posted December 18, 2006 10:16 AM            

They're like the dinner guest who shows up with several friends who eat all the food, drink all the booze, snarf up the desserts, dominate the conversation, get loud and louder and n-e-v-e-r go home.
In fact, they move in and act as though they deserve the new digs and everyone else should just chill.

Amazingly, that's the position Americans face, and in fact, so do most Europeans. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, have an attitude of entitlement when it comes to their new country.

They emigrate for a variety of reasons – the least of which these days seems to be that they want to become citizens of the host country and become part of that culture – and in the process, assume their every demand should be met.

You see it everywhere, and like it or not, the situation is most obvious with two groups, Hispanics who demand their language take precedence over the native tongue, and among Muslims who demand in subtle or not so subtle ways that the culture and customs of the host country be modified, changed or eliminated in favor of their desires.

On the face of it, their arrogance takes your breath away, but it's even more startling when the demands come from people who are in the country illegally. Americans face an inundation of illegal aliens from south of the border, but such illegality isn't unique to the United States. Waves of illegals cross the borders of every country of Western Europe.

In fact, one of the key points of contention is the lack of import of the word "legal." To these people, and to those who support the "migration" of peoples and their "right" to go wherever they choose on their own terms, the words legal and illegal are meaningless.

To those people, mostly politically liberal and essentially Marxist at the core, the rights of the illegals take precedence over everything. In fact, the very nature of their illegal status confers on them as pseudo-sainthood. They are "pure" in their intention, they represent "the poor of the earth" and as a result, they're virtually untouchable and regarded with a bizarre reverence.

No criticism is allowed. Whatever they want or need must be theirs. No questions. No complaints. Anyone who questions or complains is hit with the all-purpose accusation: racist. It is the epitome of denigration and no defense is tolerated. If you complain, regardless of the validity of your issues, you are, de facto, a racist.

In this realm, there is no free speech.

But of course, all of this has a price. What's ignored is that the dissenter will pay higher taxes to provide education, housing, social services, medical care and law enforcement for the illegals.

The cost to the bureaucracy and the private sector to provide bilingual voting material, government paperwork, signs, translators, advertising, packaging, bilingual telephone messages, and all kinds of instructions and staff is astronomical. Their language must be provided everywhere – hospitals, schools, government services, banks, media – you name it.

While the demands of the illegals are apparent, the costs are hidden in the pretense they don't exist. That allows the farce that these people are no burden to the country or the economy nor a threat to the culture to continue.

You might say people who crash the party and reap the advantages are mannerless; that may be true. However, there's a deeper context, which carries the seeds of destruction of the host country.

That the citizens of the host country would allow and encourage this to happen illustrates that the foundations of that nation have been eroded over years in subtle ways in favor of multiculturalism, pluralism and political correctness.

The result is that there's not a strong enough belief in the worthiness of the host country, resulting in the willingness to change customs, laws and society in general in the perverted desire to be "welcomed" by the strangers.

Sorry, isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

Another group challenging the cultures of their host countries are Muslims, and that applies whether they immigrate legally or illegally. They are strong in their culture, determined not to change to accommodate the mores of their hosts and they use the laws of the host country to gain their demands.

Anyone who complains is automatically a racist and is accused of discrimination.

And by the way, if you don't agree, they'll sue – for a public, groveling apology and of course, a financial payoff.

Remember the six flying imams on the US Airways flight? Loud, intrusive prayers in an airline terminal, derogatory comments about Iraq, President Bush and the United States in English and Arabic, arbitrarily changing assigned seats in the plane, demanding seatbelt extensions yet not using them, and other actions that caused concern about potential terrorism caused them to be removed from the flight.

Did they "understand" the reasons for the concern? Sept. 11 and 3,000 dead Americans would be a good place to start – but no, it was "profiling" and "racism," and by the way, let's get a lawyer and threaten a boycott and lawsuit. While we're at it, let's issue guidelines of how Americans are supposed to treat people who practice customs of a different culture.

It used to be "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Not anymore. It's interpreted differently. Now it's "When in Rome, demand the Romans accommodate us."

What about the Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport who refuse to take fares who may have liquor in their luggage?

What about the beginning of demands that arranged marriages with young girls to older men be accommodated?

And demands that veiled women be allowed to have their pictures on driver's licenses?

It's worse in Europe. In Italy, crucifixes were removed from Catholic Schools so as not to "offend" Muslim students. In England, any references to Christianity in schools – even to having Hot Cross Buns pastries for Easter time – are forbidden.

A British Airways employee in England was threatened with firing because she wore a small gold cross on a thin necklace. The company claimed that "seeing" the cross would offend non-Christians, yet Muslim employees were allowed to wear their veils.

In Croydon, London, Muslim demands resulted in separate hours for male Muslims swimming at a public pool. Muslim swimsuits must be worn by both Muslim and non-Muslim men. Muslim women have separate hours and similar attire rules.

Similarly, in Lincoln Park, Mich., Muslim women demanded that the Fitness USA provide separate workout times for males and females or a divider between male and female gyms. Also, the dress code was modified to accommodate Muslim women.

And shades of the flying imams – in a Dearborn, Mich., Fitness USA gym, a Muslim woman prostrating herself in prayer in the locker room blocked access to some lockers. Another member asked her to move so she might access her belongings. That led to words and ended with a civil-rights lawsuit.

Do you see a pattern?

Just as with the illegals, Muslims are treated with kid gloves and are immune from any criticism. They have a pass to make demands and the rest of the populace, the citizens of the country the Muslims have moved to voluntarily, have to capitulate.

We've lost sight of the idea that people who immigrate to this country and settle here have to adopt and adapt to our customs. If they want the old country, then that's where they should be.