[RD] The impact on western nations of allowing in millions of Muslim "refugees"

[Yeekim]

Not entirely sure why people keeping peddling this misconception. There's no angle at which Islam looks like an offshoot of Christianity; however both Islam and Christianity are offshoots of Judaism.

First of all, it's not like we can perform some sort of genetic paternity test here to reach some sort of objective truth, so claim of a "misconception" sounds strange. Why would you insist on making such a trivial distinction at all?
But if you do, then considering how Christianity predates Islam by ~6 centuries, why would you argue the latter was not at all impacted by the former?
I am no theologian, but the main issue of divergence between Judaism and Christianity seems to be the nature/role of Jesus, and here Islam clearly takes Christianity's side.

 

[Akka]

You seem to think that multiculturalism for its own sake is something we should strive towards.
[...]
Also, surely you realize that accusations of prejudice and bigotry etc. are ad hominem attacks? They are not legitimate arguments, and they do not belong in a civilized discussion.

Well...

I'd say that, after tons of threads and pages in this one, I've basically seen only two arguments from the pro-immigrations :
- Multiculturalism is good.
- People against multiculturalism/immigration ARE EVIL RACISTS !

So basically, if you disagree on the first point... there is only ad hominem left to "convince" you (read : try to shame you down until you comply).

 

[Lexicus]

First of all, it's not like we can perform some sort of genetic paternity test here to reach some sort of objective truth,

No, but certainly cultural history is a thing, learned interpretations of primary sources are a thing.
In any case this boils down not to what is factually the case but what is most useful for understanding the facts, and I think it's a lot more useful to view Islam and Christianity as offshoots of Judaism, than it is to view Islam as an offshoot of Christianity.

Why would you insist on making such a trivial distinction at all?

Uh, hello? I practically subsist on trivial distinctions. Well, trivial distinctions and memes.

But if you do, then considering how Christianity predates Islam by ~6 centuries, why would you argue the latter was not at all impacted by the former?
I am no theologian, but the main issue of divergence between Judaism and Christianity seems to be the nature/role of Jesus, and here Islam clearly takes Christianity's side.

An oversimplification. Judaism typically denies Jesus any special significance at all while Islam denies his divinity, numbering him among the true Prophets.
I am also of course not arguing that Christianity didn't influence Islam at all.

 

[NovaKart]

I'm surprised to see people claim migration is a human right.

If I want to enter another country I need a valid visa or an agreement between my country and the other on a visa waiver program.

If I want to stay in another country I need permission. In my country of residence I needed sponsorship from my employer, a blood test and to register my address with security.

Some people have such an entitled attitude that they can enter the country of their choice and are entitled asylum.

I'm sympathetic to legitimate refugees even if they don't stop in the first safe country but people who lie to get asylum, I find entitled and do not respect the country they are entering.

I don't believe the majority of Muslim migrants are a security threat but I do believe European countries are within their rights to restrict immigration.

 

[warpus]

On what planet is migration a human right? Not even the UN claims such a thing.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

On what planet is migration a human right? Not even the UN claims such a thing.

All of them except this one...

 

[Traitorfish]

Wars over economics are very different to ethnic warfare. The latter tends to be a lot rougher, and involves more widespread atrocities. The other problem with ethnic warfare is it never ends until you have either ethnic separatism, or genecide, whereas wars between state actors are resolved once there is regime change, and in wars over economics the civilian and military deaths are generally a result of chasing after strategic goals, not intentional genocide.

Couple things. First, attempting to define every major European of the last five hundred years as "economic" is reductionist to the point where the most strident of Orthodox Marxists would blush, the ironies of which hardly need elaborated upon. (First-and-a-half, the notion that "ethnic" war and "economic" war are mutually exclusive is pretty hard to substantiate; see, for a striking example, the Nazi Occupation of Eastern Europe.) Second, what "ethnic war"? You're talking about a war that hasn't happened, and which nobody has yet taken the time to elaborate on, even to the point of explaining who's involved beyond "the Mooslums". It's not comparative history if half of it is just something you've made up.

Basically sending millions of foreigners into a country who aren't coming for work and
have no interest in assimilating is a poor social experiment that's going to end very, very badly, with a lot of dead bodies in the long term.

It could be, but that does not, on the whole, describe Muslim immigration to Europe, or Africa and Asian immigration more generally. It might describe recent refugees groups, even, but why would people in that situation be thinking about work? Why would assimilation be at the fore-front of their minds? It might be something they consider in the long-run, but if you've just stumbled into safety after walking across half a continent because a weirdo death-cult wants to chop your head off, your first thought is not going to be "now to get me a job and a flag".

You can't reasonably take a short term trend resulting from a localised political and humanitarian crisis and use it to describe long-term, continent-spanning trends in migration.

I guess I should note that I am not completely against immigration in all circumstances. Immigration can be very beneficial in some cases. I just believe that, given the current situation, it isn't in our best interests. Also, surely you realize that accusations of prejudice and bigotry etc. are ad hominem attacks? They are not legitimate arguments, and they do not belong in a civilized discussion.

Neither does racism. If you're going to set a low bar, don't blame others for taking you at your word.

 

[Yeekim]

In any case this boils down not to what is factually the case but what is most useful for understanding the facts.

That's a pretty revealing statement.

and I think it's a lot more useful to view Islam and Christianity as offshoots of Judaism, than it is to view Islam as an offshoot of Christianity.

So those who don't agree with your ideas of how it is most useful to present the facts are "peddling misconceptions"? All right then.

An oversimplification. Judaism typically denies Jesus any special significance at all while Islam denies his divinity, numbering him among the true Prophets.

Afaik there are Christian sects which do not agree with divinity of Jesus as well...

You can't reasonably take a short term trend resulting from a localised political and humanitarian crisis and use it to describe long-term, continent-spanning trends in migration.

You'd be a success amongst global warming denialists if you seriously believe that increase in refugees is just a short-term trend...

 

[Hehehe]

Neither does racism. If you're going to set a low bar, don't blame others for taking you at your word.

There are so many things wrong with this argument. First of all, being against immigration is not inherently racist. Second, even if someone else is hitting below the belt by being "racist", how does that justify you violating the norms of a civilized conversation? Third, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that being against immigration is racist, so what? Does this position not deserve to be judged by the merits of its arguments? If the case against immigration is solid and unassailable, then doesn't that mean that it is the correct stance to take (in spite of being "racist"?). This, of course, brings us back to the question of whether or not there is a solid case to be made against immigration, which is something we need to discuss in an honest and civilized debate.

But then again, like I said, being against immigration is not inherently racist. It just strikes me as an attempt by you to slander your opponents and stifle conversation.

 

[Lexicus]

Second, even if someone else is hitting below the belt by being "racist", how does that justify you violating the norms of a civilized conversation?

Person A: Black people are subhumans who should be enslaved
Person B: You know what, I think you're racist!

According to you the person who has "violated the norms of a civilized conversation" here is Person B. I think that really says everything that needs saying.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It could be, but that does not, on the whole, describe Muslim immigration to Europe, or Africa and Asian immigration more generally. It might describe recent refugees groups, even, but why would people in that situation be thinking about work? Why would assimilation be at the fore-front of their minds? It might be something they consider in the long-run, but if you've just stumbled into safety after walking across half a continent because a weirdo death-cult wants to chop your head off, your first thought is not going to be "now to get me a job and a flag".

I dont know what university of Marxist BS you have been attending to or if you are self-taught but what else these people should be thinking about then how they should support themselves in the new environment and conditions and how they can fit in? You are delusional if you think otherwise.

You can't reasonably take a short term trend resulting from a localised political and humanitarian crisis and use it to describe long-term, continent-spanning trends in migration.

Bla, blah, blah...

Neither does racism. If you're going to set a low bar, don't blame others for taking you at your word.

What racism? Its your projection becouse some narrative doesnt fit your gospel. But just like an inquisition you are going to showel your ideology down peoples throats regardles...

Moderator Action: Three points for trolling - FP.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Hehehe]

Person A: Black people are subhumans who should be enslaved
Person B: You know what, I think you're racist!

According to you the person who has "violated the norms of a civilized conversation" here is Person B. I think that really says everything that needs saying.

Even if someone were to make such an appalling statement, like person A in your example, then all you have to do is break out the facts and calmly explain why person A is wrong.

If being against immigration is completely wrong position to take, then all I ask that you show me why, by using facts and rational arguments. There is no need for name-calling.

 

[Lexicus]

Even if someone were to make such an appalling statement, like person A in your example, then all you have to do is break out the facts and calmly explain why person A is wrong.

Sorry, but you don't beat Nazis by politely debating with them.
Anyway the point of that was to show that you, apparently, don't think that such 'appalling statements' "violate the norms of civilized conversation", but calling someone a racist- that's a real problem.

If being against immigration is completely wrong position to take, then all I ask that you show me why, by using facts and rational arguments. There is no need for name-calling.

I haven't seen anyone calling you names.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Luis CK on racism (first part of the clip):

 

[Hehehe]

Sorry, but you don't beat Nazis by politely debating with them.

Then how do you beat nazis? By calling them nazis?

Anyway the point of that was to show that you, apparently, don't think that such 'appalling statements' "violate the norms of civilized conversation", but calling someone a racist- that's a real problem.

In my opinion, they both violate the norms of civilized conversation. A by making inflammatory and demeaning statement and B by resorting to an ad hominem.

I haven't seen anyone calling you names.

I didn't mean myself, I meant in general.

 

[NovaKart]

It could be, but that does not, on the whole, describe Muslim immigration to Europe, or Africa and Asian immigration more generally. It might describe recent refugees groups, even, but why would people in that situation be thinking about work? Why would assimilation be at the fore-front of their minds? It might be something they consider in the long-run, but if you've just stumbled into safety after walking across half a continent because a weirdo death-cult wants to chop your head off, your first thought is not going to be "now to get me a job and a flag".

You can't reasonably take a short term trend resulting from a localised political and humanitarian crisis and use it to describe long-term, continent-spanning trends in migration.

Neither does racism. If you're going to set a low bar, don't blame others for taking you at your word.

It's really complicated. I know refugees from Mosul, Sinjar and Syria and the situation here is really tough for them because they are restricted in their travel in Iraqi Kurdistan, they have to register every month and especially if they're Arab they face a lot of problems with security when finding residence and things like that.

In Turkey I think it's similar. They talked about giving work permits to Syrians but I think they've been slow in doing so.

Also I've heard about harassment of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and how they can't open a bank account.

However I think by the time people have decided to make the migration to Europe they've normally already been in Iraq, Turkey or Lebanon for awhile and so they're not walking across half a continent to escape a death cult exactly but because their situation is so bad.

This doesn't mean I blame them or say they're economic migrants but I don't know if they would have the mentality of people barely escaping with their lives. They are definitely escaping from a marginalized existence in developing countries that have trouble coping with their presence.

Also I know a lot of people from here who weren't escaping anything but are claiming to be from conflict zones, although I'm not suggesting they represent the majority of people claiming asylum.

 

[Traitorfish]

I dont know what university of Marxist BS you have been attending to or if you are self-taught but what else these people should be thinking about then how they should support themselves in the new environment and conditions and how they can fit in? You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Long-term, sure. But give the poor bastards a chance to catch their breath.

What racism? Its your projection becouse some narrative doesnt fit your gospel. But just like an inquisition you are going to showel your ideology down peoples throats regardles...

The racism where people preach the imminence of an apocalyptic race-war, like some bargain basement Enoch Powell. That racism.

Second, even if someone else is hitting below the belt by being "racist", how does that justify you violating the norms of a civilized conversation?

Why would I extend the "norms of civilised conversation" to those who voluntarily opt-out of civilised society? It's a fool's errand.

You'd be a success amongst global warming denialists if you seriously believe that increase in refugees is just a short-term trend...

The current wave of refugees is a result of a series of regional political crises, like those after the First and Second World Wars, or after the Balkan Wars. There's no indication it's going to be a long-term trend, or, at least, not comparable to the broader immigration of Africans and Asians to Europe, which has been on-going for decades.

 

[Arwon]

Yes, I see why you are mocking my position (don't you think that instead of mockery, you should focus on discussing the issues?). The way you look at this is that Finland has a low amount of foreigners and that Finland could easily take lots more. But here is where our views differ. I am not a true believer; I do not think that multiculturalism is an end goal in and of itself. You seem to think that multiculturalism for its own sake is something we should strive towards. The problem is that I do not see why. You may see practical problems as minor in the grand scheme of things, whereas I just see small practical problems. I know we could take more immigrants, I just don't see why we should.

Well for starters mate I've been to Helsinki and you lot are in desperate need of some help with your food.

 

[Agent327]

There are plenty of current examples about recent mass immigration. But I was mostly looking for historical examples (older than 75 years, if I must draw an arbitrary line). The reason I would prefer historical examples is because even if this current mass immigration experiment were doomed to fail, and I'm not saying that it is, we would only see it after a delay. In the 70's, one could have argued that Russian communism is a wonderful and successful system, yet historical perspective reveals that this was not the case. Now I'm not saying that multiculturalism is doomed to fail like communism, I'm simply saying that I would like to have some historical perspective.

I seem to recall some mass migrations around 1946, 1919. Oh, and all through the 19th century to the US.

I was merely using an example to help you understand the difference between positive rights and negative rights.

Negative rights are usually called obligations though. For which reason they are very sparse in the universal declaration of human rights.

I guess I should note that I am not completely against immigration in all circumstances. Immigration can be very beneficial in some cases. I just believe that, given the current situation, it isn't in our best interests.

I suggest you study some historical mass migrations. The 19th century may be a good start for a novice.

 

[Hehehe]

Why would I extend the "norms of civilised conversation" to those who voluntarily opt-out of civilised society? It's a fool's errand.

Why? Because transgressions of others do not justify your transgressions? Because you're a civilized and classy conversationist? Because when they take the low road, you take the high road?

Well for starters mate I've been to Helsinki and you lot are in desperate need of some help with your food.

And now those pesky foreigners are coming here and INSULTING OUR FOOD!!!! REEEEEEE!!!

On a more serious note, if food is the issue, then perhaps we should invest in importing top chefs rather than in mass immigration.

I seem to recall some mass migrations around 1946, 1919. Oh, and all through the 19th century to the US.

Yes, the US is an interesting case. It seems like the US has been able to integrate and assimilate white Christian immigrants into a white Christian society. Then again, on the flip side, it can be argued that the mass migration did not work out so well for the native Americans.

Negative rights are usually called obligations though. For which reason they are very sparse in the universal declaration of human rights.

Perhaps I should have led with this (feel free to familiarize yourself with the concept):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I suggest you study some historical mass migrations. The 19th century may be a good start for a novice.

I am familiar with history. If you have some specific examples relevant to my original point, I would like to hear them.