Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[Yerda]

I'm not talking about all Muslims, I'm talking about Islamists. Do you get the distinction?

Cool. Let's not invite the Islamists. All good?

 

[icehorse]

Not at all. I want to have immigration laws that are based on evidence rather than fear and xenophobia and ignorance. You understand that immigration laws change over time, yes? They aren't eternal.

So you think it makes sense for the EU to override Poland?

 

[Left Coast]

A tiny fraction compared to Islamists.

Again, there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Islamists - Muslims who want Sharia.

There are a tiny fraction of that number of Christian fundies.

In America? Not even ****ing close. They are literally outlawing abortion in this country because their religion tells them it's murder.

But go off about Muslims.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not talking about all Muslims, I'm talking about Islamists. Do you get the distinction?

The irony of you saying this to me is staggering.

Do you understand the distinction? If you do, you wouldn't support a Muslim immigration ban. But you do. Physician, heal thyself!

 

[icehorse]

The irony of you saying this to me is staggering.

Do you understand the distinction? If you do, you wouldn't support a Muslim immigration ban. But you do. Physician, heal thyself!

Given that Islamists are such a high percentage of Muslims, how would you separate them? Would you split up families? Do you think Poland ought to have the right to their own immigration policies?

Do you think all countries ought to be able to decide which immigrants it thinks will benefit them? Or do we all have to bow down to "multiculturalism"?

You kind of act like you think immigration is a right. It's not!

 

[Left Coast]

Given that Islamists are such a high percentage of Muslims, how would you separate them?

I would insert a sarcastic question about you beating your wife here, but I fear you'd take it as a "personal insult."

Do you think Poland ought to have the right to their own immigration policies?

That depends. Poland is part of the EU, so if it wants to benefit from being part of that organization it needs to follow the rules of that organization.

Do you think all countries ought to be able to decide which immigrants it thinks will benefit them? Or do we all have to bow down to "multiculturalism"?

See above.

You kind of act like you think immigration is a right. It's not!

I kind of don't, though. I just oppose immigration laws that are bigoted. Crazy, I know!

 

[Revoltingest]

such as plotting to undermine the constitution?

If done in a manner that's an
illegal act (eg, as Trump did)
then yes, boot their pigu.

 

[flowerpower]

The idea of European culture being suppressed, displaced or unnecessarily/unnaturally tampered with is really upsetting and depressing to me.

I'm far from populist - and I don't mind multiculturalism - but it feels like the west - particularly all the different flavors of European culture have been engaging in a kind of toxic deconstructionism in academia, politics and the media.

It's one of the many reasons why so many people have swung hard to the right wing in recent years - is reaction to something really unsettling.

We seem like the only culture that actually insists that we're inherently bad just for existing and that we should let other cultures take precedence over our own due to some social justicey agenda - it's really silly.

 

[icehorse]

That depends. Poland is part of the EU, so if it wants to benefit from being part of that organization it needs to follow the rules of that organization.

The EU is an economic union. Its members did not give up their independence. This seems like clear overreach to me.

But back to immigration. If half of a group of immigration candidates hold values antithetical to the country I would say it's entirely reasonable for that country to say it's just not worth trying to deal with that pool. Too much trouble, too many other better candidates.

So this is a problem for Muslims. But they need to step into modernity.

I just oppose immigration laws that are bigoted.

Bigotry isn't always bad. I'm bigoted against wife beaters (your example). And of course, since you brought it up, Islam is host to an enormous population of scripturally condoned, actual wife beaters. Why on earth would you want to let them immigrate?

 

[icehorse]

If done in a manner that's an
illegal act (eg, as Trump did)
then yes, boot their pigu.

When is undermining the constitution legal?

 

[Revoltingest]

When is undermining the constitution legal?

When it's advocacy that isn't a crime.
For example, you could call for a flag
burning amendment. That's legal.

 

[icehorse]

When it's advocacy that isn't a crime.
For example, you could call for a flag
burning amendment. That's legal.

yup. but legal advocacy is not the same as undermining.

 

[Left Coast]

The EU is an economic union. Its members did not give up their independence. This seems like clear overreach to me.

But it doesn't seem like overreach to the EU. Who have long had a say in immigration matters for member states.

But back to immigration. If half of a group of immigration candidates hold values antithetical to the country I would say it's entirely reasonable for that country to say it's just not worth trying to deal with that pool. Too much trouble, too many other better candidates.

Candidates should be judged individually based on the merits of the case or whether they qualify on rational criteria, not "what religion/race/gender are you?"

So this is a problem for Muslims. But they need to step into modernity.

What better way than to immigrate to a modern country? Oh, but you don't want to let them.

Bigotry isn't always bad. I'm bigoted against wife beaters (your example). And of course, since you brought it up, Islam is host to an enormous population of scripturally condoned, actual wife beaters. Why on earth would you want to let them immigrate?

All Muslims aren't "wife beaters" just like all Christians aren't slave owners despite the Bible's condoning of slavery. Again, please go outside and talk to real actual humans.

 

[icehorse]

Candidates should be judged individually based on the merits of the case or whether they qualify on rational criteria, not "what religion/race/gender are you?"

And here's another reason I feel Islam is disingenuous. It calls itself a religion, when in fact it seems far more accurate to call it a political, totalitarian ideology with a religious facet.

And immigration laws have long provided for denying immigration to people with antithetical political views.

What better way than to immigrate to a modern country? Oh, but you don't want to let them.

Correct, as long as they choose to adhere to totalitarian ideas, we should not approve them for immigration. It is not a right, it is a privilege.

All Muslims aren't "wife beaters" just like all Christians aren't slave owners despite the Bible's condoning of slavery. Again, please go outside and talk to real actual humans.

First, it was YOUR example, and second please do not misquote me on such a sensitive topic!!!!

You of all people should know how misogynistic the Quran is, advocating as it does for wife beating.

So I have a hunch that you've unwittingly allowed yourself to fall for some underlying woke ideas? In this case you seem to be promoting an example of intersectionality or "oppression olympics" in which Muslims are "more oppressed" than women in general, so you can look the other way when it comes to the inherent misogyny in Islam? If I'm wrong, then why are you so strongly defending this misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic, tribalistic, violent, theocratic set of ideas?

 

[icehorse]

Again, please go outside and talk to real actual humans.

And this is another example of woke ideas, the notion that "lived experience" somehow trumps science and evidence and data. Did you know that there is a very high correlation between the LEAST SAFE countries in the world for women and Muslim majority countries?

This is data, this is evidence. This means much, much more than the "lived experience" of a handful of Muslims.

 

[Revoltingest]

yup. but legal advocacy is not the same as undermining.

It is to me. Many, both Dems & Pubs,
undermine the Constitution regularly.

 

[Augustus]

The idea of European culture being suppressed, displaced or unnecessarily/unnaturally tampered with is really upsetting and depressing to me.

I'm far from populist - and I don't mind multiculturalism - but it feels like the west - particularly all the different flavors of European culture have been engaging in a kind of toxic deconstructionism in academia, politics and the media.

It's one of the many reasons why so many people have swung hard to the right wing in recent years - is reaction to something really unsettling.

We seem like the only culture that actually insists that we're inherently bad just for existing and that we should let other cultures take precedence over our own due to some social justicey agenda - it's really silly.

If you go somewhere like Bali, you have high levels of immigration (a lot of it illegal) that has led to significant demographic and cultural changes.

It has been good for the economy of course, but many Balinese don’t feel it has been a positive change or at least think that “enough is enough” (or reached this point a long time ago). Having significant parts of your island “taken over” by outsiders with increased social problems resulting from this does tend to produce a degree of resentment.

It’s not like the immigrants, mostly Westerners and Javanese, tend to adopt the local culture. Many don’t even remotely respect it.

I think the kind of person who most supports high levels of immigration into Western countries would not feel that immigration into Bali has been an overwhelmingly positive cultural exchange that should be celebrated in the name of multiculturalism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And this is another example of woke ideas, the notion that "lived experience" somehow trumps science and evidence and data. Did you know that there is a very high correlation between the LEAST SAFE countries in the world for women and Muslim majority countries?

This is data, this is evidence. This means much, much more than the "lived experience" of a handful of Muslims.

So, to be clear, do you believe we should attempt to ban immigration from all countries that fail to make a certain safety standard for women, or just Muslim countries and/or Muslims as a category?

 

[Debater Slayer]

The idea of European culture being suppressed, displaced or unnecessarily/unnaturally tampered with is really upsetting and depressing to me.

I'm far from populist - and I don't mind multiculturalism - but it feels like the west - particularly all the different flavors of European culture have been engaging in a kind of toxic deconstructionism in academia, politics and the media.

It's one of the many reasons why so many people have swung hard to the right wing in recent years - is reaction to something really unsettling.

We seem like the only culture that actually insists that we're inherently bad just for existing and that we should let other cultures take precedence over our own due to some social justicey agenda - it's really silly.

What are some examples of this? For instance, where should one draw the line between necessary or valid criticism of certain cultural elements—such as ethnic supremacism and colonialist attitudes, which have indeed been present in some European and non-European cultures at various points in history—and "toxic deconstructionism"?

I'm not a supporter of unchecked immigration, but most people don't seem to support that either. What I think would be an extreme reaction would be to ban all immigration from certain countries or religious groups to address a real or perceived threat to the social fabric of a given country or region. There's a large spectrum of possible solutions between the two extremes of "take in as many immigrants as the country's resources can withstand" and "ban all immigration from Muslim countries."

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you go somewhere like Bali, you have high levels of immigration (a lot of it illegal) that has led to significant demographic and cultural changes.

It has been good for the economy of course, but many Balinese don’t feel it has been a positive change or at least think that “enough is enough” (or reached this point a long time ago). Having significant parts of your island “taken over” by outsiders with increased social problems resulting from this does tend to produce a degree of resentment.

It’s not like the immigrants, mostly Westerners and Javanese, tend to adopt the local culture. Many don’t even remotely respect it.

I think the kind of person who most supports high levels of immigration into Western countries would not feel that immigration into Bali has been an overwhelmingly positive cultural exchange that should be celebrated in the name of multiculturalism.

In your view, what could policymakers do with this information? There have been proposals like Geert Wilders' and Trump's to ban immigration from Muslim countries (or a large subset thereof), and there have been various other proposals that don't involve such sweeping measures. This thread seems to favor the former type of approach, and I think such an approach would be both excessive and demonizing. What do you believe would be a reasonable solution?