The overarching nature of the problem when it comes to perceptions regarding American immigration is this: we have two sides to such issues and on one side, bigots excluded, are people who simply observe and perceive a thing for what it does; this is common sense and in America, it seems at times as if it has been circumvented and pushed to one side to the point of extinction.
On the other side of the issue you have people, good hearted probably for the most part, who have a faith that everyone is equal and often delve just a little too far for the reasons why a person or culture is not as sweet, innocent and successful as themselves, convinced the good facet of a thing's nature would triumph if ferreted out and given a chance. Obviously people in the latter group feel under no direct threat since a person with an intruder in their house at midnight is not so much concerned as to the social forces that led to that intruder's presence as to the mere fact of the presence; the obvious point here is one of recognizing an intruder.
Western nations are oblivious to threat being seen coming from immigration, in fact they seem to welcome it despite any evidence to the contrary as to the source of threats against Western socieities whether of a subversive nature or outright violent - the West seems locked into a view of present immigration which is based on past results, particularly in regard to America since immigration into Europe is still a relatively new thing. American national policies in regard to terrorism and immigration from the Third World are set by people who are entirely provincial in their outlook and with a security in their every day lives that permits them to have an expansive spirit of giving and good will. Despite the fact that the expense of security in America has skyrocketed since 9/11 and discomfited us in unprecedented ways at airports and sporting events, poltical correctness seems to dictate that all is in fact well and that the culture that is the sole source of the uptick in security is to be conspicuously ignored as that source.
The problem is that while kind and safe people are setting the standards by which we formally and legally judge and allow threats, those threats are sufficiently dispersed among the West that it is difficult to raise an awareness that can meet these threats, particularly when our own government skirts around the issue, using careful words to describe a terrorist event, putting it in the realm of ordinary crime even when there is a clear pattern to such events that are based in culture, ethnicity and religion. A demographic form of colonization is as slow moving as grass growing but suddenly the grass is tall and the fact that one rarely actually sees a traffic accident allow us to live in a slow motion world that is detached from threat until it is too late.
Plainly put, the West is committing slow suicide in terms of its own European based culture and it is galling because the main reason for allowing it seems to be the mere fact that failed nations that will not stop having babies together with misplaced notions of being charitable are the main cause of it. Who'd ever have thought that among the myriad academic discussions as to the reasons for the fall of civilizations that, in the case of the West, it would be simply because of people without a clue abetting the wholesale migration of other peoples without a clue? The whole thing is simply staggering in its idiocy and unawareness.
Those who observe and call 'em like they see 'em are shouted down as racist and anti-immigrant and so join the ranks of the enablers by being forced to the sidelines. This changes the entire role as regards the West in its relationship to the Third World from the old Peace Corp idea of exporting success to importing failure.
What is worse morally: an enemy at the gates or the unwitting, pious and morally smug traitors within who open the gates and watch the looting in terms of treasure raped by welfare, increased security, lower wages, higher crime and the eventual demographic subversion of the utterly clueless host culture that finds itself pushed out of the nest and replaced by a half-lidded fat cowbird that in the long run cannot survive without a host? The idea would seem to be, in reality if not in intent, to leave the host with just enough blood to continue to technologically innovate and economically produce while keeping the host in its place by continual lawsuits and waving the host nations own Constitutions in its faces.
We have to challenge our nation's immigration policies. We must uncover who is giving and receiving the mandates that push the Third World on us and find out what their goals are, which are probably blithely innocent but nevertheless destructive. While the West absolutely insists on the sanctity of the hegemony of Third World cultures in their own domains, we offer up ours on a Constitutional platter with seemingly no other goal than to academically prove how real Democracy is and how racist we are not; that type of smug triviality is hardly a reason to give up our cultures.
A case can be made, in the case of World War II, that cultures like Germany and Japan suffered through a type of insanity unprecedented in the real scope of its cruelty and in fact amounted to the suicide of the regimes in place if not the base cultures themselves.
But what does one do when countries suffer through a similar type of suicidal and equally insane impulse based on monstrous kindness? Where can we direct our armies, where are the uniforms to face, how can one conjure up Geneva Convention rules regarding suicidal charity? The West has gone absolutely insane. The lights are going out all over Europe but it is a blight that will cover decades at least and so is seen to be so slow moving a threat that to claim it as such is to be seen as semi-hysterical. In this case there will be no rescuers for Europe since the would be rescuers are at once the occupying army and the ones occupied. Without a long term vision we are as wreckage on the rocks of our own civilizations.
In a far longer time frame, Islam is as dangerous to Europe as was Hitler and with disturbingly similar outlooks of other cultures. It was easy to see an army massed in front of Vienna in 1683 - it is far more difficult to see an army which passes through the gates one at a time with our own connivance and by hook or by crook and takes down the city one brick at a time.