There are even some benefits in taking in Mideast Christians instead of Muslims
Is persecuting religious minorities the behavior of people who are in need of a sympathetic welcome by Europeans and Americans? Or is this behavior yet another reminder that it is non-Muslims from the Middle East who are truly in need of sanctuary?
Western nations should further accept Christian refugees because
Western foreign policies are directly responsible for exacerbating their persecution. Christians did not flee from Bashar Assad's Syria, or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Muamar Gaddafi's Libya. Their systematic persecution--to the point of
genocide--began only
after the U.S. and other European nations interfered in those nations under the pretext of "democracy." All they did is unleash the jihadi forces that the dictators had long kept suppressed. Now the Islamic State is deeply embedded in all three nations, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering countless Christian "infidels" and other minorities.
Surely if the West is responsible for unleashing the full-blown jihad on Christians, the least it can do is put Christians on the top of its refugee list--that is, if it "really cares" about helping? In fact, it's the opposite: report after report has shown that in Western nations persecuted
Christians are "at the bottom of the heap" of refugees to be granted asylum. Despite the U.S. government's acknowledgement that ISIS is committing
genocide against Christians in Syria, the Obama administration
has taken in 5,435 Muslims, but only 28 Christians--even though Christians are approximately 10 percent of Syria's population; in other words, to be on the same ratio with Muslims, at least 500 Christians should've been granted asylum, not 28.
There are even some benefits in taking in Mideast Christians instead of Muslims. Christians are easily assimilated in Western countries, due to the shared Christian heritage. Muslims follow a completely different blueprint, Islamic law, or Sharia--which condemns and calls for constant war (jihad) against all non-Muslims, and advocates any number of distinctly anti-Western practices (female subjugation and sex slavery, death for blasphemers and apostates, etc.). Hence it's no surprise that many Muslim asylum seekers are anti-Western at heart--or, as the German police union chief recently
said, Muslim migrants "despise our country and laugh at our justice."
Mideast Christians also bring
trustworthy language and cultural skills that are beneficial to the West. They understand the Middle Eastern--including Islamic--mindset and can help the West understand it. Moreover, unlike Muslims, Christians have no "conflicting loyalty" issues: Islamic law forbids Muslims from befriending or aiding "infidels" against fellow Muslims (
click here to see some of the treachery this leads to in the U.S.
and here to see the treachery Christians have suffered from their longtime Muslim neighbors and "friends"). No such threat exists among Mideast Christians. They too render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
All the above reasons--from those that offer humanitarian relief to the true victims of persecution, to those that offer safety and even benefits to the West--are unassailable in their logic. Hungary seems to understand all this.
But can such common sense, reason, true altruism, and even self-interest ever prevail among the West's ruling elite--that is, assuming their motives in accepting millions of Muslims are sincere to start with?