Why would you import the instability of the Middle East to Europe?
… the failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.
During this refugee crisis in Europe, those who speak most sensibly about the threat Islam poses to Europe might not be fascists, but they are far less liberal than would be ideal. Proper liberals fear being labeled Islamophobic more than they fear Islam. They function under a quixotic notion that millions of refugees can be absorbed into Western society seamlessly, even if those refugees possess no connection to European ideas, values, or civilization. Good luck.
Let’s set aside the security risks for a moment. Let’s talk about demography. Extending hospitality and asylum for those fleeing persecution is, of course, both Christian and liberal. But what happens when half the Islamic world is escaping persecution? What about most of Africa?
Now, if European nations believe they have a responsibility to help, they should work to alleviate suffering. It’s commendable. But so is preserving a culture that provides stability, freedom, and prosperity for many millions.
Viktor Orban, the nationalist prime minister of Hungary and most outspoken critic of mass Muslim immigration into Europe, asserted that he was protecting Europe’s “Christian values” and “identity” by blocking a central route used by refugees. Now, judging from the coverage, you’d think this meant Europe had time-warped back to 1939. For the Left, the mere mention of “Christian values” insinuates some kind of xenophobic slight that disgraced all people living on a subcontinent built on, well, Christianity.