In the last few days, an anti-Muslim politician in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders head of the FreedomPolitical Party, stated that he would be forming an international alliance, working to ban immigrationfrom Islamic countries to other nations. Wilders gave no indication how he would or could definenations as Islamic countries since Islam is a personal religious belief system and is not identifiable bynationhood. In fact most nations have those who practice the religion of Islam and in countries whereIslam is the predominant religion, they all have citizens who do not practice or believe in the faith orbelong to other religions.Wilders stated that he would launch this movement later in the year initially in five countries, theU.S., Canada, Britain, France and Germany. Wilders has not stated why he felt as a Dutch politician, heshould be fronting a movement in other countries in regard to their immigration policy which hasnothing to do with Geert Wilders personally and nothing to do with these other nations in regard toGeert Wilders position as a member of the Dutch government. As a Dutch citizen and Dutch politician,Wilders has the right to publicly propose any immigration policy for the Netherlands he wants, howeverhe has no right to be involved in the immigration policies of any countries outside of the Netherlands.There is the issue, as well, of what right Wilders has to discriminate against people from a specificnation due to the religion of a majority of the people in that country. According to Wilders, he definesanti Islam and discrimination against Islam as being for freedom, stating that The fight for freedomand (against) Islamisation as I see it is a worldwide phenomenon and problem to be solved.(
)Clearly this discriminates against the freedom of nations who have a majority of Muslim religiousbelievers to travel or be able to move freely in the world and also discriminates against those of othercountries who are not predominantly Muslim in terms of their population, from having discourse andcontact with those who live in Islamic predominant countries.Wilders is incorrectly defining existing secular nations as religious rather than civil secular, includingcountries that have a predominantly Muslim population and those that have a predominantly Christianpopulation, in this case, the nations of Europe, the United States and Canada.The countries of the Middle East are not Islamic nations they are nations. The countries of Europeand the U.S. and Canada are not by definition Christian nations they are by definition, specific nationsof Europe, in the case of Wilder home nation, the Netherlands. The Netherlands is not by definitionas a nation Christian. It is by definition Dutch.Wilders goal to form a movement to ban immigration to and from countries, based on religion,serves to shift the identity of nations and a sovereign national right, power and function to set their ownnational immigration policy from national to the identity of the majority religion of the nationsinhabitants as the criteria to be used to set immigration policy from other countries. Furthermore, itserves to set in conflict nation against nation in discriminatory immigration policies based on thereligious practices of their population, rather than the historical reasons for immigration policy based onthe actions and relationship of these nations individually as individual nations.Furthermore, it serves to give foreign countries illegitimate and unconstitutional powers, rights andprivileges in other countries in coercing them to set immigration policy that they want, based on thecriteria that they choose, rather than the immigration policies that the individual nations, their citizensand governments choose, based on what they determine is best for that nation.