It's unfortunate to me that it is impossible to have a discussion about how this kind of immigration dilutes European culture and identity. The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, said[0]
If we don't stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state ... This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity.
While he has come under some criticism for these statements, can you imagine what would happen if a European prime minister made this kind of statement?
But how could these be diluted? Do you perhaps mean "change", "expand", "put into question"? And is it more important to save those fleeing for their lives or your sense of "undiluted" identity? (Moreover, an identity historically forged through their exploitation.)
The prime minister of Israel should be reminded that Israel was created as a sanctuary for his people fleeing those exact völkisch sentiments he now preaches. I know from personal experience that there are many Israelis who share this view and are appalled by his words [0].
Turns out, Islam tends to have virtually no influence on European culture. All this talk about "dilution" is ridiculous. If at all, Muslim immigrants feel diluted.
And I am not denying that European societies have disproportionately many problems with Muslim immigrants. But we can't do anything about it without violating what we believe is a just society: No human should be punished for crimes another human committed. That holds even when both are muslim.
>> Turns out, Islam tends to have virtually no influence on European culture. All this talk about "dilution" is ridiculous
Define "no influence". If you walk around many European cities you see areas where the stores are 90% Döner/Kebab/Pakistani. I mean, that seems to me like some influence. The fact that such a huge number of people with Muslim background relocate to an area, is clearly a cause for the rise in Muslim-owned Muslim-oriented businesses.
But hey! I'm not saying that's necessarily a good or bad thing, I just disagree with what you said. And the way streets look/feel when you walk down them is a great example of how Muslim(and other immigrants also ofc!) do have an influence on the culture and lifestyle in Europe.
>> But we can't do anything about it without violating what we believe is a just society
I agree with that, refugees must be granted asylum in countries at peace. However, we must be aware that this is NOT addressing the problem itself, but its consequences; and hence the problem can only grow bigger.
For me, opening ethnically themed restaurants and food joints does not count as "influence of islam". At best it is an economic contribution of people who happen to be muslim.
Mosques are very underrepresented, considering the number of muslim, and they have to fight for every single one.
Walking on the street is no influence on Culture. Even a fully cloaked woman does not hinder my sense of European culture. They don't make anyone else follow their rules, in any case.
I'm not aware of islamic parties with any significant influence, at least in western Europe, despite I would think there is a need for one.
There is currently no way to solve the multiple crisis which are displacing people. At least not without actually displacing much more people.
IMO a culture is not just a set of protocols or rules written down by some chronist/sociologist. To me culture is more about how people live in a certain place, their routines, their customs.
Again, I'm not particularly talking about Muslim population, but since you continue with them, I will do the same :) (I guess it's an easy example since they are really a big community all around EU)
Now take any East London borough with a high % of Muslim. If you compare it with how it was let's say in the 80's you will probably see several differences in: the language most people talk to each other in, the way kids are educated at home, the way people interact with their local store owners, the food people eat, dress codes, etc.
If a person from a distant remote place visits that same borough in the 80's and today he will see two culturally different places. That's because the inhabitants of the place, make the culture. That's my view!
This reply is just intended to challenge your view that big numbers of immigrants has no influence on the culture of a country/city/place/population. I'm not implying that borough was better in the 80's than now!
>>Mosques are very underrepresented, considering the number of muslim, and they have to fight for every single one.
I really don't know where you draw the "fair representation" line. E.g. Greater London has 650k Muslims, and around 411 mosques. That's roughly 1400 Muslims/mosque. What would be a fair representation in your opinion? In contrast there are 450k Hindus in Greater London, and I couldn't find the number of temples in any source, but I'd guess it's around a few tens. Maybe this is an unfair comparison since a temple is much more of a requirement for Muslims than for Hindus, I really don't know that.
>> They don't make anyone else follow their rules, in any case.
They raise their kids with "their" rules, which is not even theirs, it's basically dictated by some kind of dogma. These kids will be the future generation of that place.
My statement was that "Islam" has virtually no influence on Europe culture. First of all, that doesn't include everything a Muslim does, for me, Islam is a religion with values and rules.
The mere existence of Muslims following their own cultures in Europe does not constitute an influence in its own. Not even when they interact with other Europeans. Influence on European Culture would mean that Europeans change to adapt to Islamic beliefs. Which they largely don't, except sometimes in very negative ways.
You probably overestimate population trends... Yes, the Muslim population will increase, but not without bounds and much less than some people seem to believe...
because you didn't consider my statement. Specifically "Islam" instead of "individual Muslim" and "on European Culture", not that Muslims exist in Europe.
> Define "no influence". If you walk around many European cities you see areas where the stores are 90% Döner/Kebab/Pakistani.
So in England there are the traditional corner shops that sell some food (mostly not fresh), confectionary, alcohol and soft drinks, newspapers, and cigarettes. (And, in the past, porn.)
It's pretty hard to find the Islamic influence of those shops.
> Turns out, Islam tends to have virtually no influence on European culture.
You absolutely don't know that. Can you point to a specific study? then you just made it up. Turns out you are making stuff up for the sake of shutting down the discussion.
I don't know of any Muslim/Islamic party in Western Europe. Mosques are underrepresented, in terms of followers.
There is no indication, that Western Europeans are converting to Islam in droves.
Food is not a cultural influence of Islam, but of the particular ethnicity and home countries, not the religion. At best the amount of pork consumed by Europeans may be negatively affected...
Really, considering the number of Muslims, they don't seem to have any political cloud beyond being present. Most Muslim politicians I think of virtually ignore religious topics.
>No human should be punished for crimes another human committed.
what about the crimes committed with approval, in the name and by the power vested by the other humans? When these other humans shield and harbor the committer of the crime?
Aiding and abetting terrorists can be and is punished.
Sympathy for IS or similar groups/countries is a whole different story. As long as they are at best voicing their support, or not even that, it's really difficult and contra-productive to prosecute.
If you want to morally condemn every Muslim for sympathizing with IS, you should keep in mind that most people fighting them are Muslim. You also should keep in mind that most Muslims don't sympathize with these kind of crimes or terrorism in general....
So Islam commands them have to rape Western woman? Most Muslim scholars would disagree.
I actually agree that Muslim immigrants are more prone to commit this kind of crime. That doesn't mean it's an Islam thing. It also doesn't mean innocent Muslims can be treated any worse because some of them commit crimes. Trying to solve this problem by blaming their religion is not going to lead anywhere good.
Ah, another convenient use of "turns out". Fortunately, we are on hackernews so enough people are probably familiar with this very useful turn of phrase[0].
Anyway, back to the topic. It turns out[0] muslim immigrants from troubled regions import their troubles. No, for sure 100%(choose a number) of them aren't the sort that shouts for sharia law, but hey you are going to be importing those. Then what happens? It starts affecting your day-to-day.
I'm all for giving refuge. Hey, I'm an immigrant myself so I see all sorts of value in the arrangement. BUT, part of the reason I immigrated to get away from the crazies/troubles. I also have been able to contribute to my new country (oh the taxes). I am fairly well assimilated in my community and wouldn't dream of trying to change my current society to fit my previous one.
It's sad that political correctness makes it impossible for people to have an actual debate about this without being labelled ignorant/small minded etcs.
Well, if you voice small-minded arguments, you do run a risk of being called out as small-minded. There is this strange belief among self-styled "immigration critics" that the fact that they have a minority opinion, is somehow proof of an unfair conversation.
Bad news: You will always be judged by the things you say and the value system that is behind these things. Deal with it!
I don't see evidence of Muslims changing European cultures in any significant way. Most don't even seem to try. Even the more religious ones seem to be content with being allowed to go to a mosque every once in a while...
Maybe it's something you should think about that the first attack you can think of is an ad hominem one?
I am not bemoaning having a minority opinion, rather the inevitable personal attacks that follow, yours being a benign but still pertinent example.
And I'm not an immigration critic: I am totally in support of allowing immigration to the people who help the country. And, before you assume, that doesn't mean they have to be white or european. Note also that "help the country" can't just be defined by the usual hand-wavy bs of "diversity helps everyone" because you might as well say magic/underpant gnomes.
Where do you live in Europe or US that you don't see these effects?
If you believe you have a right to throw Muslims out of Europe, which is the only way to stop increasing Muslim populations in Europe (short of genocide), then that is only possible by believing in racist assumptions (often disguised by calling them "facts").
Under democratic values, everyone is the same before the law. Therefore there have to be serious reasons to prosecute, hunt down, imprison and deport someone (and en passant destroying his livelihood, potentially his family, and causing misery and death). You essentially say that Muslims are in general not "useful", so they shouldn't have this protection.
First of all, this is deeply anti-democratic and anti-freedom. But secondly, in this argumentation there is almost always a tendency to attach negative value to certain ethnicities. To deny human rights to an ethnically distinct group means to devalue them as human beings, and this is racism.
And please don't say you don't want to get rid of Muslims... If that were really true, why are you complaining about them?
So your logic is: if you say something negative about group X, then you must want to throw them out of your country, therefore you want to hunt them down, therefore you are are anti-democratic. Therefore there cannot be anything negative to say about group X.
I think it's clear what I mean by dilution. When everyone has a similar viewpoint and cultural practices, it is much easier to maintain this when there are not large number of immigrants.
It's true that there are critics of Netanyahu. However his views are not extreme in Israeli politics, and he is not considered a pariah internationally. On the contrary, the news source "972 magazine" would be considered a political pariah in the US for its support of the BDS movement.
I'm pretty sure every person[0] would choose their sense of "undiluted identity" when push came to shove.
Why?
Because fear of the unknown is a thing and muslims have been vilified a lot.
Anyway, Israel is very aware of the dilution effects. After all, they have been exploiting it (and much stronger arm techniques) to carve out their country.
First of all, Israel is a special case. It has been founded artificially on a land that was predominantly inhabited by muslims, surrounded by countries predominantly inhabited by muslims.
I won't dive into any discussion if that was a good idea, or if they were right to do that, I am just stating that a lot of non-muslims streamed into a place where there were lots of muslims. The idea that this jewish state, would manage to keep out the majority population in the region without some major "ethnic cleansing" is ridiculous.
In Europe it's the other way around. The large majority here is not muslim, and there is a small (yes, it's tiny compared to the whole population) influx of muslims.
There is no reason to fear a islamification of Europe. The numbers just don't allow it.
I never said that Europe would be "Islamified", although Europe is projected to be 8% Muslim by 2030[0], and not all immigration is from Islamic countries. For reference, Israel is 21% Muslim[1]. If your suburb becomes 50% muslim, it's certainly going to have a big effect even if other parts of the country remain unaffected.
I don't see how your argument about geography works. Not everyone in a neighboring country is going to try to claim refugee status. Netanyahu was referring to 60,000 refugees but this was a total over many years, while Sweden, a country of similar population size to Israel, accepted 31,000 refugees in 2014 [2] and will accept even more in 2015.
"Big effect on suburb" does not become "Influence on European Culture". If these immigrants have their own culture, just by living it, they don't necessarily constitute an influence. Just like there being Millions of French in France doesn't necessarily influence German cultures...
I believe refugees are mostly people in need that don't deserve the situation they find themselves in and should be given asylum in countries which are stable and at peace.
However, my impression is that they mostly request asylum in Western countries (EU, Australia, USA, UK, Canada...). Assuming my impression is right (correct me otherwise!). Why is it like that?
In the case of Muslim refugees, why don't they apply for asylum to Muslim countries, particularly those unbelievably oil-rich countries ( or even some more stable ones like Morocco for example), instead of some poor countries in the West such as Greece/Italy/Spain?
Most refugees from Syria have ended up in camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, not Western countries. Life in these camps is not especially good compared to asylum in Western countries with infrastructure for accepting migrants such as Germany; however, getting asylum in these countries is more difficult.
As for Greece, the migrants who end up there probably weren't looking at Greece as a final destination, but as a stepping stone for better destinations in Europe.
>> Life in these camps is not especially good compared to asylum in Western countries
That's exactly one of my concerns here. Why doesn't for example Jordan just let them assimilate in their society, as fellow Arabs, and instead it just keeps them in camps? Of course not just Jordan, but also other more resourceful Arab/Muslim (mostly Sunni Muslim) countries such as UAE, Qatar, etc.
Wouldn't it be easier for these already traumatized refugees to integrate in Moroccan, Tunisian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, UAE-ian(?)...societies? Isn't there a "brotherhood" thing between Arabs (maybe even between Muslims? or just Sunni Muslims?)?
You're picking on the wrong country here: Jordan is the only country in the Middle East that has pretty much entirely naturalized its Palestinian refugees, who (depending on where you draw the line) make up over half the population. The vast majority of the people living in refugee camps are Jordanian citizens, and the "camps" have long since turned into permanent (if often crappy) housing.
As for why the rest don't, one answer is that the other countries don't have to, so they don't give a fuck; and even more cynically, by keeping the festering sore open, they can deflect public attention from their various problems and instead blame Israel for it all.
That's true, though I was talking about Syrian refugees.
I picked Jordan because it's just a neighbouring Arab country, plus mostly Sunni Muslim, just like Syria, and unlike Lebanon. And of course the Palestinian refugee issue is another topic entirely.
I don't know about oil-rich countries, but Lebanon has allowed over 1 million Syrian refugees in. I don't think it has to do with Muslims only, it's an Arab issue.
Such stark madness in the Western world. Sweden has no responsibility towards Syria. None. None at all, and there is no arguing otherwise. The grandchildren of today's rulers will either curse them, or simply not exist. It depends on how fast said rulers can wipe out the native populations.
And yes, it can happen--in fact, it is happening right now, and far faster than it happened to the Indigenous Americans.
The last civil wars in europe were 30-50 years ago. Back then moving between borders wasn't as easy. There were big movements of immigrants in europe , mainly to germany, but this is different. It seems people affected from war take immigration as the first option now, which leaves their countries even more devastated. Also, most of them seem to have no interest in ever going back making it even worse. Given that europe is not exactly flourishing, so it can provide jobs to those immigrants, it seems an interventive strategy would be a better idea.
If we don't stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state ... This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity.
While he has come under some criticism for these statements, can you imagine what would happen if a European prime minister made this kind of statement?
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/20/israel-netanyah...