Not confusing at all. More like, disingenuous.
Interesting. I thought you were being disingenuous in pretending to not know what “feel” meant - it was pretty clear in context IMO. But I figured I’d be polite about it.
Immigrants are the people trying to leave those shithole countries you just described. As in, they don’t like them, and don’t want to live there. We should welcome those people with open arms.
I get it, Iraq is a shithole. I can totally understand people not wanting to move there. Not sure how that is relevant to the question of people who want to move here, though.
“You take umbrage at, say, the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia and then somehow conclude that Saudi women shouldn’t be allowed to escape that mistreatment by moving to a better country, because they’re icky old Muslims and Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to move to the US? why you are just an Islamophobe only fit to be pilloried…”
Fixed that for you.
It is in deed.
You have invented some new goal posts I see.
the elimination is your invention as a standard and a distraction.
It is of course quite disgusting to use the attitudes of the bigotry and the discrimination as their own self justifications.
The distracting again I see.
I’ve explained why elimination is the relevant standard here.
No further addition seems necessary.
More interesting still is that you’d rather play word games than admit that whatever these people “believe/hold/maintain” which informs their “feelings” is not born out by data, i.e., that muslims living in America are no more dangerous than any other group. Thus, an inquisitive person might be left to wonder if they might be misinformed or mislead by those feelings.
You made an ad hoc assertion to invent some goal posts.
I see that having seized on this pathetic straw of misinterpreting my words as being about “feelings” you won’t let go of it. Though not completely surprising, considering how weak whatever else you’re saying is.
To address the substance of what you’ve said here, such as it is: the data about Muslims living here is not any more “data” than the data about Muslims living elsewhere. Both are the basis for extrapolations about what would happen in a certain hypothetical situation. The fact that you’ve decided that one is “data” and one is not is just about you preferring to extrapolate from one over the other. Possibly due to your own “feelings” about the matter.
[Which is leaving aside that no data has been presented about how “dangerous” Muslims living in America are. People who want to make a big deal about “data” would be advised to at least try to understand the data that they’re carrying on about.]
Thank you for proving my point.
You seem to be unable to contemplate the possibility that if someone speaks about a particular issue regarding human rights it is not a smokescreen for bigotry.
That is exactly the point I was rising, you may not have used the word Islamophobe, but that’s essentially what you called me.
What you are doing, and what many do when banding the word “Islamophobia” around, is setting up straw men.
This study is from 2001
https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-study-details-islamic-worlds-democracy-deficit
Islamic majority nations lag the rest of the world in civil rights and human rights. Like it or not, thats how things are right now.
I was hoping things have improved, but looking at this map from 2016, they really haven’t improved in the Muslim world.
Actually, I think the problem is that if someone who has previously exhibited a distinct lack of interest in the human rights of, e.g., non-white and/or non-western peoples suddenly gets all concerned about, say, oppression of women in a theocratic Islamic society, it frequently is a smokescreen for bigotry.
Feminists and other liberals have been speaking up against the oppression of women, gays and other persecuted groups in theocratic Islamic societies for a long time. We can usually tell the sincere social-justice warriors from the conservatives who come stampeding in late to the party, eager for an opportunity to complain about discrimination against minorities as long as it’s Muslims who are doing the discriminating.
About 15% of American Muslims say there is a great deal of support for extremism in the American Muslim community, and another 6% say there is a fair amount of support.
About 20% of American Muslims say most American Muslims want to be distinct from the larger American community.
I agree with you that the attitude of most US Muslims is less antithetical toward western democracy than in Muslim-majority nations, although it is nowhere near as pro-western democracy as the general population of western nations.
However my point is that the root of Islamophobia lies in the fact that, when Muslims are the majority, the national culture and laws which prevail are substantially in opposition to western ideals and culture, and that this is the root cause of Islamophobia. That is, the cause of Islamophobia is not (for example) Christianity v Islam. It’s a reaction against what happens to culture and laws when too many Muslims are present in the citizenry.
You might, but you would be choosing the exception to the rule, although even in Albania and Bosnia, over 20% favor Sharia law applying to all, and stoning as the punishment for adultery. 
Regardless of who is doing the complaining, and for what motive, the fact is that Islam-majority nations are orders of magnitude worse (from a western perspective) wrt women, gays, social or intellectual freedom, apostasy…on and on.
In any case, the point I am making has to do with Islamophobia–a distrust of and reaction to the religion itself–and the fact that this is a consequence of the observation of what happens to culture and law when Muslims are in the majority.
FWIW, I do not think the “complaint” conservatives have wrt Muslim-majority nations is limited to their treatment of non-Muslims, although that mistreatment is substantial. I think the complaint is that the entire national culture and system of law is crummy (from a western perspective) for all citizens–even the ones who, having been born into it, might accept the status quo as just fine.
Ah, exceptions. But you didn’t talk about any exceptions in your OP. In fact your stance as phrased seemed pretty absolute. As written I’d assume even a single exception would invalidate your premise, wouldn’t you?
And as John Mace noticed, isn’t it peculiar that the exceptions you acknowledge exist just happen to be western democracies themselves. I mean, what are the odds ;)?
Indonesia is less terrible than some other muslim majority nations,
but the source material still make it easier to hijack for nefarious ends.