Your argument is essentially "Muslims have a different culture from ours;
Not just different, but incompatible.
And include some extremists who are intent on violently overthrowing our system to create a society more to their liking.
Not just some, but many. And often they hide behind citizenship western governments have foolishly granted them. European countries as well as US, Canada and Australia must now take many ISIS fighters because they are
de jure citizens of those countries. That could have been prevented by not being so lax about immigration in the first place!
Therefore we should prevent Muslims from joining our society".
As I have said repeatedly, there should be no blanket ban. But there should be no blanket acceptance either. Just because 10,000s of mass Islamic migreants show up at your border is no good reason to let them all in. Especially if vast majority of them supports Shariah Law. And even more especially if they are trying to use violence to get in.
New Clashes Erupt in Evros; Migrants Throw Petrol Bombs Over to Greek Side
You could (and if you are to be consistent, must), argue that "Christian Europeans have a different culture from ours; And include some extremists who are intent on violently overthrowing our system to create a society more to their liking.
There is no equivalence between Christianity as practiced in Europe and Islam as practiced in the Islamic World, especially countries like Afghanistan, Somalia etc.
Again, that does not mean no migrants from those areas are bad. Somebody like Ayan Hirsi Ali is an asset. It is shameful how she was treated in Europe while Islamists are being protected!
This argument is logically fallacious.
What is logically fallacious is your false equivalence.
That you don't accept my exactly equivalent counter argument - that native born citizens in the west exhibit the exact same cultural dissimilarity - is indicative that reason and logic are not driving your conclusions.
Again with your false equivalence! To argue that some Australian driving an ute and going fishing as a pastime "exhibit the exact same cultural dissimilarity" as somebody who wants to impose an Islamic caliphate and cuts off heads of kafirs as a pastime is just baffling. I don't know if you really believe that or are just trolling at this point.
That you see minor cultural differences as central to MY counter argument, discarding the very rare extremism; But see the extremists as central to your own argument, discarding their rarity, underlines the unreason of your position.
Because extremism is not rare in Islam. 99% of Afghans support Shariah. That means at most 1% are halfway compatible with the Western societies. And yet you want Europe (and Australia and US and Canada) to take in unlimited numbers of Afghans (and Syrians, and Pakistanis and Somalis and Yemenis) just for showing up and demanding to be let in.
Your repeaded use of often cartoonish images, always designed to invoke an emotional response, further illustrates that you are not reaching your conclusions via rational thought, but rather via allowing your emotions to override your reasoning.
I think it's the opposite. You have the emotional attachment to the idea that anybody who disagrees with unrestricted mass migration is a "xenophobe" and do not let any facts perturb that.
Btw that image is of an "Australian" Muslim Khaled Sharouff. He also had taken a photo of his son holding a head. This is the kind of guy you think is no different than some Bruce driving an ute and drinking VB while fishing. Or throwing prawns on a barbie.
You can go back on ignore now. It's a shame really; I don't like putting anyone on ignore, but I also don't like being dragged into banging my head against a brick wall, so there it is.
I feel the same way about banging my head against brick walls. Your position is ridiculous. Just because I am for immigration restrictions does not make me "xenophobic". Any sane immigration policy has restrictions. Letting in mass quantities of people just because they want to come in is suicidal.