The many benefits of keeping Muslims out of Europe

Immigration in Europe follows a different pattern from the US.

The US is a country founded on immigration. Most often a one way ticket from the old country to a new life, often obtaining a new identity in the process. The American dream was a compelling proposition for many people fleeing poverty and persecution.

In Europe there were no such grand ideals involved, just political and economic expediency. Immigration was a device to solve a labour shortage. Once the devastated economies of Europe began to grow, there was a massive labour shortage across much of western Europe.

Given that many western European countries had colonies, that is where they recruited a labour. The UK advertisements were placed in newspapers across the English speaking Caribbean and Africa for workers for 5 year contracts to work for the railways, the buses, the London underground. Then to India and Pakistan to recruit textile workers from the cotton producing areas. Some were Hindu, many were Muslim.

France looked to its nearest colony, Algeria for an immigrant workforce. During the long and bloody battle for Algerian independence huge numbers of refugees crossed the Mediterreanean to France. These were a mixture of French settlers and others who feared persecution for their association with the French colonial authorities. This accounts the bulk of the Muslim population in France. Germany, lost its colonies and was itself split in two. West Germany invited Turkkish immigrants to fill its labour shortage. There is a similar story with other Western european nations.

Predictably, this short term measure became long term and many immigrants settled in European countries and brought their families over. The economic boom of the sixties, gave way to economic recession and with it came a progressive tightening of immigration rules.

There was also a lot of social issues to deal with. Having a lot of people from the other end of the world who look and talk differently and suddenly become your neighbour was a bit of a cultural shock. Throughout the 60s and 70s in the UK, there was a lot of agonising about what to do about the immigrant question.

UK politicians looked to the US and saw just how inflamed racial tensions could get if the matter was not handled delicately. There was a cross party consensus to limit further immigration and pass laws to promote race relations. This got built into public policy and became the multiculturalism we see today. This addressed the civil rights issue. No-one wanted the Hell that the US was going through.

From the perspective of the immigrant communities it looked rather different. Unlike the US, there was not that compelling proposition to join the broad American middle class if you work hard and prosper. There was no British dream to entice immigrant communities to integrate. There was, however, a free state education system and ambitious immigrants tried their darnedest to encourage their kids to get a good university education and join one of the professions or go into business. Or they worked for big state employers like the National Health Service.

How integrated they become, depends to a large extent on the cultural background. There is the familiar pattern of the first generation earning some money and making a big show of it on their visits to the old country often building a big house. The second generation getting educated and reluctantly going on holidays to the old country. The third generation thinking ‘what is the point, I have nothing in common with these people’.

How soon this happens depends on how socially mobile they are. Some communities who went together from some small village in the cotton areas of India or Pakistan to another village in Yorkshire or Lancashire can be quite insular. This was were some of the UK born bombers came from. Socially isolated and marginalised, they were an easy target for religious radicals recruiting fighters angered and enraged by the war that the West visited upon their ancestral home. It has taken a while for the authorities to deal with this threat and I don’t doubt that the intelligence services get a lot of information from the mosques. The Muslim communities in the UK are very fearful that all they have worked for is threatened by some sections of disaffected youth who dream of becoming a great Rambo for their religion.

That phase of ‘British Commonwealth’ mass immigration is now past. Most immigration into the UK is from the countries of the EU and it is quite different, because the cost of coming to the UK is just a cheap air ticket. People go back and forth all the time, in a similar way to how people move around within the US. This is less of an issue, maybe because they don’t look much different.

I cannot see any evidence of a great cultural clash with Muslims in Europe…

We have been there…done that…back in the Age of Empires.

May not be much of a conversation. The mothers may simply be wearing what they are used to and comfortable with, and may not have any real objections to more revealing attire. Like, if you moved to a country where men regularly wore tight jogging shorts, you’d probably never really feel comfortable in them. But you wouldn’t be concerned if your son wore them.

Well, there seems to be considerable concern in European countries about Uganda’s new anti-gay laws and of course Russia’s ones which have prompted concern about the Sochi Games.

The rights of gay and lesbian people under Islamic law or Sharia law are generally not great:

Increasing Muslim populations appears to also lead to the Middle Eastern conflict being brought to Europe with Jews being targeted in several countries.

Netherlands:

Sweden

France:

Interesting post, although in terms of attitudes there are some pretty glaring issues according to Pew Attitude surveysand examples above, not to mention issues in the UK like these in London:

There are also issues like this that highlight quite significant cultural differences, and gives rise to some absurd excuses for abusive behaviour.

Chen019, I think you’re making the usual mistakes when it comes to dealing for Muslim migration:

1- Localised issues are highlighted (such as the burning of a mosque in Sweden or the crazy plans of some Muslims in London) to prove a point. Yet what is not mentioned is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Sweden and London have nothing to do with those incidents, and quite surely no sympathy for them either.

2- You mention the different attitudes of Muslims and ‘native Europeans’. As if that were something new.

I can tell you for example that Sweden has taken in immigrants in waves, depending on where asylum seekers were coming from. First were the victims of Latin American dictatorships, later came the Iranians, then the Kurds, then victims of the Balkan wars, and more recently Iraqis, Somalis, Afghans and, lately, Syrians. I can assure you that not one of those groups of immigrants had the same attitudes as native Swedes.

Sure, the Chileans and Argentineans of the 1970s were Christians, but their attitudes clashed strongly with the Swedish tradition of individualism, gender equality and civic behaviour. Quite simply, it’s taken time (and one or two generations) for them to blend in. Who is to say that won’t happen to these new immigrants, whose views are also so different?

  1. I was responding to the claim suggesting he/she could not see a cultural clash. The Pew Attitude Survey I cited above which shows quite significant cultural/attitudinal differences.

  2. It’s more than a few isolated incidents. The former EU Commissioner Frits Bolkenstein said jews have no future in the Netherlands because of Muslim attacks. The articles above indicate a similar exodus France & parts of Sweden. The EU even tried to cover this up previously:

  1. What’s particularly concerning in the examples above is the craven response of authorities to cover up, downplay or excuse sexual harassment or violence by Muslim perpetrators. That in itself suggests a breakdown in the normal enforcement of societal norms.

  2. In terms of crime - you can see there are major issues:

  1. The title of this on the benefits of Muslims keeping out of Europe. From the above, you would have avoided creating unnecessary social conflict arising from cultural differences and loss of social capital/trust?

  2. You mention Sweden taking a generation or two for people to blend in. Sweden itself seems a good example of a bad policy though? Tino Sanandaji (a Swedish/US economist) writes quite a lot about the problems the Swedes have!

Sanandaji notes 41 percent of Malmös population consists of first or second generation immigrants, and the stats on child poverty, welfare dependency, crime and education suggest Sweden has a pretty weird immigration policy. It looks more like a ghetto is forming rather than blending in, in that case. :slight_smile:

For what it’s worth, the second largest migrant group in Malmö are Danes. They are followed by former Yugoslavs and Poles, as well as quite a few Hungarians and Romanians. Yet the blame falls on the Muslims?

Chen019,

Those stories are from the London East End, which has long been the place where new immigrant communities and refugees find a first home.

It has also always been the home of radical politics in the UK both from the extreme left and right. The East End was were Stalin, Lenin and their chums sought refuge amongst the Russian refugee crisis a century ago. It was the place where the Jewish community expelled fought the Fascists in the 1930s. It is the place where British Socialism and trade unions developed amidst a backdrop of gangsterism and poverty.

At the moment, the big community is the Bangladeshis who are well established and there is a big mosque. The ones causing problems at the moment are the refugees from middle Eastern war zones particularly the Horn of African.

These guys have been behind power struggles within mosques. They are the ones behind the headlines and giving the settled Muslim community a bad name. The UK authorities have been vexed for sometime regarding how to deal with them, with good reason. Radical jihadists were behind to bombings on the London underground. They don’t really care about the country they live in.

However, this has to be put in perspective.

Just as we should not judge Christianity in the USA by the outpourings of its radical preachers, Islam also has its share of loony toons bent on destroying anything that offends their sensibilities.

The religious context is simply the cultural vernacular, the background. Just as many European parties, especially the Socialist ones have Christian in the title that reflects the political priorities informed by collective community and pastoral lessons from the religion. So too, the Islamic world takes a similar reference point and these principals are usually benign.

Political radicals, however simply try to hijack religious institutions and the spiritual authority they provide in order to obtain a base and way of attracting recruits to their cause. They do this by intimidation and gangsterism while purporting to be deeply religious men.

The UK census reports there are about 2.7 Million who say they follow the Muslim religion. For the most part they are perfectly respectable people who have strong sense of work, family and community. They are settled now for three generations and the different factions of their religion live peaceably in the UK.

That the UK has been involved in Middle Eastern wars and this has encouraged these radicals to come over recruiting disaffected youth and criminals to their cause is matter of some concern. Both the community leaders and the authorities are dealing with it.

Immigration and how people move around their world is a fascinating subject, there are many aspects to this both positive and negative. However, it does not do it justice to conflate the activities of extremists who want to change the world, with the majority of immigrant communities who are ordinary people who just want to get on with their life in a new country.

You’re wasting your breath, filmstar. **Chen **is a proud “racial realist” of ours, which is a polite way of saying a raging xenophobe. It’s got very little to do with religion.

Turkey’s biggest issue to join is completely unrelated to religion: it currently occupies territory of a EU member. For some reason the Chipriots aren’t dandy with that.

He probably knows that too.

That is pretty much the worst citation anyone has ever offered for anything.

Tower Hamlets? You might as well judge race relations in the US by posting news articles about South Central LA.

[Rolls eyes]

The question was whether immigration laws and restrictions in Denmark have gotten more strict in the past decade or so. If you think they haven’t, you’re free to provide a better citation to that effect.

As pointed out, one of the “facts” reported in your linked article is flat out wrong (“You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen”) and none of the “more strict” rules listed are actually compared to the old rules that were supposed to be lax. So it’s not a good cite whether I have a better one or not.

The fact remains that laws concerning immigration to Denmark have gotten a lot stricter since the ‘cartoon crisis’ and this has lead to a drop in immigration. "The small Scandinavian country already has the strictest immigration and asylum laws in Europe. … The number of asylum seekers and relatives of immigrants seeking entry into Denmark dropped by more than two-thirds within nine years as a result of the tough laws.

Immigration laws in Denmark were always very strict by Scandinavian standards. However, there is strong evidence that these laws have become more and more restrictive in recent years. The target of recent reforms is family re-unification, which apparently has led many Danes to move to Sweden in order to bring their significant others in from outside the EU

For the hell of it, I looked up the source of your cite. You’ll find that article by Susan MacAllen reposted as such places as Islam-Watch.org (“telling the truth about Islam”), and as for the organization she wrote it for and writes for, well here it is: Family Security Matters. Today’s hot topics: Ukraine, Benghazi, Constitution, Obamacare, Economy, Common Core, Islam, Terrorism, Abortion. Oh, and just because that blowjob in the Whitehouse can’t ever go away, Yes, We Should Discuss the Clinton’s Past.

There’s also a short thread on that very article of hers at snopes here where I discovered she’s also the author of A Terrorist by Any Other Name . . . Still Kills. The concluding two sentences in that [del]article[/del] piece of trash of hers sum it up quite nicely:

She has also authored “Canada: Our Troublesome Northern Friend”, which while promising

I haven’t been able to find a link that doesn’t dead end in Page Not Found at the FSM website. Damn, guess we’ll be caught unprepared when the great Islamo-Canuck invasion she tried to warn us of finally comes to pass.

All aboot Ackbar, eh.

Well…looking on the bright side.

I suppose all the hours of dedicated Internet trollery keeps these individuals from raving at passers by in the street and out of institutions.

There have been (some) Muslims in (some part of) Europe for longer than there have been any Europeans in any part of the Americas. I think they can reasonably be said to have had some cultural clashes with the locals, too So, logically, …