2007 July 25 Wednesday
Quarter Of British Terrorism Suspects Asylum Seekers

There's a really really simple way to greatly reduce the Muslim terrorist threat in the West: Keep out Muslims. Instead, Britain lets in Muslims in sufficient number that asylum seekers alone make up a quarter of all suspected terrorists in Britain.

THE government faces new embarrassment over Britain’s porous borders with the revelation that one in four terrorist suspects arrested in Britain is an asylum seeker.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been more than 1,100 arrests under antiterrorism legislation. While some of the most serious threats come from Al-Qaeda supporters born in the UK, there is new evidence of many suspects exploiting loopholes in the country’s immigration laws.

It was confirmed last week that Muktar Said Ibrahim, one of the bombers involved in the failed suicide attacks of July 21, 2005, was given a passport even though he had convictions for indecent assault and robbery. Gordon Brown has said an applicant in similar circumstances would not now be granted citizenship.

A Home Office analysis of those arrested under antiterrorism laws from 2001 to 2005 found that almost a quarter – 24%, or 232 out of 963 – had previously applied for asylum.

This is what Monty Python called "Getting Hit On The Head Lessons".

Even if Muslim immigration was restricted to educated Muslims that would not eliminate the threat as demonstrated by the recent attempt by Muslim doctors to blow up cars in London and Glasgow.

All eight of the suspects arrested following car bombing attempts in London and Glasgow reportedly were employed or previously employed by Britain's National Health Service.

The suspects, whose names have not been confirmed by police, include one doctor from Iraq and two from India. There are also a physician from Lebanon and a Jordanian doctor and his medical assistant wife. Another doctor and a medical student are thought to be from the Middle East.

These are signs that reality is trying to tell us something. But our elites don't want to hear it.

More generally, the Western countries have plenty of people already. Britain is very densely populated and does not need a larger population. Population increases do not improve the quality of life for the people who are already there. The opposite is the case. So why let in floods of people?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 July 25 10:35 PM  Immigration Terrorism

John S Bolton said at July 26, 2007 1:10 AM:

That old refugee treaty has become one of the greatest threats to the continuity of civilization; a free pass for terrorists. It needs to be repudiated by all the richer countries and replaced with one that has them form a united front to obtain refugee visas in poor countries. Freedom beyond what exists today in any of the rich countries can be provided within small refugee districts, which are yet each larger than Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra or the Channel Islands.
Internet access with unsurpassed freedom of publication can be given to all literate refugees in such zones, and greater freedom of joining any sort of political parties as well. Many poor countries depend on the rich ones, and breakaway regions can be recognized if they will set aside a small border district for that purpose.

Kenelm Digby said at July 26, 2007 3:25 AM:

In a odd turn of events perhaps these 'asylum seekers' will actually 'seek asylum' in some other 1st world country other than Britain on the grounds that Britain is 'persecuting' them for their political and religious beliefs.
After all, isn't this the whole meaning and raison d'etre of that awful term in the first place and aren't the poor little lambs screaming that the face death and imprisonment at home from their governments due to their unconventional political beliefs and thus seek 'sanctuary' from oppression - only in this cae the oppressed want to maim and murder with a will those foolish enough to take them in.
Exposes the whole sham lie of this hideous racket - which in reality is uncontrolled immigration by another name.

dchamil said at July 26, 2007 7:16 AM:

But wait, wouldn't it violate some freedom of religion principle to exclude certain asylum-seekers on the basis of religion? The answer is that Islam is not just a religion. It is an ideology for conquering the world, using the cloak of religion. There are few principles which have no exceptions; national security trumps freedom of religion for asylum-seekers.

Anon said at July 26, 2007 11:17 AM:

Just wait until all those Iraqi "refugees" get here to the US. I have no doubt that a good number will be active terrorist agents (as opposed to non-active terror agents, or what are commonly called muslims).

Audacious Epigone said at July 27, 2007 7:25 AM:

Timely, as thousands of Iraqi refugees are granted asylum and settling stateside.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©