What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?

There is a distinction between immigration and Asylum that is often misunderstood so questions like the survey question may be revealing information different than the intention.My understanding is there are heavy restrictions on immigration in general. But when Asylum seekers corpses started washing up on European beaches, there was a cry to help those fleeing the madness unleashed in Iraq and Syria so many politicians complied and pledged to accept larger numbers of Asylum seekers.There are laws against discriminating immigrant or Asylum applications on the basis of sex, race, religion etc. So European Politicians can't stop or heavily mitigate immigration or Asylum on this basis even if they wanted to. It would require overturning or rewriting a variety of Treaties, Directives and Conventions. This is possible, but likely to take an extended amount of time, at which point the zeitgeist might have shifted another way and the politicians that are around by that point may decide they don't want to do it any more.However, discrimination based on nationality is, I believe, permissable - and this can be used as a proxy for race and religion leading to indirect methods of limiting migration acceptance (not sure if discrimination of nationality is permissible in Asylum requests, I think it isn't but I'm not sure).

I believe the main thrust is set out in the Amsterdam Treaty and the Maastricht Treaty. There is also the Geneva Convention and the ECHR which serve as frameworks of understanding that inform others. Maybe also the Racial Equality Directive and so on and so forth. European affairs are never simple

Good luck with that. I think it's pretty smeary. There is the general EC Treaty along with the Amsterdam Treaty, and the Racial Equality Directive and... It's difficult to locate a single specific wording in a single document. It may well not exist explicitly. The best I can really tell you is that some of the more fundamental texts tend to speak of prohibitions of discrimination of 'persons' not just citizens. I've had to read through some pretty dense material, and I can't easily present it here - but the gist is that people processing migrant applications for third countries (their term) are subject to the same prohibitions of discrimination as anyone else.I found a Proposal for a Directive that was quite explicit, but the one that passed seemed to only contain the notion implicitly. However, there is a lot of legal discussion about the problems surrounding the fact that discrimination based on nationality seems allowable where religion is not - the issue being indirect discrimination or discrimination by proxy - so it seems some people that do have the endurance to wade through European Bureacratic rules seem to think something like what I said is or at least has been going on.

I think the idea of statistically accurate was also meant to include 'complete' information. The way you worded the statistic suggests that the 8% of Muslims are committing crimes at such a rate so as to be 60% of the prison population, but that isn't actually represented in the numbers you present but is the kind of inference people might easily make.It doesn't cover how many people are converting to Islam whilst in prison, so it could be the atheist population that gets sent to prison who then convert to Islam in large numbers whilst there.It also misses other sociologically relevant data just like saying 'Black people in America make up 40% of the prison population but are only 12% of the population' might be saying things other than 'Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.'

Given the number of exceptions the UK has secured for itself in European migration laws, I'll just raise a red flag here and suggest using the UK as a guide to Europe is probably going to lead one astray. I don't see plenty of wiggle room, but some for sure. When I read the details of the associated laws themselves I mostly see reference to nationality. The example given is about disability, but because of something associated to that disability (violent behaviour). Being treated differently is mostly about length of process, questions and so on. The discrimination here is mostly about individuals. I don't see anything supposes a blanket 'Muslim ban' could be enacted. Going back to the UK for a moment, I'd suggest that our need for affordable (and therefore often migrant) medical staff will probably weigh more heavily than a demographic plurality who wants limitations.

Are they? It seems reasonable but without evidence, it's just saying something.Are the prison population mostly migrants or have they been in France most of their lives? Again, without contextual numbers the reality could be being obfuscated by a biased presentation. I wasn't trying to supoprt Frako's view, I was pointing out that your counterargument against it was potentially grossly misleading. This ironically, does support Frako indirectly if the only counterargument that could be raised could be characterised as 'fake news' or better, deceptive statistics. It's not about convincing people to 'import more' - a distasteful turn of phrase. All that is needed is to remove the desire to ban them from migrating here by reminding people that it isn't because they Muslim, but because they are discriminated against as Migrants. If you imported Sikhs, Hindus, and treat them like shit - you'll have much the same kind of problems.It has happened before and being Muslim is irrelevant to it.Once we untie being Muslim from 'being a problem', we can potentially discuss sane migration policies. Education is likely to reduce any tendency people have towards the notion of 'banning Muslims' as this would be increasingly seen as a futile piece of bigotry. If people want to halt immigration that's one thing. It's the continuing immigration but specifically denying Muslims that's a particular problem. And unfortunately - the survey question doesn't seem to be able to separate the people that think we should inhibit or forbid any further migration from those that think we should only do so for Muslims. Maybe the study you cite goes into this: How many of those 55% are also saying 'stop Polish immigration, stop Canadian immigration, stop Indian immigration, stop African immigration'?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I simply said ' the statistic suggests that the 8% of Muslims are committing crimes at such a rate so as to be 60% of the prison population, but that isn't actually represented in the numbers you present' . If it transpires that crimes weren't committed by Muslim migrants in a wildly disproportionate manner, this is important and the statistic you cited didn't take this factor into consideration. Well the statistic you cited doesn't mention any of this, and besides - I am the grandchild of a migrant but people seldom think of me as anything to do with migrants (Some of my ancestors fled the Nazis east, then fled the Communists west in the 40s and 50s). If I ended up in prison, I'd be surprised if my being a third generation migrant would enter into many people's mind as particularly significant. Given my name, some people may assume I'm a more recent immigrant of course, but that's another matter. And neither, my point goes, does the statistic you cited. I didn't characterise the statistic as fake news. I said: 'This ironically, does support Frako indirectly if the only counterargument that could be raised could be characterised as 'fake news' or better, deceptive statistics.'. My counterargument was only that your statistic may not meet the standard of 'statistically accurate picture of European Muslims in relation to crime' I don't know, it may well be the case, though. Seems like a distinct possibility. A fine question, one that the statistic you cited doesn't go into. Which is rather my point. A simplification of course. Large influxes of immigrants from a group can temporarily inflame tensions before 'contact' lowers them again. See the tensions during the large scale immigration of Caribbean folk to the UK in the post war era and the problems that followed in economic down periods during the 60s and 70s. Depends who you ask, I suppose. Before Muslims were the targets of so much attention, that is to say - in the 90s particularly, the Slavs got a lot of flack in Britain for their crimes. But that was a time when there was a fairly large influx of Slavic folk into the country so as I mentioned above, tensions often follow.