Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

Many here are saying Islam is not a disaster if it took hold of non muslim majority countries.
It would be for many reasons.

Paranoid delusions. It will never "take hold" anywhere. FYI Islam is not growing via conversation. Today Islam is only growing through births. Being born Muslim.

What that means is that has no chance taking over any country that isn't Muslim already.

There's also the issue of lifestyle. People in the west like our liberal, tolerant and open societies. Yes, most Muslims to. So they have no reason turning any country Islamic even if they are Muslim.

Taking in Muslim refugees is risk free.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Many here are saying Islam is not a disaster if it took hold of non muslim majority countries.
It would be for many reasons.

Paranoid delusions. It will never "take hold" anywhere. FYI Islam is not growing via conversation. Today Islam is only growing through births. Being born Muslim.

What that means is that has no chance taking over any country that isn't Muslim already.

There's also the issue of lifestyle. People in the west like our liberal, tolerant and open societies. Yes, most Muslims to. So they have no reason turning any country Islamic even if they are Muslim.

Taking in Muslim refugees is risk free.

Most agree we should take in refugees. In the main you are correct. However there is always a risk, from whatever nationality we take in. We need better security which will at least minimise such risks.
If we take high volumes of any groups nationalities or religions, then the percentage of those posing a risk would be the same but the amount higher.

 

[faded_Glory]

I would like to see some trustworthy numbers that show that the risk of increased crime through immigration is substantially higher then the risk of increased crime through indigenous births. If it is not, the statement that immigration poses a crime risk is just as valid as the statement that having babies poses a crime risk. Reduced to its basics, the anti-immigration argument then becomes simply: foreigners bad, compatriots good.

But that is what it always is, anyway.

 

[TSwizzle]

Manchester police get a beat down for their terrorist training exercise, forced to give groveling apology;

Greater Manchester police have apologised after a fake suicide bomber shouted “Allahu Akbar” during a simulated terrorist attack at one of the UK’s biggest shopping centres. More than 800 volunteers took part in the training exercise at the Trafford Centre in Manchester on Monday night. The mock attack, which took five months to plan, was designed to be similar to the marauding-style Paris and Brussels atrocities.

TheGuardian

The submission is almost complete. Repeat after me, "islam is a religion of peace" OR ELSE !

 

[DrZoidberg]

Paranoid delusions. It will never "take hold" anywhere. FYI Islam is not growing via conversation. Today Islam is only growing through births. Being born Muslim.

What that means is that has no chance taking over any country that isn't Muslim already.

There's also the issue of lifestyle. People in the west like our liberal, tolerant and open societies. Yes, most Muslims to. So they have no reason turning any country Islamic even if they are Muslim.

Taking in Muslim refugees is risk free.

Most agree we should take in refugees. In the main you are correct. However there is always a risk, from whatever nationality we take in. We need better security which will at least minimise such risks.
If we take high volumes of any groups nationalities or religions, then the percentage of those posing a risk would be the same but the amount higher.

As you keep saying. But you also keep failing to explain why this would happen. It's word sallad. "Higher percentages" of what?

 

[bilby]

Manchester police get a beat down for their terrorist training exercise, forced to give groveling apology;

Greater Manchester police have apologised after a fake suicide bomber shouted “Allahu Akbar” during a simulated terrorist attack at one of the UK’s biggest shopping centres. More than 800 volunteers took part in the training exercise at the Trafford Centre in Manchester on Monday night. The mock attack, which took five months to plan, was designed to be similar to the marauding-style Paris and Brussels atrocities.

TheGuardian

The submission is almost complete. Repeat after me, "islam is a religion of peace" OR ELSE !

The last actual terrorist attack on a shopping centre in Manchester was carried out by the IRA; I am certain there would also have been an apology if the numpty in question had put on a fake Irish accent and shouted Republican slogans.

And rightly so - it is the job of the police to minimise terrorism; insulting a large group of people who are already struggling to integrate due to xenophobia, when acting as a representative of the establishment, is directly counterproductive to that task.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Most agree we should take in refugees. In the main you are correct. However there is always a risk, from whatever nationality we take in. We need better security which will at least minimise such risks.
If we take high volumes of any groups nationalities or religions, then the percentage of those posing a risk would be the same but the amount higher.

As you keep saying. But you also keep failing to explain why this would happen. It's word sallad. "Higher percentages" of what?

A 1,000 British tourists between 18 and 45 visit Sweden and have a few drinks. There is a possibility that 1 may get a bit too drunk and cause problems. If 1,000,000 visit there, the likelihood of drunken disorderliness would increase.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would like to see some trustworthy numbers that show that the risk of increased crime through immigration is substantially higher then the risk of increased crime through indigenous births. If it is not, the statement that immigration poses a crime risk is just as valid as the statement that having babies poses a crime risk. Reduced to its basics, the anti-immigration argument then becomes simply: foreigners bad, compatriots good.

But that is what it always is, anyway.

Controlling borders does not mean anti immigration. Romania is in the Eu but it also has a lot of people who are impoverished and marginalised by its own government. These are the Roma people. There gangs visiting all over Europe. At one time in Milan station I prevented one attempt per week over a six week period. The main trick is for pregnant women in a crowd to come up to you and beg and put their hands in your pocket. Another is while getting on a train one stands in front of you and the others push as part of a crowd and slip their hands in your pocket. I caught them each time.

The same gang was cornered by an Arab man who had one thousand euros taken out of his trouser pocket in the station.

Another trick is a gang steal a purse from someone (crowding behind them) then as the gang moves, one hands the purse to the victim saying 'you dropped this.'

I carry a steel self defence umbrella where in Italy I hit out at two men who tried to rob me in the entrance of my apartment. I notice they smelt of alcohol and did not speak English or Italian.
It is not racist to deport such people (even if in the Eu) and not allow them back in. It's common sense. However it is considered racist by some to deport people who have committed crimes in the host countries. It's more like common sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to see some trustworthy numbers that show that the risk of increased crime through immigration is substantially higher then the risk of increased crime through indigenous births. If it is not, the statement that immigration poses a crime risk is just as valid as the statement that having babies poses a crime risk. Reduced to its basics, the anti-immigration argument then becomes simply: foreigners bad, compatriots good.

But that is what it always is, anyway.

Immigrants disproportionately show up in those arrested for committing crime.

 

[bilby]

I would like to see some trustworthy numbers that show that the risk of increased crime through immigration is substantially higher then the risk of increased crime through indigenous births. If it is not, the statement that immigration poses a crime risk is just as valid as the statement that having babies poses a crime risk. Reduced to its basics, the anti-immigration argument then becomes simply: foreigners bad, compatriots good.

But that is what it always is, anyway.

Immigrants disproportionately show up in those arrested for committing crime.

And just as soon as you demonstrate that racism and xenophobia rarely occur in police forces, and that the public rarely use racism or xenophobia as grounds for their decision to call the cops on someone, that will be relevant to the discussion.

Do they show up in similar proportion in those convicted of crime?

Arrest can happen to anyone. Innocent people get arrested all the time.

Convictions are less common amongst the innocent - but still not unheard of.

Even if your (unsupported) claim were true, it wouldn't, on its own, tell us anything useful about the topic at hand. So you need to:

a) Provide evidence that your claim is true; and
b) Provide evidence that it is due to actually higher rates of offending by immigrants, and not merely due to public or police bias.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[faded_Glory]

Any decent statistics on this?

What we normally see in these discussions is isolated examples of crimes committed by or with involvement of migrants, followed by the conclusion that immigration makes us less safe. The obvious counter to that, if one could be bothered, is to post about similar crimes committed by or involving natives. God knows that there are plenty of those to report on. Yet the identical conclusion that allowing natives to have more babies makes us less safe is never drawn. Why not? Because it is absurd. Absolutely, it is absurd, but why do people think that the very same argument used against migrants is not absurd?

The answer of course is tribalism, a primitive animal emotion that over the ages has caused so much misery and suffering that it clearly should be consigned to the dustbin of history, for the sake of all of us.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As you keep saying. But you also keep failing to explain why this would happen. It's word sallad. "Higher percentages" of what?

A 1,000 British tourists between 18 and 45 visit Sweden and have a few drinks. There is a possibility that 1 may get a bit too drunk and cause problems. If 1,000,000 visit there, the likelihood of drunken disorderliness would increase.

Swedes drink to. If your argument is that in any population there will be people who cause trouble, you have no argument. The troublemakers need to be offset by the people who do no trouble. Immigrants/refugees who get jobs and behave add to the Swedish economy. So the troublemakers problems need to be set in relation to the value added by the refugees working. Sweden is a modern economy. In modern economies extremely little work needs to be performed by a person to break even. So your "percentages" argument is moot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Any decent statistics on this?

What we normally see in these discussions is isolated examples of crimes committed by or with involvement of migrants, followed by the conclusion that immigration makes us less safe. The obvious counter to that, if one could be bothered, is to post about similar crimes committed by or involving natives. God knows that there are plenty of those to report on. Yet the identical conclusion that allowing natives to have more babies makes us less safe is never drawn. Why not? Because it is absurd. Absolutely, it is absurd, but why do people think that the very same argument used against migrants is not absurd?

The answer of course is tribalism, a primitive animal emotion that over the ages has caused so much misery and suffering that it clearly should be consigned to the dustbin of history, for the sake of all of us.

There's a massive problem with crime statistics. Different countries collect statistics differently and for different reasons. Most countries, especially non-democracies and poor countries spend a lot of effort scrubbing statistics. Crimes like rape and sexual assault are impossible to compare between countries. We have no way of knowing what the statistic actually measures. It might as well measure how great the stigma of being a rape victim is in that society. People are more likely to report things stolen if they have some sort of incentive to do so. The same with physical assault. That comes down to the public's view of the effectiveness of the police force. So there's really no point comparing countries. Better to look at single countries before and after the refugee crisis.

In Sweden there has been no real change. The only thing that has gone up is racist violence against immigrants/refugees. Racist blogs of course present this as violence caused by immigrants. But even this is marginal.

Then there's also the issue of presenting the statistics. Racist blogs have no problem finding sensationalist statistics, which don't really hold water under close scrutiny.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A 1,000 British tourists between 18 and 45 visit Sweden and have a few drinks. There is a possibility that 1 may get a bit too drunk and cause problems. If 1,000,000 visit there, the likelihood of drunken disorderliness would increase.

Swedes drink to. If your argument is that in any population there will be people who cause trouble, you have no argument. The troublemakers need to be offset by the people who do no trouble. Immigrants/refugees who get jobs and behave add to the Swedish economy. So the troublemakers problems need to be set in relation to the value added by the refugees working. Sweden is a modern economy. In modern economies extremely little work needs to be performed by a person to break even. So your "percentages" argument is moot.

The emphasis was on people who cause disruption from not behaving themselves to rioting. However regarding troublemakers, it's just a few. The amount of one thousand could be nil to one or two. The amount out of 1,000,000 would be more.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Swedes drink to. If your argument is that in any population there will be people who cause trouble, you have no argument. The troublemakers need to be offset by the people who do no trouble. Immigrants/refugees who get jobs and behave add to the Swedish economy. So the troublemakers problems need to be set in relation to the value added by the refugees working. Sweden is a modern economy. In modern economies extremely little work needs to be performed by a person to break even. So your "percentages" argument is moot.

The emphasis was on people who cause disruption from not behaving themselves to rioting. However regarding troublemakers, it's just a few. The amount of one thousand could be nil to one or two. The amount out of 1,000,000 would be more.

Again... what's your point? How is this an argument against not taking in refugees? Or even limiting refugees?

 

[angelo]

Many here are saying Islam is not a disaster if it took hold of non muslim majority countries.
It would be for many reasons.

Paranoid delusions. It will never "take hold" anywhere. FYI Islam is not growing via conversation. Today Islam is only growing through births. Being born Muslim.

What that means is that has no chance taking over any country that isn't Muslim already.

There's also the issue of lifestyle. People in the west like our liberal, tolerant and open societies. Yes, most Muslims to. So they have no reason turning any country Islamic even if they are Muslim.

Taking in Muslim refugees is risk free.

Tell that to the Londoners!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Paranoid delusions. It will never "take hold" anywhere. FYI Islam is not growing via conversation. Today Islam is only growing through births. Being born Muslim.

What that means is that has no chance taking over any country that isn't Muslim already.

There's also the issue of lifestyle. People in the west like our liberal, tolerant and open societies. Yes, most Muslims to. So they have no reason turning any country Islamic even if they are Muslim.

Taking in Muslim refugees is risk free.

Tell that to the Londoners!

ha ha ha HA HA HA. Are you talking about that they've now got a Muslim major? If that is what you are talking about you are a loon.

What his election demonstrates is just how far off the mark you are. He wasn't elected because he was a Muslim. He wasn't even elected in spite of it. His Islamness was irrelevant. He got elected on the platform he had. None of it had anything to do with religion. What his election shows is that few Londoners care about religion. They have plenty of other issues they care more about. Issues which Sadiq Khan apparently represented.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Immigrants disproportionately show up in those arrested for committing crime.

And just as soon as you demonstrate that racism and xenophobia rarely occur in police forces, and that the public rarely use racism or xenophobia as grounds for their decision to call the cops on someone, that will be relevant to the discussion.

Do they show up in similar proportion in those convicted of crime?

Arrest can happen to anyone. Innocent people get arrested all the time.

Convictions are less common amongst the innocent - but still not unheard of.

Even if your (unsupported) claim were true, it wouldn't, on its own, tell us anything useful about the topic at hand. So you need to:

a) Provide evidence that your claim is true; and
b) Provide evidence that it is due to actually higher rates of offending by immigrants, and not merely due to public or police bias.

I won't be holding my breath.

It's been discussed on here multiple times.

- - - Updated - - -

Any decent statistics on this?

What we normally see in these discussions is isolated examples of crimes committed by or with involvement of migrants, followed by the conclusion that immigration makes us less safe. The obvious counter to that, if one could be bothered, is to post about similar crimes committed by or involving natives. God knows that there are plenty of those to report on. Yet the identical conclusion that allowing natives to have more babies makes us less safe is never drawn. Why not? Because it is absurd. Absolutely, it is absurd, but why do people think that the very same argument used against migrants is not absurd?

The answer of course is tribalism, a primitive animal emotion that over the ages has caused so much misery and suffering that it clearly should be consigned to the dustbin of history, for the sake of all of us.

It's not all immigrants. I don't hear of the pattern with countries that only admit immigrants that meet some standard of ability or are otherwise filtered.

It's just when you open your doors to everyone you get a lot of trash.

 

[Bomb#20]

Any decent statistics on this?

Yes. Already cited upthread.

What we normally see in these discussions is isolated examples of crimes committed by or with involvement of migrants, followed by the conclusion that immigration makes us less safe. The obvious counter to that, if one could be bothered, is to post about similar crimes committed by or involving natives. God knows that there are plenty of those to report on. Yet the identical conclusion that allowing natives to have more babies makes us less safe is never drawn. Why not? Because it is absurd. Absolutely, it is absurd, but why do people think that the very same argument used against migrants is not absurd?

Because natives making babies does not, in point of fact, have the same effect on crime as taking in migrants.
According to Swedish government statistics, immigrants and their children are more than twice as likely to commit crimes as the locals. The ones from the Middle East and North Africa are more than three times as likely to.

The answer of course is tribalism, a primitive animal emotion that over the ages has caused so much misery and suffering that it clearly should be consigned to the dustbin of history, for the sake of all of us.

What we normally see in these discussions is unevidenced sermons to the effect that immigrants are on average no more dangerous than natives, followed, inevitably, by ad hominem attacks on the personal character of anybody who won't take the preachers' word for all the unevidenced claims in those unevidenced sermons. It is absurd, but why do people think that treating the ad hominem fallacy as if it were a valid argument is not absurd? The answer, of course, is that there's a widespread self-reproducing meme that has evolved refined ad hominem attacks as an effective strategy for making itself even more widespread.

 

[faded_Glory]

Let me counter with this:

We exploit the increase in immigration flows into western European countries that took place in the 2000s to assess whether immigration affects crime victimization and the perception of criminality among European natives. Using data from the European Social Survey, the Labour Force Survey and other sources, we provide a set of fixed effects and instrumental variable estimations that deal with the endogenous sorting of immigration by region and with the sampling error in survey-based measures of regional immigration shares, whose implications in terms of attenuation bias are investigated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. Our empirical findings show that an increase in immigration does not affect crime victimization, but it is associated with an increase in the fear of crime, the latter being consistently and positively correlated with the natives’ unfavourable attitude toward immigrants. Our results reveal a misconception of the link between immigration and crime among European natives.

Luca Nunziata, Journal of Population Economics, July 2015, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 697-736 ( http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-015-0543-2 )

And the Wikipedia section on UK immigration and crime reads:

On 30 June 2013 there were 10,786 prisoners from 160 different countries in the jails of England and Wales.[81] Poland, Jamaica and the Irish Republic formed the highest percentage of foreign nationals in UK prisons.[81] In total, foreigners represented 13% of the prison population,[81] whereas foreign nationals are 13% of the total population in England and Wales .[82] During the 2000s, there was an 111% increase of foreign nationals in UK prisons.[37] According to one study, "there is little evidence to support the theory that the foreign national prison population continues to grow because foreign nationals are more likely to commit crime than are British citizens or more likely to commit crime of a serious nature".[37] The increase may partly be due to the disproportionate number of convicted for drug offences; crimes associated with illegal immigration (fraud and forgery of government documents, and immigration offences); ineffective deportation provisions; and a lack of viable options to custody (which affects bail and sentencing decision making).[37]

Research has found no evidence of an average causal impact of immigration on crime .[6][7][37] One study based on evidence from England and Wales in the 2000s found no evidence of an average causal impact of immigration on crime in England and Wales,.[6] No causal impact and no immigrant differences in the likelihood of being arrested were found for London, which saw large immigration changes.[6] A study of two large waves of immigration to the UK (the late 1990s/early 2000s asylum seekers and the post-2004 inflow from EU accession countries) found that the "first wave led to a modest but significant rise in property crime, while the second wave had a small negative impact. There was no effect on violent crime; arrest rates were not different, and changes in crime cannot be ascribed to crimes against immigrants. The findings are consistent with the notion that differences in labor market opportunities of different migrant groups shape their potential impact on crime."[7] A 2013 study found "that crime is significantly lower in those neighborhoods with sizeable immigrant population shares" and that "the crime reducing effect is substantially enhanced if the enclave is composed of immigrants from the same ethnic background."[8] A 2014 study of property crimes based on the Crime and Justice Survey (CJS) of 2003, (a national representative survey where respondents in England and Wales were asked questions regarding their criminal activities), after taking into account the under-reporting of crimes, even found that "that immigrants who are located in London and black immigrants are significantly less criminally active than their native counterparts".[3] Another 2014 study found that "areas that have witnessed the greatest percentage of recent immigrants arriving since 2004 have not witnessed higher levels of robbery, violence, or sex offending" but have "experienced higher levels of drug offenses."[83]

It was reported in 2007 that more than one-fifth of solved crimes in London was committed by immigrants. Around a third of all solved, reported sex offences and a half of all solved, reported frauds in the capital were carried out by non-British citizens.[84] A 2008 study found that the crime rate of Eastern European immigrants was the same as that of the indigenous population.[85]

...with lots of references.

The problem of immigrant crime is much less severe than the problem of immigrant crime perception, and its consequences. Let us know if you have a better explanation for this unfounded perception than tribalism and prejudice.