Guest blogger Michael Anderson has submitted this for your reading pleasure. You can read more from Mr. Anderson here:
ACT: A benefit of Middle East revolt
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act”. – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
As of the time of this writing in early 2011, two Middle Eastern dictatorships have been overthrown by mass revolt: first in Tunisia and then in Egypt. Other overthrows seem to be in the works. And of course, the dictatorship in Iraq had already been gone for a number of years. Obviously, these are major alterations in the structure and operation of these respective governments.
At the time of this writing we do not know what path these nations and others in the region will take. The prospect for strict Islamic Supremacist rule and the establishment of sharia law within them appears quite high. However, despite the resulting disruption and upheaval, the current developments present a unique opportunity for European nations to reconsider all of the cases of political asylum which they have approved over the years for people from such Middle East “nations of change”. If they were to reevaluate such cases, it is hoped that they would seriously consider revoking their asylum status.
The securing of political asylum in Europe is a long-established practice of Islamic Supremacists. The following article elaborates upon the approach: http://www.meforum.org/2107/europe-shifting-immigration-dynamic . Obviously, if someone were granted political asylum from one of these nations and the supposed threat in the form of a dictatorship no longer exists, then the refugee should be actively seeking his own return. After all, the reason for his leaving no longer exists. However, if by some very remote chance the refugee prefers to stay in Europe and sponge off the plentiful welfare benefits, then we believe he should be directly apprised of the fact that the basis of his asylum is now invalid and that he will be forced to return. An exception to this should be given to those individuals who are religious minorities in the affected countries (such as Copts, Assyrians, etc.) and can prove it without any doubt. We must maintain this exception because of the fact that although a Middle East nation’s government may change, such nations have proven they are home to a large number of Islamic Supremacists who will persecute non-Muslims irrespective of whatever type of government in charge.
Realistically speaking, no changes in asylum practices along these lines will happen just because it is mentioned in this post. Therefore, we would urge that others in the blogosphere take up this issue and promote it with great vigor. In addition, we would urge that any groups which have a strong street presence, such as the English Defence League in the United Kingdom, to take up this point and have it figure prominently in their protests. We would suggest that some of the language used in presenting this position be couched in a language which the Leftist media will find difficult to refute. For example, we could point to voluntary or forced returns as a way for the returnees to “share in the celebration of change”. They could be apprised of the fact that such returns would enable returnees to become more immersed in their respective so-called “cultures”; more so than what they can presently find in Europe. Also, it would help these Middle Eastern nations grow by reversing the exploitive “brain drain” which imperil their development. We need to be creative.
There are many other angles which can be put forth regarding asylum as it relates to Islamic Supremacists. But their implementation would require the establishment of governments which are receptive to eliminating this tool. We have not arrived at such a point yet. But at least we can publicly point out the hypocrisy of asylum refugees from certain nations where old regimes have been eliminated taking no steps on their own to return to them.