Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has an interesting post on his blog. He wonders why if scientists can create climate models, they apparently cannot create a prediction model that would show the tipping point of Islamic immigration - as he points out: there are far fewer variables.
Adams makes a number of interesting observations. For example, he states that only the people on the extremes of the immigration debate are rational. In this judgement, he is (almost) completely correct. Whilst I disagree with the neoliberal globalists, I can appreciate that given their values that open borders make perfect sense. The trouble is the neoliberal globalists are incapable of appreciating the rationality of those, like me, who oppose immigration. Instead, they resort to mere name-calling, as indeed does Scott Adams, construing all who oppose immigration as racist.
Whilst one might oppose immigration because of racist ideology, it is not the only possible motivation. Indeed, one could be racist and in favour of immigration. The racist white slaver owners of America were all in favour of immigration. Racist British landowners in the Carribbean were all in favour of immigration. The Racists of South Africa encouraged mass immigration. The racists in Saudi Arabia encourage immigration. Just as being in favour of immigration does not necessarily mean one is not racist, being opposed to immigration does not necessarily mean one is racist. Racism and immigration are two separate and distinct issues.
Anyhow, back to Scott's post. His concern is that as muslims immigrate there must come a point at which the society tips over into being an Islamic society. Without bothering to explain why, he takes it for granted that would be a bad thing. So to help Scott out, I will explain. The reason it would be a bad thing is because Islam is anti-human rights, it is anti-democracy, it is anti-the rule of law. Islam is actually the antithesis of everything the liberals claim to value: individualism, freedom of expression, the right to live ones life as one wishes. Islam is totalitarian. The state controls everything and it does so barbarously. The reason Scott did not explain was because simply pointing out these facts gets one labelled racist.
So to the tipping point. Scott wonders where it is and wants to avoid it. Yet this is nonsense. And Scott is reduced to this nonsense because he failed to spell out why society becoming Islamic is bad. Once you spell out what makes an Islamic society a bad idea, it is immediately obvious that it would be a dangerous act of self-harm for a society to import carriers of this Islamic ideology. It does not matter how small the numbers are. They will over time increase. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will provide them with money and imams for mosques and madrasses; Sharia councils will be set up and will extend the range of coverage. Muslims will demand their customs be respected. Eventually, they will impose Islam - Scott's tipping point. He wants to know where it is so America can stop short of it.
Wanting to import the dangerous ideology of Islam is only rational if one wants to destroy one's society. Wanting to import Islam only up to the point just before the tipping point is irrational - it is irrational because it is a policy that conflicts with the person's values: Scott does not want his society to become an Islamic society, but he wants to import muslims and Islam. This is the irrational position of almost all the people who are in favour muslims immigrating to their societies: they want muslim immigration, but they do not want their societies to become Islamic societies.