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

[Arwon]

I think the rise of Golden Dawn predates the Syrian refugee influx to Greece.

I'm not sure if you're exclusing the US's nativism from this analysis, but it's also fairly problematic to the thesis about what cultures are and are not "alien". A huge chunk of American nativism (presently and historically) has been directed against European populations (as well as the histyorical anti Jewish, Italian, Irish sentiment, it must be noted that Latin American culture is fairly European, globally speaking and that Latinos with fully European ancestry still get the nativist sentiment). Hell in the UK they're all het up about lily-white Catholic Poles right now, to the extent that they just blew up their economic future to kick them out.

In that regard, I think it's pretty spurious to dismiss southern European migration to Australia as "white" and therefore not a challenge to national identity and to cultural norms, because they absolutely were, and the process of migration and adaptation substantially changed what it meant to be Australian. You may recall there used to be a literal White Australia Policy which very categorically did not include the Italian or the Greek.

(Also if we're talking literal white skin, a lot of Arabs and Kurds etc are pretty pale skinned too, hey. And if we're talking culture and the like, surely Islam should be more relatable for a Christian population than eastern religious traditions... the Christian right certainly has a lot in common with conservative Islam)

It's a very similar story with more recent migration from East, South East and Southern Asia. We used to have full-on moral panics about Vietnamese gangs and crime and how they wouldn't integrate. And then, they did!

I'm sure thirty years down the track we'll have the same moral panic about Pacific Island climate refugees, too. (Oddly nobody seems to have noticed New Zealander over representation in crime statistics)

 

[Bootstoots]

I think the rise of Golden Dawn predates the Syrian refugee influx to Greece.

I'm not sure if you're exclusing the US's nativism from this analysis, but it's also fairly problematic to the thesis about what cultures are and are not "alien". A huge chunk of American nativism (presently and historically) has been directed against European populations (as well as the histyorical anti Jewish, Italian, Irish sentiment, it must be noted that Latin American culture is fairly European, globally speaking and that Latinos with fully European ancestry still get the nativist sentiment). Hell in the UK they're all het up about lily-white Catholic Poles right now, to the extent that they just blew up their economic future to kick them out.

In that regard, I think it's pretty spurious to dismiss southern European migration to Australia as "white" and therefore not a challenge to national identity and to cultural norms, because they absolutely were, and the process of migration and adaptation substantially changed what it meant to be Australian. You may recall there used to be a literal White Australia Policy which very categorically did not include the Italian or the Greek.

(Also if we're talking literal white skin, a lot of Arabs and Kurds etc are pretty pale skinned too, hey. And if we're talking culture and the like, surely Islam should be more relatable for a Christian population than eastern religious traditions... the Christian right certainly has a lot in common with conservative Islam)

It's a very similar story with more recent migration from East, South East and Southern Asia. We used to have full-on moral panics about Vietnamese gangs and crime and how they wouldn't integrate. And then, they did!

I'm sure thirty years down the track we'll have the same moral panic about Pacific Island climate refugees, too. (Oddly nobody seems to have noticed New Zealander over representation in crime statistics)

Well yes, it's already pretty bad when the people who are immigrating are just poor Catholics such as Latin Americans in the US, or Poles in the UK for that matter. The US has a pretty long history of this sort of thing: poor Catholics show up from foreign countries, there's a big uproar, but then they integrate into the society over a few decades. That's more or less what's happening with Hispanic immigration to the US. It's a bit disruptive, and people like Trump excel at whipping up discord related to this. Nonetheless, our history, their relative cultural similarity to us, and my anecdotal interactions with Hispanic Americans makes me assign a much more positive prognosis to that situation than to the European experience with Muslim immigrants. Also, net immigration from Mexico fell to around zero in 2008 and has been there ever since, and the balance with all of Latin America as a whole is only marginally positive anymore. This is important: the end of a wave of migration tends to lead to normalization after a time lag of a generation or so.

I did know about the explicit White Australia policy, but didn't know that southern Europeans were excluded too. My impression is that, at accepting and integrating immigrants, Australia is the worst of the four white Anglophone melting-pot settler colonial countries. Still, all four seem to be markedly better than anywhere in Europe at this.

Asian immigrants have a fairly strong tendency to fall into "model minority" roles fairly quickly all over the developed world. I don't claim to know why this is, but I know this is common to Europe, the Americas, and Australia+NZ.

On the other hand, European countries have shown very little ability to integrate Muslim immigrants, even after multiple generations as in France. I don't know why this is, either, but it's pretty obviously true across the continent. The rise of Islamism makes this problem even worse, leading to more illiberal attitudes among Muslims and a substantial recent increase in terrorism along with the attendant paranoia among Westerners. I think there's a longer and more difficult road here than in integrating other ethnic groups. I really hope the usual integration story turns out to work here too, but I don't see much reason to believe that it will, at least in timeframes comparable to the integration of other immigrant groups.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

On the other hand, European countries have shown very little ability to integrate Muslim immigrants, even after multiple generations as in France. I don't know why this is, either, but it's pretty obviously true across the continent.

Could be the extensive history of religious warfare. There have been conflicts along religious lines elsewhere, but I think most places open warfare has been conducted under the general banner of "us v them" rather than being specifically based on religious differences. That history is perhaps hard to put aside when facing more religious differences. I mean, if Protestants and Catholics repeatedly fought to the death for a couple centuries in some places its not surprising that they have a harder time integrating Muslims in those places. And it's really not surprising in places where the local historical background includes battlefield sites from previous Christian v Muslim wars.

 

[Arwon]

I'd suggest in France a big problem is probably the uncompromising assimilationist approach to national identity, coupled with a persisting sense of difference even for those who feel they've assimilated. The history of the post-revolutionary French state is the history of that state imposing the Parisian French language, republican culture, secular habits on the whole country, but with the tradeoff that if you act and feel French under this model you're regarded as French. That worked pretty well with, say, Basques, Bretons, Alsatians and Catalans. But even though most French Arabs and Africans feel French according to surveys, it's fair to say that same promise of "come here and be French and you're treated as French" hasn't worked out quite so well for the Arab and African working class so far (and it's seemingly a working class issue).

 

[Verbose]

Frankly, where France is considered, I would put more store by the positively absurd zoning laws in place than any particular lack of French ability to accept people from all over the world. If you live in the wrong banlieu, prospective employers tend to take one look at you address, and bin your job application. So if you live in one of those place, you don't work. And that translates into double punishment, since the way French tax works, you pay it where you WORK, not where you LIVE, so even if you would get work in one of these places, there is no money coming into the local community anyway. It's a crap sandwich of the first order. So anyone and everyone who at all CAN get out, buggers off asap. The incentive structure creates some pretty awful places like that, BUT you can be Arab as all hell in France, and fully accepted as French, if you have the right address. Arabness as such is no problem with the French in my experience. (The police officer killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was French, Arab and Muslim, in about that order fx.)

 

[Arwon]

Jeez I thought only the US did that ridiculous local quarantining of taxes.

 

[Verbose]

Jeez I thought only the US did that ridiculous local quarantining of taxes.

Makes sense the US has those I guess...

My wife's brother-in-law is French-Tunisian. (Of course, HE's also Jewish, which just goes to show that the Mid East/North Africa stereotypes can get a real beating by individual circumstances.)

 

[Agent327]

Wait what? Stereotypes aren't real?

 

[Lexicus]

Correction: it's not in the interest of developed countries to do so, and that's really all that exists in international politics once the relatively small amount of humanitarian goodwill is exhausted. Borders do actually confer substantial benefits on native populations of developed countries, and they will intend to keep it that way. I don't really have much opinion on the moral validity of this - it just is what it is.

I guess it all depends on how you conceive of 'the developed countries' and 'interests'.

 

[Akka]

I don't know why Spain doesn't have a viable far-right party, or more generally why left-wing populists are more popular in southern Europe while right-wing populists flourish in the north.

I'd say a strong possibility is that southern Europe actually HAD fascist government, so for them it's not just stories from neighbouring countries, but actual memories from their grandparents.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Northern Europe had nazi government, though

And new Eu member Croatia had both fascism and nazism, ftw

 

[Traitorfish]

Fascism within living memory may only be part of the puzzle, because Southern Europe was also distinguished from the North by a strong Communist movement well into the late twentieth century, while in Northern Europe, Communism was a fringe position when not backed by Soviet tanks. There's a stronger memory of both left-wing populism and of militant anti-fascism, while Northern Europeans are more easily bamboozled by the promise of good government and reasonable discourse.

Also, in Spain's case, it's partly just because the far-right is historically very strongly tied to the Church and the Crown, and the angry young men who fill the ranks of the far-right aren't particularly impressed by either of those institutions. In other parts of Europe, that attachment is either absent, as in Italy and Germany, or much looser, as in France or Britain, so disenfranchised young psychopaths are free to carve out their own political identities.

 

[Arwon]

Spain also has a fairly recent memory of mass emigration, something it probably shares with Portugal and Ireland and (southern) Italy.

 

[Mouthwash]

Fascism within living memory may only be part of the puzzle, because Southern Europe was also distinguished from the North by a strong Communist movement well into the late twentieth century, while in Northern Europe, Communism was a fringe position when not backed by Soviet tanks. There's a stronger memory of both left-wing populism and of militant anti-fascism, while Northern Europeans are more easily bamboozled by the promise of good government and reasonable discourse.

Also, in Spain's case, it's partly just because the far-right is historically very strongly tied to the Church and the Crown, and the angry young men who fill the ranks of the far-right aren't particularly impressed by either of those institutions. In other parts of Europe, that attachment is either absent, as in Italy and Germany, or much looser, as in France or Britain, so disenfranchised young psychopaths are free to carve out their own political identities.

Er... how do you know all this?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Before deciding to post such an offensive pile of cow pies at me, you might have bothered to remind me of which country you're from. Not-Canada, UK, or U.S. leaves a lot to choose from, even if it's only Europe we're talking about.

A "colonial artificial country"??? Oh, reeeaaaaallllly!

Erm... i'm sorry, but have to go a rant here:

[rant]
Canada is one big institutional and cultural dysfunction on the level of Oklahoma, largely keeping itself afloat by plundering half a continent worth of resources and systematically stealing Europe's public education.
Canada rates people. Actual persons. With points.
Quantifying the social and economic utility of human existence.
And then you people have the utter gall to tout your tolerance (of newly arrived PhD holders) while we take in the wretched, disease-ridden and traumatised, fleeing from one or another foreign policy screwup that you and your dear friends in the UK and US have caused.

Thanks so much. I don't appreciate the comparison to such a tiny patch of land (we are the second-largest country, geographically speaking), nor do I appreciate the accusation of "plundering." Your accusation that Canada is "systematically stealing Europe's public education" is hysterical. We don't go to Europe and scoop people up and drag them here, kicking and screaming. People come here because they want to.

I am not responsible for the points system used to evaluate who gets to immigrate here. Of course we prefer people who have skills this country needs and who have a reasonable chance of being able to support themselves and their families and become productive citizens. Would you prefer that we go back to how it was decades ago and pick and choose which ethnicities we want? Sorry, that's backward crap and a case of "been there, done that, became ashamed of the T-shirt."

What exactly are you accusing Canada of doing, along with the UK and U.S.? You think you're the only place that takes in refugees who don't go through official channels and are not vetted before coming? FFS, we've got Somali refugees walking miles through snow-covered farmers' fields, sneaking across the border from the U.S. to Canada because their refugee claims were denied in the U.S. and/or they don't feel safe in the U.S. now that Trump is in power. They know that if they make it across the border somewhere other than an official crossing, they will get a hearing, and be treated decently, with food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention. And some of these people make this trip not having the first clue about how to survive in the winter. I don't know how many will be allowed to stay; at least one has been refused, and I would guess that many more will also be refused on the grounds that the U.S. is deemed to be a "safe country." But if the U.S. intends to deport them back to Somalia, they will either face whatever consequences they were trying to escape, or they'll try again.

And your government talks to us about Ceta like you people own the planet. But hey, if one knows hardly anything but self-righteous invading or bombing as foreign policy, that's a normal attitude, i suppose.
So, erm, yeah, thanks for not killing me.
Today anyway. Very nice of you. I appreciate it.

WTF are you even talking about?! I know Prime Minister Trudeau was going to make a speech about CETA. I didn't see the TV coverage, so I don't know what he said. It's 6:30 pm here and I'm just now reading the online news and so far I haven't found any video of Trudeau's speech (I assume it's on the website somewhere).

Has Canada invaded or bombed your country? If you're in Europe, I doubt we have. If you're in the Middle East, sorry, not my fault. I'm just a voter, and I don't get to make any decisions about things like that.

Wait, where was i going with this?
Oh, yeah, right.
Dear Canadians, let me apologise to you in the name of all arrogant Europeans (and rude french waiters). Of course your country is not "fake".
Just morally bankrupt.

And thanks again for not killing me.
[/rant]

"Morally bankrupt."

Yes, our government has sanctioned some morally bankrupt actions. But unless you are a Japanese-Canadian who was tossed into an internment camp in World War II, or a First Nations child kidnapped and incarcerated in a residential school so your culture could be literally beaten out of you, or a Chinese laborer on the railway in the 1800s, or you fall into the other categories of victims of Canadian government-sanctioned actions that tore your life apart, I really doubt you're suffering THAT much.

One thing Canada (the government) decided was that only families would be accepted - no single men. As I understand it, much of the problems in Europe are because they have the opposite situation - many more single men than families. And no, I'm not saying that just because a man is a man that means all men are automatically going to go out and attack women. I'm just saying that it seems like that's what some of them did.

Wait, what?!?
I missed that on the first go.
How the heck is this legal, let alone deemed moral by...anyone?

How is what legal? What are you ranting about now, regarding morality?

Canada is an independent country, and while we consider that we have a moral duty to help refugees when possible, we're not going to stupidly throw the border completely open. Families are more likely to want to stay here, learn English, find jobs, enroll their children in schools, and eventually become productive citizens. Single men? Well, many do so as well, but then again, there are some who don't. And some of these refugees already had family here. The Liberal government is big on family reunification.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's what Monaco says about their taxpayers.

And you don't find this weird? You don't have, like an inner voice that keeps screaming that this is, sorry for the analogy, kind of brushing the cat against the fur, on account of 1 person being 1 person, just, like, fundamentally?

Well, you have recently, occassionally anyway found British or American wars you didn't like.
We shall appreciate that trend.

Your entire post is clear as mud.

I don't care what Monaco says. That's not relevant to this pile of BS you threw at me.

What EXACTLY do you find "weird"? Is it:

1. The points system?

2. The preference for skilled people who have the potential to become productive citizens?

3. That we no longer discriminate wholesale against specific ethnicities when deciding who gets to immigrate?

4. That Canada is an independent country?

5. That Canada considers itself to have a moral duty to help refugees when possible? (see, we've learned from that morally bankrupt decision to turn away the boatload of Jewish refugees who were later sent to the concentration camps)

6. That we opted to take in Syrian families as opposed to single Syrian men?

7. That the Liberal party is big on family reunification?


Pick a number (or numbers) and explain your reasoning. If you continue to tapdance around the issues you raised in your offensive rant, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere positive.

And I have no idea what British or American wars you're talking about.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

My point is that you could just pick a portion of the people who want to come. At random.
Or, if you feel like it, all of them.

Obviously we can't pick all of them. Not at the same time, at any rate.

We took in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in 2015-16, and the government made some serious errors. Not in who they chose, but in the logistics of implementing this. Some situations happened where not enough research had been done regarding housing, for instance. Refugees can't buy a house, and few sponsors can afford to buy a house for them. That means living in an apartment. Where in Canada are you going to find an apartment big enough for a family of 11 people, and still stay within fire and health regulations?

The answer: Nowhere. At least not legally. And when the family doesn't want to be split up, or there are only two adults and the rest are kids of various ages, you really can't split them up unless the husband and wife agree to live in separate suites.

I'm not saying the points system is perfect. We're likely missing out on some pretty decent people, especially if they miss the cutoff by only a few points. But what I am saying is that I can't do anything about it. If you really want to make your views known, write to the Minister of Immigration (or whatever that department is called; I think it was changed when Trudeau was forming his cabinet back in 2015). For that matter, write to Trudeau himself.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, i appreciate your serious answer, after i teased you so badly (you have to admit, didn't call Canada fake ).
I have to point out though that the logicstical concerns you highlighted may in part be a reult of your preference for families. Single young men would be fine with the appartments after all. Well, i'm sure you are aware of the contradiction, but anyway.
I implicitly understand that you make that priority for '"humane" reasons. Some rational along the lines of families being more in need of your help.
And i really doubt that's fair. Like particularly among war refugees a person without a family, be they a young man or a single person in their 40s of either gender may not have that family precisely because they got a pretty bad lot.
So, yeah, and the picking choosing is weirding me out generally.

That being said, i hope you can take my evil rant in stride. You were just so wonderfully rightiously zealous about the "fakeness", i couldn't help myself but poke.
I call entrapment.

Taking this to PM, as I don't wish to argue any further here.