MGINSD saidLet's see how this adds to the debate over whether letting 10K+ young male Muslims into the US is a good thing:
By most definitions, "refugee" means one seeking shelter from harm, not those who seek to import it.
So we're supposed to use a telephone survey of 600 Muslims (out of 3 million) conducted by a well known anti-Muslim think tank (which is what the Center for Security Policy is) best known for their conspiracy theories to make policy? Oh brother.
The problem with the survey is that it doesn't specify what parts of Shari'a (or the whole thing) these recipients have in mind that they support. Secondly, from the survey it's clear that most of the recipients believe it is personal guide with only a tiny minority thinking it should be law for everyone. If Muslims want to use divorce and property Shari'a in the way Hasidic and Orthodox Jews use Mosaic law or Catholics use Canon law, why the double standard?
Secondly, the Syrian refugees are fleeing ISIS. Logically, if they wanted an Islamic state with Shari'a governing everyone including non-believers, they would join ISIS which is trying to create such a place.
Thirdly EVERY culture doesn't assimilate the moment they arrive. I live in Brooklyn which STILL has Italian, Russian, Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods where people haven't and won't assimilate and still look after their own. I've lived in Southern California where the Taiwanese, Koreans and Mexicans form exactly the same communities. There were Swedish, German, Dutch, Polish and Greek neighbourhoods with tightly knit religious and social services for their own people for decades after they arrived. That's how immigration works. Assimilation happens over several generations and some groups (like ultra-Orthodox Jews) remain tied to different cultures and customs indefinitely. It's no different here.