A Centrist approach to Immigration

[icehorse]

Gad Saad and Douglas Murray discussing the various issues concerning immigration:

The summary: On immigration, the Left is way too far left and the Right is way too far right. So even Douglas Murray, usually known as a Conservative, feels too Liberal for the Right.
Gad Saad making excellent, common sense points claiming that people who hold values in conflict the values of the host country should simply not be welcome. It's about values.

 

[sun rise]

Gad Saad and Douglas Murray discussing the various issues concerning immigration:

The summary: On immigration, the Left is way too far left and the Right is way too far right. So even Douglas Murray, usually known as a Conservative, feels too Liberal for the Right.
Gad Saad making excellent, common sense points claiming that people who hold values in conflict the values of the host country should simply not be welcome. It's about values.

On that basis in the general case, my parents would not have been let in because they were socialists which were in conflict with the capitalist values of the USA. My father turned out to be a successful small businessman after a while.

And for that matter, many citizens of the USA have held values antithetical to American values and I believe that a significant number of Americans today have that anti-American attitude, admiring strongmen and dictators not democracies.

So I don't think it's a simple matter.

 

[Estro Felino]

As I said in other posts, immigration has really nothing to do with religions or culture. I think that talking about religion, and targeting a specific religion (Islam in this case) is a unfair way to hijack the argument. In Europe there are lots of people who are from different religions who are perfectly assimilated in our societies, and who profess their religion quietly, respecting the laws of the hosting country. Not to mention that our legislations promote the respect of all religions and the pacific coexistence of different cultures in our countries.
What the so called European far-right-wing parties ( especially in my country) say about immigration is purely about Economics, not about culture.
European countries are facing a massive and a uncontrolled immigration from the south of the world. An undeniable exodus.
Europe doesn't have enough resources to host and absorb 1/5 of the African population. It deals with a humanitarian emergency; it means we the West must control these migratory fluxes and we should help economically those African countries to solve the problem.

Murray's discourse, which he defines centrist, was really not politically pragmatic, since he doesn't face the real problems.

 

[Notanumber]

From the comments section -

The UK and other european countries have let muslim immigrants in. They started decades ago and continued to do so to the present time. May be the first immigrants were not radical, but many of their grandkids are. That is why I think that muslims should not be allowed to emigrate to Europe. Sooner or later, when they feel their community is strong enough, they will try to do what their book tells them to do, that is, start the conquest. And Europe cannot afford to import this tremendous problem.

 

[Stevicus]

The summary: On immigration, the Left is way too far left and the Right is way too far right.

I would agree with this. I've noticed that in the overall debate on immigration, there's very little in the way of any 'middle ground' between the two positions.

One thing that seems to generate further controversy in the overall debate has to do with multiculturalism and multilingualism.

A more centrist position might be one which favors immigration but encourages more assimilation to the dominant culture and opposes society making any extra efforts to accommodate immigrants (such as bilingual education, multilingual voting ballots, "press 2 for Spanish," etc.). If liberals and progressives had been willing to compromise on these issues 20-30 years ago, it might not have gotten to this point.

 

[Kirran]

I don't there is a Left in mainstream Western politics. There are varying shades of liberalism only.

As an anarchist, I can't immigrate anywhere!

 

[idav]

From the comments section -

The UK and other european countries have let muslim immigrants in. They started decades ago and continued to do so to the present time. May be the first immigrants were not radical, but many of their grandkids are. That is why I think that muslims should not be allowed to emigrate to Europe. Sooner or later, when they feel their community is strong enough, they will try to do what their book tells them to do, that is, start the conquest. And Europe cannot afford to import this tremendous problem.

Europe is too secular for any religion to be a problem. Europe already had plenty of issues with christians so it seems completely unfair to single out one religion other than to be a completey bias and xenophobic. For people who learn how to read they would just realize their holy books have contradictions like the rest of them. Christians have just as much a chance of turning everything upside down I don't understand the bias and singling out. Does it not occur to you that most people want to leave ridiculous violent states for a reason like getting away from oppression and religious strangleholds?

 

[icehorse]

For people who learn how to read they would just realize their holy books have contradictions like the rest of them. Christians have just as much a chance of turning everything upside down I don't understand the bias and singling out. Does it not occur to you that most people want to leave ridiculous violent states for a reason like getting away from oppression and religious strangleholds?

The problem is Europe is with how so many Muslims are misbehaving. I tend to think that beliefs correlate to actions, but even if they don't, what we can really measure are the behaviors.

 

[idav]

The problem is Europe is with how so many Muslims are misbehaving. I tend to think that beliefs correlate to actions, but even if they don't, what we can really measure are the behaviors.

I suppose though one of my points being that in Europe Muslims are ridiculously outnumbered by either Christians or Non-Religious.
Religion in Europe - Wikipedia

 

[icehorse]

I suppose though one of my points being that in Europe Muslims are ridiculously outnumbered by either Christians or Non-Religious.
Religion in Europe - Wikipedia

Okay, but it's not about population ratios.

 

[idav]

Okay, but it's not about population ratios.

Isn't that what stopping immigration is really about, in order to keep the status quo? People think a larger percentage of a religion that is 25% of the world already, will do more harm than good? Obama already had a cap on immigration refugees, Trump made it half what Obama had it at.

 

[icehorse]

Isn't that what stopping immigration is really about, in order to keep the status quo? People think a larger percentage of a religion that is 25% of the world already, will do more harm than good? Obama already had a cap on immigration refugees, Trump made it half what Obama had it at.

Again, it's not about ratios. Immigration is a gift, it's not a right. Immigrants are meant to assimilate the core values of the countries that host them.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally wish there was no Muslims integrated into any country, they just cannot simulate with wherever they go, they want to change everything to their way of thinking, not good at all !!.

 

[Notanumber]

For those that believe the impossible.

 

[psychoslice]

We all need to grow testicles and say it is as it is, immigration of Muslims isn't working at all, why don't we hear more of this ????.

 

[idav]

Again, it's not about ratios. Immigration is a gift, it's not a right. Immigrants are meant to assimilate the core values of the countries that host them.

I agree with your last two sentences but it is about ratios. It's exactly what @Notanumber mentioned when he insinuated that when they get large enough they are going to have some sort of coup. Numbers is exactly why to have a cap in the first place to avoid "they took our jobs" stuff. Regardless, the centerist position on immigration was Hillary, Sanders and Trump were the extremes as far as choices on immigration policy. Even Sam Harris was in agreement with Clinton and he hates religion.

 

[icehorse]

I agree with your last two sentences but it is about ratios. It's exactly what @Notanumber mentioned when he insinuated that when they get large enough they are going to have some sort of coup. Numbers is exactly why to have a cap in the first place to avoid "they took our jobs" stuff. Regardless, the centerist position on immigration was Hillary, Sanders and Trump were the extremes as far as choices on immigration policy. Even Sam Harris was in agreement with Clinton and he hates religion.

There are at least two different aspects to this conversation:

If one of @Notanumber 's arguments is that Muslims appear friendly to secularism when there are few of them, but hostile to secularism once their numbers reach a certain level, well I have to say there is a LOT of evidence to support that theory.

But my point was meant to be more one of a clash of fundamental values. In the US, there have been for decades, criteria that ALL immigrants have to meet in order to immigrate. Several of these criteria could arguably be used to indeed block ANYONE who believes that their religion should also be the law of the land. I don't see why secular countries would want to welcome trouble makers, and anyone who wants to undermine secularism is a trouble maker. I understand that in every secular country there already exist such trouble makers. But why should we exacerbate the problem?

 

[idav]

There are at least two different aspects to this conversation:

If one of @Notanumber 's arguments is that Muslims appear friendly to secularism when there are few of them, but hostile to secularism once their numbers reach a certain level, well I have to say there is a LOT of evidence to support that theory.

But my point was meant to be more one of a clash of fundamental values. In the US, there have been for decades, criteria that ALL immigrants have to meet in order to immigrate. Several of these criteria could arguably be used to indeed block ANYONE who believes that their religion should also be the law of the land. I don't see why secular countries would want to welcome trouble makers, and anyone who wants to undermine secularism is a trouble maker. I understand that in every secular country there already exist such trouble makers. But why should we exacerbate the problem?

I don't really disagree with any of that but the two extremes are, block everyone, or let everyone in. Certainly vetting is important which we have already been doing despite Trumps insistence that he check how good it works. Probably won't catch everyone but there are plenty of people that want/wanted the freedom that US has/had. Calling out some specific group is just as good as initiating a war which is what the extreme of blocking all Muslims and calling all terrorism Islamic brings to the table. The other extreme is saying Islam is completely peaceful and just let them come into this land full of milk and honey, lol. No politician really went that far, as if US should have some sort of open door policy. "Extreme" vetting has already been the norm for some time now. Obama has deported more immigrants than any President in history but you won't hear the right wing singing that tune.

 

[Notanumber]

Who would have a hissy fit if this caught on and became the latest craze?

Video: "Stupid b***h needs to be killed": Muslim Girl in Hijab Barraged with Death Threats for Twerking - Conatus News

They should be doing this on Britain’s Got Talent.

It would help to breakdown the cultural divide.