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

[PureX]

This isn't about culture, or even religion. It's about maintaining the status quo. And that is the primary mission of conservatism. To conserve and protect that status quo. And this is a valuable goal. But so is the influx of new ideas and new ways of doing things. So is upsetting the power structure to allow for new blood.

So neither side is right or wrong. It's a question degree, and of balance.

 

[exchemist]

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.

There is some truth in that, certainly. The blowback from the colonial era, in which many European countries took part, has made many of us sensitive to racial and cultural assumptions of superiority, to the point that we can jump at shadows and be seen as belittling or repudiating our own culture. I think that, where it happens, is a pity. I also think it reasonable to expect immigrants to be expected to fit in culturally, by which I mean speaking the language, attending the same schools, and dressing in a way that respects the conventions of society by not covering their faces.

But we also need to keep in mind that the source of much immigration in the UK is due to the colonial era. People come here because they speak the language, have a long association with the UK and probably have family members who arrived long ago. So I look at this kind of immigration as payback for colonialism, though not something to be afraid of particularly, as most pull their weight economically. In fact the UK is short of labour at the moment.

The problem with this thread is it conflates immigration policy with multiculturalism (itself a complex topic) and then drags in a load of eyeball-rolling xenophobia about Sharia law. @icehorse is extremely prejudiced against muslims specifically and has been thoroughly inconsistent throughout, on the one hand claiming to distinguish between muslims and "islamists" but on the other claiming that the observance of muslim religious law, which most muslims will at least pay lip service to (just as Jews and even Catholics do to theirs), necessarily involves rejection of the laws of the land and is thus subversive of the State. That is demonstrably untrue.

 

[Soandso]

Did you know that there is a very high correlation between the LEAST SAFE countries in the world for women and Muslim majority countries?

Do you have a link to the article? It would be interesting to see what countries this included. Were these war torn nations, developing nations, places that had other issues, or are we talking about places like Dubai? Would we see similar results in countries that were also experiencing similar troubles that weren't Islamic? How does Islam tie into this? How do we define "least safe?"

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Oh geez Louise.

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

Thankfully, millions of Muslims have immigrated to the West despite such things. Almost like their religion and Western law are compatible...hmmm...

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

I didn't misquote you, and it was an example of something I'm sure you don't do. How you have peeked into the homes of millions of married Muslims in Western countries to determine how they treat their wives is a bit strange.

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

You of all people should know how immoral the Bible is, advocating as it does for slavery.

Yet strangely, you only want to limit Muslim immigration, not Christian or Jewish immigration.

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?

I told you already, please stop randomly parroting Jordan Peterson. No one said anything about "oppression olympics" or Muslims being more oppressed than women or any such silliness. That's all in your head.

This isn't that difficult to comprehend. Muslims are diverse people. They don't all follow the same version of their religion. It's dumb and bigoted to treat them all the same because they're all part of the same broad religion, for the same reason we don't treat all Christians the same or all Hindus the same. Humanity has learned the lesson many time over not to generalize and discriminate against a group of people because of some common demographic trait. When will you learn?

 

[Left Coast]

And this is another example of woke ideas, the notion that "lived experience" somehow trumps science and evidence and data.

Again, you're trying to fit the square peg of whatever "anti-woke" silliness you read on the internet into the round hole of what I'm actually saying. Please stop. It's not helpful.

All I'm asking you to do is consider for a moment that your understanding of Islam seems informed by things you've read on the internet and not based on how Muslims actually interpret and live out their faith in real life. It isn't "woke" to understand the principle that if you think all swans are white, one black swan is all that's needed to falsify that.

Did you know that there is a very high correlation between the LEAST SAFE countries in the world for women and Muslim majority countries?

Did you know that correlation =/= causation? You value "science and evidence and data," so I would think you'd know that. What study are you citing, by the way?

 

[icehorse]

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?

I'm critical of how woke multiculturalists are trying to pervert the long standing immigration process.

Traditionally, countries review applications for immigration and accept those people that they think will benefit their country. IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RIGHT.

So I support that idea. To answer your more specific question, if an applicant comes from a region that's highly misogynistic, that would be a mark against that applicant. The applicant might still be allowed entry, but the bar would be higher. The data shows a high correlation between Muslim majority countries and violence against women.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Why does Christianity get a pass, especially considering its adherents insistently insert their faith into politics and use it as a justification to curtail rights, liberty, and equality?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is fair and necessary to ward against Islam.

But not on nacionalist terms. Never that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm critical of how woke multiculturalists are trying to pervert the long standing immigration process.

Which is how, exactly? Be specific and don't use nonsense right-wing buzzphrases.

Traditionally, countries review applications for immigration and accept those people that they think will benefit their country. IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RIGHT.

So I support that idea.

No, you don't. You believe in denying people immigration based on the religious group they are a member of, regardless of the personal merit of their application.

To answer your more specific question, if an applicant comes from a region that's highly misogynistic, that would be a mark against that applicant.

So why not just say that MISOGYNY should be a mark against them, rather than ISLAM. This same standard applies to most religions, and a huge number of non-religious people. There are Muslims who are misogynist and Muslims who are not. So why keep them out AS A GROUP?

The applicant might still be allowed entry, but the bar would be higher. The data shows a high correlation between Muslim majority countries and violence against women.

Firstly, please show this data.

Secondly, that is completely irrelevant to individual immigration applications. If you are in favour of judging people on the actions of their country of origin, then you are explicitly against MERIT-BASED immigration policy. You don't care about the individual merit of the applicant, you just care about ensuring CERTAIN GROUPS (REGARDLESS OF INDIVIDUAL MERIT) ARE KEPT OUT OF CERTAIN COUNTRIES.

Another way of phrasing this is: ethno-nationalism. Restricting access to countries based on national or ethnic origin. That's the obvious and inevitable conclusion of your arguments.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To answer your more specific question, if an applicant comes from a region that's highly misogynistic, that would be a mark against that applicant. The applicant might still be allowed entry, but the bar would be higher. The data shows a high correlation between Muslim majority countries and violence against women.

By this "system," I would have a mark counted against me for no reason whatsoever except for where I happen to have been born. Some immigration clerk with zero knowledge of my beliefs, values, or relationships would look at my birthplace and say, "Oh, this guy is from the Middle East. Let's mark that against him."

This rhetoric needs to be called out as embellished prejudice and cultural supremacism. It is little more than repackaged xenophobia and ethnically based demonization for popular consumption.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why does Christianity get a pass, especially considering its adherents insistently insert their faith into politics and use it as a justification to curtail rights, liberty, and equality?

But in my traditionally Christian country I can wear miniskirt, fishnet stockings, boots and top and the Government protects my choice.
To dress that way.
So I guess that matters.

 

[icehorse]

Oh geez Louise.

Have you read their book?

You of all people should know how immoral the Bible is, advocating as it does for slavery.

We're agreed, but how is that relevant?

Yet strangely, you only want to limit Muslim immigration, not Christian or Jewish immigration.

Stop putting words in my mouth, it's not a good look

This isn't that difficult to comprehend. Muslims are diverse people. They don't all follow the same version of their religion. It's dumb and bigoted to treat them all the same because they're all part of the same broad religion, for the same reason we don't treat all Christians the same or all Hindus the same. Humanity has learned the lesson many time over not to generalize and discriminate against a group of people because of some common demographic trait. When will you learn?

Do you understand that there are a few fundamental aspects of Islam that do not vary from Muslim to Muslim?

When you declare yourself to be a Muslim - which is a deliberate choice - that declaration has meaning. You seem to want that not to be true, but it IS true.

I'm highly critical of those universal, fundamental aspects of Islam. So any person who chooses to declare allegiance to those fundamentals is suspect. As I've said many times, Islam must be reformed. There is a group called the Muslim Reform Movement that I think is a good example of the sort of reformation that is called for. They're not perfect, but they represent a big step in the right direction.

I told you already, please stop randomly parroting Jordan Peterson.

You're demonstrating an inability to think clearly. You MUST be able to separate the message from the messenger. To take a silly example, if Hitler agreed that E = mc2, that doesn't make it a bad idea.

Again, you're trying to fit the square peg of whatever "anti-woke" silliness you read on the internet into the round hole of what I'm actually saying. Please stop. It's not helpful.

We're talking about a "faith" that has almost two billion members. You keep telling me to talk to a few Muslims. How is that not advocating for putting individual "lived experience" ahead of data and evidence?

All I'm asking you to do is consider for a moment that your understanding of Islam seems informed by things you've read on the internet and not based on how Muslims actually interpret and live out their faith in real life. It isn't "woke" to understand the principle that if you think all swans are white, one black swan is all that's needed to falsify that.

I refer you back to my earlier responses in this post.

Did you know that correlation =/= causation? You value "science and evidence and data," so I would think you'd know that.

Doh! But on the other hand, correlation sometimes does predict causation, did you know that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you understand that there are a few fundamental aspects of Islam that do not vary from Muslim to Muslim?

I would very, very much like to hear exactly what these "fundamental aspects of Islam" are that apply to literally every single Muslim.

Please, do tell.

 

[icehorse]

By this "system," I would have a mark counted against me for no reason whatsoever except for where I happen to have been born. Some immigration clerk with zero knowledge of my beliefs, values, or relationships would look at my birthplace and say, "Oh, this guy is from the Middle East. Let's mark that against him."

This rhetoric needs to be called out as embellished prejudice and cultural supremacism. It is little more than repackaged xenophobia and ethnically based demonization for popular consumption.

You seem to be of the opinion that immigration is a right. It is not. Immigration is for the benefit of the host country. Ideally, each applicant is reviewed on personal merit, but an immigration department is not blessed with infinite resources. So - to some degree - profiling is necessary.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We're talking about a "faith" that has almost two billion members. You keep telling me to talk to a few Muslims. How is that not advocating for putting individual "lived experience" ahead of data and evidence?

Well, for a start, you have yet to provide any actual data or evidence to put it ahead of.

 

[icehorse]

I would very, very much like to hear exactly what these "fundamental aspects of Islam" are that apply to literally every single Muslim.

Please, do tell.

Really? You're debating so strongly from a position of ignorance?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You seem to be of the opinion that immigration is a right. It is not. Immigration is for the benefit of the host country. Ideally, each applicant is reviewed on personal merit, but an immigration department is not blessed with infinite resources. So - to some degree - profiling is necessary.

So, denying people entry (or negatively judging their application) based on country of origin is necessary to determine the individual merit of immigrant applications.

Wow. That's straight-up ethno-nationalism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Really? You're debating so strongly from a position of ignorance?

I'm asking you to tell us what your beliefs are.

So, tell us. What are the "fundamental aspects of Islam" that apply to every single Muslim?

 

[Soandso]

But in my traditionally Christian country I can wear miniskirt, fishnet stockings, boots and top and the Government protects my choice.
To dress that way.
So I guess that matters.

Ehhh... Recently, you can wear those things publicly. Go back long enough and that may not be the case. There are still parts of the world that are "traditionally Christian" that legally restrict what you can wear, such as Uganda. It has more to do with conservatism than religion

 

[Debater Slayer]

You seem to be of the opinion that immigration is a right.

No, that's not my opinion, but unsurprisingly, you're jumping to conclusions before asking. If you wonder why some people choose not to engage your posts, I can wager that part of it is lack of interest in spending so much time correcting misrepresentations of our views instead of being able to actually have a discussion.

It is not. Immigration is for the benefit of the host country. Ideally, each applicant is reviewed on personal merit, but an immigration department is not blessed with infinite resources. So - to some degree - profiling is necessary.

Exactly: Reviewed on personal merit, not based on their birthplace or the religion recorded in their official documents.

I haven't seen any evidence that the inherently prejudiced practice of country-based profiling is necessary. If anything, many terrorist attacks have been carried out by people who would pass the arbitrary and tribalistic checks that such profiling would include.