Intellectually dishonest indeed. You said the inclusion of all moslems was my assumption. It was not my assumption, it was YOUR assumption. It was you made the "asinine assumption" by distorting my comments.Intellectually dishonest, eh?
In the post to which I responded, you said that you "have no problem making permanent asylum for...anyone other than moslems (sic)." In the very next sentence, you refer - without any qualification or limitation - to those Muslims as "jihad monsters." I doubt I'm the only reader who read that to be a statement of your opinion of all Muslims.
I'm not intellectually dishonest - I'm trying to be ethically consistent. People are people, and you can't just ignore that and pretend they don't exist. In your own example, if 12/10,000 are bad guys, you are suggesting that declaring 99.88% of that group to be unwelcome and undeserving of basic human treatment is the only way to prevent the bad guys. That's ludicrous. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that if you took a random sampling of 10,000 of any ethnic or national group, there would be 10-12 criminals. So should we keep all of them out? Close the borders completely and say, "To hell with all of you?"
Moslem immigrants do not assimilate. They concentrate into communities where they try to establish Sharia Law and promote fundamentalist Islam. If you learned nothing from the Somolian immigrants in Minneapolis, look at the moslem immigrants in Sweden:
http://swedenreport.org/2015/05/18/police-yes-there-are-no-go-zones-in-sweden/
This issue is not whether any population of 10,000 people will have a couple dozen criminals. A moslem population of 10,000 will have a couple dozen jihadists. A Methodist population of 10,000 will not.