What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?

What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration? According to research done last year by the Chatham House, most are not very keen on it, to put it mildly. In fact, most want a complete ban.Chatham House asked 10,000 people (1000 from each of 10 EU countries) what they thought of the proposition:

quote:

---

All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.

---

Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.Considering the presence of the word "all" in the proposition, and the absence of the word "temporarily", the results are quite striking.The U.K. is more open to Muslim immigration than average, with only Spain having a lower percentage in favour of a ban. (U.K. 47% "yes to the ban", 23% "no", and 30% undecided; Spain 41% "yes" 32% "no", 26% undecided).It's worth reading the article. Both the differences between countries and the demographic breakdown are interesting. https://www.chathamhouse.org/...ink-about-muslim-immigrationIt's hard to see how any group could move from one area to another against such resistance to the idea without it being an unpleasant experience for the migrants.One interesting thing is that someone who is in favour of heavy restrictions on Muslim migration, but does not want it to be complete, should be in the 20% who disagree. Those in the "neither agree or disagree" category could be regarded as against Muslim immigration on any significant scale, because it's easy to disagree with the "all" in the proposition.So, what can European politicians do but heavily restrict or ban Muslim immigration?

I'm not sure. There's legislation that applies to citizens and is supposed to protect them against "religious discrimination" in employment and perhaps other areas, but that's nothing to do with who arrives from outside.Also, in real politics, laws can always be changed, and often are when there is public opposition to them.

Currently, under EU law, it's up to the individual countries to determine the amount of immigration they accept from non-EU countries. EU human rights law that protects religious freedoms does not apply, both because it's only for those already here, and because migrating to Europe isn't a religious practice anyway!Religion is only a "protected item" when harmless to others, anyway, and who's going to decide that Islam is or isn't harmful to them other than the masses?As for constitutions, European countries are accustomed to having revolutions, tearing them up, and bringing in new ones, which is part of what I meant by "real politics". Most recently, the Eastern EU members have done that, and I think also Spain, Portugal and Greece in my lifetime as well.In the recent Dutch elections, many commentators pointed out that Wilders' policies were unconstitutional under the Dutch constitution (and under EU treaty law). But Wilders wants to close all Mosques and ban the Koran, which is on a completely different level. He got 14% of the vote, not 55!

Most?If the 55% who said "yes" had a statistically accurate picture of European Muslims in relation to crime, do you think it would change their replies?

Are there? Do you know in which treaty they're spelt out? I've run a few searches, and the religious discrimination stuff seems to be mainly about employment, and to concern only EU citizens or residents, not potential migrants.

Yes. I found a lot of smeary stuff. However, in the page linked below, the U.K. Citizens Advice people tell us that immigration officials can exercise religious discrimination, so that must be O.K. under current E.U. law. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/...ination-is-not-unlawful

quote:

---

Immigration exceptions

​

Some public authorities, like immigration officers are allowed to discriminate against you when they make certain immigration decisions - for example, decisions about your right to come and live in the UK.

​

When can some public authorities discriminate against you?

​

In some situations it’s not unlawful for a public authority to discriminate against you because of your:

​

disability
race - but only in relation to nationality and ethnic or national origins
religion and belief.

​

These things are called protected characteristics. Discrimination which is because of one or more of these characteristics is generally unlawful under the Act.

---

quote:

---

What decisions are covered by this exception?

​

Public authorities are allowed to discriminate against you when they make decisions about your right to enter and stay in the UK - for example, when you apply for leave to enter or to extend your leave if you're already living in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Immigration functions

​

Public authorities are also allowed to discriminate against you when they carry out certain immigration functions - for example, when they carry out immigration or passport controls. But this exception only applies to race and religion and belief. Public authorities aren't allowed to discriminate against you because of your disability in this situation.

​

For example, if immigration officers at UK ports have been told to check people from certain countries more rigourously, this isn't unlawful race discrimination.

---

quote:

---

If there’s a law which says that some people can be treated differently in a particular situation - for example, because of their sex or religion and belief - it’s not unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act if a public authority treats you differently in that situation.

​

National security

​

Public authorities are allowed to discriminate against you if this necessary for reasons of national security. But the discrimination must be no be more than what is strictly necessary to safeguard national security.

---

Plenty of wiggle room, it appears.Whatever the current legal situations, there almost certainly will be heavy restrictions on Muslim immigration in the near future. A significant shift towards a more favourable perception of Muslims amongst the infidel masses would be necessary in order to prevent that.

Are you sure? If they knew that 60%+ of the French prison population came from France's ~8% Muslim minority, why would that knowledge make them change their minds?

You (wisely) say 'complete' information rather than complete information, because you know it's never complete. But frako claimed that: Indeed. No faking required because converts are part of the minority. It could be phrased without the "come from". ~8% of the population of France are Muslims, and 60+% of France's prison population are Muslims. It could be the headline of an article which goes on to explain that conversion in French prisons is a well known phenomenon, but most of the Muslims are from Muslim backgrounds. People in the 55% who answered "yes" in the survey could be asked to read an article on the subject like this one in a liberal newspaper, and there would be nothing there that would be likely to change their minds on the subject of increasing the presence of Islam in Europe by migration. Of course. But none of that supports frako's view that most of the 55% are victims of fake news, and that they would be insane not to change their minds if they had an accurate view of Muslims in relation to crime. We could present socio-economic data which shows that French Muslims are much more likely to be unemployed than non-Muslims, which is certainly true, but in what way would that persuade the 55% to import more Muslims? That fact could be presented alongside research which shows that French Muslims face considerable negative discrimination in employment, but in what way would that persuade the 55% to import more Muslims?Observers of the situation in France might take one of the following views:(a) Attempt to solve any existing problems while continuing some immigration.
(b) Attempt to solve any existing problems while halting further immigration
(c) Ignore the problems and continue some immigration.
(d) Ignore the problems and halt immigration.If frako (or you) want to make a case for the insanity of any of those positions, I think you'd have a better chance with the last two (especially c) than the first two.

I meant that the converts were part of the ~8% minority of the society as a whole (by definition, they are Muslims). Indeed. Selection of actual facts is what news sources do, but that's not actually fake news, which is deliberate falsehoods. (They are mostly immigrants, the children of immigrants + some grandchildren). Good. "Potentially grossly misleading" doesn't mean anything, as most facts can be so, and if you need to hope that the only "counterargument" to Frako's unsupported, unargued claim was that fact, and you need to incorrectly characterise the fact as fake news, then it could sound as though you're clutching at straws in order to support Frako, while you claim to be not even trying to do so!Here's another "potentially grossly misleading" fact for you: ~0.5% of the U.K prison population comes from the U.Ks ~1.3% Hindu minority.Obviously, our Hindus must be very good at bribing the police and judges, because we shouldn't let ourselves be misled into thinking that they might actually have a significantly lower crime rate than average, should we? Do you think that Muslims in Europe are more likely to be treated like shit than Hindus and Sikhs? If that is the case, then why would that be, and how could being Muslim be irrelevant?There's a theory called "contact theory" about immigrant minorities and their host cultures. Basically, as the minority grows in numbers, negative prejudice in the host culture reduces due to familiarity overriding irrational prejudices, myths etc. It appears to makes sense intuitively if the bias is aginst "race", if that's understood as meaning physical appearance due to region(s) of ancestry, and it seems to fit the change in the U.K. in attitudes towards people given a description like "black" over the last ~70 yrs or so, with the arrival of considerable numbers. However, it may not always fit cultural descriptions, and particularly religions, which are great separators of people.There's good evidence that while bias against people who are non-European in appearance has reduced over time, bias against Islam has increased. See contact theory. The education isn't happening by increased familiarity. Also, a comment on general education in relation to immigration. Currently in the UK, opposition to general immigration is higher amongst the working class because they are more likely to feel in competition with the newcomers for jobs and housing. In the O.P. article stats, it shows that people higher up the education scale are apparently less opposed to Muslim immigration than those lower down. But that could be accounted for by the fact that the same thing applies for questions on general immigration, so there may not actually be much difference in any added opposition to Muslims across the class/education structure."Educating" people might include persuading them that people in Muslim majority countries don't have a high rate of bigotry themselves. So, more facts for Frako!~90% of Muslims in Muslim countries are against the acceptance of homosexuality in society, and less than 5% are in favour of it. The most liberal is Turkey with 78% against and 9% for.Also, because we're on EvC, ~90% of Muslims believe in a literal Adam and Eve.So, it might be perfectly reasonable for some infidel Europeans to have serious worries about Muslim immigration when they know very well that there aren't hordes Muslims raping and pillaging all over the continent, and without any distorted view of their own likelihood of dying from "terrorism" at all. How many more "Faiths" do we need in Europe, and when will we see the first Halal gay wedding cake shop? Excellent point, and one I was going to bring up for Frako if he'd replied. In the UK particularly, there's currently very high opposition to immigration in general. From memory, in one survey in 2013, 56% wanted very tight restrictions, and 75% wanted them to be tighter than they are now. So, it's possible that there isn't too much of an added Muslim factor there anyway. And the Brits know that Poles, Latvians and Romanians aren't raping and pillaging all over London. Just Slovenians, of course.* *Real fake news.

Will that be Sauron or Voldemort?

I know, but the Buddhists are mainly British converts and nothing to do with immigrant background Buddhists, who are probably under represented. Buddhism has been popular in prisons for a long time, and apparently the meditation helps people through long hours in their cells. Apparently a lot of the converts are serious offenders with long term sentences, so Buddhism might have gained a much higher proportion of murderers and rapists in Britain than anywhere else in the world.We'd better not bring back the death sentence, because it would speed up reincarnation.

Yes it does mean something. It tells you that the migration of group A (Muslims) into host culture B (France) and the resulting relationship of the two groups has some serious problems. From the fact itself, there's a range of possibilities that can be deduced. Without further information, we don't know anything about actual crime rates amongst the minority, so we could speculate that they could match the national average, and that the prison fact is a result of very strong bias on the part of the police and the courts, so strong that it could be reasonably described as heavy persecution. That would be sinister and very bad news. On the other extreme, we could speculate that the effect of police and courts is negligible, and the group actually does have a crime rate about seven times the average. Then there's the whole range in between, where both factors play a role. Wherever the truth is on the range, we've identified a serious symptom of problems in the relationship of A to B without added facts.The option of a temporary halt on immigration from Muslim countries to France while attempting to reduce the annual prison intake proportion down towards normality isn't insane.Apparent success in moving a group A to B would be an argument in favour of continuing the movement. Hindus in the UK have about the average national income, a probably lower than average crime rate, their kids do better than average in school, none of them have committed any terrorist acts in recent years on our soil that I know of, and they are more likely to become multi-millionaires than average. It looks as though someone arguing for a ban on them would struggle to find anything to support the idea. "If". if! And a correct statistic isn't in itself deceptive. Characterising one as "fake news" would be false.No-one, including Frako, has said anything that supports Frako. "May not"? Of course one stat about French prisons is unlikely to give an accurate picture of European Muslims in relation to crime. I wouldn't try to do that with one stat. That was meant more to give Frako an example of how true facts rather than fake ones could be shaping peoples opinions. When I said this: It was hypothetical. If someone from the 55% had a guesstimate of the general crime rate of Muslims that happened to be fairly accurate, even though we don't know exactly what it is, and not wildly distorted (as in hordes Muslims raping and pillaging) why would that lead them to change their minds? Although most may be primarily concerned about general immigration and about Islamic terrorism, a view that crime is higher than average will be correct (socio-economic circumstances alone mean we can be confident of that) so a fairly accurate guess would probably not lead to most of the 55% changing their minds. In the UK, I think it was hardly the case in the sixties and seventies. Bias against immigration from South Asia wouldn't distinguish much on those lines. However, over time, I think your impression is right, and Muslims certainly are often singled out now. I read something recently by a white English guy who converted to Islam in the mid-seventies, and he said at the time it didn't cause any negative reaction amongst people he knew, and he had no real problems. However, over the decades, he experienced ever increasing antipathy. That fits my memory. Some Muslims cite specific events in the last century as influencing change, like the 1989 Salman Rushdie Satanic Verses affair, for example.Elsewhere, a negative view of Muslims is considerably higher in Eastern and Southern Europe than it is in the Northwest. That may be partly to do with proximity and history; the fear of the other who could (and did) invade and occupy and make slave raids.. Here, all our ancestors had to complain about was a bit of enslavement hassle from Barbary pirates in the 17th and 18th centuries when they ventured this far north. So we tend to see Muslims as receivers of imperialism, rather than givers.I think most people up here would be surprised to know that there wasn't a single year between 711 and 1919 when parts of Christian Europe weren't ruled by Muslims.In the 1980s, I lived in Crete for a while, and I remember talking to a very old man who had fought for independence against the Ottomans. No-one alive will remember the occupation now, but many will have known people who did. A majority of Greeks have a negative view of Muslims, and it may be deep rooted. After all, Constantinople was Constantinople for 1000 years! I wonder. Why is there bias and discrimination against Muslims in all countries where they live as minorities, and why is there bias and discrimination against non-Muslim minorities in Muslim majority countries? Why, when Islam has been present on the Indian subcontinent for ~1200 years, did I meet so many non-Muslims on the subcontinent who were suspicious of it or hostile towards it? Why, when the Coptic Christians in Egypt will soon be celebrating perhaps a record 1400 years survival of Islamic conquest, do they still face discrimination and attacks? Contact doesn't seem to work too well with religions. To know the "other" is not necessarily to love them. I think Jews had been present in central Europe for at least 1500 years before the holocaust.Religions make in-groups and therefore out-groups. Is it really surprising that the infidel, the kafir, the "baddies" of the Koran might develop biases against the Ummah? Certainly a simplification, and I'm glad you mentioned the Caribbeans, because in relation to crime police prison stuff, there's an obvious similarity to the Maghrebeans in France, but there's one important difference. Although there are differences in the religious make up of the Caribbeans and rooted Brits, there's no strict religious divide. Although the average time of arrival of the Caribbeans is only about fifty years ago, currently, amongst children under ten, there are twice as many with one Caribbean parent and one white one as there with two Caribbean parents. That fits the pattern of earlier migrations, like the waves of working class Irish (probably traditional major contributors to the prison population!) who mixed in with the mainstream over several generations, and even the original "refugees", the French Huguenots (most English must have some Huguenot ancestry by now).Having said that, the French Muslims are actually notable for their relatively low levels of religiosity, and I think they do have a higher out marriage rate than most Muslim minorities in Europe, including our own. I lived and worked in France alongside French Muslims in the late seventies and again in the late eighties, and I knew quite a few mixed couples. I also knew a quite a few criminals!There's a difference between migrant minority cultures that are rapidly assimilated, and more separatist or separated groups. Romany Gypsies may have started arriving in Britain at about the same time as the Huguenots, yet they're still with us as a subculture, although they now report an out marriage rate of 50%, which means assimilation, and they won't last much longer at that rate. Because Judaism was banned from around 1300 to ~1650, the Romany may be the oldest continuously existing immigrant minority in Britain to keep its separate identity. Can you think of another? Maybe we should put them in a museum.

That's interesting about the Chinese Jews, and I entirely agree with the point you're making. Of course religion isn't a permanent barrier, and of course people change their religions. The Vikings arrived here as pagans, did considerable conquest and settlement, but then converted to Christianity, and over time mixed in with the already Christian Saxon population. It's just that religions act as brakes to assimilation.The Jewish population here has a 50% out marriage rate. The decline in religiosity amongst both Jews and Christians has helped that now rapid rate of assimilation. You could be right. I used the phrase "separatist or separated minorities" for that kind of reason.I'll look up the Chinese Jews though, because I didn't know about them. Thanks for that. I knew there were ancient communities in India, because I remember visiting one in Kerala.

Indeed. Even Saudi Arabia, which reserves citizenship exclusively for Muslims, has non-Muslim inhabitants, and all the rest (I think) have non-Muslim citizens. I know both Malaysia and India personally, but I can't help you with your question, because I don't know whether most of that 55% would want to slap the ban on all Indians, or discriminate on religious grounds. I suspect that a lot of them want heavy restrictions on immigration anyway, regardless of who it is and where its from, and some research supports that. For example, in a survey in 2013, 70% of French thought there were too many foreigners in their country.