Europe rethinks its 'safe haven' status

VIENNA - The night air in Vienna has finally turned warm, filling the city's trams with visitors. On the Ringstrasse, tourists take in the city, pointing out the City Hall and the parliament.

"Did you see that one girl - so young! And wearing a veil," a woman clucks in lightly accented English, staring out the window of tram D. "They will form a separate culture."

The sentiment isn't isolated. Earlier this month, Austria's Interior Minister Liese Prokop announced that 45 percent of Muslim immigrants were "unintegratable," and suggested that those people should "choose another country."

In the Netherlands, one of Europe's most integrated refugees and a critic of radical Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, resigned her seat in parliament in the wake of criticism that she faked details on her asylum application to the Netherlands in 1992. And France's lower house of parliament last week passed a strict new immigration law, now awaiting Senate approval.

Indeed, recent rumblings from the top echelons of governments across Europe suggest that the continent is rethinking its once-vaunted status as a haven for refugees as it becomes more suspicious that many immigrants are coming to exploit its social benefits and democratic principles.

"The trend today more and more in Europe is to try to control immigration flow," says Philippe De Bruycker, founder of the Odysseus Network, an academic consortium on immigration and asylum in Europe. "At the same time we still say we want to respect the right of asylum and the possibility of applying for asylum. But of course along the way we create obstacles for asylum seekers," he acknowledges.

A day after Ms. Prokop made her controversial statement on May 15, Ms. Hirsi Ali - a Somalian immigrant elected to parliament in 2003 - was informed by her own political party that her Dutch citizenship was in question. Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, a former prison warden dubbed "Iron Rita" who has long promised a tough stance on immigration, said "the preliminary assumption must be that - in line with case law of the Dutch Supreme Court - [Hirsi Ali] is considered not to have obtained Dutch nationality."

At issue were inconsistencies in Hirsi Ali's application for asylum in 1992 - giving a false name and age, and saying she was fleeing from Somalia's civil war, not a forced marriage. Though she had publically admitted to the falsities in 2002, a recent TV documentary heightened public scrutiny of the controversial parliamentarian, who has been under 24-hour protection from death threats since the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the director of a film she wrote. Hirsi Ali's case, heatedly debated across Europe in the days since Ms. Verdonk's announcement, was seen as particularly ironic. But it also highlights the dramatic change in Europe since the turn of this century.

In the years following the World War II, a chagrined US and Europe vowed to follow the Geneva Conventions and create safe havens for refugees. Yet such lofty ideals were hard to uphold after massive influxes of workers in the 1960s and early 1970s were halted during an economic downturn.

Those immigrant populations - often Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East - swelled with family reunification, yet often remained economically and socially distinct from the societies that had adopted. The image of the immigrant began to change, and distinctions between those who came for work and those who came for safety began to blur.

Now, says Jean-Pierre Cassarino, a researcher at the European-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration in Florence, Italy, "asylum seekers are viewed as potential cheaters."

Today, in once-homogenous Europe, tensions between immigrants and native Europeans appear to be increasing. The perception that an ever increasing number of newcomers - who neither speak the language of their adopted country nor accept its cultural mores - are changing the culture has increased support for ideas once only advanced by far-right political parties.

"France, Austria, and the Netherlands all have had very significant electoral success of the far-right parties," says Michael Collyer, a research fellow in European migration policy at the University of Sussex.

It would also change the rights of family reunification for workers already in the country; speed up the expulsion of undocumented immigrants who are discovered or whose applications for asylum are rejected; lengthen the amount of time it takes to apply for permanent residency status for married couples; and toughen visa requirements. Most controversial, Sarkozy announced deportations for undocumented immigrant school children.

"We speak of the need to fight immigration but we don't have a clear position on whether we need immigrants," says Mr. De Bruycker, noting the precipitous dip in population growth in European Union countries in the last half century. He adds that a series of recent incidents have affected the image of immigrants in the European mind. The murder of a Jewish man - Ilan Halimi - on the outskirts of Paris earlier this spring, for example, by a band of immigrant youths. Or the murder of a Malian woman and a Flemish child in Antwerp last week by the son of a founder of Belgium's most far-right party.

"In Europe, we are still unable to accept that we are a continent of immigration," says De Bruycker.

This is not to say deport all muslims. It is to say protect the state from those who seek to overthrow authority and enslave the populace.

The problem is Muslims must abide by Sharia law. One Sharia law is known as Dhimmi. The word dhimmi is derived from the noun dhimma, which in its turn comes from a verb dhamma meaning 'to blame, find blameworthy, criticize, find fault with, censure'. The term dhimma thus in its original meaning denotes an obligation or liability arising from a fault, blame or debt owed to another and a dhimmi is someone who bears this obligation or liability. The idea that a defeated person is liable for a debt to their conqueror is consistent with an ancient principle of Arab customary law. According to an ancient Arab concept ... the victor in a fight who spares the life of an enemy taken prisoner does actually do the latter a good deed. This "good deed" involves however ... simultaneously, a legal claim to a "reward".

The concept of dhimmi dates back to the 7th century. Status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were people of the book(i.e.Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Zorostrians, Mandeans, and ultimately also Hindus.The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India. The treatment of dhimmis, including the enforcement of restrictions placed on them, varied over time and space, depending on both the goodwill of the ruler and the historical circumstances. The "dhimma" was the most oppressive in Morocco, Yemen and Persia where Jews were subjected to what has been referred to as “ritualized degradation”. The periods when Islamic states were strong generally coincided with more relaxed attitude towards dhimmis; however, treatment of non-Muslims usually became harsher when Islam was weak and in decline. Over time, the treatment of dhimmis tended to develop in cycles, such that periods of when restrictions imposed on dhimmis were relaxed were immediately followed by the periods of pious reaction when such restrictions came to be enforced again.

The 11th-century Shafi'i scholar Al-Mawardi, in his treatise on the principles of Islamic governance, divided the conditions attached to ‘’dhimma’’ on top of the requirement to pay tribute into compulsory and desirable. One of the desirable conditions included a requirement to wear distinctive clothing. For example, "different colored shoes, one white the other black"; for males, badges such as an "ape for a Jew and a pig for a Christian: for women yellow veils." The distinctive dress shows the Muslim that the dhimmi is to be treated as an inferior - not to stand up for them or shake their hands, not to give them Muslim charity. He is to expect respect and deference from the dhimmi who shall not join a group of Muslim or raise his voice in their presence. The dhimmi is to stand aside if the pathway is narrow. It is haram (unlawful) for a dhimmi to slaughter animals. Reserved for the dhimmi is the cleaning of lavatories and sewers, and carrying away rubbish and refuse. A dhimmi's house should be painted a dull color and be no larger than that of a Muslim neighbor.

The consensus opinion of Muslim Scholars justifies the imposition of tribute on non-Muslims who fall under the Muslim rule in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qu'ran. The verse calls upon Muslims to fight against the “People of the Book” until they pay the jizyah head tax and are humbled: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Qur’an 9:29)

We are now seeing the resurgence of dhimmi once again. As In 1990 the world's Islamic countries signed a document called the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. It is a declaration of the member states of the Organization Of The Islamic Conference which affirms Sharia Islamic law as the sole source of human rights. Last week there was a report tyrannical Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will impose a dress code for Muslims and non Muslims. It is in accordance with Dhimmi and stems from the belief that the quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim world view.

We may have problems in the states (with illegal immigration), but atleast we don't have the problems Europe has. Do we want to get to that point....?

We got ~different~ problems, but I dont think they are lesser problems.

On the plus side, sure, Mexicans are not from another planet like muslims. We can accommodate a substantial number of Mexican immigrants.

Our problem is that the we have a completely uncontrolled FLOOD of them. Europe, at least, does not have the problem of illegals being able to just walk in.

People in a third world country WANT to move to the worlds most successful, stable, dynamic economy (many, unfortunately, without leaving their culture at home). It really is only just now dawning on that whole country that the border is completely open....they can walk in.

We have yet to grasp the demographic meaning of this.

Collier points to the success in France - also this past week - of a strict new immigration law proposed by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr. Sarkozy's proposal would institutionalize "selective" immigration, giving an advantage to privileged immigrants of better economic and education status who are more "integratable."

It would also change the rights of family reunification for workers already in the country; speed up the expulsion of undocumented immigrants who are discovered or whose applications for asylum are rejected; lengthen the amount of time it takes to apply for permanent residency status for married couples; and toughen visa requirements. Most controversial, Sarkozy announced deportations for undocumented immigrant school children.

The French have proposed a more sensible immigration law than our own senate. This has got to be a sign of the apocalypse.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.