Immigration with assimilation is a wonderful thing. Immigration without assimilation is a threat to the national sovereignty of the country involved. Massive immigration without assimilation will eventually change the public policies of the country involved. We are currently seeing that change in Britain.<\/p>\n
National Review<\/a> posted an article today about the case of Asia Bibi. The article was written by Douglas Murray.<\/p>\n The article reports:<\/p>\n When I wrote The Strange Death of Europe<\/a><\/em>, I wanted to highlight the sheer scale of change that immigration brings. Some people might be happy with it, others unhappy: but to pretend that the change doesn\u2019t occur, or won\u2019t occur, or isn\u2019t very interesting so please move along has always seemed an error to me. For instance, as I noted then, an internal document from the Ministry of Defence that leaked a few years back said that Britain would no longer be able to engage militarily in a range of foreign countries because of \u201cdomestic\u201d factors. It takes a moment to absorb this. We\u2019re used to wondering about how immigration changes domestic politics. But foreign policy as well?<\/strong><\/p>\n All of this is to say that the latest news from the U.K. is both thoroughly predictable and deeply disturbing. Readers of National Review<\/span>\u00a0will be familiar with the case of Asia Bibi. She is the Christian woman from Pakistan who has been in prison on death row for the last eight years. Her \u201ccrime\u201d is that a neighbor accused her of \u201cblasphemy.”<\/strong><\/p>\n Because it is not safe for Ms. Bibi to remain in Pakistan because of her Christian faith, she is seeking asylum in various western countries. Britain has stated that it will deny Ms. Bibi asylum.<\/p>\n The article reports:<\/p>\n But today there are reports that the British government has said that it will not offer asylum to Asia Bibi. The reason being \u201csecurity concerns\u201d \u2014 that weasel term now used by all officialdom whenever it needs one last reason to avoid doing the right thing. According to this report<\/a>, the government is concerned that if the U.K. offered asylum to Bibi it could cause \u201cunrest among certain sections of the community.\u201d And which sections would that be? Would it be Anglicans or atheists who would be furious that an impoverished and severely traumatized woman should be given shelter in their country? Of course not. The \u201ccommunity\u201d that the British government will be scared of is the community that comes from the same country that has tortured Asia Bibi for the last eight years.<\/strong><\/p>\n The article concludes:<\/p>\n In any case, if it is true that the British government has declined to offer Asia Bibi asylum for this reason, then it should lead to a huge national and international outcry. Among other things, it suggests that the British government has got its priorities exactly the wrong way around. For it is not Asia Bibi who should not be in Britain. It is anyone from the \u201ccommunities\u201d who would not accept Asia Bibi being in Britain who should not be in the country. Though I wouldn\u2019t expect any British politician to express that simple truth any time soon.<\/strong><\/p>\n Immigration without assimilation is not a good thing for any country.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Immigration with assimilation is a wonderful thing. Immigration without assimilation is a threat to the national sovereignty of the country involved. Massive immigration without assimilation will eventually change the public policies of the country involved. We are currently seeing that … Continue reading