Disastrous open border policies have wreaked havoc across Europe and Western Nations. The globalist rhetoric that caused nations to open their doors in the name of “inclusion” and “acceptance” has had disastrous consequences—predominantly, and unsurprisingly, the undermining of national sovereignty.
Nations have allowed themselves to be flooded with countless Muslim immigrants, not to build a better life, but to spread an ideology that revels in chaos, violence, and reshaping the fabric of societies.
Islamic politicians, public figures, and protesters regularly express their disdain for the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western society. Far from being patriotic toward the nations they have been accepted into, Muslim ideology insists that wherever they set foot belongs to them, and demands an overhaul to be brought under the subjection of Islamic law—by any means necessary. It was these very beliefs—centered around conquering—that resulted in muslim populations being expelled from countries throughout history.
Many nations not only willfully ignore this reality, they also take “acceptance” a step further, adopting broad “Islamophobia” laws that have made Islam untouchable from public criticism.
An Oxford Union debate addressing the question: “Is the West right to be suspicious of Islam?” recently went viral across social media. The debate became a public spectacle as participants were met by hordes of Muslim protesters outside, outraged by the topic that was chosen, uttering threats against those who entered.
Startlingly, Aisha Khan, a student arguing on behalf of Muslims during the debate, declared that her opponent, Tommy Robinson, should be grateful that the mob wasn’t allowed to harm him.
“There is a crowd outside rioting against you tonight, and without the protection and generosity of a Muslim Palestinian president and a largely South Asian executive committee, you would be quite literally cooked,” she insisted to loud applause.
The Head of Public Policy for the Christian Legal Center, Tim Dieppe, responded to the woman’s remarks: “This is an extraordinary statement. She seems to be boasting that Tommy’s life was in danger from Islamic protestors, whilst arguing that the West should not be suspicious of Islam! Furthermore, she essentially claims that were it not for the generosity of the Muslim students, Tommy would have been killed. Is Tommy supposed to be grateful? Astonishingly, the audience applauded at this. What were they applauding? The generous support of Muslims in allowing Tommy to live? Or the fact that the crowd wanted him dead? Are we supposed to be grateful to Muslims for allowing people to live now? Is that why we should not be suspicious of Islam?”
In the United States, the popularity of Islamic politicians in the Democrat Party, like NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, is growing at an alarming rate, expanding the already dangerous level of anti-American, anti-Christian, and antisemitic rhetoric in the nation.
Rejecting mass Muslim immigration is not “hateful” or “racist”—and it does not run contrary to our desire as Christians for these individuals to be reached with the truth of the Gospel. Rejecting mass Muslim immigration is grounded in Biblical wisdom.
God established borders with a purpose. In the case of ancient Israel, God instructed them to be welcoming to strangers, with an important caveat: that the individuals they allow to live in their nation assimilate. That is a critical distinction. Why? Because accepting individuals with ideologies contrary—or actively opposed—to the moral foundation of a nation will inevitably reshape the culture.
