Political Roundtable Part XIII

[tontoz]

I hate it when people (like some posters here) who know little or nothing about a religion--or the people who practice it--decide that they're suddenly experts on that religion and what women who follow that religion are "forced" to do or how members of that religion feel about those of another religion--like Jews.

When it comes to Muslims and Islam, so much of the discussion here is based on misinformation and bias.

This girls Muslim mother tried to arrange her marriage at age 11. She was murdered after making this video.

Watch on YouTube

Anecdotal evidence at best. Do you want me to post the dozens of Christian equivalencies?

LOL go ahead.

[payitforward]

There are only roughly 3 million Muslims in the US. There are over 25 million of them in Saudi Arabia alone. Has it occurred to you that Muslims here aren't very representative of Muslims in the Middle East? Or maybe that Muslims here have learned not to share their true beliefs with members of other religions?

Oh tontoz... So, even experience doesn't mean anything?

Maybe it's just that you don't follow this thread? SFAM has made it clear that he's spent a good amount of time in Islamic countries, & linked to material about those times. I don't have as extensive experience as he seems to, but I've got a significant amount. Trust me, it's worth something.

If I remember right, you (like me) are Jewish. Anti-Islamic prejudice (if I'm reading you right -- feel free to correct me if I'm not) on the part of Jews is one of my least favorite phenomena. Above all because there were a thousand or more years when Christians were killing Jews right & left while Islam protected us. By far the best time & place for Jews in European history was on the Iberian peninsula when it was under Islamic control. I'm sure you know the name Maimonides. What language did he write in? (Arabic) etc. etc. etc.

I am not Jewish but it sure seems like Muslims detest Jews now.

I have a feeling that Armenians might not share your views about Muslim tolerance.

I know sfam has spent time in other countries and I find it comical that he just assumes that Muslims who decide to immigrate here either already share our values or will suddenly change their values after moving here. The more likely scenario is that they want to come here for financial/security reasons and will bring their crazy af values with them.

Actually, your first point isn't correct. E.g. I know a lot of Muslims. As well, I have firsthand experience of lots & lots of business deals among/between Jews & Muslims. I've been in meetings where Jews & Muslims work together easily & productively. &, finally, I have a reasonable number of Islamic friends.

IOW, you don't know what you are talking about in this case, which btw you are not required to know anything about the subject. It's just happenstance that I do. But, given knowing nothing, it would maybe have been a good idea not to make any blithe assertions, not even under the cover of an "it sure seems." Especially if they are slams on a huge number of people none of whom you know.

The Armenian holocaust by the Turks was awful. But it had nothing to do with Islam. I take it you are a Christian. How much worse was what the Germans did than what the Turks did? You ready to issue the same blanket condemnation of Christians as you did of Muslims? Of course not -- nor should you. In either case.

As to Muslims who have immigrated here, do you know any? Isn't at least some knowledge required to make your statement? Could you tell me some of the values of the Islamic religion? Have you read the Koran? Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry his cousin when she was 12? Was he a Muslim?

As to marriage in Islam, listen up: what Islamic law says is that to marry a female must have menstruated, & she must be ready physically & psychologically (i.e. emotionally) for a sexual relationship, to bear children, & to be Mother of a family. As well, for any marriage to be legal, there must unforced, sincere consent on the part of the female; for consent to considered "sincere," she must be capable of understanding the relationship she is entering. Nor can her parent or guardian force her to marry. That's Islamic law. Perhaps the first piece of Islamic law you've ever had explained to you.

No doubt, however, you are thinking of things like this: in Yemen it is legal to marry a 9 year old girl. I am sure you & I have the same opinion of this law (& I'll ask you to watch what you say, tontoz, as I have daughters). But this is a national law, a disgusting one w/o a doubt. It's not Islamic law.

As to arranged marriages in general, have you ever known such a couple? I know a few; happy & in love in the cases I know. In fact, much of the time (I've been told), a late teenage boy and girl fall for one another and get their parents to "arrange" the marriage.

Are there horrors in the Islamic where grown men molest children? Sure. Are there men who sell their young daughters? Sure. &, you know what, tontoz? We have that kind of thing right here in America.

One of my best friends is a psychotherapist who for many years has worked with children who are the victims of sex abuse. It's almost always a family member, usually the Father. My friend has testified in numerous cases, as well, in which a man has pimped out his daughters (in one case starting at age 4). These are all Christians, btw.

A few years ago, right here in the town where I live, we had a case of a pediatrician who had abused over 500 child patients. He's in prison now. You might be interested to know that he had been accused many times before finally being found out. For years, the local hospital & medical establishment closed around him, defending him & dismissing the accusations. He's a Christian, in case you wondered.

Long, long ago -- before Islam had been invented, before Christianity had been invented, before Jews were anything but "Judaeans" who (like all peoples) had their own God -- the Roman playright Plautus wrote: Homo homini lupus est -- man is wolf to man. Sadly it's a fact. Try not to add to the trail of horrors, tontoz, by casually assigning something like 1.6 billion people, almost a quarter of all human beings, to the side of evil. It's kind of bad karma as they say in yet another religious tradition.

[gtn130]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with our health care system, whether we're talking about the ACA or what was in place before that, is that the system seems mostly concerned with "who pays?", rather than "why does stuff cost so much?"

No health care system is affordable when Epipen increases in price from $57 to $500 in just 7 years despite no actual change in technology. All we are arguing about is how much of the cost should be born by "the rich".

The entire system needs to be redesigned so that there are incentives in place to reduce cost. We also need to eliminate as many middle men as possible between doctor and patient. I don't profess to have all the answers, but I'm worried that we're not even asking the right questions.

I agree with this.

It certainly doesn't validate any of the actions Republicans have taken regarding Obamacare, though.

[tontoz]

Yemen is almost entirely Muslim, another case of Muslim controlled contries being crazy af.

The Armenian holocaust by the Turks was awful. But it had nothing to do with Islam. I take it you are a Christian. How much worse was what the Germans did than what the Turks did? You ready to issue the same blanket condemnation of Christians as you did of Muslims? Of course not -- nor should you. In either case.

.

Had nothing to do with Islam based on what? Because you say so? They had been slaughtering the Armenians in the thousands before the full scale holocaust started. The war just gave them an excuse to do it on a bigger scale.

As far as I know Hitler wasn't practicing any religion at all and didn't believe in God, was actively oppressing churches and had an inner circle of anti-church radicals.

Are there horrors in the Islamic where grown men molest children? Sure. Are there men who sell their young daughters? Sure. &, you know what, tontoz? We have that kind of thing right here in America.

It is a crime here. You do know that right?

Treatment of women that is normal in many Muslim countries would land you in jail here.

[sfam]

Here's the thing: none of those bad things about ACA necessitate repealing it. That's why I specifically used that word - there are many ways to improve it, many things that could be fixed, but repealing ACA without an immediate solution to replace it would invariably result in people dying.

And still, we're talking about the Republicans' foremost political issue here. A healthcare law that isn't quite optimal but is still functional and demonstrably better than what we had in the past? Of all the issues the country faces - this is the one issue that takes precedence over everything else? Laughable.

Republicans want to specifically repeal Obamacare for two reason:

1) tax cuts for their donors
2) the optics of the political "victory"

Hey gtn, you make good points. But...

If we are ever going to make progress on healthcare (and by that I mean something that is both functional and won't collapse on itself over time), we probably do need to repeal and re-write the law (it was that poorly written).

But to your larger point - the Rs shouldn't repeal it without having something better (not just as good but better) in place - violent agreement.

And to your two points - I agree with 2) but not 1).

The tax code which also needs to be fixed isn't tied to the ACA other than we are spending much more than we are taking in.

Strongly disagree here. The ACA, like any sector level comprehensive law, is a series of small and large statute changes that go across the US Code. There is no easy repeal. It was not a complete entity, but was a whole series of structural changes - some of which have foundations deeply troubling to Republicans. Far better is to identify the problems and challenges with both the law and the current health care environment and make changes from that. Small, incremental changes on specific items like drug prices are probably lots more doable and possible than the fictitious "repeal and replace". There is simply no way to handle all of those who now have health care through the ACA otherwise.

[dckingsfan]

BTW: The WSP's outlook on tax reform: http://tinyurl.com/hsxv9fj

[sfam]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with our health care system, whether we're talking about the ACA or what was in place before that, is that the system seems mostly concerned with "who pays?", rather than "why does stuff cost so much?"

No health care system is affordable when Epipen increases in price from $57 to $500 in just 7 years despite no actual change in technology. All we are arguing about is how much of the cost should be born by "the rich".

The entire system needs to be redesigned so that there are incentives in place to reduce cost. We also need to eliminate as many middle men as possible between doctor and patient. I don't profess to have all the answers, but I'm worried that we're not even asking the right questions.

Unfortunately, this approach is at odds with the system we have in place.

Republicans are really big with talking about market dynamics, but unfortunately, they are completely broken by design in the insurance health care market. The insurer comes between the consumer - the patient - and the seller - the doctor. They are the middleman in your terms. What follows is a set of perverse incentives that are largely driven by the drug companies and Health IT vendors. As long as the insurer pays, the health systems can charge whatever they like. Worse, health systems get caught up in perverse "keep up with the jones's" competition from other health systems in buying massively more expensive treatment machines that lead to only marginal improvements.

I spent a few years working on this problem with HHS in the early 2000s - there is a reason that health care systems in Florida, who are the worse in providing heart attack treatment - make the most money treating heart attacks. The system is not able reducing preventable deaths - like that literally is not the goal from an incentives standpoint. You make more money as a health care system providing crappy treatment that requires the patient to continually return. Improved patient care literally often leads to less income for most health systems.

At the risk of sounding coherent and liberal at the same time, the single payer model actually restores the compact between buyer and seller, and allows for reasonable price controls, the removal of extraneous treatments (right now these are encouraged), and the reduction in bad heath IT investments.

[sfam]

I am not Jewish but it sure seems like Muslims detest Jews now.

I have a feeling that Armenians might not share your views about Muslim tolerance.

I know sfam has spent time in other countries and I find it comical that he just assumes that Muslims who decide to immigrate here either already share our values or will suddenly change their values after moving here. The more likely scenario is that they want to come here for financial/security reasons and will bring their crazy af values with them.

For clarity's sake, how many Muslims have you talked to who decided to immigrate here?

Would really love to know that. My guess is it's somewhere hovering around ZERO.

If so, perhaps you could drop the certainty in your assumptions. I've actually have numerous conversations on this both from many who would love to immigrate here but cannot, as well as those who are already here. This is not a random assumption on my part.

The crazy values they bring with them, like almost all immigrants coming to US, centers around wanting to see their kids stay alive, get married, graduate college and have grandkids. They also want sound, fulfilling careers. Sound familiar? Are these the crazy values you're referring to?

But just imagine if you will that you lived in a place where you really didn't see freedom, and hated it. Imagine if you hated the repressive environment and the absence of freedom of thought. Would you personally think about moving to somewhere that more closely called to your personal values? Yes, many come for income but the truly crazy among them really aren't interested in leaving their country.

I realize that even thinking about this process forces you to imagine that not all Muslims think the same way (shockingly, not all Christians think the same - go figure!). Is it really so hard to imagine that birds of a feather flock together, regardless from where they were born?

Do you really think those most opposed to US values would be the ones clamouring to come here? This is where they want to set up Sharia Law, because gosh, it just makes so much sense! In all honesty, that is silly in the extreme. Just use your knoggin for a half a second and you'll realize how ridiculous that posture is.

[gtn130]

tontoz once argued with me that Phil Jackson isn't culpable for Knicks personnel decisions because he doesn't technically hold the title of General Manager

[dckingsfan]

Here's the thing: none of those bad things about ACA necessitate repealing it. That's why I specifically used that word - there are many ways to improve it, many things that could be fixed, but repealing ACA without an immediate solution to replace it would invariably result in people dying.

And still, we're talking about the Republicans' foremost political issue here. A healthcare law that isn't quite optimal but is still functional and demonstrably better than what we had in the past? Of all the issues the country faces - this is the one issue that takes precedence over everything else? Laughable.

Republicans want to specifically repeal Obamacare for two reason:

1) tax cuts for their donors
2) the optics of the political "victory"

Hey gtn, you make good points. But...

If we are ever going to make progress on healthcare (and by that I mean something that is both functional and won't collapse on itself over time), we probably do need to repeal and re-write the law (it was that poorly written).

But to your larger point - the Rs shouldn't repeal it without having something better (not just as good but better) in place - violent agreement.

And to your two points - I agree with 2) but not 1).

The tax code which also needs to be fixed isn't tied to the ACA other than we are spending much more than we are taking in.

Strongly disagree here. The ACA, like any sector level comprehensive law, is a series of small and large statute changes that go across the US Code. There is no easy repeal. It was not a complete entity, but was a whole series of structural changes - some of which have foundations deeply troubling to Republicans. Far better is to identify the problems and challenges with both the law and the current health care environment and make changes from that. Small, incremental changes on specific items like drug prices are probably lots more doable and possible than the fictitious "repeal and replace". There is simply no way to handle all of those who now have health care through the ACA otherwise.

Isn't that what was counted upon. Regardless of how bad a law is it tends to stay on the books. Or additions to good laws like SS become bad laws that also can't be touched - they become third rail issues.

Just changing portions of the law would be easier - but they can never really "fix" it without repeal and replace. And I just don't think the Rs have it in them to really fix anything.

And not doing so is just kicking the can down the road - which is what will most likely happen. And entitlements and interest will continue to crowd out other spending (which the ACA has accelerated). As it does, you will see wilder swings in the electorate - can you say "Trump".

And much of this has come from laws "like" the ACA. If you don't want a revamp of our entitlement programs and you don't want to tax the 1% on at a 100+ percent tax rate, then how do you solve the problem?

[sfam]

As to arranged marriages in general, have you ever known such a couple? I know a few; happy & in love in the cases I know. In fact, much of the time (I've been told), a late teenage boy and girl fall for one another and get their parents to "arrange" the marriage.

Fun anecdote, my wife is Korean. She comes from a little rice village (Ansong) about an hour and half from the border. My mother-in-law (now 87) is the product of an arranged marriage. By the time I met her and her now diseased husband, they were inseparable, and deeply in love in the way bickering old couples get.

They didn't even see each other until AFTER they were married. All my father-in-law knew of her is she was really short, as the marriage at the time had a veil covering the woman.

They were Buddhist at the time. When my wife was 8, her father got deathly ill. A Catholic missionary who came through twice a year just happened to stop by at that time, and told them if they converted, God would save him. They did, and he lived, and they have been Catholic ever since.

[nate33]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with our health care system, whether we're talking about the ACA or what was in place before that, is that the system seems mostly concerned with "who pays?", rather than "why does stuff cost so much?"

No health care system is affordable when Epipen increases in price from $57 to $500 in just 7 years despite no actual change in technology. All we are arguing about is how much of the cost should be born by "the rich".

The entire system needs to be redesigned so that there are incentives in place to reduce cost. We also need to eliminate as many middle men as possible between doctor and patient. I don't profess to have all the answers, but I'm worried that we're not even asking the right questions.

Unfortunately, this approach is at odds with the system we have in place.

Republicans are really big with talking about market dynamics, but unfortunately, they are completely broken by design in the insurance health care market. The insurer comes between the consumer - the patient - and the seller - the doctor. They are the middleman in your terms. What follows is a set of perverse incentives that are largely driven by the drug companies and Health IT vendors. As long as the insurer pays, the health systems can charge whatever they like. Worse, health systems get caught up in perverse "keep up with the jones's" competition from other health systems in buying massively more expensive treatment machines that lead to only marginal improvements.

I spent a few years working on this problem with HHS in the early 2000s - there is a reason that health care systems in Florida, who are the worse in providing heart attack treatment - make the most money treating heart attacks. The system is not able reducing preventable deaths - like that literally is not the goal from an incentives standpoint. You make more money as a health care system providing crappy treatment that requires the patient to continually return. Improved patient care literally often leads to less income for most health systems.

At the risk of sounding coherent and liberal at the same time, the single payer model actually restores the compact between buyer and seller, and allows for reasonable price controls, the removal of extraneous treatments (right now these are encouraged), and the reduction in bad heath IT investments.

I'm agnostic on the insurance model versus government model. I'm struggling to see how a government run model is going to inspire innovation and cost reduction, but I can't sit here and argue that the insurance model is getting the job done either.

I think one problem is that we have too much covered under insurance. Things like lasik surgery and cosmetic surgery have rapidly decreased in price, but conventional medicine only goes up. This is because optional cosmetic surgery is typically paid for out of private funds.

I think we need a system that only insures for catastrophic problems like cancer or bullet wounds. When you get a fever or need stitches, that should come out of pocket. We can then talk about how much government can step in to assist the poor.

[sfam]

Isn't that what was counted upon. Regardless of how bad a law is it tends to stay on the books. Or additions to good laws like SS become bad laws that also can't be touched - they become third rail issues.

Just changing portions of the law would be easier - but they can never really "fix" it without repeal and replace. And I just don't think the Rs have it in them to really fix anything.

And not doing so is just kicking the can down the road - which is what will most likely happen. And entitlements and interest will continue to crowd out other spending (which the ACA has accelerated). As it does, you will see wilder swings in the electorate - can you say "Trump".

And much of this has come from laws "like" the ACA. If you don't want a revamp of our entitlement programs and you don't want to tax the 1% on at a 100+ percent tax rate, then how do you solve the problem?

I'm saying something more basic. The notion of a law as converted into statute undergoes a fundamental transformation. Little pieces of text get scattered across the US Code. This happens with every major piece of legislation.

The problem is those same statutes are affected by other changes in law. Its more like a Humpty Dumpty type syndrome. To infuse devious design sort of bypasses the crazy sausage making process that makes up our US code.

I think a fairer reading of it is the Democrats and Obama administration were looking for any path toward a bill. What emerged was true sausage making, in all its glory. They assumed the problems would be identified and worked out over time, but like most things in washington, have instead resulted in stalemate.

[sfam]

I'm agnostic on the insurance model versus government model. I'm struggling to see how a government run model is going to inspire innovation, but I can't sit here and argue that the insurance model is getting the job done either.

I think one problem is that we have too much covered under insurance. Things like lasik surgery and cosmetic surgery have rapidly decreased in price, but conventional medicine only goes up. This is because optional cosmetic surgery is typically paid for out of private funds.

I think we need a system that only insures for catastrophic problems like cancer or bullet wounds. When you get a fever or need stitches, that should come out of pocket. We can then talk about how much government can step in to assist the poor.

If I didn't know better I would have guessed you voted for Clinton over Obama in 2008. This is the argument for single payer, with Aflac like riders for the more expensive, boutique stuff that individuals can decided or not to get. We could quibble over whether well care should be included but you are making the single payer argument.

[sfam]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

[nate33]

I'm agnostic on the insurance model versus government model. I'm struggling to see how a government run model is going to inspire innovation, but I can't sit here and argue that the insurance model is getting the job done either.

I think one problem is that we have too much covered under insurance. Things like lasik surgery and cosmetic surgery have rapidly decreased in price, but conventional medicine only goes up. This is because optional cosmetic surgery is typically paid for out of private funds.

I think we need a system that only insures for catastrophic problems like cancer or bullet wounds. When you get a fever or need stitches, that should come out of pocket. We can then talk about how much government can step in to assist the poor.

If I didn't know better I would have guessed you voted for Clinton over Obama in 2008. This is the argument for single payer, with Aflac like riders for the more expensive, boutique stuff that individuals can decided or not to get. We could quibble over whether well care should be included but you are making the single payer argument.

My biggest issue with a government takeover of health care is mission creep. They'll start by saying government only covers the catastrophic stuff, but then people will advocate that they have a "right" to more and better health care, and we'll get to the point where government is paying for band-aids.

[nate33]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

If they want to live in freedom, why don't they agitate for freedom in their own country? The fact is, democracy is difficult. It takes a lot of responsibility, tolerance and trust. Muslim societies have been unable to maintain any type of stable democracy so far, anywhere. So what makes you think they will be good stewards of democracy on U.S. soil? Is there something magic about the dirt here?

[dckingsfan]

Isn't that what was counted upon. Regardless of how bad a law is it tends to stay on the books. Or additions to good laws like SS become bad laws that also can't be touched - they become third rail issues.

Just changing portions of the law would be easier - but they can never really "fix" it without repeal and replace. And I just don't think the Rs have it in them to really fix anything.

And not doing so is just kicking the can down the road - which is what will most likely happen. And entitlements and interest will continue to crowd out other spending (which the ACA has accelerated). As it does, you will see wilder swings in the electorate - can you say "Trump".

And much of this has come from laws "like" the ACA. If you don't want a revamp of our entitlement programs and you don't want to tax the 1% on at a 100+ percent tax rate, then how do you solve the problem?

I'm saying something more basic. The notion of a law as converted into statute undergoes a fundamental transformation. Little pieces of text get scattered across the US Code. This happens with every major piece of legislation.

The problem is those same statutes are affected by other changes in law. Its more like a Humpty Dumpty type syndrome. To infuse devious design sort of bypasses the crazy sausage making process that makes up our US code.

I think a fairer reading of it is the Democrats and Obama administration were looking for any path toward a bill. What emerged was true sausage making, in all its glory. They assumed the problems would be identified and worked out over time, but like most things in washington, have instead resulted in stalemate.

Agreed on your analysis. But what Democrats and Obama have ended up with is an unsustainable model. That was just poor governance. When they had control of the House, Senate and White House, they didn't address the known issue. They kicked the can down the road and the ACA helped accelerate the unsustainability of the entitlement programs.

You are basically saying that we should ignore this because it is too hard to change.

And I believe that you are prescient there. I don't think the Rs have the political will to do what is necessary just as the Ds were not able to when they had their chance.

[dckingsfan]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

And then we get back to budget - can we really afford to take on low-skilled immigrants at this time without first fixing our spending problem

Damn, these things always end up intertwined

[tontoz]

I am not Jewish but it sure seems like Muslims detest Jews now.

I have a feeling that Armenians might not share your views about Muslim tolerance.

I know sfam has spent time in other countries and I find it comical that he just assumes that Muslims who decide to immigrate here either already share our values or will suddenly change their values after moving here. The more likely scenario is that they want to come here for financial/security reasons and will bring their crazy af values with them.

For clarity's sake, how many Muslims have you talked to who decided to immigrate here?

Would really love to know that. My guess is it's somewhere hovering around ZERO.

If so, perhaps you could drop the certainty in your assumptions. I've actually have numerous conversations on this both from many who would love to immigrate here but cannot, as well as those who are already here. This is not a random assumption on my part.

The crazy values they bring with them, like almost all immigrants coming to US, centers around wanting to see their kids stay alive, get married, graduate college and have grandkids. They also want sound, fulfilling careers. Sound familiar? Are these the crazy values you're referring to?

But just imagine if you will that you lived in a place where you really didn't see freedom, and hated it. Imagine if you hated the repressive environment and the absence of freedom of thought. Would you personally think about moving to somewhere that more closely called to your personal values? Yes, many come for income but the truly crazy among them really aren't interested in leaving their country.

I realize that even thinking about this process forces you to imagine that not all Muslims think the same way (shockingly, not all Christians think the same - go figure!). Is it really so hard to imagine that birds of a feather flock together, regardless from where they were born?

Do you really think those most opposed to US values would be the ones clamouring to come here? This is where they want to set up Sharia Law, because gosh, it just makes so much sense! In all honesty, that is silly in the extreme. Just use your knoggin for a half a second and you'll realize how ridiculous that posture is.

What is ridiculous is you assuming that people will abandon their beliefs when moving here.

I am well aware that not all Muslims are crazy. However Islam seems to attract crazy people or help create them. Either way i think it is a good idea to place additional restrictions on Muslims who want to come here.

Muslims are only 1% of the population yet they are responsible for the largest terrorist attack on US soil (WTC, on their second attempt no less) and the largest mass shooting.

I think there are plenty of Muslims who want to come here for financial/security reasons but then would cause trouble once they had sufficient numbers.

Just recently Muslims in Indonesia (seemingly your pet Muslim country) took to the streets to protest Valentine's Day.