The European Refugee Crisis - MERGED

[Anny Nym]

Well, Islamic Relief is one organization that is operating in Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.

You also have an extremely large group of refugees in Turkey. In Lebanon, 1 in 5 people is a Syrian refugee. These are countries with a history of having to negotiate a delicate balance between Islam and western values. Turkey went from imposed secularism in the days of Ataturk to seeing the public resurgence of Islam under Erdogan. Lebanon had a long and bloody civil war between its various religious groups, and the balance between the Muslim and Christian communities has shaped it since it was formed.

The refugees would be ripe for radicalization by any group that would offer them assistance and protection. (I'm not suggesting, btw, that Islamic Relief is a radical organization)

It's also possible that at least some of this group could make it to Europe.

First things first, it is indeed possible that radicalized groups could make thier way to Europe, yes!- that´s what we are discussing here already.

Islamic Relief is also already operating as a NGO in Germany btw.

For the rest, I think we are running in a circle here a bit, 2xx1xy1JD.

Most people don´t want to leave their homecountry Syria, they must.

(it´s a bit forgotten these days, but Syria was a quite developed country until recently - with a vivid expat community, including a considerable number of Austrians. Friend of my mother´s family went there in the early fifties, worked in the capital as technical engineer and retired there too. Is dead now, but always lived in western standards afaik.)

For the Libanon, Turkey and Jordan - they are already in a safe place then. Nobody is slamming the door to them . As soon as you are in a safe country, which is willing to take you in - you are, well, safe.

Of couse this countries can´t take in all as much as Germany and Sweden and Austria or the Netherlands could take in all . That´s why they need to be placed per quota in safe countries until ISIS is eliminated- which should be the next ultimate goal. So they could go home and rebuild their country.

The problem are not the war refugees, it´s the people posing as war refugees. If it now may be ISIS or fortune seekers.

[2xx1xy1JD]

AN:

I agree about remembering that Syria wasn't always this bad. Years ago, I actually remember my parents being quite surprised during my engagement party when they met a friend of my father-in-law, who was an Iraqi Jew who had gone to dental school in Damascus.

The Syrian refugees include people who are educated and who have skills which could be valuable.

With the size of Syrian population and of the refugee group, I agree that the ultimate solution needs to include making Syria safe again. That's part of the reason that I don't think it's possible to take a completely hands-off attitude in foreign policy. If things go to hell in another country, it WILL affect everyone else. The problem, though, goes deeper than just ISIS. The problems between the Assad regime and the Muslim Brotherhood go way back. The elder Assad kept a lid on things by brutally killing his opponents, as he did in the city of Hama in 1982. So, even if ISIS was contained, you'd still need to figure out how to bring peace and stability, and how to have different groups that have been in a brutal civil war back together. I'm not that optimistic in the short run - in a tribal conflict like this, everybody is going to feel compelled to fight as hard as possible for the survival of their own group, and they are going to be terrified that they will be wiped out if the other side wins.

I think we agree that the current chaos is a bad thing. There needs to be a way of sorting out who is who, and making sure that the refugees who are taken in accept the values of the accepting countries (because after all, liberal democracy is part of what is making those countries more attractive).

[PregnantPornStar]

AN:

*snip*

I think we agree that the current chaos is a bad thing. There needs to be a way of sorting out who is who, and making sure that the refugees who are taken in accept the values of the accepting countries (because after all, liberal democracy is part of what is making those countries more attractive).

I think the hard part of this is that we are in this limbo right now. It is nearly impossible to sort out who is who right off the bat and I think it is terrifying that in the meantime anyone is allowed in.

It has been brought up already, but why so many young, healthy men? There refugees don't seem to represent the true demographics. That alone is troubling, never mind the behaviors we have seen. I feel badly for those who are honestly fleeing bad conditions. It is heartbreaking. Still, if that is your true reason for fleeing, why must it be to DE/UK/SW, etc?

[laPapessaGiovanna]

You know, I sometimes catch myself thinking that the Nazis have won a bit after all. Because, they still keep Germany in their choke-hold by disabling the country to make sound decisions. Yes, the politicians can visit countless memorial services for the victims of the horrible crimes of the third reich.

But guess what? That doesn't help anybody if at the same time Jews can't walk around safely in Berlin. If a Muslim girl can't cut her hair short, come out as LGBT or convert to Buddhism (or any other religion) cause she has to be afraid that her own family will kill her. Or if a neo-Nazi gang is able to terrorize whole villages in Eastern Germany.

Government has one main job, and that is to keep up the internal and external security for everybody. But of course, it fails at that and rather interferes unnecessarily with the people's lives and liberties instead of making sure that they can actually live their life in peace and security. :angry-banghead:

Our very Constitution was written in reaction to our fascist past to never let it happen again. This resulted in over 60 years of constitutional political chaos, ddishonesty and corruption to the highest levels. But our politically correct Constitution is still untouchable but for some minor things or to make it even worse. Our none of our last three governments was elected, the only elections the present premier won were those as major of Florence and his party internal selections. Go figure the good politics of such legitimate governments! Obviously our foreign policy is laughable and the internal one even more, if possible. Our economy is on tthe rocks and we are completely unable to cope with our own problems go figure how on earth can we manage to address such a huge epocal refugee/migration crisis!

Truth is we sat on the middle eastern and african time bomb for too long without asensible foreign policy to neutralize it both as EU and as individual countries and we will come to really regret it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think the hard part of this is that we are in this limbo right now. It is nearly impossible to sort out who is who right off the bat and I think it is terrifying that in the meantime anyone is allowed in.

It has been brought up already, but why so many young, healthy men? There refugees don't seem to represent the true demographics. That alone is troubling, never mind the behaviors we have seen. I feel badly for those who are honestly fleeing bad conditions. It is heartbreaking. Still, if that is your true reason for fleeing, why must it be to DE/UK/SW, etc?

I could be that they are motivated by economic factors. It could also be that those are the people who are most able to make the journey.

[jaelh]

That would of course be the ideal scenario. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely understand why people have to flee and yes, we should try to help those people.

My point is that most Western countries have failed to establish sane and sensible rules of who gets to stay and who has to leave again in the last decades. That has lead to huge problems.

I would be absolutely willing to give asylum to people if a. they really are from a war zone and b. if they are ready to accept and live our values and laws.

But at the same time, we should examine accurately where people are actually from and we have to be able to expulse those who don't want to accept our values and laws quickly and effectively.

Forgive me Sundaymorning, but you're delusional. Western countries have had INCREDIBLY strict rules about who gets to enter in the last decades. It's because of the strictness of the rules (which are a totally modern, post WWII invention) that there is so much incentive for people to apply for asylum. And while you would be absolutely willing to give people asylum according to two criteria you have decided, there is already a very strict and much more restrictive test that applies, and will be applied to everyone currently claiming refugee status. I wonder what test you would have for determining "our values." If it's a simple belief in the democratic process, sure. Anything else, you're going to run into trouble.*

Further - the withdrawal of citizenship to people who don't adhere to our 'values' is going to run into a lot of problems with creating stateless people - you can't take away citizenship if you are going to leave someone stateless. If this is part of your strategy for dealing with refugees (and may people like the idea), please address how you deal with statelessness.

I think there are two separate issues that people are conflating.

1) What happens when there is a large influx of people with massively different culture to a host country? and

2) How do we deal with asylum seekers?

These are not the same issue. We conflate them at our peril. They are related, sure. But if we can distinguish them in our minds, it will help.

I think it's totally reasonable to point out that current asylum policy (esp permanent residence with family reunion) operates as a very particular incentive for very particular types of migrants. On the other hand, you don't want people sitting in limbo for 20 years. I don't think it would be unreasonable to introduce some middle ground between limbo and immediate PR.

On the oil states - well, no they're not taking people. Maybe they should. However they never said they would. Western states have said - for the last 50 years or so - we would accept refugees. Scream hypocrisy all you want, but I'm not sure it's there. We're being held to something we pledged to, simple as that.

The system was set up to accommodate the mass movement of people to avoid genocide. So.. you know. Pretty much exactly this. We might not like it, but you know... It was our revulsion at our (western state) conduct that prevented people escaping the WWII genocide that led us to set the system up - because we saw we didn't do the right thing and wanted to bind ourselves to better conduct in the future.

Sure, some people will take advantage of the system. Every system. In which case, we should be tweaking the system, instead of screaming to the heavens about the raping, scheming barbarian hordes.

Might I ask people who are against the influx of asylum seekers - what exactly would you have done instead? For both:

1) the abstract and not yet realised problem of future movement and

2) the hundreds of thousands of people already in Europe.

Aside: I do wonder when the first state will withdraw from the Refugee Convention. I'm still amazed Australia hasn't, though I think it's managed to effectively abrogate most of their responsibilities so they don't need to. The public shaming aspect must be all that's holding certain states bak.

*Yes, women. But where do you draw the line? And once it's set in stone, it has the possibility of freezing progress wherever we have drawn the current line. It's a real catch 22.

[OkToBeTakei]

I tend to come here for intelligent thoughtful discourse and it generally never disappoints. The rounds of the ignorant on the Daily Mail and Facebook memes are shouting Muslims equals ISIS and OH MY GOD they are all young men looking for asylum ISIS are sending killers!!!

I did not expect to see that here no matter how subtly put :(

[PregnantPornStar]

I tend to come here for intelligent thoughtful discourse and it generally never disappoints. The rounds of the ignorant on the Daily Mail and Facebook memes are shouting Muslims equals ISIS and OH MY GOD they are all young men looking for asylum ISIS are sending killers!!!

I did not expect to see that here no matter how subtly put :(

I don't think anyone has said that is Muslims=ISIS. I certainly did not. That being said, ISIS has admitted to sending people amount the refugees. That is fact and it is foolish to ignore the fact that we cannot distinguish who is who. Ignoring the situation will only lead to more problems.

Currently, AS are being allowed to move into countries that are welcoming them. So why is it bad to be diligent and aware? To ask questions and to hope we can distinguish who is who? I am certain that those who are trying to get away from such terrible things would appreciate being kept away from ISIS. I believe it has been said again and again that Greece and Turkey are too close to home for people fleeing. I am assuming that they also don't want ISIS members fleeing yo Germany with them.

The situation is dire enough.

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't think anyone has said that is Muslims=ISIS. I certainly did not. That being said, ISIS has admitted to sending people amount the refugees. That is fact and it is foolish to ignore the fact that we cannot distinguish who is who. Ignoring the situation will only lead to more problems.

Currently, AS are being allowed to move into countries that are welcoming them. So why is it bad to be diligent and aware? To ask questions and to hope we can distinguish who is who? I am certain that those who are trying to get away from such terrible things would appreciate being kept away from ISIS. I believe it has been said again and again that Greece and Turkey are too close to home for people fleeing. I am assuming that they also don't want ISIS members fleeing yo Germany with them.

The situation is dire enough.

There are terrorists ISIS ones within probably every country. Homegrown ones in the UK. Will there be terrorists among the millions of fleeing Syrians? Probably. Of course it would be naive to not acknowledge this. Is their a 5000 strong ISIS army all ready to pick up their arms the minute they step into Germany? I doubt it but don't tell the ignorant Daily Mail readers that. They thrive on the right wing hysteria.

Do I trust the governments/ authorities to recognise and address the potential dangers..... That's tough. After every terrorist attack there is doubt. It is not a reason though to not help refugees.

I also wonder at people's perception of asylum seekers actually is. The news coverage of thousands milling about Hungary is all some seem to base their views on. They seem to think that say 10,000 people will arrive in their country and just start wandering around.

Meanwhile ISIS has used the image of the drowned child to warn off Syrians fleeing, in their 'newspaper.' Dire stories of children dying and everybody going to hell because they have left the so called 'Caliphate.'

[Sundaymorning]

Forgive me Sundaymorning, but you're delusional. Western countries have had INCREDIBLY strict rules about who gets to enter in the last decades. It's because of the strictness of the rules (which are a totally modern, post WWII invention) that there is so much incentive for people to apply for asylum. And while you would be absolutely willing to give people asylum according to two criteria you have decided, there is already a very strict and much more restrictive test that applies, and will be applied to everyone currently claiming refugee status. I wonder what test you would have for determining "our values." If it's a simple belief in the democratic process, sure. Anything else, you're going to run into trouble.*

Further - the withdrawal of citizenship to people who don't adhere to our 'values' is going to run into a lot of problems with creating stateless people - you can't take away citizenship if you are going to leave someone stateless. If this is part of your strategy for dealing with refugees (and may people like the idea), please address how you deal with statelessness.

I think there are two separate issues that people are conflating.

1) What happens when there is a large influx of people with massively different culture to a host country? and

2) How do we deal with asylum seekers?

These are not the same issue. We conflate them at our peril. They are related, sure. But if we can distinguish them in our minds, it will help.

I think it's totally reasonable to point out that current asylum policy (esp permanent residence with family reunion) operates as a very particular incentive for very particular types of migrants. On the other hand, you don't want people sitting in limbo for 20 years. I don't think it would be unreasonable to introduce some middle ground between limbo and immediate PR.

On the oil states - well, no they're not taking people. Maybe they should. However they never said they would. Western states have said - for the last 50 years or so - we would accept refugees. Scream hypocrisy all you want, but I'm not sure it's there. We're being held to something we pledged to, simple as that.

The system was set up to accommodate the mass movement of people to avoid genocide. So.. you know. Pretty much exactly this. We might not like it, but you know... It was our revulsion at our (western state) conduct that prevented people escaping the WWII genocide that led us to set the system up - because we saw we didn't do the right thing and wanted to bind ourselves to better conduct in the future.

Sure, some people will take advantage of the system. Every system. In which case, we should be tweaking the system, instead of screaming to the heavens about the raping, scheming barbarian hordes.

Might I ask people who are against the influx of asylum seekers - what exactly would you have done instead? For both:

1) the abstract and not yet realised problem of future movement and

2) the hundreds of thousands of people already in Europe.

Aside: I do wonder when the first state will withdraw from the Refugee Convention. I'm still amazed Australia hasn't, though I think it's managed to effectively abrogate most of their responsibilities so they don't need to. The public shaming aspect must be all that's holding certain states bak.

*Yes, women. But where do you draw the line? And once it's set in stone, it has the possibility of freezing progress wherever we have drawn the current line. It's a real catch 22.

A few things, first of all, I'm certainly not delusional. I live in Europe, and no, we don't have too strict rules. Not at all. Certainly not as strict as countries like Australia. Millions of people from outside Western Europe were able to come here legally, and not all as asylum seekers. Which, in itself, wouldn't be a bad thing if you could kick the ones out again who make trouble.

Which values do they have to respect: good question, I would say the constitution (in most countries, rights like gender equality are written in it) and the general fact that they understand that they can't force other people (which includes the members of their own family!) to live according to their personal rules.

So, for example, if their daughter comes out as a lesbian, they are free not to like it, but they still can't beat her up or even kill her.

just a few examples of people who should get kicked out immediately, but won't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miri-Clan and there are countless others

The issue with the citizenship: I do agree that it is hard to take away citizenship from people who already have it. However, the solution is to only give it to people who have proven over the years that they adhere to the values and laws of their new country. Switzerland has quite a good system, and they plan to make it even a bit stricter, which is a very good thing.

[urban teacher]

Thank you OKTBT, You said what I been wanting to but didn't. I was enjoying the dialogue on this and then it went to Arab bashing and Muslim bashing and I had to leave.

[jaelh]

A few things, first of all, I'm certainly not delusional. I live in Europe, and no, we don't have too strict rules. Not at all. Certainly not as strict as countries like Australia. Millions of people from outside Western Europe were able to come here legally, and not all as asylum seekers. Which, in itself, wouldn't be a bad thing if you could kick the ones out again who make trouble.

Which values do they have to respect: good question, I would say the constitution (in most countries, rights like gender equality are written in it) and the general fact that they understand that they can't force other people (which includes the members of their own family!) to live according to their personal rules.

So, for example, if their daughter comes out as a lesbian, they are free not to like it, but they still can't beat her up or even kill her.

just a few examples of people who should get kicked out immediately, but won't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miri-Clan and there are countless others

The issue with the citizenship: I do agree that it is hard to take away citizenship from people who already have it. However, the solution is to only give it to people who have proven over the years that they adhere to the values and laws of their new country. Switzerland has quite a good system, and they plan to make it even a bit stricter, which is a very good thing.

About one in three Australian's are foreign born. About 1 in 4 speak a language other than English at home. If you think Western Europe lets in more people per capita than Australia does, let me reiterate : you're delusional.

I think the thing is this though: you're conflating migration and asylum. They're two different things. If you want to rage against migration, OK. If you want to rage against asylum, OK.

But they are not the same thing. Muslims =/= refugee; refugee =/= Muslim; migrant =/= refugee etc..

There are loopholes in the current asylum program - sure. I actually don't have a bone to pick with you on that one. I've outlined in previous posts what I think those issues are.

I'm curious though - and this is why I asked it in my last post -

What is your alternative model? I see you wouldn't immediately give Citizenship I don't know where you live, but I don't think there is a country on earth that immediately gives citizenship. (Australia, your favoured example of strict immigration, you've got a 4+ year wait; many places it's longer) What else?

Our forerunners set this system up because they didn't trust us not to act they way they did during WWII. I'm assuming you believe letting people in that need sanctuary is a prima facie good thing. So.. How do we manage it?

This isn't about Muslims or Arabs; it's about a system. So let's talk about the system.

[from the bible belt]

Here is an article on how "big" the real problem is for europe right now: https://decorrespondent.nl/3328/15-vrag ... 6-68a9d9ce

It is in dutch but maybe google translate can do something, otherwise the videos in it are in english and have a pretty good story about numbers etc

[Sundaymorning]

About one in three Australian's are foreign born. About 1 in 4 speak a language other than English at home. If you think Western Europe lets in more people per capita than Australia does, let me reiterate : you're delusional.

I think the thing is this though: you're conflating migration and asylum. They're two different things. If you want to rage against migration, OK. If you want to rage against asylum, OK.

But they are not the same thing. Muslims =/= refugee; refugee =/= Muslim; migrant =/= refugee etc..

There are loopholes in the current asylum program - sure. I actually don't have a bone to pick with you on that one. I've outlined in previous posts what I think those issues are.

I'm curious though - and this is why I asked it in my last post -

What is your alternative model? I see you wouldn't immediately give Citizenship I don't know where you live, but I don't think there is a country on earth that immediately gives citizenship. (Australia, your favoured example of strict immigration, you've got a 4+ year wait; many places it's longer) What else?

Our forerunners set this system up because they didn't trust us not to act they way they did during WWII. I'm assuming you believe letting people in that need sanctuary is a prima facie good thing. So.. How do we manage it?

This isn't about Muslims or Arabs; it's about a system. So let's talk about the system.

We can't separate the discussion about asylum seekers and general immigration. In the end, both lead to the same results. Yes, I know, in theory, asylum seekers are expected to go home to their native country once the situation gets better there again, but in reality, they rarely do.

I can't speak for every Western country, but Switzerland, where I live, has had 48'000 asylum seekers in 2014 plus about 80'000 other immigrants, with a population of about 8.2 million. I think that beats Australia.

My alternative model:

First priority is to help the people near the land they had to flee. It doesn't make any sense if those who can afford it travel thousands of miles under horrible conditions, while many others are just left behind. So, a massive effort is needed locally.

And otherwise, everything I said before. I'm not against immigration in first place, but I'm against letting people stay who refuse to accept our local laws. So, as I said before, those who are willing to assimilate are very welcome, those who refuse aren't.

As for the current asylum crisis: Of course, it is a huge challenge and it's not easy to find good solutions.

I would try to work out quickly who is who under the asylum seekers, so that you could get an oversight of the people and their reasons to seek asylum. Even if they claim that they don't have official documents, you can, for example by their dialect, mostly work out very well where they are from. Best would be to get all countries involved and try to divide them fairly between the countries.

I would also explain the values and the laws of their new host countries to them and would let them sign a contract that they are willing to adhere to them.

ETA: as usually, bureaucracy gets in the way of people helping other people. Where I live, we have the problem that many people would like to offer a spare room for refugees, but government doesn't let them because of idiotic, bureaucratic reasons. So I would try to keep bureaucracy to a minimum, and try to make sure the important things work (like trying to catch the ISIS fighters and sympathizers) instead of harrassing the population with bullshit regulations.

[latraviata]

We can't separate the discussion about asylum seekers and general immigration. In the end, both lead to the same results. Yes, I know, in theory, asylum seekers are expected to go home to their native country once the situation gets better there again, but in reality, they rarely do.

I can't speak for every Western country, but Switzerland, where I live, has had 48'000 asylum seekers in 2014 plus about 80'000 other immigrants, with a population of about 8.2 million. I think that beats Australia.

My alternative model:

First priority is to help the people near the land they had to flee. It doesn't make any sense if those who can afford it travel thousands of miles under horrible conditions, while many others are just left behind. So, a massive effort is needed locally.

And otherwise, everything I said before. I'm not against immigration in first place, but I'm against letting people stay who refuse to accept our local laws. So, as I said before, those who are willing to assimilate are very welcome, those who refuse aren't.

As for the current asylum crisis: Of course, it is a huge challenge and it's not easy to find good solutions.

I would try to work out quickly who is who under the asylum seekers, so that you could get an oversight of the people and their reasons to seek asylum. Even if they claim that they don't have official documents, you can, for example by their dialect, mostly work out very well where they are from. Best would be to get all countries involved and try to divide them fairly between the countries.

I would also explain the values and the laws of their new host countries to them and would let them sign a contract that they are willing to adhere to them.

Are you sure your contribution to the debate is intelligent enough? Daily Mail helped you sufficiently? Facebook provides you with enough information? In fact, my entire education was by Facebook only......... ;) ;)

[OkToBeTakei]

Are you sure your contribution to the debate is intelligent enough? Daily Mail helped you sufficiently? Facebook provides you with enough information? In fact, my entire education was by Facebook only......... ;) ;)

:lol: That's a relief, there was me thinking it was just old fashioned bigotry!!

[Sundaymorning]

Are you sure your contribution to the debate is intelligent enough? Daily Mail helped you sufficiently? Facebook provides you with enough information? In fact, my entire education was by Facebook only......... ;) ;)

snip

Why of course, I got all my education from krone.at and bild.de :wink-kitty:

[Sundaymorning]

:lol: That's a relief, there was me thinking it was just old fashioned bigotry!!

Yeah, I know, it's super bigotry at its finest if I demand that immigrants respect things like women's and LGBT rights. I'm such a racist, I know.

[OkToBeTakei]

Yeah, I know, it's super bigotry at its finest if I demand that immigrants respect things like women's and LGBT rights. I'm such a racist, I know.

Sorry SM I should learn to snip. I did not mean your comment :)

[latraviata]

Yeah, I know, it's super bigotry at its finest if I demand that immigrants respect things like women's and LGBT rights. I'm such a racist, I know.

Let's not bash muslims/Arabs, never mind jews, christians, hindus all highly bashable but not muslims! Let's tolerate the intolerant, it is culture you know, it has nothing to do with islam and you should see my lovely muslim neighbours!! A shocking survey conducted by the left media shows that in at least West Europe 64% of the muslims are in favour of IS and the implementation of sharia law in western countries.

[jaelh]

First priority is to help the people near the land they had to flee.

Whatever else, this I can get behind.

Latrviata - 64% of the Muslims in Europe are in favour is IS? Really? You mock people for their comments, and then you post this? Comeon.

From the bible belt : the numbers are huge. (and that was a great article, thank you googletranslate)

And it's only going to get bigger in the future, with people from moving from lots of other places for other reasons. I do think it's reasonable to talk about integration and demographics and all of that. But we can do it without claiming that more than half the Muslims in Europe are in favour of ISIS (and their sex slaves); that Sweden is the world's rape capital etc.

People that are coming are coming because we've said we'd do something. Ie: let them in if they had a claim. Given we've made that commitment, and now they're here - integration isn't one way; it's a two way street. So.. how do we do it? its not just something migrants do; it's something a community does to migrants. And it's not just language classes, and culture days.

Sunday morning is right to point out not allowing people to share houses is an absurdity - it'd be a profoundly significant way of establishing (hopefully ongoing) relationships. The problem with democracy (and our own demographics) is we're shooting ourselves in the feet by not doing it right.

[latraviata]

Whatever else, this I can get behind.

Latrviata - 64% of the Muslims in Europe are in favour is IS? Really? You mock people for their comments, and then you post this? Comeon.

From the bible belt : the numbers are huge. They're only going to get bigger in the future, with people from moving from lots of other places for other reasons. I do think it's reasonable to talk about integration and demographics and all of that. But we can do it without claiming that more than half the Muslims in Europe are in favour of ISIS (and their sex slaves); that Sweden is the world's rape capital etc.

People that are coming are coming because we've said we'd do something. Ie: let them in if they had a claim. Given we've made that commitment, and now they're here - integration isn't one way; it's a two way street. So.. how do we do it? its not just something migrants do; it's something a community does to migrants. And it's not just language classes, and culture days.

Sunday morning is right to point out not allowing people to share houses is an absurdity - it'd be a profoundly significant way of establishing (hopefully ongoing) relationships. The problem with democracy (and our own demographics) is we're shooting ourselves in the feet by not doing it right.

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/ ... tatistics/

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/ ... -democracy

[PregnantPornStar]

Discussing how peoples of different cultures are going to assimilate is hardly bigotry, especially when the track record for said peoples does in fact have a history of not assimilating well.

That isn't to say it cannot be done, but I don't think we can say that the current system is working. The Sharia Patrol is one example and a very scary one. When girls are asked to dress modestly to school because not doing so could give people the "wrong idea" is suggesting we (Westerners) adapt. We pick on the Fundies for not allowing girls to show ankles. I don't think it is bad be horrified by how Islam treats women and worry how that will be carried over. Circumcision is illegal in Germany, unless for a true medical reason. How will that go over? Are these refugees prepared to assimilate and accept the laws and values of the country they are living in? If so, then by all means, help them out. Asking which values is silly. Which values would you NOT expect them to follow?

Add things like Charlie Hebdo, the recent Paris Train Attack, Boston Bombing, 9/11 just to name a few. I don't think you can deny the roots of most modern terrorist acts. I don't think it is too much to ask how to prevent these from happening and to place strict security measures to do so. As said above, if we can determine who is who and who is truly in need of asylum from the start, fine.

Also, it is absolutely a valid point to start to help where the problem lies. How can we help so these people do not need to be displaced from their homes? Leaving everything behind isn't what these people want. Fleeing is dangerous and people are dying because they are fleeing. Accepting people but ignoring the reason they are fleeing is putting peoples lives at risk. However, the situation currently is that there are people who are fleeing and people who need help. How do we help these people assimilate? How to we make sure they are assimilating and if they are not, what do we do? Do we continue to allow people, such as those in the Sharia Patrol situation, to continue to live in said country? How is that better than leaving said person Stateless?

These are hard questions. This is a sad situation and those that are fleeing from an awful place, my heart goes out to them. There are ideals in this world that are bad. Having honest discussions about those ideals and the impact they have on people is where we need to start. ATI has very negative consequences for the people involved and we are open to discuss that. Why is it bad to discuss what is bad about Islam? If that makes us bigots, I guess it does, but you are as well if you are criticizing ATI, other Christians, Jews, etc.

(excuse typos. I am nursing a baby, who is sharing my lap with my dog)

[PregnantPornStar]

Whatever else, this I can get behind.

Latrviata - 64% of the Muslims in Europe are in favour is IS? Really? You mock people for their comments, and then you post this? Comeon.

From the bible belt : the numbers are huge. (and that was a great article, thank you googletranslate)

And it's only going to get bigger in the future, with people from moving from lots of other places for other reasons. I do think it's reasonable to talk about integration and demographics and all of that. But we can do it without claiming that more than half the Muslims in Europe are in favour of ISIS (and their sex slaves); that Sweden is the world's rape capital etc.

People that are coming are coming because we've said we'd do something. Ie: let them in if they had a claim. Given we've made that commitment, and now they're here - integration isn't one way; it's a two way street. So.. how do we do it? its not just something migrants do; it's something a community does to migrants. And it's not just language classes, and culture days.

Sunday morning is right to point out not allowing people to share houses is an absurdity - it'd be a profoundly significant way of establishing (hopefully ongoing) relationships. The problem with democracy (and our own demographics) is we're shooting ourselves in the feet by not doing it right.

So my question is, what do you expect the communities should do to integrate with the migrants?

[jaelh]

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/ ... tatistics/

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/ ... -democracy

A blog and the Clarion project.

Go on...

I'll take any decent evidence, doesn't even have to come from the "left media."

PregnantPornStar - i think you're right to point out we need to confront the worst excesses of every religion. But the different with the fundies we snark on is that we're careful to point the figure at specifically those practices we abhor. This isn't a "snark on Christians" site, it's a snark on a particular form of asshole site.

I think it get's very difficult when we start talking about "muslims" - 64% of whom apparently support Isis. That's not calling out the problematic stuff; that's calling out a whole group of people. The folks on shira patrol and "Muslims" aren't the same people.

I don't think anyone disputes the current situation is a mess. But we can say - the system is a mess without saying because of "those Muslims". We can talk about integration difficulties, without thinking everyone who wants to raise these issues are bigots. Every conversation struggles with both of these - you don't want to be called a bigot; and others reject the claim that "those people" are a "problem" because they're Muslim.

And round and round we go.

Re: intergration.

1) break up housing ghettos.

2) require incoming asylum seekers to migrate to particular areas - tie welfare payments to residence in areas etc.*

3) churches/sports clubs/mens groups/women's groups etc get (heavily) involved with integration programming (i.e.: so it doesn't happen at the multicultural centre; it happens in other places).

4) develop low-skilled, language training jobs. (i.e.: jobs that people can take, not in their ethnic communities).

I'm sure you can take those apart. They're just off the top of my head. No doubt others can add (it's 11pm here and I'm going to bed).

*this is a two edged sword - if you put people in a very different community, it's incredibly hard. So I'd say - this, but where there is work; with a strong community into which they are welcomed, invited to social events etc. Done badly, this can be a disaster. Done well, incoming migrants can be an enormous economic boon to depressed areas.