Your error lies in assuming that all, or even most, Muslim immigrants "believe in a religious and political philosophy that is the absolute antithesis of liberty and democracy."
Colpy, this is the same argument that's been used against every immigrant group in the U.S. since the 1830s. Jews, Catholics, Italians, Chinese, you name it. It was a strong enough lie to pack Japanese-Americans into concentration camps in the 40s. And what happened? Composed largely of men who volunteered from the concentration camps, the 442d Regimental Combat Team racked up more medals per man than any other unit in the entire U.S. military.
The meme of otherness being necessarily hostile was responsible for the horrors of Jim Crow. And what happened there? The Tuskeegee Airmen went from the despised losers, identified in an official Army report as lacking the intelligence and courage to be pilots, to the most storied fighter group in the war.
They don't believe in freedom. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, the 1960 Presidential election. We can't have a Catholic President because he'll take orders from the Pope. Shades of "Home Rule is Rome Rule," the meme that led to the deaths of more than half of the 3600-odd people killed in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
Here's the counter-argument. Did any of the immigrant groups who flooded into the U.S. 1835-1930 impose the cruel and anti-freedom philosophies of their home countries or religions? Nope. They assimilated within a generation or two, keeping some of the cultural and religious traditions that provided them with continuity, and making small changes to the previously Anglo-Scots America, whilst becoming indistinguishable from other Americans in almost every way. Do third-generation Japanese-Americans bow? Did third-generation Russian-Americans support the Soviet Union? Do third- or even second- (or for that matter, even firs-) generation Chinese-Americans support the machinations of Beijing? Do third-generation immigrants from the Catholic areas of the world insist that the church be woven into every aspect of governance, as it is in their home countries?
There are two reasons for this. The first is that many of these immigrants came here specifically to escape the oppressive hand of whatever religion or philosophy ruled their homes. They were OK with being (whatever), they just wanted to live in a place where the leaders of (whatever) didn't control every aspect of their lives.
The second is that most immigrants are economic immigrants, coming for economic opportunity. And they generally accept, more or less happily, that they can practice (whatever) in the U.S., but that they cannot change the U.S. into (whatever). And they're OK with that, mostly.
I can almost hear you saying "But this is different!" Yep, that's what the anti-immigrants said about every new wave of immigrants into the U.S.: the Irish, the Germans, the Eastern Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, the Italians, the Central and South Americans. And the blacks, by the way. The fact that you immigrated in chains doesn't make you any less an immigrant. To date, they've all been wrong. Tragically wrong. We consider the discrimination practiced against all these groups as our darkest error, and celebrate our achievements in giving them equality.
I can have all three. Immigration and multiculturalism have enhanced, not harmed, American democracy.
The reason I speak to the U.S. and not Canada is that I don't know Canadian history that well. But I know that Canada is similar. It has accepted millions of immigrants of every race, religion, political philosophy, and culture in the world. And yet, somehow, it still stands as a beacon of freedom, safety, and prosperity.
Despite the fact that somebody just like you, smart, well-meaning, and wrong, met every one of those waves of immigration with dire warnings of the End of Freedom and Democracy in Canada.
You're 0-15, going for 0-16.
