[gaijin]

I don't think they're confrontation. Confrontation is where you go to a person or representatives of a group. And after you initiate contact, you point out a problem. And then you ask for a remedy.

I think we should leave all that aside:

I think we shouldn't rely on words at all. To the best of my knowledge, Europe (and the USA) is not compelled to accept muslim immigrants, and that because of that we should turn them away in EVERY case.

This is totally apart from the notion that there are nice muslims --I am completely sure of that, and I don't need to guess because I KNOW that from personal experience.

And the muslim illegals should be forcibly deported. And we should simply disregard that we've even been asked to engage in discourse at all, and do the above because we CAN do the above.

[vimto]

Very sensible - we have to use real politics not fanciful rhetoric.

[expatpat]

Well, I agree with your policy suggestions, but disagree with your semantics. Deportation of a group of people is confrontation in my book, any day of the week!

I think they should go back to the sh*holes they came from if they are unhappy and troublemakers in the West.

[-YYZ-]

"This is totally apart from the notion that there are nice muslims --I am completely sure of that, and I don't need to guess because I KNOW that from personal experience."

You're right, and I too know this from personal experience.

The danger of course, is that our immigration systems are unable to discriminate between "moderate" muslims and their more fundamentalist co-religiionists. And of course, even if they are moderate, it seems to be the nature of their religion that their children will be ripe for recruitment to more radical and fundamentalist causes.

However, while I don't know about Europe, I don't see any chance of Canada's immigration system banning immigration by muslims or from any other place that gives us unassimilable immigrants anytime soon.