What is ignorant is your assumption that "essentially all of those foreigners are not Muslims," when in fact many if not most are from other Muslim nations i.e. Eypt, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. Are you going to tell me that "essentially all" of them are not Muslims?!? Who's ignorant now, "Professor"? The "Professor" displays again why academic credentials are in many cases worth little more than the paper on which they are embossed, and certainly not a measure of common sense.
You're using a different data source than mine. Yours probably says total population of 19 million, with 10 million foreigners, a large percentage of which is Yemenites as you stated. This was older data. I don't understand the difference. In the new data, the total population is much higher and the foreign population is much smaller, with the leading groups as Indians and Philipinos. Either way, there is a good 20% of the total population that is non-muslim.
First, you show your ignorance by claiming nonmuslims don't immigrate to muslim countries. After you're shown to be wrong, you turned to personal attacks without understanding the difference between two data sources. The older data source which states 10 million foreign population includes about 4 million yemenites. This is quite consistent with my number which for some reason excluded the yemenites. Once again, you have shown that you're ignorant and not interested in a civil discussion.
Completely false and further evidence of your psychosis. For you to claim innocence and a desire for "civil discussion" is preposterous. YOU are the one who began with the ad hominem. I never even mentioned nor thought of you until you posted this: You attacked first, "Professor." Get it? Does your PhD-caliber brain understand that little factoid? Obviously not.... Next you state that I'm "claiming nonmuslims don't immigrate to muslim countries." I said nothing of the kind, "Professor." As my first post indicates, I used "virtually," not the completely restrictive "don't" you claim I did. Would you agree, Professor? Does your PhD-caliber brain understand the difference between the two? Obviously not. Let me explain further. If I say you don't have a brain, it means that your skull is empty. If I say you "virtually" have no brain, it means that you have a brain, but it is sparse in density and of weak ability. But at least it is there. Last you try a feeble attempt claiming different data sources, and yours "for some reason" excluded 4 million Yemenites. Well, maybe you need to look at better data, "Professor," before calling others ignorant. The country has an area of 1,225,000 square miles, and its population is approximately 26.7 million, including an estimated foreign population of more than 7 million. The foreign population reportedly includes approximately 1.4 million Indians, 1 million Bangladeshis, nearly 900,000 Pakistanis, 800,000 Filipinos, 750,000 Egyptians, 250,000 Palestinians, 150,000 Lebanese, 130,000 Sri Lankans, 40,000 Eritreans, and 25,000 Americans. Comprehensive statistics for the religious denominations of foreigners are not available; however, they include Muslims from the various branches and schools of Islam, Christians, and Hindus. Approximately 90 percent of the Filipino community is Christian. There are between 500,000 and 1 million Catholics in the country. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51609.htm Are you really going to insist that, given the above statistics, "essentially all resident foreigners are non-Muslim"? You do not have the intellectual honesty to admit you may have jumped the gun or to apologize for calling me ignorant. Not only are you a "Professor" whose credentials do not translate to common sense, you are also a coward of the first order. No wonder our universities are going to shit when idiotic cowards like yourself infest them, "teach" our youth, and are in charge of the asylum.
I think you misunderstood hapaboy's question, which essentially was "Why do tens of millions of Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim countries, while virtually no non-Muslims immigrate to a Muslim country?". Webster defines "immigrate" as "to come into a country of which one is not a native, for the purpose of permanent residence." The 5.6 million resident foreigners that you alluded to in your previous post are resident foreign contract workers, of which the majority are Muslims. A contract worker is there to work and not to reside permanently. Having resided for some time in the Philippines, I can say that almost all of the Filipino contract workers could not get to the airport fast enough for the flight back to Manila once their Saudi work contracts expired. There are of course exceptions, and a few Filipinos do decide to stay on after marrying a Saudi national. During my stay in Manila though (I used to live just a couple of miles from the US embassy in Manila along Roxas Blvd.), I have seen lines of people three shoulders deep every single working day in front of the American embassy trying to get a tourist or permanent residency card to come to the U.S. These lines were non-existent in any of the embassies of Middle Eastern countries.
Is this the "intelletual honesty" you're looking for? You started the thread by claiming "virtually" no non-muslims immigrate to muslim countries. The fact is, there is a substantial nonmuslim population in at least one of the most restrictive muslim countries. There are obviously different ways to count the foreigners. Your data from the US government site gives yet a third set of numbers but still consistent with the basic premise that a substantial percentage of the Saudi population is nonmuslim. Your ignorance is clearly demonstrated here. You can do a Clinton and try to split hair between "virtually" and "don't" but that will only fool yourself.
It's the economy. US being the largest rich country that allows open immigration, of course would be the primary destiny for poor people all over the world. There are also large numbers of Fillipinos working in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but "virtually" none of them settle permenantly, because neither places have open immigration policies. Same with Saudi Arabia. It just happens Christian countries were the colonial powers that conquered the world. So their immigration policies reflect the colonial heritage. In the case of US, Canada, and Australia, (and to a lesser degree New Zealand), all have some degree of open immigration policies. In the case of France and England, they wanted to keep their claims of former colonies and allowed some immigration from Africa. But at the end, it was the difference in economics that ultimately drives the immigration. Remember all the illegal immigration from China years ago? Why are they not coming any more? Is it because the communists are less oppresive today? It's because China's economy has taken off and there is much less incentive for people to come here and work in the sweat shops (they can work in the sweat shops there).
Nice try, "Professor," but as usual you fail. You have been presented with data that COMPLETELY obliterates your assertion that "essentially all resident foreigners" in Saudi Arabia are non-Muslim. Furthermore, you state above that "a substantial percentage of the Saudi population is nonmuslim." Well, "Professor," we are not talking about the "Saudi population" at large but the people who immigrate there. This was clear in my first post, but, being an idiotic coward PhD-type, you didn't comprehend it. As I have shown, to further debunk your PhD-caliber assertion, statistics show that the MAJORITY of people who immigrate to Saudi Arabia and are classified as resident foreigners COME FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES. (Now, just for shits and giggles, what is your definition of "substantial" in this context anyway?) Finally, in comparison to the tens of millions of people from Muslim countries who have immigrated to non-Muslim countries, the number of those who have done the reverse IMO is "virtually" meaningless. You can try your best to weasel out of the lambasting you have received here, but your best isn't good enough. My God, your poor students....I have to wonder as to the criteria by which you grade them. Given your performance here, a rational guess would be that you give A's to those who obfuscate the best.
First of all, I already pointed out that there are three sets of data that on the surface look very different but are nonetheless consistent if you look carefully. If you believe that your data "COMPLETELY obliterates" my claim then you need to check your numbers again. They don't add up (not surprising given that they're from the government). Even if we're generous and use the government numbers you quoted, by adding the 1.4 million Indians and 0.8 million Fillipinos you would get at least 2.2 million non-muslims which is about 8% of the total population. That is far greater than the 2.5% of muslims in this country, most of whom are actually not immigrants but native born Americans. You're foolish trying to compare in absolute number. Saudi Arabia is a much smaller country than the US.
Good grief, "Professor," you are a masochist. Yes, the numbers "don't add up." As the government article clearly states, "The foreign population reportedly includes approximately 1.4 million Indians, 1 million Bangladeshis, nearly 900,000 Pakistanis, 800,000 Filipinos, 750,000 Egyptians, 250,000 Palestinians, 150,000 Lebanese, 130,000 Sri Lankans, 40,000 Eritreans, and 25,000 Americans." Do you understand the words "includes" and "approximately"? Apparently not. But it's not surprising given that you're a PhD-level "professor" teaching at one of our universities. Your dementia continues. As you've agreed to use the numbers by the government, that still leaves the MAJORITY of those noted - the Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Lebanese - COMING FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES! Again, this totally obliterates your assertion that "essentially all" of them are not Muslim. That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Give up. Go grade some papers. Take a lengthy sabbatical and try to learn simple math and reading comprehension.