Europe submits voluntarily

[Derec]

I think we are heading for trouble in Europe one way or another anyway, by the means of demographics.

Low birth rates are indeed a problem in Europe.

The far-right extremists seem to gathering their strength again.

That's unfortunate but understandable outcome of mainstream parties refusing to even address the problem.

They seem to view governments as either ineffectual or collaborative with the Islamification process and thus will attempt to deal with the problem themselves. I seem to remember the police busting a terrorist attack aimed at Mosques and Islamic leaders a few months ago in Germany. One day the
y will succeed, and once that happens, I fear the result.

And they would be right about that. Have you read "Infidel" by Ayan Hirsi Ali? She fled Somalia to Netherlands, deconverted from Islam and was disgusted at appeasement Dutch politics gave to radical Islam. She worked on a movie with Theo Van Gogh wgo was brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists and she herself was threatened.

 

[Derec]

In a war with both sides killing each other including civilians there are not real distinctions between the good guys and bad guys.

So you are saying there was no difference between Nazi Germany and US in WWII?

Palestinians have been evicted from their homes many of whom lived there for thousands of years.

Highly questionable on "thousands of years". And if you are referring to 1948 war, the Palestinians weren't so much evicted as they evacuated because they were promised all the land by Arab armies who attacked Israel right after the state was proclaimed in accordance with a UN resolution.

No matter which way an animal goes, it’s not very pleasant for the animal.

There are better and worse ways though. The halal way seems rather brutal to me. The problem is religion elevating a medieval way of slaughter to an obligation.

You can get bacon from beef and from turkeys.

Not the same thing at all.

Turkey ham and beef contain less fat than pork bacon.

Fat is kind of the point of bacon.

I’ve tried a beef burger with crispy beef bacon at Burger King in the Abu Dhabi Mall and it tasted pretty good.

And those who want beef bacon should not be prohibited from getting it. But I should be able to get real bacon, real ham, pork chops etc. if I want it. I should not be prevented from getting it just because some Muslims are offended by pork.

You can also get alcohol in hotels and for non Muslims in Abu Dhabi special stores are available I don’t drink so it doesn’t matter. Though it is freely available it is also illegal. Eact month a few locals are given 80 lashes for alcohol consumption and drunken and disorderly behaviour. For foreigners its generally ok unless they get caught misbehaving.

And Abu Dhabi is considered one of the more "liberal" Muslim areas. I do not this is a good thing and that doesn't make me xenophobic.

When they travel abroad most local women from Abu Dhabi are wearing entirely Western clothing.

What about Western women who visit Abu Dhabi?

The Europeans vote for governments who invite mass immigration. To reverse it means voting for a party that will reverse the trend. I would like to see the figures cut down considerably but what the Europeans vote for is what they get.

Unfortunately they are in extreme denial because of something you can see on this thread as well. People opposed to unrestricred mass immigration from populations resistant to integration are labeled as "racist", "xenophobic" etc. In effect the scope of acceptable discpourse is being narrowed down, which only benefits far right parties.

Muslim countries don't take many people in because they have strict laws and border controls.

Imagine, a country that actually enforces their borders. Would that US and EU be a bit more like them in that regard!

 

[Derec]

Irrelevant.

Given that the stated reason as to why all of these migrants should be welcomed into EU is that they are "refugees" it is highly relevant whether they are legit refugees or not.

Giving asylum to refugees is not giving away our future. Stop being a dramaqueen.

Importing a large number of high birthrate Muslims whose culture is hostile to liberal European values is putting Europe's future in grave danger.

It *does*. Europe is not actually where most of the refugees are ending up; that's just the story certain media want you to believe.

Really? How many has KSA taken in? Or UAE? And outside Muslim world, how about China?

Europe has taken in only around a 150,000 Syrian refugees in total.

More are coming in every day. And Syria is only one of the countries these migrants are from - there are Afghans, Iraqis, Nigerians, Libyans, etc.

Compare that to Lebanon, a tiny country of just over 10,000km2 that has taken in more than 1,2 million refugees.

Given close ties between Syria and Lebanon not that surprising. But how many of those will stay in Lebanon long term and how many will go westward to Europe?

The majority of them *are* in fact staying in Turkey. Turkey has taken in 2 million refugees; the numbers going on through to Europe represent only a minority of that 2 million.

Just because they are in Turkey right now doesn't mean they are staying there. More and more are coming from Turkey to Europe every day.

No, actually, they ARE still a tiny minority. I already stated the figures they represent in this thread. Muslims make up only 3.2% of the European Union's population. That IS a tiny minority.

That is not uniform. In many areas they are a much bigger percentage that that and are already demanding special rights - Sharia courts, only halal meats in Subway restaurants etc.

It's actually rather questionable that they are. For instance, in the Netherlands the number of muslims has actually gone DOWN every year since 2004. Muslims reached a height of 944.000 people in 2004, whereas today there are 825.000 of them.

Given high birth rates and continued importation of large number of Muslim immigrants I find that very questionable. Do you have a source?

You're relying on the divergence between their birth rates and ours, but as already shown the divergence isn't that great (and the gap is narrowing in any case); and you're not considering secularisation.

Hard to consider secularization when things like murder of Theo Van Gogh or the Charlie Hebdo massacre, not to mention the London or Madrid train bombings happen with frightening regularity. And don't forget all the MUslim youths from Europe that have joined the ranks of Isis.
UN terror expert: one Austrian ‘jihad poster girl’ is dead after moving to Syria to join ISIS
Before:

After:

Some "secularization"!

Woohoo, profiling!

No, just acknowledging reality.

Woohoo, bigotry!

No, just acknowledging reality.

 

[Derec]

European values?

Like Ghandi said, that would be a good idea.

First of all, Ghandi was a bigot. Second, given the glass house that is the Indian culture he should not be throwing any stones.
India is building millions of toilets, but that’s the easy part (the hard part is to get Indians, many of whom prefer to defecate in the open, to use them)
India village council orders rape of two sisters
Indian Minister To Schoolkids: No Eggs For You!

But no, it's European culture that is the problem, right.

But in this world the people that have done the most damage over the last 100 years are Europeans and Americans, Muslims aren't even close.

There is unfortunately a toxic current in radical left/progressive "thinking" that views Western culture as negative and views any different culture as morally superior even when those cultures stand against every truly liberal value those radicals pretend to support. As a consequence they rejoice in prospect of Europeans becoming a minority in their own countries.

 

[Juma]

mainstream parties refusing to even address the problem.

Bullshit! That is the bullshit view the brownshirts (including derec) want to spread.

 

[Derec]

Bullshit! That is the bullshit view the brownshirts (including derec) want to spread.

Calling those that disagree names ("brownshirts") is exactly what the problem is. If rational discourse is impossible, extremists will thrive. Ironically calling those that disagree with you "brownshirts" will get you more actual brownshirts.

 

[Jokodo]

I think that's racism actually. In Stockholm we don't have this experience anyway. When we talk about immigrants in Sweden those are as much Latinamerican as Middle-easter as African. It's a happy mix of religions and races. I don't think Muslims are worse at integrating than any other group. I think that's an idea created by media. If one choses to watch conservative media.

Hating conservatives is racism too
Reality is, US is better (than EU) at assimilating "muslims" but only because they accept educated "muslims" which are muslims culturally mostly.

Most Muslims in France or Germany are "Muslims culturally mostly" too. Only about 20% of German Muslims are members of a mosque or religious association, and as many as 50% of people with ethnicities traditionally linked to Islam are actually not religious at all. Most figures you see for the numbers of Muslims in Germany simply assume that all Turks are automatically Muslims. Among those that do identify as Muslims, studies show that the number of those stating the importance of religion for their daily lives as "high" or "very high" is pretty much the same as among the general population (link and a quote if you can read German "Im Vergleich zu der deutschen Gesamtgesellschaft sind muslimische Migranten nicht auffällig religiöser. Aus der Studie "Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland" geht hervor, dass 50 Prozent der Muslime sich als "eher gläubig" und 36 Prozent als "sehr stark gläubig" bezeichnen. Laut dem Religionsmonitor 2008 der Bertelsmann Stiftung sind 52 Prozent der Gesamtbevölkerung "durchschnittlich religiös" und 18 Prozent "hochreligiös". In dieser Studie wurden auch Menschen ohne Religionszugehörigkeit befragt. Berücksichtigt man nur Menschen aus der Gesamtgesellschaft, die einer Religionsgemeinschaft angehören, entspricht der Anteil der Religiösen etwa dem der Muslime.")

Also they get them in small quantities from different countries, but education is the main thing.
EU just let everyone in and so far it has been a disaster.

In what ways exactly?

Don't tell me otherwise because Merkel herself admitted that multiculturalism has failed.

Yeah, right. A conservative politician stating that her strawman version of a leftist project has failed. This is undeniable proof of ... something. Must be proof of something.

 

[Jokodo]

I’ve tried a beef burger with crispy beef bacon at Burger King in the Abu Dhabi Mall and it tasted pretty good.

And those who want beef bacon should not be prohibited from getting it. But I should be able to get real bacon, real ham, pork chops etc. if I want it. I should not be prevented from getting it just because some Muslims are offended by pork.

Yes you should.
If now you could give a complete list of European countries where you can't, this might actually be relevant to the discussion.

 

[barbos]

Hating conservatives is racism too
Reality is, US is better (than EU) at assimilating "muslims" but only because they accept educated "muslims" which are muslims culturally mostly.

Most Muslims in France or Germany are "Muslims culturally mostly" too.

Not most enough.

 

[barbos]

Don't tell me otherwise because Merkel herself admitted that multiculturalism has failed.

Yeah, right. A conservative politician stating that her strawman version of a leftist project has failed. This is undeniable proof of ... something. Must be proof of something.

It must be easy to argue by discounting what you don't like as insignificant.
Europian version of multiculturalism has failed, deal with it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And those who want beef bacon should not be prohibited from getting it. But I should be able to get real bacon, real ham, pork chops etc. if I want it. I should not be prevented from getting it just because some Muslims are offended by pork.

Yes you should.
If now you could give a complete list of European countries where you can't, this might actually be relevant to the discussion.

This point on bacon was in answer to my point on eating beef bacon. Turkey ham is less fat than pork ham so may be useful for weight watchers

In the UAE pork is available in one shop called Spinneys

 

[Jokodo]

Most Muslims in France or Germany are "Muslims culturally mostly" too.

Not most enough.

There's always better. But they're way more secular oriented than Christian in the US South. For all the horror stories you're being fed by your right-wing news networks or blogs, it's a matter of fact that a population like European Muslims would actually help the US become a more secular country, and that's a fact.

Maybe time to wean off those blogs? Only if you're interested in factual information, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, right. A conservative politician stating that her strawman version of a leftist project has failed. This is undeniable proof of ... something. Must be proof of something.

It must be easy to argue by discounting what you don't like as insignificant.
Europian version of multiculturalism has failed, deal with it.

I've provided facts and figures.

All you have is claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes you should.
If now you could give a complete list of European countries where you can't, this might actually be relevant to the discussion.

This point on bacon was in answer to my point on eating beef bacon. Turkey ham is less fat than pork ham so may be useful for weight watchers

In the UAE pork is available in one shop called Spinneys

Which makes it more readily available than horse meat in most of the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While there are economic migrants who know once they land, they have a good chance of remaining there are genuine refugees who are displaced by US and European made wars. These deserve consideration.

We aren't making the wars, the Islamists are.


Something that's missing here: One nasty trick they know is to destroy all evidence of who they are. At this point it doesn't matter if their claim is approved--if you don't know where to deport them to you can't deport them. Unless they are willing to jail them under conditions harsher than life back home until they admit where they should be deported to there's nothing that can be done about this.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's safe to say at least half of them are "economic" refugees. And a lot of these people are not even Syrian who bought Syrian passports (according to journalists it costs $700)

Only a third are Syrian. A third are Afghan. Whether Afghanistan is at peace is a matter of definition. Another third are from the Balkans. These people are undoubtedly economic refugees.

Worth noting is that while Syria might be poor by western standards they're nowhere near as poor as lets say India or China. They're on par with Israel, or Greece. Well.. they were until the war broke out. So these are on average about as well educated as any European, and will fit into our job markets with a minimum of difficulty.

Israel is far ahead of any other non-oil ME country--and in the oil countries they might have money but few have useful skills.

 

[dystopian]

Importing a large number of high birthrate Muslims whose culture is hostile to liberal European values is putting Europe's future in grave danger.

It's already been demonstrated in this thread that their birthrate is not a great deal higher than that of native Europeans. So you fail on that count. You also fail on the count of not understanding either the numbers, or the fact that immigrant populations tend to merge with and adopt the values of the native population after a couple of generations; which is exactly what we're seeing with the majority.

Really? How many has KSA taken in? Or UAE? And outside Muslim world, how about China?

Your random country picks are irrelevant: we're talking about the fact that the majority of them are NOT coming to *Europe*; so it doesn't matter that not every country outside Europe takes in refugees, what matters is that the non-European countries that *do* take in refugees, take in FAR MORE refugees than the whole of Europe. And that is a fact.

Given close ties between Syria and Lebanon not that surprising. But how many of those will stay in Lebanon long term and how many will go westward to Europe?

Meaningless fearmongering. There is no indication nor reason to think that the majority of them will go to Europe.

Just because they are in Turkey right now doesn't mean they are staying there. More and more are coming from Turkey to Europe every day.

You do not actually have the numbers to back up your hysteria. How many are coming? You don't know; you're just engaging in hyperbole, arguing that because *some* are coming, *all* are going to come. There is no reason whatsoever to think that.

That is not uniform. In many areas they are a much bigger percentage that that

Not really. Bulgaria is the EU country with the highest percentage of muslims (roughly 12%); however Bulgaria's muslim population has been there for many centuries. Of the western/northern European countries where Islam is a more recent phenomenon, France has the highest percentage of muslims (7,5%) followed by the Netherlands (6%), and Belgium (5,9%). These figures are NOT "much" higher than the European averages. And that's when we're counting the children of muslim parents as muslim; which is far from a given. The 6% for the Netherlands does not adjust for this (and I imagine the others don't either). When we only count people who explicitly identify as muslim, the figure for the Netherlands actually drops down to 4,9%.

and are already demanding special rights - Sharia courts, only halal meats in Subway restaurants etc.

No, they're not. First of all, nobody (or at the very least not more than a handful) demanded from Subway (or other such chains) that their food be halal. That is just something those companies decide on their own in the hope of attracting more customers (non-muslims don't give a shit whether the food is halal, so making their menus halal can only lead to increased sales). Secondly, the sharia courts you refer to are generally entirely civil affairs that are not legally recognized or if they are recognized, are only allowed in terms of minor civil disputes (such as contract disputes) in cases where *both* parties agree to go with a sharia based arbitration; and these rulings must still be entirely within European law to be recognized. This is no different than if two parties were to enter into a contract where they decide to solve a dispute by hiring a clown to judge who'se right based on who presents the funnier argument, with the state declaring it will recognize the clown's ruling on the basis of it having been decided that would happen in the legal contract they signed. Which is in fact a perfectly legal thing you can do. These types of sharia courts are entirely voluntary.

Given high birth rates and continued importation of large number of Muslim immigrants I find that very questionable. Do you have a source?

The "high birth rates" claim was already refuted earlier in the thread. It is higher, yes, but not by a great deal. As for the number of muslims in the Netherlands: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Nederland#Geschiedenis <- the article is in dutch, but you can see the number going down in the table.

Hard to consider secularization when things like murder of Theo Van Gogh or the Charlie Hebdo massacre, not to mention the London or Madrid train bombings happen with frightening regularity.

The fact that you're referencing the murder of Theo Van Gogh, who was killed more than ten years ago, and not someone else who was killed recently, already tells you that it's really not happening with any frightening regularity.

And don't forget all the MUslim youths from Europe that have joined the ranks of Isis.

You have not read the thread properly, have you? Only around 5000 people are estimated to have left *all of* Europe to go fight in Syria, and we don't even know how many of those are joining ISIS or joining the rebels against the government. That sounds like a lot... if you're a moron who doesn't understand percentages. As I already demonstrated, that's a percentage of something along the lines of 0.0018% of Europe's population, so forgive me for not flipping the fuck out.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that's racism actually. In Stockholm we don't have this experience anyway. When we talk about immigrants in Sweden those are as much Latinamerican as Middle-easter as African. It's a happy mix of religions and races. I don't think Muslims are worse at integrating than any other group. I think that's an idea created by media. If one choses to watch conservative media.

Hating conservatives is racism too
Reality is, US is better (than EU) at assimilating "muslims" but only because they accept educated "muslims" which are muslims culturally mostly. Also they get them in small quantities from different countries, but education is the main thing.
EU just let everyone in and so far it has been a disaster. Don't tell me otherwise because Merkel herself admitted that multiculturalism has failed.

In my job I work with a variety of people from all over the world. Understanding how different cultures work is part of my job. I'm even an expert. I've held talks about it and shit. USA and England are much better than everybody else at integrating immigrants. And not just by a little bit. They're way above the rest. But they're no less racist. It's not racism that's the thing. It's something else. It's a cultural quality of anglo-american society that allows for this. I don't know what the secret sauce is. I suspect it's a variety of factors. But the fact remains is that they make everybody else look bad. Singapore is another of those places that are very good at integrating immigrants.

Sweden for example is terrible at integrating immigrants. And it's not racism. Sweden scores real low in racism. So that's not it. We just suck at it anyway. With integrating immigrants I mean giving them work, or allowing them to get loans so they can start businesses.

England and USA has the bonus of having a language that most people speak. Maybe it's as simple as that?

 

[bilby]

It's funny to me that people think that nation states should have absolute control over who enters their territory, with every person who crosses the border required to identify themselves and their nationality.

This idea is only about a century old. Before the Great War, a passport was a rarity, and was used to invoke the protection of local authorities as a favour to the bearer's government. It wasn't a requirement to cross a border; it was just a way to speed things up, by declaring that any delay would be frowned upon by a Great Power.

For about a century, the previously free movement of people across borders has been frozen. This completely artificial situation has become accepted as the norm; it has even become a fundamental moral imperative in some people's minds that foreigners should be kept out. But it is in fact a novel situation; and the pent-up demand for freedom of movement is now causing big problems.

Rather like price controls in centrally planned economies leading to black marketeering and supply problems, centrally planned immigration leads to people smuggling and to immigration problems.

Perhaps it's time to stop telling people where they can and can't live, and let the market sort it out.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Which makes it more readily available than horse meat in most of the US.

Correct. Any European or non Muslim can go to those stores.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's funny to me that people think that nation states should have absolute control over who enters their territory, with every person who crosses the border required to identify themselves and their nationality.

This idea is only about a century old. Before the Great War, a passport was a rarity, and was used to invoke the protection of local authorities as a favour to the bearer's government. It wasn't a requirement to cross a border; it was just a way to speed things up, by declaring that any delay would be frowned upon by a Great Power.

For about a century, the previously free movement of people across borders has been frozen. This completely artificial situation has become accepted as the norm; it has even become a fundamental moral imperative in some people's minds that foreigners should be kept out. But it is in fact a novel situation; and the pent-up demand for freedom of movement is now causing big problems.

Rather like price controls in centrally planned economies leading to black marketeering and supply problems, centrally planned immigration leads to people smuggling and to immigration problems.

Perhaps it's time to stop telling people where they can and can't live, and let the market sort it out.

Are you suggesting that to prevent illegal immigration is to effectively legalise it?

 

[Jayjay]

Hating conservatives is racism too
Reality is, US is better (than EU) at assimilating "muslims" but only because they accept educated "muslims" which are muslims culturally mostly. Also they get them in small quantities from different countries, but education is the main thing.
EU just let everyone in and so far it has been a disaster. Don't tell me otherwise because Merkel herself admitted that multiculturalism has failed.

In my job I work with a variety of people from all over the world. Understanding how different cultures work is part of my job. I'm even an expert. I've held talks about it and shit. USA and England are much better than everybody else at integrating immigrants. And not just by a little bit. They're way above the rest. But they're no less racist. It's not racism that's the thing. It's something else. It's a cultural quality of anglo-american society that allows for this. I don't know what the secret sauce is. I suspect it's a variety of factors. But the fact remains is that they make everybody else look bad. Singapore is another of those places that are very good at integrating immigrants.

Sweden for example is terrible at integrating immigrants. And it's not racism. Sweden scores real low in racism. So that's not it. We just suck at it anyway. With integrating immigrants I mean giving them work, or allowing them to get loans so they can start businesses.

England and USA has the bonus of having a language that most people speak. Maybe it's as simple as that?

Or maybe the secret sauce is more stringent controls of who gets in, and skimming the cream off the top?

 

[bilby]

It's funny to me that people think that nation states should have absolute control over who enters their territory, with every person who crosses the border required to identify themselves and their nationality.

This idea is only about a century old. Before the Great War, a passport was a rarity, and was used to invoke the protection of local authorities as a favour to the bearer's government. It wasn't a requirement to cross a border; it was just a way to speed things up, by declaring that any delay would be frowned upon by a Great Power.

For about a century, the previously free movement of people across borders has been frozen. This completely artificial situation has become accepted as the norm; it has even become a fundamental moral imperative in some people's minds that foreigners should be kept out. But it is in fact a novel situation; and the pent-up demand for freedom of movement is now causing big problems.

Rather like price controls in centrally planned economies leading to black marketeering and supply problems, centrally planned immigration leads to people smuggling and to immigration problems.

Perhaps it's time to stop telling people where they can and can't live, and let the market sort it out.

Are you suggesting that to prevent illegal immigration is to effectively legalise it?

Sure, why not?

If people want to go to a country, why not just let them?

Restrictions on travel started in WWI, ostensibly to prevent spies or saboteurs from entering the country - a futile gesture, of course, because the Kreigsmarine could bring in as many spies and saboteurs as they wanted by landing them from submarines on remote beaches at night; the effective solution to spying and sabotage was the reporting of spies by the general public, and in WWII the detection of radio transmitters.

The restrictions were tightened in the period up to and including WWII, mostly on the back of the rise of Fascism/Nazism; and continued through the cold war, again as much for control of potential spies as for any other reason.

It was never effective at its intended purpose; perhaps the whole mess should be abandoned in favour of a return to free movement of people worldwide, as was the case prior to 1914. People coming to a country is generally good for that country. Why restrict such movement at all?

Before the Great War, only goods were controlled at most international borders; you could come and go as you pleased, but if you wanted to bring stuff with you, you had to have it inspected and (if applicable) taxed.