[ A vote for Demoscums is a vote for the Islamization of America ]
Under Clinton Presidency, U.S. Muslim Population Would Exceed Germany’s by 2024
Under two terms of a Hillary Clinton presidency, the U.S. would have a Muslim population that is larger than Germany’s Muslim population of 4.8 million.
Based on the most recent DHS data available, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014.
Yet, as Donald Trump explained during Thursday night acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Clinton “has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama.”
Specifically, Clinton had said that, as president, she would expand Muslim migration by importing an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year.
As Trump explained, Clinton’s Syrian refugees would come on top of the tens of thousands of refugees the U.S. already admits from Muslim countries.
Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year, means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as President. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian refugee program throughout her Presidency, she could potentially resettle roughly 1.5 million Muslim migrants during her first two terms.
These projections suggest that after seven years of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, the U.S. could have a Muslim population that is larger than Germany’s Muslim population of 4.8 million.
These projections are rough estimates, and the population size could be impacted by additional various factors— including births, deaths, and conversions.
Many have warned if the U.S. continues at its current record pace of Muslim migration—or if pro-Islamic migration politicians, such as Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton, further increase Muslim migration—the U.S. risks following in Europe’s footsteps.
As Sen. Jeff Sessions has previously explained, “it’s an unpleasant, but unavoidable fact that bringing in large unassimilated flows of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalisation and extremism to take hold, just like they’re seeing in Europe.”
Andrew McCarthy has similarly argued that the large-scale importation of “assimilation-resistant Muslim migrants” enables the development of pockets of Sharia-sympathetic communities that can serve as breeding grounds for radicalization—as they have in Europe.
McCarthy has explained that, as we are seeing “in Europe and the Middle East, jihadism thrives when it has a support system of sharia-adherent Muslims. In Europe this means – as it would mean here – enclaves of assimilation-resistant Muslims… It is patently obvious that our security challenge is not just jihadists; it is the combination of jihadists and their support network of assimilation-resistant Muslims. Indeed, even if we could vet for all the currently active jihadists, it is from the assimilation-resistance Islamic communities that future “homegrown” jihadists will emerge – and that is apart from the material and moral support jihadists get from like-minded Islamists in these communities.”
Sessions has aruged that vetting migrants means not simply keeping out people who currently have terror aspirations and already have ties to terror groups, but also keeping out those who—based on their support for Islamist ideology— could be candidates for terror, or whose children could become candidates for terror, or who hold values that are hostile to American values.
Yet politicians in both parties, who have voted to expand Muslim migration into the U.S., have ruled out vetting measures that could take these factors into account. Both Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan have argued it’s inappropriate to examine the religious views of an applicant– in essence, this suggests that the U.S. can’t screen out migrants based on their potential support for ideologies that may be anti-gay, anti-women, anti-America or anti-religious freedom.
Yet neither Clinton nor Ryan have explained why importing hundreds of thousands of migrants from nations that may hold sentiments that are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, and anti-America benefits the United States or helps to protect American values.
