Muslim immigration-Europe?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I have been hearing RW talk show hosts (pretty much all of them have mentioned it at one point or another) talk about some kind of massive influx of muslims into European countries and that this apparently poses a threat to the Europeans and/or us. Does anybody understand why the RW media is talking about this so much and what the issue really is (if it is an issue at all)?:shrug:

[That Is Quite Enough]

1. Scare Tactics

The Reichwing just wants to drum up fear of "The Muslims are coming!" all over again.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Paranoia

and exaggeration from the sound of it.

[The2ndWheel]

3. There is an issue there

Europe is an aging population. They need the influx of immigrants. However there are areas where the integration of people isn't working. It's already an issue, and it will only grow in scale.

[wuushew]

7. Can you please site a paper or study thats shows country collapse caused by age?

I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the world. Continued immigration is the subconscious effect from craven politicians and capitalists seeking to maintain positive economic growth rates as long as possible.

[The2ndWheel]

11. We've only had a social contract for a few decades

We've only had family planning, in a large scale, organized fashion, for a few decades.

We've only had a middle class, and couples having fewer children later in life for a few decades.

I don't think there can be much of a study done yet. It never had to be worried about. The only thing we had to worry about was how to grow economically so that everyone could have a job. Cheap energy plays a big part in that as well, since we had slaves before that discovery.

If populations age, and we still want to be able to retire, who is going to keep the system going? If there are fewer people working, where is the tax base going to come from?

"seeking to maintain positive economic growth rates as long as possible."

Why?

[wuushew]

13. Further growth at this point just makes sustainability harder in the future

Its not just peak oil, there is peak natural gas and peak coal as well. Faced with fewer resources I fail to see how per capita affluence will increase by adding more and more divisions to the pie.

[The2ndWheel]

18. That it does

Which is why it's such a problem, with really no solution.

Fewer people working, the system can't survive.

More people working, more people expecting more, more resources used, the system eats itself.

America is used to using the resources. China and India, with 1/3 of the global population, want in on the game now. The dead European empires, which no longer have to secure their own resources(they're under the American empire umbrella), have put most of their tax money into social programs, which need to be paid for. However, with more education, more healthcare, etc, etc, couples have children later in life, and only one or two at that. That's just barely replacing the current population, which won't expand the economy, since there is only so much a person can consume(even us fat Americans). So that's why Europe(and the US) need more immigration so that the countries can survive. There are cultural differences, which can be difficult to knock down sometimes(although that is the end game of globalization).

So you either end up with a more homogenized, uniform, standardized world(globalization), or you have competing interests the world over.

Competing interests cause conflict, which if given enough room to grow, can explode into war. A more monoculture world, there would be less conflict, but less diversity as well.

Unfortunately civilization, or the world really(at least in less of a geological time frame), aren't static. If civilization isn't growing, it's shrinking. It takes a lot of energy to keep it going. If more people are in it, more people expect more.

There really is no answer to it. We could do something voluntarily, but who wants less for less? If anything, we want more for less. That's fine, unless you introduce more and more people, which cancels out any gains you made.

On the other hand, we could do things by force. We could sterilize people. We could pay people not to have children(although with fewer children, where is that money coming from?).

We could extend life further and further, but that will only mean that people will work longer and longer. If we increase the average age to 125, there won't be many retirement parties at 65.

We could have machines do most, and eventually all of the work(since they would be far more efficient), but then why bother with people at all?

Or we keep doing what we're doing, and eventually hit the limits of nature. In 2007, that won't be good for anyone.

In the end, we really have no choice but to have every aspect of life grow all the time(population, corporations, governments, surveillance, taxes, energy, agriculture, healthcare, etc, etc, etc). If any one of those doesn't grow, what happens?

Where all that takes us exactly, someone will find out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. No, we do have a choice - growth is not a necessity

It may be that developed countries' current tax structure, typical consumption, and working life pattern need a gradually growing population and GDP to carry on as they are. But that shouldn't be confused with 'civilisation'.

The typical westerner puts a lot of effort into acquiring material goods, and overconsumption. To keep that going, the economy needs growth, so that they can have a comfortable lifestyle in their retirement, if they're investing excess money they depend on a return from, or a basic lifestyle, if they're expecting government social security to be solvent and returning what it promises now.

If less effort were wasted on transient luxuries, a stable society with a gradually shrinking population would be possible. Jobs like marketing, or manufacturing pointless status symbols, would become much rarer, to be replaced with one providing essential care.

[Bluebear]

4. The issue is a changing demographic.

It's true that there is said influx, and the countries cannot keep up their homogeneous identity anymore. Much like the USA the caucasians will be minority status at some point.

Now, what kind of issue or threat all this depends on the person. I can imagine the radio host's great alarm, but it's all just a process of inevitable change.

[The Straight Story]

5. Well, let's suppose we were getting an influx of fundies here

Boat loads of orthodox/fundies/etc - would we worry about fundies getting more power and abusing it? Oh wait - we already do.

In that vein I think Europeans who have liberalized a lot in their laws and ways of life are worried about an influx of fundies. If it were christian fundies pouring in I could hear the alarm bells on the left - why other fundies get a pass is beyond me :)

[Bluebear]

6. Which 'other fundies' get a pass from the left?

Thanks!

[The Straight Story]

8. In this particular case:

When there is a problem presented for analysis (what is the possible affect of large muslim/islamic immigration to X location in Europe) and it is mentioned by someone on the right the general reaction is that it is based on hate (why, just listen to the rw people bitching about fundies in europe...) and things become deflected from the problem to those discussing the problem and their motives. We don't want to talk bad about those folks because it only helps spread the hate and fear the rw has directed at them.

I remember after 9/11 the worry (and rightly so I might add) that folks were going to take out their anger on resident muslims - to ease that people felt it prudent not to fan the flames by writing negative stories or posting them.

I don't like either brand of fundie, and I see both as equal threats but in different ways.

[dmallind]

14. This is true

Religious fundamentalists are dangerous - which skybeing they prefer is irrelevant. Not all Muslim immigrants are fundamentalists of course, but some certainly are. When immigrants of this type begin to stir up unrest and incite others to join their loony beliefs that some imaginary being's misinterpreted "words" are more important than human life or freedom or peace, this causes a problem. We can see this in England and France just as much as we can see the mostly Christian and mostly non-immigrant parallel in the US. There is no difference between an imam preaching holy war against the Zionist imperialist Anglos in Bradford and a Baptist pastor preaching stoning of gays in Biloxi. Both are dangerous and anyone who supports them should be treated with suspicion. Because of Europe's imperial past and generally easy immigration laws. their Muslim populations are growing quickly in many countries. Given the source of these immigranst are nations where fundamentalism is quite strong in many cases it would be foolish denial to say there is no risk of that attitude becoming more prevalent in the receiving nation.

Now does this mean next year hordes of jihadists will take over Paris and London and turn the EU into an Islamist world power? Not a fricking chance - that's wild eyed hate radio swill. But will they have to deal with a few more flare ups in economic downtimes and a few more pointless and lethal attacks over whose invisible daddy in the sky is better? Sure. Silly to deny it.

[LeftishBrit]

12. That there are some Muslim fundie extremists around, and that some of them can be dangerous,..

is not in doubt.

The question is whether there is a 'massive influx' with Europaean countries being 'overrun' by Muslims. And no, this is not the case.

The main opposition to Muslim (and other) immigration does not come from liberals who are worried about people who might e.g. vote against women's rights and gay rights, etc. Most of it comes from right-wingers who oppose women's rights and gay rights AND racial equality and immigration.

[jwirr]

9. Both EU and the US are slated to take some of the Iraqi refugees

into their countries. My guess is that the RW feels the same about these people as it does about people from Central and South America.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Paranoid tactics, and continuing a long tradition of Europaean anti-immigrant bigotry

Anti-immigrant prejudice is a long-standing problem in most Europaean countries. It has recently become linked with Islamophobia due to the fears about terrorism; but it preceded the recent fears by a long time, and is not limited to Muslims.

In the UK, we don't have much in the way of right-wing talk shows; but we do unfortunately have an influential right-wing tabloid press, and from time to time, some nasty demagogues as politicians. The 'Daily Mail' and 'Daily Express' are full of diatribes about the evils of immigration; how we are 'over-run' by immigrants; etc. In the 1930s, the Daily Mail opposed Jewish immigrants (and was indeed basically pro-Nazi). In the 1950s and 1960s, right-wing journalists and politicians campaigned against immigrants from the Caribbaean, India, Pakistan, and African countries. Some were Muslims but many were Christians, Hindus or Sikhs - the common factor was that they weren't white (though even Irish immigrants came in for some prejudice). In 1968, Enoch Powell made a notorious rabble-rousing speech about the dreadful likely consequences of immigration, and the evils of legislation against racial discrimination. All this has continued to this day, with one of the most notorious anti-immigrant bigots of the 80s and 90s being Norman Tebbit, a horrible right-winger in the Thatcher government.

About a year ago, I sat opposite an elderly white woman, a former Tory councillor, and mother of a much more reasonable friend of mine, and saw her face twist with hatred, as she exclaimed: "We don't need ANY more immigrants! I'm sick of it! I'm sick of it!" That's what constant exposure to right-wing attitudes can do to a person.

As well as the 'respectable' anti-immigrant right, there is also the far-right British National Party, the slightly more superficially respectable descendant of the National Front.

Other Europaean countries have similar issues. LePen in France has been ranting against immigrants and ethnic minorities (Jews, Algerians, and others) since the 1970s. There are neo-Nazis in Germany and elsewhere. Etc.!

It is easy in economically hard times for demagogues to get support - 'it's the immigrants who are taking your jobs and your houses!'; and even when 'respectable' governments condemn them, they may find some advantage in having the blame for bad economic conditions deflected away from government policies and onto the immigrants.

So: right-wing rants about 'an influx of immigrants' are a long-standing issue, and not restricted to Muslims, though current circumstances make Muslims more of a target.

With regards to your RW talk shows, I would guess that it's basically a matter of ''Europaean anti-immigrant bigotry meets American Islamophobia'.

Argh!

[helderheid]

15. In my Dutch language class, I was one of 3 people who weren't from the Middle East out of about 30

students - I'm not sure how many were Muslim or not but I know there is an influx of immigrants coming to Holland (I'm sure other European countries as well) as refugees. Doesn't mean they're friggin' terrorists! Just looking to get out of a hostile environment. This was pre-9/11 when I was there (2000).

[JCMach1]

16. There has been a large influx of Muslims into Europe... in many countries

this has re-ignited the old spectre of racism and racial politics... Remember the riots in Paris and other countries...?

The racism fuels frustration and sometimes anger among the immigrants... from there things CAN get ugly as they did a few years back.

I have had very liberal friends of mine in Switzerland rant about 'those' people who have taken over a number of villages... I wasn't very comfortable with that at all. Also, when travelling in recent years in Europe I have also talked to Muslim immigrants. And yes, all is not well.

Nor, is it hopeless...

Oh, and don't believe anything you hear on FOX.

[unpossibles]

17. racism and xenophobia

I do find it almost amusing that they suddenly act like they care about France/Europe...

But it's really about being a racist and dressing it up as concern.

[mr blur]

19. Not true

These people have absolutely no idea (or real interest in) what's happening here in Europe. Seems to me that "Muslim Europe" is being set up as the next Evil Threat to keep you all scared and grateful to be Americans, however much that might cost you in civil liberties. They would have to believe, for example, that our health service is being run by suicide bombers and so socialized medicine is the last thing you'd want in the US.

[moggie]

21. The change isn't all one way

I agree with the comments of my fellow Europeans about this racist rabble-rousing, but I'll also add this: isn't it a good thing that more and more Muslims are getting a close look at liberal democracy? Despite what you hear from the right, most Muslims in Europe rather like the freedoms they get from secular, democratic government, compared to the often horrendous situations they came from. This can take surprising forms: for example, Muslim women defending their choice to wear the veil, and then emphasising that it's good that it is a choice, rather than coercion. This taste for freedom filters back to their relatives abroad, and that can't be a bad thing.

One of the driving forces behind Islamic radicalism in Europe is that so many of the imams weren't born here. If more western-born Muslims can get into clerical positions, radicalism will probably reduce. Ok, it's a slow process, but religious change usually is.

One thing which particularly concerns the wingnuts is that this growth of Islam is accompanied by dwindling numbers of active Christians: Christianity is pretty much a spent force in much of Europe. It's a numbers game to them. As an atheist, I don't like to see a growth of any supernaturalism, but a fundie is a fundie, and none of the liberal Muslims I've known have given me any hassle.

[entanglement]

22. The average European detests immigrants of ANY kind, Muslim or otherwise

It is an old problem with its roots in European racial paranoia, not religion. Consider that even France, which is being "overrun by Muslims" as the RW believes, has a Muslim population of only 4%. The UK and Germany have an even smaller percentage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. 8-10% is a more common figure given for France

see eg
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/8c29f0a2-1e7f-43f6-8341-98ba1e9e7afc.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml

French law prohibits the government collecting religious statistics, but that's the level most reliable sources put the Muslim population at. Still far from "overrunning", of course. The British census doe have a religion question (people can decline to answer) - that gave 2.7% for Britain (ie England, Scotland and Wales).

[entanglement]

24. Thanks - my point was that the perception of Europe being "overrun"

doesn't have much to do with reality, but is quite widespread. The 'Eurabia' theory is gaining respectability, for instance. As LeftishBrit says, it is a marriage of European racism and American Islamophobia.