Greg Sheridan is much more liberal that I am. He was very much an advocate of immigration — but has changed his mind. This was driven by the behaviour of the (primarily Lebanese Muslim) young men in his suburb. The entire article is worth reading…

Sheridan asks an important question: Why do certain groups immigrate and succeed and others fail? It is not merely race: as he points out Sikh and Hindu immigrants from the Punjab have integrated in England, but Muslim immigrants… from the Punjab… have not. He also points out that Muslim is a broad river — but the money in Islam generally flows from the Saudis, who advocate a floridly anti-semetic and violent sect. Read the article.

As the great scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, has written: “The community of Islam was church and state in one, with the two indistinguishably interwoven.”

This isn’t just a theoretical observation. It means that imams at mosques tend to be preaching about politics, and doing so from a cosmology deeply influenced by paranoia and conspiracy.

Many Australian Islamic institutions receive funding from Saudi Arabia, but I know from my work in Southeast Asia and Europe that the Saudis almost always fund an extremist interpretation of Islam.

To have concerns about these matters is not racism or xenophobia. It is reasonable.

It may also be that when young men of Islamic background experience failure and alienation they are much more readily prone to entrepreneurs of identity who offer them purpose through the jihadi ideology, which has a large overlap with what they hear at the mosque and what they see on Arabic TV.

This is simply not true for Buddhists or Confucians or Sikhs or Jews or Christians, and to pretend so, to make all religions seem equal, is to simply deny reality.

Islam is a deep sea with a tradition of much spiritual goodness and genuine insight.

However, the Koran itself contains numerous injunctions to violent jihad and suppression of infidels. It also contains passages against violence and against compulsion in religion.

These things are to a considerable extent matters of interpretation but it is undeniable that at the very least a sizeable minority of Muslims choose an extremist interpretation.

How can Australia sensibly take account of all this while maintaining a non-discriminatory immigration program? Three obvious courses suggest themselves.

In the formal immigration program, there should be a rigid adherence to skills qualifications so that the people who come here are well educated, easily employable and speak good English.

The inflow of illegal immigrants by boat in the north, almost all Muslim, mostly unskilled, should be stopped.

Within the formal refugee and humanitarian allocation of 13,500 places a year, a legitimate stress should be placed on need but also on the ability to integrate into Australian society.

And, finally, we simply should not place immigration officers in the countries with the greatest traditions of radicalism.

via How I lost faith in multiculturalism | The Australian.

It is not racist to protect your own culture. It is the duty of the state to keep the enemies out. This is difficult work: however one other thing may help. If we reciprocate the immigration rules of their home country, we may get somewhere. If you don’t allow people who are not Muslim in (Saudi Arabia) we won;t allow people who are Muslim in. If you reserve citizenship to only those who have grandparents in the country… the same applies to you.

These questions need to be answered… carefully. Not by the use of slogans.