What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?

Pretty much every Constitution guarantees freedom of religion in the modern world (in Europe at least. I can't pretend to know much about law elsewhere). There isn't an EU Constitution with a big C; but all EU member-sates are required to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into their law; which guarantees religious freedom.Whether a guarantee of religious freedom necessarilt prohibits a ban on further immigration from Muslim nations is a different matter, however. The ECHR, for example, provides that:

quote:

---

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

---

but immigrating into Europe is not a right or freedom secured in the Convention, so does that matter?The Swedish constitution has two categories of fundamental rights - inalienable and those which can be restricted in certain circumstances (so freedom of speech doesn't allow you to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre, to use the hackneyed example). It's expressly stipulated, however, that no limitation can be "solely on grounds of a political, religious, cultural or other such opinion". But again, immigration into Europe is not a fundamental right.It's clear to me that European citizens and residents cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion; their freedom of movement within Europe cannot be curtailed on this basis and they cannot be deported on this basis. I cannot, however, see a clear consititutional obstacle* to prohibiting immigration from anywhere on whatever whim takes your fancy. I don't see that in the US constitution either though, so lawyers may differ.*though moral and practical I can easily seeI do know that people have tried to use the right to respect for family life (which is guaranteed by the ECHR) to allow family members to join them, but I don't know the case law and of course this is only relevant to a small subset.ABE: The Swedish constitution does prohibit any "act of law or other provision (which) may imply the unfavourable treatment of anyone because they belong to a minority group by reason of ethnic origin, colour, or other similar circumstances or on account of their sexual orientation."Interesting that religion is not mentioned specifically here, but I guess you could consider it covered under 'other similar circumstances'. And if you're wondering why 'sexual orientation' is mentioned after 'other'; it was added by consitutional amendment rather ungrammatically.Elsewhere in the fundamental law, however, it's stated that:

quote:

---

The public institutions shall combat discrimination of per-
sons on grounds of gender, colour, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or
religious affiliation, functional disability, sexual orientation, age or other
circumstance affecting the individual.

---

so I'm pretty sure Sweden cannot impose a Muslim ban consitutionally. That's one down.I'm fairly sure the Dutch constitution prohibits the government from doing anything to discriminate on the basis of religion; but no Dutch court is allowed to strike down a law as unconsitutional, so that's of little use.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

That's not tens of millions of migrants; and a lot of that number are not actually in Europe. The numbers quoted from Pew above includes all of Russia as part of Europe (methodology here) and so that number includes millions of Muslims in Asian Russia.But sticking with the smaller number that are in Europe, most of those are not migrants - they were born here. Not every Muslim is a recent immigrant. Aside from those who are third or fourth generation; there have been large Muslim populations in Europe for centuries. The millions of Muslim Albanians and Bosniaks can hardly be be considered immigrants. As for the increase projected, that's mostly driven by differential feritility of people in Europe, not by new immigrants.

Sikhs are also overrepresented in the UK prison population compared to their proprotion of the overall population. Buddhists are overrepresented in the prison population at a similar rate to Muslins.

I am mulling over your ideas, and don't have a clear response yet, but here are my disconnected thoughts without conclusion:Firstly, about Jews. Jews did not only move to Europe in the early medieval period. They also went to China. But the Jews in China did not maintain their unique ethnic identity. They blended with the Muslim community initially*; and over time the Muslim-Jewish (Abrahamic?) population mostly assimiliated to the dominant culture. A religion by itself is clearly not enough to maintain a sense of difference; they can assimilate and be absorbed just like other cultural markers.*I am here thinking specifically of Jews and Muslims in Henan province in east China - I am sure things were different in the west nearer to majority Muslim areas. I don't know much about the relevant history.The other thought was about the Romany in much of Eastern and Central Europe; as you also mentioned Romany in Britain. Here we have a difference that is not religious, but where assimilation has been slow despite centuries of co-existence. Based on personal experience living in Central Europe for a decade, the majority culture would describe this as a refusal to assimilate; but to me it seems that the Romany are not permitted to assimilate*; which leads to a vicious cycle as those who are not allowed to participate in society engage in anti-social behaviour by necessity; which leads to further marginalisation ad infinitum.*The only gypsy I know who has succeeded in business did so by working for an American company which didn't see his ethnicity in the same way as Czech employers would, and then got posted abroad at the first opportunity. He's now a manager somewhere in South America.

The book Jews in Old China is interesting, though I am a little sceptical of the conclusions since the Chinese authors seem heavily concerned with demonstrating that Chinese are better than Europeans - hence the greater ease of assimiliation.