Some considerations

HOLD IT
We have virtually band the performance of "Dixie" and the display of the confederate battle flag.
We do so in response to the objetions of peoople of color.
 
So, why don't we respect the sensitivity of Muslims.
They find the depiction of The Prophet offensive.  Never mind questions of extremism. 
 
It almost seems that Europeans want to antagonize Muslims.  They go on about freedom of expression.  
The French ban the display of crucifixes.  They require that Muslim women refrain from wearing the Hi jab.  
Is that freedom of religion or freedom from religion.
How does that fit with freedom of expression

The Hi Jab or the Burka disturbs me not because of a religious foxus but because of a cultural focus.  
As best as I can feel it so far, the two practices say something about refusing to assimilate.  The practice says little to me about modesty.  Both practices arise from ancient Bedouin - Arab cultural frameworks.  

In other times and in other places, the Arab culture has over run the culture of host countries.   
For all that, I find little difference between my characterization of the  Arab practices and that of the Stalinist Russian expansionism that still haunts our present world. 

If these Arab practices do reflect an expressionist attitude does not the extant culture have a right to object and respond. 
If expansionism an Arabist conquest does not lie at the heart of the issue,   Wjhy do these people come here yet refuse to leave behind the culture they have fled., 

Not to be dismissive, one can say something in between.
These people have left their homeland and culture behind.  They do so voluntarily but with regret. 
The well has dried up so to speak at home.  The waters of that well have suffered pollution.  These peoople can no longer make a living.  Yet, they long for what they have left behind.   They have moved to suvive.   Most of them lack the sophistication of a cultural anthropologist , diplomat, or skilled international business person., 

We of the European ancestral line whose countries seem to offer to these folk a hope for a better life have the obligation of understanding the position of the migrant.   This position has many layers and complexities to it.   We do ourselves a disservice to approach these questions with simplistic jingoistic peti  bourgeois natterings.

The question raised takes on added dimension when an USA American looks to the Mexican border. T he question of respect for American laws  -- i. e. imigration law --  really stirs the pot for some of our native born citizens.  

I can see the respect  issue  as truely troubling if that perspective is the only one that informs the conversation.   Imagine opening our borders to people who have no intentions of respecting our laws.  
I found myself waxing angry at a self-appointed  immigrant rights  activist  who spoke one after noon.  Three times in the NPR interview the reporter asked the activist  about the question of respect for American immigration law.   The activist didn't even attempt to answer the question.  Whe simply ignored it and repeated her talking points.   I wanted to hear from her a careful exposition of why immigrant rights and or compassion trumped considerations of law.  What shall we make of that approach? 

In any case, We of the target countries of immigration or migration   have the responsibility of  considering ion a blanced and judicious manner these questions.  We cannot afford to emphazie compassion over self-reservation or visa versa.