When a nations becomes convinced that a group has become a security threat, is it within their right as a nation to say, “You are no longer welcome here, we require you to go back to your home country”?

How is that “xenophobia”? A phobia, by definition, is irrational, not grounded in reason. What if there are genuine reasons for concern? What if illegal immigrants are creating a very real negative impact on a country? Why should a country not be able to make a decision on behalf of its citizens to not allow illegal immigrants?

A nation expects its citizens to respect and abide by its laws. Why should an outside group be allowed to ignore, disregard and trample on those laws – and still expect the host nation to provide for them?

Why is it that some people seem to think that the moral obligation of a country to provide care for illegal immigrants who have broken the law somehow trumps or is more important than the moral obligation of a country to look out for and protect the interests of its citizens?

What business does the UN have inserting itself into that process?

This story, regarding France deporting the Roma, or Gypsies:

A UN Watchdog Group is urging France to stop the collective deportation of Roma, also known as Gypsies.  The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination calls collective expulsions a violation under international law.  The Committee monitors States’ implementation of the 1969 International Convention on the elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

“We understand that a State has a right and a responsibility to deal with security issues and issues of immigration and illegal immigration,” said Prosper.  “But, our view is when you are doing so, as we said, it should not be on a collective basis.  It should not be targeting a group as a whole.  Individual assessments need to be conducted and look at each particular circumstance of each individual and decide does he or she merit a return or should be allowed to stay.”

Prosper says the concerns of a state have to be balanced against human rights obligations, and protection and asylum needs.

France recently sent hundreds of Roma back to Romania and Bulgaria and dismantled more than 100 illegal camps.  The French government justifies its expulsion of the Roma on grounds of security.”

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/UN-Urges-France-to-Stop-Collective-Deportation-of-Roma-101663143.html

First of all, why on earth is a person-by-person basis of deportation necessary if an entire group has flaunted a nation’s immigration laws and has become a drain on the nation’s resources?

Question: if the UN is so deeply concerned about “the elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination” why does it not speak out against the clear, blatant racial discrimination practiced – and taught – by Islam? Where are the calls for a dramatic change within Islam and it’s views of people who are not Muslim?

Where are the accusations of “xenophobia” for not only the practices of Islam, but what it teaches?

Selective tolerance is not tolerance. Unilateral tolerance is not tolerance. If Islam wishes to be shown more tolerance it must take the first step by showing tolerance itself – true tolerance and acceptance, not treating non-Muslims as second-class citizens or worse (dhimmis) and calling that tolerance.

We have been waiting over 600 years to see that. Still waiting.

But who am I? Let’s hear from someone who was born and raised in Islam: Salman Rushide.

He says, “One of the things that Liberal opinion in the West sometimes, I think, doesn’t understand is that there actually is an enemy. There actually is an enemy that means us harm, and is not just going to go away if you are nice to them. You don’t have to be a right-winger to believe this.”

I’m sure he’s just being xenophobic and racist and that the death threat that’s been hanging over him for years is mostly imagined.