Is lslam fuelling the right wings debate on immigration?
It is headline news at the moment - the millions of people streaming form middle east and africa trying by any means to get into europe.
its reported that vast majority of these people are syrian, eritrian, somalian, pakistani, afgani - which are are all islamic countries.
many of these people seem to have the belief that europe will accept them as refugees and then start a life there, simply if they manage to turn up, and many seem to be well versed in the Schengen borders enroute and also asylum and benefits rules at the various destination countries.
We know some of these are leaving war zones ( mainly syria) which is result of an islamic civil war, but many are not and groups form pakistan eritrea, somalia etc seem simply to be wanting to leave the lslamic world to seek a better life. they often travel through numerous countries ( including muslim ones) that they could settle in but their aim seems to be arriving in western european nations. Saudi arabia is one of the richest per capita on the plaent and home to muslims most sacred city mecca, yet none of these people seem to want to go there - why?
many countries in europe which have in the past welcomed immigration are now facing backlashes due to the sheer number coming form the above regions, but some people also point to the risk of islamic ideology and extremism spreading into europe as a result. certainly the right wing have made massive political capital form the movement of muslim groups and also islamic terrorism - in germany, sweden, france and even uk ( rise of edl and ukip) all can in some be linked to islamic issues.
so the question remains is the growing anti immigration stance partly due the growth of islamic identity of immigrants and which is being linked to terrorism and also lack of success and integration of certain muslim immigrant groups. And how can this be and why is it millions of muslims are fleeing islamic states seeing that muslims have often claimed islam to be the perfect system
its reported that vast majority of these people are syrian, eritrian, somalian, pakistani, afgani - which are are all islamic countries.
many of these people seem to have the belief that europe will accept them as refugees and then start a life there, simply if they manage to turn up, and many seem to be well versed in the Schengen borders enroute and also asylum and benefits rules at the various destination countries.
We know some of these are leaving war zones ( mainly syria) which is result of an islamic civil war, but many are not and groups form pakistan eritrea, somalia etc seem simply to be wanting to leave the lslamic world to seek a better life. they often travel through numerous countries ( including muslim ones) that they could settle in but their aim seems to be arriving in western european nations. Saudi arabia is one of the richest per capita on the plaent and home to muslims most sacred city mecca, yet none of these people seem to want to go there - why?
many countries in europe which have in the past welcomed immigration are now facing backlashes due to the sheer number coming form the above regions, but some people also point to the risk of islamic ideology and extremism spreading into europe as a result. certainly the right wing have made massive political capital form the movement of muslim groups and also islamic terrorism - in germany, sweden, france and even uk ( rise of edl and ukip) all can in some be linked to islamic issues.
so the question remains is the growing anti immigration stance partly due the growth of islamic identity of immigrants and which is being linked to terrorism and also lack of success and integration of certain muslim immigrant groups. And how can this be and why is it millions of muslims are fleeing islamic states seeing that muslims have often claimed islam to be the perfect system
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Reformed
It is headline news at the moment - the millions of people streaming form middle east and africa trying by any means to get into europe.
its reported that vast majority of these people are syrian, eritrian, somalian, pakistani, afgani - which are are all islamic countries.
many of these people seem to have the belief that europe will accept them as refugees and then start a life there, simply if they manage to turn up, and many seem to be well versed in the Schengen borders enroute and also asylum and benefits rules at the various destination countries.
We know some of these are leaving war zones ( mainly syria) which is result of an islamic civil war, but many are not and groups form pakistan eritrea, somalia etc seem simply to be wanting to leave the lslamic world to seek a better life. they often travel through numerous countries ( including muslim ones) that they could settle in but their aim seems to be arriving in western european nations. Saudi arabia is one of the richest per capita on the plaent and home to muslims most sacred city mecca, yet none of these people seem to want to go there - why?
many countries in europe which have in the past welcomed immigration are now facing backlashes due to the sheer number coming form the above regions, but some people also point to the risk of islamic ideology and extremism spreading into europe as a result. certainly the right wing have made massive political capital form the movement of muslim groups and also islamic terrorism - in germany, sweden, france and even uk ( rise of edl and ukip) all can in some be linked to islamic issues.
so the question remains is the growing anti immigration stance partly due the growth of islamic identity of immigrants and which is being linked to terrorism and also lack of success and integration of certain muslim immigrant groups. And how can this be and why is it millions of muslims are fleeing islamic states seeing that muslims have often claimed islam to be the perfect system
its reported that vast majority of these people are syrian, eritrian, somalian, pakistani, afgani - which are are all islamic countries.
many of these people seem to have the belief that europe will accept them as refugees and then start a life there, simply if they manage to turn up, and many seem to be well versed in the Schengen borders enroute and also asylum and benefits rules at the various destination countries.
We know some of these are leaving war zones ( mainly syria) which is result of an islamic civil war, but many are not and groups form pakistan eritrea, somalia etc seem simply to be wanting to leave the lslamic world to seek a better life. they often travel through numerous countries ( including muslim ones) that they could settle in but their aim seems to be arriving in western european nations. Saudi arabia is one of the richest per capita on the plaent and home to muslims most sacred city mecca, yet none of these people seem to want to go there - why?
many countries in europe which have in the past welcomed immigration are now facing backlashes due to the sheer number coming form the above regions, but some people also point to the risk of islamic ideology and extremism spreading into europe as a result. certainly the right wing have made massive political capital form the movement of muslim groups and also islamic terrorism - in germany, sweden, france and even uk ( rise of edl and ukip) all can in some be linked to islamic issues.
so the question remains is the growing anti immigration stance partly due the growth of islamic identity of immigrants and which is being linked to terrorism and also lack of success and integration of certain muslim immigrant groups. And how can this be and why is it millions of muslims are fleeing islamic states seeing that muslims have often claimed islam to be the perfect system
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Civil wars and militias are not an Islamic World
My god the amount of wimps in here are too damn high.
Original post by DiceTheSlice
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Civil wars and militias are not an Islamic World
My god the amount of wimps in here are too damn high.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Civil wars and militias are not an Islamic World
My god the amount of wimps in here are too damn high.
the islamic world is full of civil war and militia - how many countries can you name for example that does not have a problem with islamic terrorism?
it is muslims that are leaving it in droves, causing problem for the rest of the non muslim world is it not
Personally I think there are 2 discussions to be had
One is about immigration and how we reduce the numbers and th4 other is about Islam and it's place in UK society given the majority of people concerns about it and its negative impact not only in the UK but any country it is present
One is about immigration and how we reduce the numbers and th4 other is about Islam and it's place in UK society given the majority of people concerns about it and its negative impact not only in the UK but any country it is present
Original post by Skip_Snip
Too much islamic immigration is bad for Western countries, so if Islamophobia is used as a tool to limit immigration, so be it.
Quite and there are some very easy steps we can take to limit the desirability of the UK to muslims.
Original post by Reformed
the islamic world is full of civil war and militia - how many countries can you name for example that does not have a problem with islamic terrorism?
it is muslims that are leaving it in droves, causing problem for the rest of the non muslim world is it not
it is muslims that are leaving it in droves, causing problem for the rest of the non muslim world is it not
Every country will face terror threats from militias.
Branding terrorism as "Islamic Terrorism" just reeks delusion. Anyone who has failed life will join Isis and company. Regardless of race, gender whatever.
Civilians are leaving in droves
The issue is not necessarily Islam, but "difference" - that is what drives the right wing. A simple example of this is that there are around 1-1.5 million Hindus and Sikhs (combined total) in the UK, but you almost never never hear these groups mentioned in news bulletins. This is largely because they are more established in the UK and more integrated.
I imagine it is making up part of the debate. Too much immigration is bad for the UK and the EU. We're going to end up swamped by the poor masses of Africa in the end if we don't police European borders more.
Original post by typonaut
The issue is not necessarily Islam, but "difference" - that is what drives the right wing. A simple example of this is that there are around 1-1.5 million Hindus and Sikhs (combined total) in the UK, but you almost never never hear these groups mentioned in news bulletins. This is largely because they are more established in the UK and more integrated.
And because they don't commit acts of terrorism.
Original post by BaconandSauce
Quite and there are some very easy steps we can take to limit the desirability of the UK to muslims.
Such as?
Original post by Skip_Snip
And because they don't commit acts of terrorism.
So now you are tarring a large group for the actions a fraction of a percentage of hat group?
Original post by typonaut
Such as?
All Imams to be UK trained and vetted by the security services and all services to be in English
No outside funding for UK mosques if you want it you pay for yourself
Ban all Un-Stunned Halal and Kosher meat in the UK
Remove halal as the default meat option in all schools and food premises that cater to the wider public and halal\kosher slaughtered meat imported must be labeled. If muslims want it they can pay the extra costs that go with it. Also we have equality legislation in the UK and the production of Halal can't meet these standards so should not be available in public funded premises (schools Hospitals etc...)
A legal requirement that all muslim marriages need to be registered in the UK and prosecutions for those who fail to comply.
All sharia 'court' rulings to be vetted by a UK trained solicitor and any rulings that do not comply with UK law must not be issued and again prosecution of those who fail to comply)
And the simple message if you don't like our society and our freedoms you are free to leave but you will not longer be pandered to.
Removal of Human Rights protection for those who preach Human rights are incompatible with Islam
Preaching aspects of Islam incompatible with a modern society (the freedom to change your faith and marry who you like) to be restricted in UK mosques
Removal of Social support for those who reuse to interact with the wider society (we have no issues in the choices you make just don;t expect me to fund them)
A reminder of the basic principle of ONE LAW FOR ALL
and that's just to start
(edited 8 years ago)
The first and easiest step would be to immediately cease the practice of giving successful asylum seekers indefinite right to stay. They should be given the temporary right to stay (for six months, say), and it should be reviewed periodically with a view to them returning to their point of origin as soon as it is safe. There is no need to admit them permanently. They can use the time to find a more permanent place to live other than Britain if they don't wish to return.
This will help to prevent an asylum application from being seen as an easy means of permanent entry.
This will help to prevent an asylum application from being seen as an easy means of permanent entry.
Original post by Good bloke
The first and easiest step would be to immediately cease the practice of giving successful asylum seekers indefinite right to stay. They should be given the temporary right to stay (for six months, say), and it should be reviewed periodically with a view to them returning to their point of origin as soon as it is safe. There is no need to admit them permanently. They can use the time to find a more permanent place to live other than Britain if they don't wish to return.
This will help to prevent an asylum application from being seen as an easy means of permanent entry.
This will help to prevent an asylum application from being seen as an easy means of permanent entry.
Good points
we can also remove the family reunification part for asylum seekers and EU freedom of moment rights for asylum seekers
This way we can close the loophole of 1 person getting in then inviting the whole family across or getting asylum in Germany then moving straight to the UK
Original post by tebr
If the West hadn't decided to massacre Muslim countries and slaughter hundreds and thousands of innocent people, groups such as ISIS would never even have been created and the Muslims there would be safe and not have to leave and come here. It's the West's fault for allowing this to happen. Also, if the asylum system didn't exist and the govt didn't give them benefits, the immigrants wouldn't be inclined to come here.
"it's all the fault of the West" is nonsense
the civil wars in e.g. Somalia, Syria, Lybia started all on their own ... and I still remember when the "West" was criticised for not intervening in defense of human rights there
truth is, if you examine history, civil war is somehow inbuilt in Islam : succession to the Caliphate is so loosely defined that, almost systematically, succession to political power would mean civil war
lack of a solid institutional framework (such as the one developed by European monarchies first, and by representative democracy later) has meant that majority-Muslim countries are quite frequently under the rule of unelected, oppressive dictators, who however seem to be in a way the "lesser evil"
we had high hopes for the "Arab spring", however it seems this was just a false start
some background material : http://pomeps.org/2015/05/15/islam-and-international-order-memos/
Original post by tebr
If the West hadn't decided to massacre Muslim countries and slaughter hundreds and thousands of innocent people, groups such as ISIS would never even have been created and the Muslims there would be safe and not have to leave and come here. It's the West's fault for allowing this to happen. Also, if the asylum system didn't exist and the govt didn't give them benefits, the immigrants wouldn't be inclined to come here.
The west wanted to take military action on syria. But didn't as was vetoed by russia. Didn't stop mass amount of syrians from coming
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by BaconandSauce
EU freedom of moment rights for asylum seekers
I'm not sure they have freedom of movement like EU citizens, at least before they gain the inevitable citizenship..
Original post by Good bloke
The first and easiest step would be to immediately cease the practice of giving successful asylum seekers indefinite right to stay. They should be given the temporary right to stay (for six months, say), and it should be reviewed periodically with a view to them returning to their point of origin as soon as it is safe. There is no need to admit them permanently. They can use the time to find a more permanent place to live other than Britain if they don't wish to return.
This will help to prevent an asylum application from being seen as an easy means of permanent entry.
This will help to prevent an asylum application from being seen as an easy means of permanent entry.
you would have to set up a military expedition just in order to bring them there
in any case, in the present immigration wave, most immigrants claim they are coming from Syria or Lybia. They are undocumented, and it takes months (years?) to solve their cases
perhaps, "readmission treaties" could be concluded with some of the more stable States (such as e.g. Morocco or Camerun), but who would you negotiate with in the case of Somalia, Yemen, Lybia, Syria etc etc
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- essay question sociology
- who is donald trump
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Question about EU Pre-settled status and year abroad
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- What would civilisation look like if the average IQ was 150?
- Is TSR a hotbed of conservative right conspiracy theorists?
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- CRNA or anaesthesiologist?
- dfg
- international students using agents
- Realism 30 marker Help - sociology ALEVEL
- strange DM
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Inquiry Regarding Obtaining the BRP
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?