nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:It was a riot...what does any of it have to do with terrorism? I thought we were afraid of immigrants because they were secretly members of ISIS? Or is it that immigrants are just generally violent people?
You are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is not the reason that I oppose mass Muslim immigration (for Europe or here). The reason to oppose it is the culture clash. When you bring huge a population of people with a radically different cultural system, these types of riots and conflict are inevitable.
A prerequisite of democracy is that most of the people already have very similar values, goals, and a vision for society. You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state. If you don't have this condition, then you will inevitably have conflict once the minority groups grows sufficiently in size to have an expectation of enforcing their own cultural norms rather than the norms of the majority culture.
Take the issue of arranged marriage with child brides. To certain Islamic cultures, this is reasonable. Who are we to tell them that it's wrong to have a grown man marry a 12 year old girl? What would we do as a society when Dearborn, Michigan decides to enact a law permitting girls to marry adult men at age 12? Do we stop them? If so, would they be justified in rioting in protest?
What if an Islamic enclave in America insists that their women must wear hijabs and they wish to pass a law to do so? Do we stop them? If not, do we insist that non-Muslim women who may be passing through the region wear a hijab or be subjected to local punishment (which could conceivably be quite severe)?
These significant cultural clashes exist in other areas too. Consider the numerous reports of rapes and sexual assault in Europe basically under the pretense that the women "asked for it" by showing too much skin. This is clearly a problem that does not seem to be resolving itself. Will it get worse in the future? Is it right to subject women to this?
I'm not trying to troll anyone. These are honest questions that I don't think we have thought through. Certainly Sweden and Belgium haven't thought them through and now there is an increasing level of conflict. I don't wish to see that conflict here. Many of you consider yourself to be nicer and more tolerant than I by being more open-minded than I am to Muslim immigration. But I submit to you that your open minded tolerance now will lead to more conflict and violence in the future.
It sounds like you're specifically speaking about muslim immigrants and refugees, right? Because in general, immigrants are less crime-prone than citizens. Even the Cato institute arrived at that conclusion here:
https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-saysBoth the Census-data driven studies and macro-level studies find that immigrants are less crime-prone than natives with some small potential exceptions. There are numerous reasons why immigrant criminality is lower than native criminality. One explanation is that immigrants who commit crimes can be deported and thus are punished more for criminal behavior, making them less likely to break the law.
Another explanation is that immigrants self-select for those willing to work rather than those willing to commit crimes. According to this “healthy immigrant thesis,” motivated and ambitious foreigners are more likely to immigrate and those folks are less likely to be criminals. This could explain why immigrants are less likely to engage in “anti-social” behaviors than natives despite having lower incomes. It’s also possible that more effective interior immigration enforcement is catching and deporting unlawful immigrants who are more likely to be criminals before they have a chance to be incarcerated.
The above research is a vital and missing component in the debate over the supposed links between immigration and crime.
There's a lot more reading on the subject here, as well:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdfI do agree on some level with what you're saying - specifically about Sweden. There is some conflict there, and a large number of immigrants/refugees are living in super densely populated enclaves, and the vast majority of them don't have jobs - because of the economic conditions of their region.
Additionally, there are real cultural conflicts between muslim immigrants and westernized societies - but that doesn't mean we should abandon the concept of integration and abandon our humanitarian obligations as a world power.
IMO the biggest problem is Saudi Arabia, our ally. Saudi Arabia, entrenched in their religious-industrial complex, is probably the biggest reason Wahhabism is somewhat prevalent - and why so many Muslims in the middle east haven't adopted a modernized a la carte version of their own religion. As long as Saudi Arabia exists in its current position, we are going to continue having small segments of the muslim population who are ideologically incompatible with the western world. Emphasis on 'small', though.
Historically, Christianity was just as extreme as any brand of any radicalized religion you can find today - they were arguably even more extreme. The difference is that Christianity has existed within the confines of developing and modernizing societies and has evolved along the way to be able to fit within those societies. A true biblical literalist simply could never exist in today's world - they would be outright savages.
I guess my point is this: yes, there are issues with integrating refugees in our society, but these problems can be solved over time, and turning our backs on people who have been victimized by their failed countries of origin is not the answer and will only worsen the situation.
