Review:
  • "70 percent of the arrivals [to Europe] are young men who are traveling alone."
  • "Their families at home are waiting for them to achieve something in their new home."
This is supported by Vice's news reports.  Most of them left their parents and siblings behind in Syria.  It is these family members left behind in Syria that are true refugees and should be saved from possible death.  Even then, why are the family members still in Syria?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't the men have stayed in Syria to fight their war and shouldn't the women and children be the ones who have fled?  Try to imagine if the American men fled to Canada during their civil war and left the women and children to fend for themselves.  Now that the Syrian men have left, they are in Turkey with nothing to do.

If Syrians in Turkey are truly fleeing persecution, they can do so by fleeing to dozens of countries in Africa, central Asia or south Asia, such as Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran, Oman, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.  They are all closer or easier to get to than northern Europe.  Most of these countries are Arabic or Muslim, which would make integration much easier.  Africa has 55 countries, with twice as much land and twice as much natural resources as in Europe.  Instead, the Syrians choose Western countries.  Why? 

Gatestone Institute asks "Why Do "West-Hating" Muslims Flock to The "Evil West"?"

Is it for economic reasons?  Is it because Western countries are the wealthiest?

According to the 2010 Legatum Prosperity Index Ranking of 110 countries, which was compiled before the Syrian civil war, the top countries were Western countries.  Syria ranked #83.  The most prosperous Arabic/Muslim countries were UAE (#30), Kuwai (#31) and Saudi Arabia (#49).  Unfortunately, these Arabic/Muslim countries are refusing to take refugees. 

According to UN's 2010-2012 World Happiness Report, the happiest countries were Western countries.  Does this explain why Muslims have been migrating to Western countries (and not the other way around) for decades?

So, is it possible that there is a multi-step process here?:
  1. Syrians received refuge from Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.
  2. Syrians feel stuck as they cannot work, are frustrated and see little future in these countries.
  3. Syrians chose to leave to go to the most prosperous and happiest countries with the best benefits instead of the 49 Muslim countries?
Is it possible that they know that European countries have obligated themselves to accept refugees but not economic migrants, hence it is important to seek asylum as refugees?

According to think tank Gatestone Institute:
"Hundreds of Muslim refugees are converting to Christianity, apparently in an effort to improve their chances of having their asylum applications approved. Under Islam, Muslims who convert to Christianity are guilty of apostasy, a crime punishable by death. The "converts" apparently believe that German officials will allow them to stay if they can be persuaded that they will be killed if they are sent back to their countries of origin."
This implies that they do not have a strong case for refugee status if they will do something as drastic as committing apostasy.  Is it possible that:
  • these Muslims have no intention of returning to their countries even if the war ended and their countries are rebuilt?
  • in the past, even before the war, they wanted to migrate to the West?
  • after they escaped the war, as horrible as it is, they now see an opportunity to finally go to the West?
Black Pigeon shows migrants complaining about food, accommodations, clothes and slow internet in Europe.  They threaten to return to Syria.  How can they return to Syria if they had to flee for their lives?

France 24 shows Iraqis going back home after two months.  If they are true refugees, how can they go back home?  One man in Iraq still wants to go to Europe and says:  "They say that over there, all you have to do is sit back and the government pays for everything."

According to New York Times article entitled "Why Migrants Don’t Want to Stay in Hungary":
"What’s so bad about staying in Hungary?

When asked, the migrants now stuck at a train station in Budapest say that they put Hungary in much the same category as Macedonia and Serbia, the Balkan countries they passed through on their journey. They see Hungary as having a thin veneer of prosperity, but being fundamentally relatively poor and still developing. And Greece, though developed, is in economic crisis.

They want to live in a truly developed land of opportunity.
“If we stay in Hungary there is no work. We can’t study. The language is very strange, and they’re not helping refugees.”
“It is supposed to be an E.U. country, but it has broken every single tenet they had. Greece is such a poor country, and it treated us better.” "
If Hungary is not good enough, then Turkey is probably not either.  If they are truly refugees, then any country that saves them from persecution should be good enough and they should be grateful to Turkey, Greece or Hungary for saving them from persecution.  If they want more than being saved from persecution, then they are economic migrants.

The lack of gratitude is not confined to Greece or Hungary.  According to National Review:
"A major reason so many refugees want to settle in Sweden, Germany, and other Northern European countries is that they have generous welfare-state programs for non-citizens.  Even so, some refugees can be picky.  The Swedish newspaper Local reported last week that “more than 30 asylum seekers refused to get off a bus that took them to temporary accommodation at a holiday park on Sunday night because they didn’t want to stay in such a rural location.” "
"Other countries without an extensive welfare state don’t seem to have Sweden’s problem. Reuters reported that Lithuania “is throwing its doors open to refugees ...but is finding few takers.” ...the Lithuanian government, told the news agency: “We are prepared to accept refugees immediately, but there are no refugees in Italy or Greece who agreed to resettle in Lithuania. . . . It seems that refugees know about Sweden, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, which either have generous social security or have been actively attracting immigrants.” "

If Syrians want to go to the richest countries, then they should be considered as economic migrants and you should consider the following questions.


If Canada wants to help poor people, what about the homeless?  According to Homeless Hub, there are 200,000 homeless Canadians.  These Canadians are poorer than the Syrians.  They are not able to rent apartments or houses.  According to Environment Canada, 80 homeless Canadians freeze to death every winter.  Why isn’t the CAD 678 million spent on them?

What about the homeless in your country?

According to this documentary, 3.5 million children are growing up in poverty in the UK and one million homes are un-fit to live in.


There are 103 million Filipinos, 1.2 billion Africans, 1.27 billion Indians, 199 million Pakistanis and
385 million South Americans for a total of 3.157 billion.  Most of them are poorer than the Syrians in Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan.  Many of them dream of living in apartments.

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.  That is 8,030,000 per year.  The Syrian war started 5 years ago.  40,150,000 children have died around the world in 5 years due to poverty.  Why isn’t the West helping them and taking in the 3.157 billion poor people?  For Justin Trudeau, this was not on headline news during his 2015 election campaign and therefore was not an opportunity to buy votes.


According to the Fraser Institute, combined federal and provincial debt in Canada is CAD 1.3 trillion, or CAD 35,827 for every Canadian.  There is little chance that Canadian citizens will be able to pay off this public debt when the citizens themselves carry large debt loads.  Most Western countries have similar debt levels  Essentially, they have fake wealth.  Most Westerners think that they are wealthier than they really are.

Where will they get the money to pay for these Syrian migrants?  They will have to steal more from their own children.  To do this, Justin Trudeau will increase the government deficit significantly, three times more than he promised in his campaign.

You have full right to take money out of your own pocket to spend it on anything that you want.  But if you are spending somebody else’s money, such as your children's or grandchildren’s money, then do you have this right?  What say did they have?


Do the taxpayers know the true costs?

According to CBC:
  • "...53 per cent of approved cases listed five to eight people..."  [This implies 3 to 6 kids per family.]
  • "...average level of schooling for adult Syrian refugees is six to nine years. Of cases coming from Jordan, 90 to 95 per cent have not finished high school. The report notes that many kids are also a year or two behind their peers, putting new demands on the school system."
  • " experience is largely low-skilled and almost entirely limited to males..."
How long will it take for the man of the house to learn a new language (in his adult life), learn a new skill and be productive enough to support his large family with a single income?

CBC shows another Syrian family that Canada is bringing over.  The parents just had their 11th
child.  Many Canadians cannot afford more than 2 kids in Canada.  How will this Syrian family afford 11?  For how many years will the Syrian family need taxpayer support?  How many third-world children can be saved from death with this money?

According to a German academic, 65% of Syrian migrants are illiterate.  They cannot read or write their own language, let alone yours.   They "have no hope of joining the job market...majority will never enter the labour market".  This has the potential of "enormous predicted growth in the welfare bill."

According to Dr. Farrukh Salem, "800 million Muslims out of 1.4 billion are illiterate."

According to an Algerian journalist on Lebanon TV, there are 50 million Muslims in Europe and 80% are living on welfare or defraud the government for benefits.  Here is the video and transcript.  According to American Center for Democracy (Muslim Immigrants Draining European Social Benefits):
  • "40% of Muslim youth in France and 50% in Germany are unemployed but far from destitute. Rather, they receive a wide range of social benefits."
  • "...40% of welfare outlays in Denmark go to the 5% of the population that is Muslim. According to...former German interior minister, speaking of immigrants in general: “Seventy percent of the newcomers [since 2002] land on welfare the day of their arrival.” "
  • "“In the early 1970s, 2 million of the 3 million foreigners in Germany were in the labor force; by the turn of this century, 2 million of 7.5 million were.”" 
  • "Some Muslims interpret the payment of social benefits as a form of jiziya, the poll tax traditionally paid in Islamic societies by non-Muslim peoples as a sign of their submission to Islamic rule.  In other words, not only are the social benefits interpreted as a right due to Muslim recipients, but they reflect the higher, dominant position of the latter which is embedded in sharia.  In fact, a minority consider draining the government’s coffers to be a contribution to jihad."
More explanation of Jizya (jiziya or jizyah) can be found here and here, which states:  "The lack of gratitude we see today from Islamic recipients of massive aid is likely because they view the donations as a Jizyah tax, which Muhammad instructs Muslims are fully entitled to."

According to Center for Security, "2012 unemployment rate [for Iraqi refugees in U.S.] was 22.6% (the number is surely much larger, but the VOLAGs have special method they use in reporting employment that help them show more success...)...60% were enrolled in Medicaid or a special medical program for refugees.  82% availed themsleves to food stamps."

Even if these people are exaggerating, why take the risk?

Rebel Media interviews migrants taking advantage of Sweden's benefits.  One immigrant wants Sharia law for Sweden.

The media usually criticizes the European countries for not having integrated the migrants.  Hence, the Muslims stay segregated and unemployed.  Is this argument valid?  Why should the host countries spend extra money to integrate migrants?  Shouldn't the migrants work extra hard to integrate into the host countries?  Even so, why should segregation cause so many problems?  In North America, one can easily argue that the Asians (Chinese, Koreans, etc.) do not integrate.  There is a Chinatown in most major cities where large populations of Asians still do not speak English.  Los Angeles has a large Korea-town.  Vancouver is now referred to as Hongcouver because of its large Chinese population.  Toronto has tens of thousands of Chinese who do not speak English.  Yet, according to the U.S. government, Asians have the lowest unemployment rate in the U.S., lower than that for whites.  Also, there is little risk that they will feel entitled to jiziya or be drawn into jihad for a religious war.


Why is the West taking in Muslims when:
    • It is impossible to vet the migrants.
    • Islam teaches Muslims that one of the things to do to ensure entry to paradise (heaven) after death, is to emigrate and spread Islam, called hijra.  This is because Islam is a political, military, supremacist, authoritarian and violent ideology, that comes via emigration in the cause of Allah.  Is this reflected in the fact that the majority of migrants are men, of fighting age, who leave their women and children behind?  Wouldn't you take your wife and children with you, if you were them?  Why aren't they?  
    • A million Christians have been displaced in Iraq and Syria.  The Archbishop of Mosul said that he has lost is entire Diocese to Islam and if Europe and America don't wake up, the same thing is going to happen to them. Where are the million Christian refugees?  Most of the migrants going to the West are Muslims.  Why aren't we rescuing the Christians?
    • 50% of Syrian refugees are not Syrians.  There is a big black market for forged passports.
    • Islam teaches Muslims that they are superior to you, that you are "apes" and "pigs" and that they should subjugate you.  [How will this help our government's fight against bigotry and discrimination?]
  • Archbishop of Mosul :  Christians will “suffer in the near future,” and stressed that the West is endangering itself by welcoming “an ever-growing number of Muslims.”  "Our sufferings today are the prelude of those that you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future"  The West says “all men are equal,” Islam “does not say that all men are equal,” and “their values” are not our values.  The Bishop of Mosul Cries.
  • Robert Spencer explains hijra further on Frontpage Mag:
    • "This is no longer just a “refugee crisis.” This is a hijrah."
    • "To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act."
    • “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an.
    • "The exalted status of such emigrants led a British jihad group that won notoriety...a few years ago for celebrating 9/11 to call itself Al-Muhajiroun: The Emigrants."
    • " effort whatsoever is being made to determine the refugees’ adherence to Sharia and desire to bring it to their new land."
    • "why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah."
  • Center for Security Policy supports Robert Spencer's claim.  In their Rufugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America report,  it states:
    • "Hijra remains the model to this day for jihadists who seek to populate and dominate new lands.  Their migrations are not for the purpose of assimilating peace-fully in a new host nation, adopting as their own its traditions and legal systems.  Rather, Mohammed’s followers, in keeping with the example established by their prophet, are driven first to colonize and then to transform non-Muslim target societies...Migration is Jihad.  Hijra is the "most important method of spreading Islam..."" 
    • "Pew asked Muslim respondents this question: “How much support for extremism  is  there among Muslim Americans?” and the percentage of those answering a “Great deal/fair amount” was 21%.  Pew might conclude that shows little support for extremism, but when one considers there are at least, according to Pew, 2.7 million Muslims in America, that comes out to a whopping 567,000 of them who are thought to support ‘extremism’ to one degree or another!"
  • SPEISA provides supporting evidence:  How Saudi Arabia wants to convert Sweden to Islam
  • American Thinker explains Modern Day Trojan Horse:  The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration. 
    • "Hijra is a comprehensive and direct political attempt to undermine the culture and values of the host country and replace them with Islam and shari'ah.  It is an insidious migration seeking transformation of the culture, behaviors, customs, rules and laws of a host society to spread Islam and establish an Islamic state."
    • "The stages of the Hijra are very much evident in varying degrees in all Western societies today.  Ironically, our open democratic societies with constitutionally mandated freedoms of speech, religion and assembly have facilitated this march toward the very demise of our way of life."
  • Europe has found that the second generation Muslims are more radical than the first.  Even if the Syrian migrants are moderate, what about their children?  Will they become more radical? 
  • According to The Atlantic:  "Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.”".  The more Muslims there are in France or Canada, the more likely a Muslim will heed this call.  According to Pew Research, 7% of Muslim Americans "say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified".  This equates to 8 out of every 100 Muslims, 80 out of every 1,000 Muslims or 800 out of every 10,000 Muslims.
    • See Jihad Triangle:  "Many people are confused by jihad. If Islam is a religion of peace, why is there a persistent problem of radicalism in the Muslim world? If Islam is the problem, why are there so many peaceful Muslims? In this video, David Wood explains that jihad isn't the product of a single factor, but of three factors: belief, knowledge, and obedience. These three factors come together in what we'll call "The Jihad Triangle."  [Most Muslims in the West have one of those factors, which is "belief".  Therefore, the more Muslims you have, the higher the probability that you will have Muslims who will acquire the other two factors:  "knowledge" and "obedience".  According to David Wood, this is how radicalization happens:  How ISIS Radicalizes Young Muslims.
  • According to the Islamic Front's Sharia court in Syria: "Muslim majority in Syria will ask for an Islamic state".  According to Wikipedia, 75% of Syrians are Sunni Muslims.  ISIS are Sunni Muslims.  Will Syrians in the West wish for Sharia or jihad?
  • CSPI International claims that "Charlie Hebdo Assassination 100% Islam"  
  • David Wood explains the risk of having Muslims in the West:
  • Exclusive: Islamic State Member Warns of NYC Attack In VICE News Interview
  • Muslim schools in the UK teach the need to establish an Islamic state and ‘the world will, insha’Allah, witness the death of the criminal capitalist nation of America and all other (infidel) states when the army of jihad is unleashed against them’.
  • According to WikiIslam, Islam's orders Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims:
    • Acts Against Kafir (non-Muslim) are Acts of Allah
    • Conquer Other Religions by Overbreeding
    • Live in Peace with Kafir for a While
    • Lying and Murder is Permissible for Muslims Defending or Promoting Islam
    • No Innocent Kafir are Killed [all Kafirs are guilty]
    • Jihad is Perpetual
  • Even if a Muslim claims to be moderate and does not believe in or is unaware of jizya, hijra, three stages of jihad and Islam's orders to kill and subjugate non-Muslims, how do we know that he/she is not practicing taqiyya?  Watch this and this for explanations of taqiyya, which is Islam's instructions to deceive non-Muslims.
  • Tarek Fatah, a Muslim, tells Canadian Senate about the dangers of the Islamic doctrine and the left political correctness madness.  He calls for a ban of Muslims as well.  He said:
    •  "Somalia, Bangladesh, Arab and Pakistani Muslim communities...radicalization is widespread, deeply entrenched, embedded and is framed in terms of Islam versus the infidels leading to an end of time Armageddon."
    • "Most of you would not know...Most mosques in Canada and around the world, start their Friday congregations with a prayer that asks Allah to give victory to the Muslims over the Kuffar [derogatory name for non-Muslims] or infidels...that is people like you. The glorification and radicalization is endemic and ubiquitous in the sermons and teachings to very young adults, as can be verified in the incidents in the UK and Canada. Every Islamic hero for the last 1,400 years, has been a Jihadist, who is celebrated for his exploits in defeating Christians, Jews, Hindus or Pagans."
    • "Recommendations...Lay hate speech charges against any Muslim cleric, who hides behind religious rights to attack and demonizes others of another is done every Friday in every mosque of this country...Immigration from Pakistan, Iran, Somalia and Syria must be suspended..."
    • "Islamism has escaped attention from everyone from Bush to Obama to Cameron. In all of the Western world, only one politician has had the courage to say that Islamism is a great threat and that is Harper. No one else has had the guts to say that we are fighting an enemy that is structured around a death most most people in the West, that seems like a joke. To every Muslim, that is a fact of life."
    • "Senator, they are laughing at the RCMP behind your backs."
    • Senator asks what we should do.  Fatah said "Suspend immigration from Iran, Pakistan, Somalia..."
Why do you want to live with people whose ideology tells them to hate, fight, kill or subjugate you?  Why take the risk?


When Westerners discuss Islam, critics use terms like “racism” or “Islamophobia”.

Firstly, Islam is not a race.  Before the 7th century, there was no Islam and no Muslims.  Much of the Middle East and North Africa were Christian and Jewish.  Note that Jesus Christ was a Middle Easterner.  Arabs were Christian and Jewish.  After the birth of Islam, Muslims killed over 250 million people (according to American Thinker) largely to conquer and to force people to convert to Islam.  Now, there are Arabic, White, Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian and Black Muslim countries in a large part of the world.  There are Chinese Muslims.  There are several White European Muslim countries.  Turkey used be to 100% Christian.  Now it is nearly 100% Muslim.  There used to Hindu and Buddhist culture in Afghanistan.  Now it is Islamic.  Pakistan used to be Hindu like India.  Now it is Islamic.  Indonesia became the world’s largest Muslim country.  See the following for full explanation and maps that show the expansion:

A Brief History of Islam
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

Secondly, racism is when one race feels superior to another race.  It is hard for non-Muslims to be racist when they are inferior:
  • according to IslamReview: "Islam teaches that Muslims are superior to others.  “Ye (Muslims) are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind…” Surah 3:110)”
  • according to David Wood (at 30:36) "Qur’an 98:6 -  “…those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an, and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell.  They are the worst of creatures.”"
  • a Muslim school in the UK teaches students that Jews and Christians are ‘apes and pigs’ and western women are ‘white prostitutes’.
  • Mosques in Sweden (37:04 into video) teach Muslims to discriminate against non-Muslims, who are “criminals”, “apes” and “pigs”
  • according to Anjem Choudary, (49:07 into video):  "all non-Muslims are destined for the hell fire".
  • according to, non-Muslims are "vile animals", "panting dogs", "cattle", "unclean", "ignorant", "helpers of the devil", "apes" and "pigs".
Why is it okay for Muslims to be bigoted and offensive to non-Muslims (but the reverse is not okay)?

According to Abdullah Al Araby: "Islam is more than a religion; it is a comprehensive way of life. The Quran, Mohammed, his immediate followers, and generations of theologians prescribed numerous regulations governing every aspect of the Muslim social, political, economic, and religious life.”  It is more than an ideology or doctrine.  It includes a set of laws to govern society.  Islam clearly states this with Sharia law.  Therefore, it is politics.  According to this documentary, there was near zero evidence of Muhammad’s existence until approximately 60 years after his death.  ibn al-Zubayr was an Arabic emperor and was the first to put Muhammad on a coin.  This enabled emperors to “use the name of Muhammad to buttress earthly powers”.  The Romans had already known about religion and power.  Abd al Malik ibn Marwan plugged his dominion into the power God.  This helped these emperors control and govern their empires.  This video concurs by explaining that Islam was a political instrument to help keep the 7th century, multi-national, multi-racial and multi-ethnic empire glued together.  (28:42 into video)  "The political aspects of Islam are not incidental to it...but are its very essence.  The existence of Islam is a political thing primarily, and that the religious was constructed afterwards."

If it is political, then we have a right to discuss the compatibility of Islam with the West.  Nobody has the right to silence those who try to debate politics by using terms like “Racism” or “Islamophobia”.  According to Dr. Bill Warner, the Muslim Brotherhood invented the word “Islamophobe” to suppress free speech.

Is Islam compatible with the West or other parts of the world?  Through Sharia law, Islam legislates:
  • abolishment of democracy and any man-made laws
  • penalty for crimes are beheading, amputation and stoning for adultery
  • penalty for apostasy (such as not being a true Muslim or a Muslim leaving Islam) is death


To know what Sharia law is like, think of Taliban in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.  According to Pew’s research, the majority of Muslims want Sharia law and a percentage of Muslims want Sharia applied to you, a non-Muslim.  91% of Iraqis want Sharia law.  Like ISIS, Syrians are Sunni Muslims and want Sharia law as well.  There are now 85 Sharia courts in the UK.   60 Minutes shows 'Sharia Patrols' policing Europeans in Europe.  This means that they do not believe in Western laws.  Here are interviews of Muslim Americans who want Sharia law.

Are you okay with Sharia law?

Islam is a political system for totalitarianism and authoritarianism, where no one is allowed to criticize, change or leave the system, much like what you saw in Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.  Westerners have been criticizing totalitarianism and authoritarianism for decades.  Should we call Westerners racists, bigots, totalitarian-phobes or authoritarian-phobes for criticizing these political systems?

According to this video (19:18 into video):  Islam teaches that Muslims are merciful to one another but ruthless to the unbelievers. "Unbelievers are called the most vile of created beings in the Qur'an and they are never accorded equality of rights with Muslims, not in anywhere in the Qur'an or in the Islamic legal superstructure.  You can go around the world today, and there is no place on the planet today or ever in history where non-Muslims have enjoyed full equality of rights with Muslims in a Muslim state...and it never has happened and it never will unless there is a drastic change in Islam because these things are embedded within Islamic law."

If Muslims are ordered to be supremacists, bigoted and to subjugate you, a non-believer, do you want to live with them?

According to WikiIslam:
"...Islam can fairly be called coercive, expansionist and imperialistic... Words followed by the actions of Muhammad's followers speak much louder here. Muhammad clearly did not envision a non-violent world where members of all faiths would live a peaceful co-existence. His words “There will always be a group in his community of believers that are dominant over infidels” highlights this. An ideology stuck in a certain backdrop of history where killing and subjugating others in the name of religion had been made legal by divine dictations can never bring peace to the world."

If Islam orders Muslims to dominate, "kill" and "subjugate" you, do you want to live with them?


The following is a summary of explanations, which most Western leaders and media will not acknowledge, from The Atlantic, Robert Spencer, David Wood, Dr. Bill Warner, Tom Holland, Gavin Boby, ex-Muslim Hazem Farraj, ex-Muslim Omar Makram (and this), Muslim Tarek Fatah, Muslim Hamed Abdel-Samad and Brigitte Gabriel:

According to Gavin Boby, “Islamic doctrine:  war against unbelievers…conquest and hatred against unbelievers.  This is set out in the Qur’an, Hadith [and] Surah.  Extremely hateful, extremely war-like, extremely violent.”  Here are 10 examples of the Koran being violent.  To understand why, you have to understand the origin or Islam.  It was created 1,400 years ago to militarize the followers, in order to expand an empire’s wealth and power by emigrating and invading.  (Rome was the master at it.  Islam added emigration as a strategy.)  It is similar to military training.  Various armies throughout history have demonized the enemy and trained their soldiers to hate their enemy, otherwise soldiers will hesitate or have second thoughts about killing the enemy.  However, Islam is much more effective.  It provided a win-win scenario for fighters:
  • If you win the battle, you keep 80% of the war-booty, get to rape the women and keep sex slaves
  • If you die in battle, you get 72 virgins in heaven and heaven is better than if you owned the entire earth
According to The Atlantic, "ISIS is Islamic.  Very Islamic." Hazem Farraj, David Wood, Robert Spencer and Dr. Bill Warner explain how ISIS is Islamic.

In the 7th century, the Middle East and North Africa were populated with Jews, Christians and Pagans.  The creators of Islam ordered Muslims to hate, kill or extort from these infidels.  After 1,400 years, they killed 250 million infidels and are still killing infidels today.  This is why they are so anti-Semitic.  They do this because they believe they are following orders from God (Allah).  In 1924, they lost their last caliphate and became weak.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood started in 1928 to continue Islam’s marching orders.  This pre-dates Israel and any U.S. meddling in the Middle East.  Many terrorist groups branched off from the Muslim Brotherhood.  After Saudi Arabia struck it rich, they have spent $100 billion to spread their form of Islam and given gifts to politicians such as $1.35m to Obama.  According to the Telegraph, Saudi Arabia offered "to build 200 mosques for Syrian refugees arriving in Germany, even as Saudi Arabia refuses to take in any refugees itself".  There are now 44 million Muslims in Europe with thousands of Mosques and growing.  Their goal is to convert the world to Islam, no matter how long it takes.

You might question the validity of the above because you see peaceful or moderate Muslims.  This is because they are one of the following:
  1. They cherry-picked Islam’s orders.
  2. They are clued-out about Islam's orders.
  3. They are following Islam’s order of Taqiyya, which is to deceive you the enemy when they are in the minority or weak, or they are following the order to practise stealth Jihad.
If they are #1 or #2, then they are following less than 100% of Islam.  According to Glazov (5:37 into video), "there are many Muslims who do not follow [the Islamic] ideology,...but they are considered bad Muslims by Islamic ideology."  According to Gavin Boby (6:00 into video), "People who are not prepared to engage in Jihad are referred to as hypocrites and they will the afterlife."  Therefore, Imams can easily get Muslims in the #1 and #2 categories to follow more of Islam.  This is what is happening to second generation Muslims in Europe.

Islam is a comprehensive and eternal indoctrination of conquest.  As long as people believe that these marching orders come from God, they will continue fighting in the name of Allah.  This is why they yell “Allahu Akbar” when they protest in the UK for Sharia law or when they detonate their bombs.

Should you continue letting enemies into your country?  Millions of Muslims continue to follow Islam’s order of hijra (emigrate to spread Islam).  Mosques continue to be built, which teach this indoctrination of conquest.

Is Islam bigoted if it wants to dominate, subjugate or get money (jizya) from you (non-Muslim) and implement totalitarianism (abolish democracy, abolish freedom of speech, abolish criticism of its politics)?  If so, are you okay with this?


Bringing Muslims to Western countries is causing social unrest, frustration and friction with the Westerners.  Is this worth it?  Is there another solution?  The world, especially the West, does not seem to have much of an issue with helping poor people, as they have donated billions over the past decades to third-world countries.  However, they seem to have a problem, when people are brought into their countries.

The following are just a fraction of the Youtube videos or articles showing social unrest in the West.  You can find thousands of them on the internet:
How do we reduce this social unrest?

In addition to the social unrest, frustration and friction that is happening with the natives, what are the additional costs to taxpayers for police, courts and prisons?


The following is a small fraction of the videos and articles that you can find about sexual assault.  You can find thousands of them on the internet by searching "rape in Europe":
  • According to WikiIslam:  "...there are several verses in this book [Qur'an] which give the green light to rape and other sexual crimes against women."
  • David Wood - Islamic Rape Gangs in the UK
  • Australian Woman Jailed BECAUSE she was Gang-Raped - Sharia in Dubai  [Under Islamic law, 4 men have to witness the rape in order for the woman to charge the men for rape, otherwise the woman is jailed for having sex outside of marriage.]
  • Cologne attack 'left me scarred for life' - BBC News
  • Did Sweden have its own version of the Cologne attacks? BBC Newsnight
  • Is there a refugee backlash in Cologne and Sweden?
  • COVER UP of Sexual Assaults in Sweden, RT's report (39:17 into video):
    • "...what fuels anti-immigrant sentiment more than anything here is media silence."
    • "Evidence showing both the police and the media knew about sexual assaults taking place, but choosing not to inform the public, infuriated many."
    • "...betrayal of the victims."
    • "They always try to downplay the attack in Sweden because...they want to preserve the image that Sweden is this perfect..."
    • "Police are frustrated...they are quitting en masse."
    • "We never had this before 50 years ago.  Gradually, it becomes a bigger and bigger problem....Now everybody knows about it but still it is very sensitive to talk about it."
  • According to think tank Gatestone Institute:
  • COVER UP of Sexual Assaults in Germany:  Instead of deporting the rapists, Cologne’s mayor tries to cover up and tells women to change behavior.
  • Hotel worker describes migrants stabbing a German and sexually assaulting 90 German women 
  • New years eve 2015, Immigrant riots in Cologne Germany - An eyewitness account 
  • Cover up in Germany
  • ‘Cologne is every day’: Europe’s rape epidemic
  • Tommy Robinson explains how leaders should have expected the sexual assaults and not be shocked
  • Canadian media silent about Muslim serial rapist
  • GROOMING (raping, beating, trafficking and pimping girls and children): 
    • COVER UP:
        • "...Yorkshire town where 1,400 girls have been sexually abused..."
        • "The Labour Party, in particular, is mired in shame over “cultural sensitivity” in Rotherham. Especially, cynics might point out, a sensitivity to the culture of Muslims whose votes they don’t want to lose....“there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat" ...Much better to hang on to your impeccable liberal credentials than save a few girls from being hall told them to keep quiet about the ethnicity of the perpetrators..." [As in Germany and Sweden, UK politicians covered up the grooming because they cared more about offending Muslims than they cared about girls or children getting raped.]
        • "Officials trained up in diversity and political correctness failed to acknowledge what was effectively white slavery on their doorstep. Much too embarrassing to concede that it wasn’t white people who were committing racist hate crimes in this instance."
        • "...1,400 brutalised girls, many of whom have self-harmed or committed suicide..."
        • "Far from discouraging racism, the Labour policy of withholding the ethnic identity of men who preyed on white girls backfired spectacularly. Criminally, it endangered hundreds of children who might otherwise have been spared."
        • "...inquiry found to be a “deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls”.  Many of us who have been saying this for a long time have been shouted down as racist."
        • "...fear of appearing racist was more pressing in official minds than enforcing the law of the land or rescuing terrified children. It is one of the great scandals of our lifetime."
        • "The [politicians] stands accused of ignoring child sex abuse on an unimaginable scale for 16 years."
        • "To avoid rocking the multicultural boat, they fed 1,400 children to the sharks. No just God would stand for what they did."
      •  BBC  (22:49 into video):  Tommy Robinson claims that it is Islamic text about concubines and sexual slavery that is to blame for gang abuse (grooming) of young girls.  Islamic scholar Usama Hasan says:  "I agree with you.  Muslims...have to step up their efforts against the extremists and reform it.  That's something I've tried to do and a colleague of mine have tried to do.  We've faced death threats and intimidation for what we're saying also."  [Rape the children and kill freedom of speech.]
      • Daily Mail :  "Police withheld bombshell report revealing how gangs of Muslim men were grooming more than 100 schoolgirls as young as 13 in case it inflamed racial tensions ahead of General Election"
    • Channel 4:
      • "...exploitation taking place in Keighley, Blackpool, Oldham, Blackburn, Sheffield, Manchester, Skipton, Rochdale, Nelson, Preston, Rotherham, Derb, Telford, Bradford, Ipswich, Birmingham, Oxford, Barking and Peterborough"
      • "By far the majority of perpetrators were described as Asian [Pakistani]..."
      • "...97 per cent of victims were white."
      • " least 16,500 children had been identified as being “at risk of sexual exploitation” during one year."
    • Wikipedia:  Rochdale (UK) sex trafficking gang:
      • "...all were from Muslim background. The girls were all white British which led to a nation wide discussion of whether the crimes were racially motivated, and whether the failure to investigate them was linked to the authorities' fear of being accused of racism.  In March 2015, Greater Manchester Police apologised for its failure to investigate the child sexual exploitation allegations more thoroughly between 2008 and 2010."
    • "Easy Meat" book describes grooming that went on for 30 years, enabled by cover ups, and that the "majority of British Muslim men of raping age are committing these crimes".  "Gasoline [petrol] being thrown on [girls], their tongues being nailed to tables...the abuse, the cruelty, all of this monstrous treatment of these young, innocent girls".  Gavin Boby :  “the common story is of a 13 year old girl in a room with 10 men.  She is treated like a slave, subjected to horrific violence…sexually destroyed.”  "You see it in the UK, it's primarily Pakistani, Bengali, Afghani, Somali men.  In the Netherlands, it is Moroccan men.  In France, it's Algerian.  The common denominator is not race...not nationality.  It is religion.  That is what is driving this offense and you see it within Islamic doctrine.  The Qur'an is clear.  It gives clear instructions about how you marry, have sex and divorce a girl before she reaches puberty.  You have the account of Muhammad's life.  He took sexual slaves.  His followers took sexual slaves.  He praised his followers for taking sexual slaves.  His favorite wife was 6 when he married her and when he consummated the marriage, she was 9.  Another wife, he tortured her husband to death while pouring molten metal onto his chest.  She was 17.  Muslim men are required to imitate Muhammad.  This is driven by Islamic doctrine."  Glazov:  "A lot of these Muslim rapists are considered good Muslims.  They're praying and fasting during the day time and [at night] prowling and prying on girls that they consider are barely human.  These aren't people going against their religion.  These are people following their religion."  Gavin Boby:  "One of the men was a preacher in his local Mosque."
  • Center for Security:
    • " South Dakota...Iraqi refugee Mohammed Alaboudi was sentence in March 2014 to life in prison for sex trafficking women and young girls."
    • "...five Iraqis involved in the gang rape of a Colorado Springs woman, who nearly died from the attack."
  • According to The Telegraph, they rape men as well.  "...unaccompanied women are apparently seen as “fair game”".
  • According to Mail Online:  "Rape and child abuse 'are rife in German refugee camps' saw unaccompanied women as ‘fair game’".  If they treat their own women and children like this, why would they treat Western women and children any better?
  • Black Pigeon shows migrants blaming attacks on "sexual emergencies" and disturbing interviews of men talking openly about raping boys.
  • According to Mail Online:  "Migrant rape fears spread across Europe: Women told not to go out at night alone after assaults carried out in Sweden, Finland, Germany, Austria and Switzerland amid warnings gangs are co-ordinating attack"
  • Muslim Rape Epidemic in Norway
Not only is this incompatible with Western justice and values, what are the additional costs to taxpayers for police investigations, courts and prisons?

What is equally bad or worse were the cover ups in multiple countries.  This is equivalent to aiding and abetting the criminals, at the suffering of the girls and children.  By covering up, government policy does not change and therefore the crimes flourish.  More girls and children get raped, assaulted, murdered and commit suicide.  This government, media and police behaviour is criminal and at best, bordering insanity.

Is there a risk that the West will endanger more girls and children if they take in more Muslims?  Will "grooming" happen in another Western country over the next 16-30 years?  Why take the risk with your daughter or sister?

Try to imagine the American men fleeing to Canada during their civil war, leaving behind their women and children to fend for themselves.  Instead of thanking profusely to the Canadians for saving their lives, they rape Canadian women and children.  What should the Canadians do with them?  Should they be angry or tolerant?  Should they deport the Americans or should they try to cover it up?  Should they follow the mayor of Cologne's example, which is to tell Canadian women to change their behavior?

Try to imagine that you helped a stranger by providing him with shelter, food and money.  Instead of thanking you, he rapes your sister and 14 year old daughter.  Should you kick him out of your house, or should you tell your sister and daughter to change their behavior?  Or, should you follow Angela Merkel's example, which is to invite the stranger's male friends into your house as well?


According to Dr. Bill Warner (10:00 into video), Islam allows Muslims to have up to four wives, but a Muslim is not supposed to take on another wife until he is able to support her.  Normally, a Muslim is not able to have multiple wives because he doesn’t have enough money to support them.  But due to the Western welfare system, the Muslim gets welfare checks for the multiple wives by claiming them as “cousins” or extended family.  Is polygamy now supported by the welfare system in the West?
The most generous welfare systems are in Scandinavia.

The Muslim in Germany went to Syria to get extra wives.  He promised paradise in Germany.  After bringing the wife back, he ended up with 7 children in total, all on welfare.  After Syrians go to Canada, will the husbands go back to Syria to get more wives by promising paradise in Canada?  Even though Canada is bringing in 25,000 Syrians, will they end up with 50,000 or 75,000?


  • WikiIslam  (Do not click on "Images:Violence Against Women" if you have a weak stomach.) 
  • Islam Watch
  • How to beat your wife  Muslim:  “Allah honored wives by instating the punishment of beatings…He beats her in order to discipline her…there must not be more than ten beatings and he must not break her bones, injure her…There is beating etiquette…He must beat her from chest level.  All these things honor the women.  She is in need of discipline.  How should the husband discipline her?  Through admonishment.  If she is not repentant, he should beat her but there are rules to the beating…It is forbidden to beat her in the face or make her ugly…Islam forbids this…He can beat her with a short rod….The honoring of the wife in Islam is also evident in the fact that the punishment of beating is permissible in one case only:  when she refuses to sleep with him."
  • According to the WikiIslam, the Qur’an states:  "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them."
  • Mufti of Gaza explains how properly to beat your wife
  • Search " Lessons in how to beat your wife".  Google still provides a snippet of the article, but Telegraph has removed it.  Snippet:  "Nov 2, 2007 - A Saudi television programme has been giving teenagers lessons in how to beat their wives. The cleric who presents it, Muhammad Al-'Arifi, ..."
  • Washington Times:  An Islamic guide on how to beat your wife
  • Wife Beating
  • A husband should beat his wife  
  • Anni Cyrus claims that Islam ordered her to receive 25 lashes for sitting in the front of a taxi
  • Honor Diaries  "The film...seeks to expose the paralyzing political correctness that prevents many from identifying, understanding and addressing this international human rights disaster."  However CAIR is trying to block this film to kill freedom of speech.
  • Search for "Muslim beat woman in europe" on Youtube and you will find hundreds of videos. 
  • According to Dr. Bill Warner (22:48 into video), Sharia states that if a man kills his wife who had strayed, there will be no penalty.  "Most honour killings are done with family members...By killing the woman, it restores the man’s honour...It’s all about the man."  
With the influx of Muslims, have honour killings grown in the West?
Do you care about your daughters, sisters, nieces and female cousins?  Even if they don’t get beaten or raped, will they get the same respect from their Muslim clients, students, co-workers, bosses or subordinates?

Not only is this treatment of women not compatible with Western justice and values, what are the additional costs to taxpayers for police investigations, courts and prisons?


Two Swedish economists have conducted a survey to rank countries by racism.  According to their results, Muslim countries are racist.  According to this article, "African Refugees Say Arab Muslims More Racist than Europeans".  Therefore, why do we want racists to immigrate?  If we take in more Muslims, will this increase racial tensions with our Black population?


Why are other countries, such as Russia, Japan and China, not taking in migrants?


We believe that we should help people who are getting killed and it is obvious that not enough help is provided.  Millions of Muslims and especially Christians in Syria and Iraq are suffering.  Billions around the world are suffering equally or more.  They all need help.  However, there are many ways to help and many countries that can help but have not.  Also, there are many facets to this Muslim migrant and refugee crisis that should be considered, but are over-looked, ignored, avoided or pushed aside.

There is an argument that Europe has an aging demographic and needs immigration to maintain its population.  Why?  What is wrong with population reduction when the world is over-populated?  Over-population is the source of many of the world's problems, such as wars, pollution, greenhouse gases, depletion of habitat and animal extinctions.  Have you visited Europe recently?  Have you seen the throngs of people everywhere on that tiny continent?  We think there are too many people in Europe, including white people.  Europe has 500 million.  How many does it need?

According to the World Happiness Report, the happiest countries are the ones with the smallest populations, such as Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland and Canada.  The world should be striving to reduce every country's population to increase happiness.  Instead of pushing Europe to maintain or increase its population, what about pushing the rest of the world to reduce its population?  Should many parts of the world, which are exploding in population, adopt a one-child policy as China had?  Some argue that population growth helps economic growth.  If this is the case, then the Philippines, Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Latin America and India should be the richest places in the world and the happiest.  They cannot be happy if many of them emigrate as fast as they can.  One of the main causes of poverty for these places is population explosion.

There are over 3-4 billion people in poor countries and exploding.  If the world allows every person from the third-world to enter the first-world, will there be a first-world left?  Let us take your neighborhood as an example.  Let us assume that you live in a middle-class neighborhood.  What happens if we replace 50% of your neighbors with poor people and force you to support them?  Will that make you better off or it will make you poorer?  Even if these people eventually support themselves,
  • what are the odds that they will be able to do so in first-world industries?
  • what if they are incompatible to you?  Will you be better or worse off than before?
  • did you have to spend money to teach them English or other skills?
There is an argument that immigrants provide benefits to the economy.  Why is the overall benefit based on economics solely?  What if the local population places equal or more benefit, importance, value or happiness on social, cultural, religious, political or even racial harmony than on GDP growth?  Has anybody quantified the value of these subjective aspects?  Has any politician tried to determine how to make their citizens the happiest?

Is it right to force some of your citizens, even if they are a minority, to live with people who are not compatible?  To use an analogy, let us say that everybody thinks that there is nothing wrong with your girlfriend or boyfriend, but you have determined that the two of you are incompatible.  Should we force you to stay together and live together because your partner provides economic benefits?  To make matters worse, what if your partner was an economic drain?  Will you agree to this?

Sweden takes in more migrants, on a per capita basis, than any other country.  Belgium also takes in many migrants.  United Nations ranks countries by Human Development Index (HDI), which reflects health, education and income.  The HDI for most countries, including third-world countries, have been rising and are projected to continue to rise in the future.  However, UN projects that the HDIs for Sweden and Belgium will decline so that in 2030, they will be below the HDIs for Cuba, Mexico, the Baltic countries, Bulgaria and even Greece.  Sweden will drop from #15 to #45, which will be below Libya.  According to Speisa:
""We had a perfectly good country," Ingrid Carlqvist, a journalist said. "A rich country, a nice country, and in a few years' time, that country will be gone."

The logic should be really simple to understand, yet many have difficulties grasping it: If you import the Third World, it's what you'll get."
It is mostly the liberals (Trudeau, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Obama, etc.) who want to take in Muslims.  What is very interesting and ironic is that this threatens liberal beliefs such as gender equality, gay rights, freedom of speech, peace, tolerance, etc.  Most people should think about this, long and hard.  Bill Maher has.  He is a staunch liberal and harsh critic of U.S. policies, but he is harshly criticizing liberals for supporting Islam.  Search "Bill Maher Islam Liberal" on Youtube.

Westerners are not racists because Islam is not a race.  But, are Westerners politicists?  Do Westerners feel that their politics are better than Islam's politics?  Western politics believe in democracy, gender equality (wives should not be beaten nor raped; men should not have multiple wives, especially at the expense of taxpayers), freedom of speech (criticism of politics should be allowed), separation of church and state (Islam believes that the mosque is the state), freedom of religion (Islam orders Muslims to fight and subjugate non-Muslims), peace (people should not be executed for leaving a religion or shaming the family) and tolerance (gays should not be executed; thieves should not get their hands cut off).  Is Western politics better?

Westerners are likely Islamophobes, because they are afraid of Islamic politics.

The many sources cited above, claim that there are risks, a lot of incompatibilities and costs.  We encourage you to view or read them.  We do not know if all of these sources have exaggerated or not.  But, do you want to take the risk?  If so, what is the reward?  Let your politician know what your choice is.  Send the link to this article and tell your politician to read it.

(If Facebook and Disqus comments do not appear below, click on the title at the top to ensure that you are not on the homepage.)

Our World Needs Your Help

Share the articles with your friends, family, co-workers, colleagues, associates and acquaintances.

Use the Share buttons (Mail, Blogger, Twitter, Facebook, Google Buzz, Google +1) at the bottom of the articles.

If the comment boxes are not showing, click on "_ Comments and _ Reactions" link below the article.

Write and submit articles. If we like them, we'll publish them.

Contact us about donating time or money.