[666maslo666]

Or, alternately:

Let's say one of the Paris attackers, or many of them, turn out to have arrived with groups of Syrian refugees.

Which option creates more terror attacks: turning away all Syrian refugees, or accepting and encamping Syrian refugees? Which option grants Daesh a larger strategic victory?

e: I feel that we should not let you slip away from the claim that demographic collapse doesn't harm economics, because it's, again, so out of touch with reality. A Europe without immigrants is a Europe facing Japan's future.

Option one creates less terror attacks inside Europe in the long term. No matter what Daesh wants. Also, most of migrants arent even genuine refugees. Genuine Syrian refugees is not who I am most concerned about.

---

Your article about Japan is behind registration, I cannot read it. But I bet it is sensationalist nonsense. Shrinking economy? Oh, the horror. Until you realize that absolute economy size is irrelevant. What is important is GDP per capita. How much an average person produces. That is what truly determines the wealth and living standard of a nation. Now, fast demographic decrease does affect it negatively. But the effect is temporary and will never result in any truly serious economic trouble. It is self-correcting. Less GDP + less people = same thing. (just a sidenote, the converse is also true: More GDP + more people = same thing. Relevant for immigration.)

Instead of sensationalist articles, look at Japanese economic performance itself:

http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-musical-3.png

Truly, a country in economic collapse, yet getting wealthier over time. LOL! Must be a real paradox in your world.. Heck, the prediction shows them growing a little faster than Europe, even! Oh, the irony.

Europe would be wise to follow Japanese example. We should accept only those migrants who have better education than average Europeans, higher income than average Europeans, lower poverty rate than average European, lower crime rate than average European, and lower religous extremism and terrorism rate than average Europeans. This is how a really sensible migration policy looks like, one that improves instead of damages the destination country. And I am afraid it disqualifies most (but not all) muslims. Yet what Europe got instead is a million random MENA immigrants per year, coming inside at will. That is pure idiocy.

[NGTM-1R]

You are, again, trying to paint this as a black-and-white issue where the police either can go or cannot go.

Considering the article made that exact assertion in its title, describing it as a "no-go zones" which is not ambiguous in the slightest, either you linked to something you knew was deceptive from the first sentence if I believe your defense now, or you're rationalizing after the fact. There are no other conclusions available.

The causes are not debated. I acknowledged long ago ITT that the causes of terrorism (extremism in general) are many - poverty, culture, religion, ideology, perceived oppression.. It is pointless to debate, because we agree here.

No, you really didn't; you just kind of slid on to yet another orthogonal point.

What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change - how many times have I said ITT that "we do not have a magic wand to solve poverty", or that I am skeptical of cultural assimilation?

None for the former, many for the latter, but when challenged to provide evidence you have once again slid orthogonally.

It does not matter what the ultimate cause is, if you cant change it, if it does not point to a practical solution, its irrelevant for our purposes (solving the problem, not just writing long tractats about it).

So your argument is that we can't change our own actions in the Middle East now.

...yeah, that's where we are. That's what you're reduced to.

My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.

Ignoring the fact that your solution has been repeatedly refuted as unworkable, considering many, if not most, of this sort of incident in the last five to ten years have been caused by people who live here then go there then come back.

Unless you're now proposing restriction of freedom of travel even for Westerners; a quarantine of Muslim-dominated countries. Which would admittedly be a novel argument from you, if even more utterly impractical and ridiculous.

What is the percentage of attackers with muslim immigrant background among all those deadly terrorist attacks in western Europe in the last decade or two? Is it far more than their share of population? Yes or no? If yes, then it is caused by immigrants (from certain countries, that is).

What is the percentage of these attacks by citizens vs. on visa? That should be far more illuminating. Indeed, if we're actually attempting to study the problem where were individual attackers educated and how, what was their role in the overall execution of the operation?

We already know at least two of the French attackers were French citizens, and the attack that was executed required knowledge of the city and the specific target locations that would be available most readily to an existing resident. We know from failed attempts at attacks in the United States that it's far easier to subvert a Caucasian citizen of the US than to smuggle in an Arabic terrorist since 9/11. How do you propose to prevent these problems? Deny visas to visit other countries? Shut down the internet so nobody can contact these people?

The world is a small one, smaller than you want it to be. A dozen people killed at a wedding in Iraq can be photographed and viewed in the privacy of your own home within ten minutes of the fact. Spatial seperation does not exist. Followers are everywhere in the world; it's a fundamental truth. Actors can be anywhere they want now; it's also a fundamental truth. Welcome to the Twitter age.

Do you think there is any serious untapped potential in that area? I dont.

It has already been established, in this thread, that there were failures to heed the existing warning signs. Turkey is on-record as having warned French intelligence about one of the attackers.

You're arguing there's no more data to be mined. That's possibly true. It is painfully clear, however, that the analysis and follow-up side of the house can make improvements.

The rest of your statement is utterly disconnected from reality in light of the fact that the information was actually out there, ready to be used, if anyone had connected the dots and judged them important.

I am saying that I dont base my policy on Daesh demands, but on what I want to achieve. I am saying that yes, my solution is incidentally opposed to the Daesh demand of more muslims in Europe, but thats not why I chose it at all, my reasoning is different than the simplistic "do the opposite of what Daesh says".

You have yet to produce evidence this a demand Daesh makes, and considering that any idiot can find Daesh talking about what they want (christ, I'm the only guy who actually posted a real Daesh publication here, and you want to lecture me about what Daesh wants?) this shouldn't be hard for you.

You are once again attempting to slide your goalposts away from Battuta's discussion of the facts rather than address them.

Western presence in the middle east can be a risk, and I am not fan of it too (tough it can also be a mitigating factor if conducted properly). But it is far below the risk posed by mass immigration. Unless we stop the latter, the former is pretty much not worth talking about.

See previous posts re: citizenship, residence, who's actually recruited to plan and lead attacks.

My point is not about the severity of attacks, but more about the frequency and preventability. 9/11 once in a decade? Whatever, we cannot prevent that anyway (and YOU cannot too). Regular terrorist attacks, caused primarily by domestic terrorists, several times a year? We have a big problem, and one with an obvious solution that would at least stop it from growing.

Here, you seem to brush against the truth you're so eager to avoid: the terrorists are domestic. But they're also immigrants. But they're also flying robot unicorns, at this point, for all the consistency you can seem to manage.

Recent attacks in Paris were caused in large part by muslims living in Europe.

Which isn't the same as immigrants. Muslim is a religion, not an immigration status.

[666maslo666]

Here, you seem to brush against the truth you're so eager to avoid: the terrorists are domestic. But they're also immigrants. But they're also flying robot unicorns, at this point, for all the consistency you can seem to manage.

Of course they are both. They are often citizens, but citizens who immigrated or children of immigrants. Notice that I said "with muslim immigrant background", not strictly first generation immigrants. Almost all islamist terrorist attacks can be traced back to immigration. These attacks would not happen if not for open border policies of the last few decades.

And the fact that European citizens seem to commit islamist attacks only further underlines my point that their integration has failed. Utterly failed.

When you are ignoring the immigrant and muslim connection, then you are ignoring reality. Muslim populations dont just appear out of thin air in Europe.

[666maslo666]

So your argument is that we can't change our own actions in the Middle East now.

...yeah, that's where we are. That's what you're reduced to.

I said you will not be able to solve poverty and integration problems of muslims in Europe, because it is very hard if not impossible to change. How you arrived on that ridiculous interpretation of what I said is beyond my understanding. Please learn to read with comprehension. And leave the Middle East, talk about Europe.

[Aesaar]

What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change...

Tell that to the IRA.

Of course they are both. They are often citizens, but citizens who immigrated or children of immigrants. Notice that I said "with muslim immigrant background", not strictly first generation immigrants. Almost all islamist terrorist attacks can be traced back to immigration. These attacks would not happen if not for open border policies of the last few decades.

And then 9/11 happened.  You do know that the people who carried out 9/11 entered the US with tourist visas, yes?  Almost as though you don't need to be a legal immigrant to carry out terrorist attacks on a country.

You keep on making grand assertions that are trivially disproven by looking at history.  Maybe you should do what Battuta suggested and actually get informed about this topic before you talk about it.

[The E]

Your article about Japan is behind registration, I cannot read it. But I bet it is sensationalist nonsense. Shrinking economy? Oh, the horror. Until you realize that economy size is irrelevant. What is important is GDP per capita. How much an average person produces. That is what truly determines the wealth and living standard of a nation. Now, fast demographic decrease does affect it negatively. But the effect is temporary and will never result in any truly serious economic trouble. It is self-correcting. Less GDP + less people = same thing.

Well, you're pretty much wrong on that count.

Japan, the article posits, is heading for a really bad demographic crisis unless massive amounts of immigrants are taken in.

Japan's population began falling in 2004 and is now ageing faster than any other on the planet. More than 22% of Japanese are already 65 or older. A report compiled with the government’s co-operation two years ago warned that by 2060 the number of Japanese will have fallen from 127m to about 87m, of whom almost 40% will be 65 or older.

The government is pointedly not denying newspaper reports that ran earlier this month, claiming that it is considering a solution it has so far shunned: mass immigration. The reports say the figure being mooted is 200,000 foreigners a year. An advisory body to Shinzo Abe, the prime minister, said opening the immigration drawbridge to that number would help stabilise Japan’s population—at around 100m (from its current 126.7m).

87 Million people. 34.8 Million of which at retirement age. There is no way a modern society, with all the social safety nets that entails, can function under these circumstances, no matter how productive each working-age member of that society is (That your theory is based around having no upper bound for individual productivity is a major flaw in it). Oh, but that's not all: Those 87 Million people? That's an optimistic assumption, based on an assumed fertility rate of 2.07 (current is 1.39) and as per above, a yearly influx of 200000 immigrants. If fertility rates cannot increase to that level, an estimated 650000 immigrants would have to be accepted per year to get even to that very bad looking 87 Million, 40% retirement age state.

Japan's economy, by the way, is crippled by debt. The state budget is at 812 billion USD, 255 billion of which are allocated to social security spending (reference). The relative portion of the state budget that goes into welfare will only go up as the percentage of people in retirement increases.

Bottom line: Japan cannot continue as it is right now. It has to change, it has to invite foreigners to come and stay in the country, it has to create massive incentives for people to have more children, or else it will be unable to keep its standard of living. This situation, to a far lesser extent, is also happening in other first-world countries. Accepting immigration is the key to keep a society vital, if you shut your borders to all but a trickle of people you deem acceptable, you better have a plan to deal with an unbalanced age pyramid.

Instead of sensationalist articles, look at Japanese economic performance itself:

http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-musical-3.png

Truly, a country in economic collapse, yet getting wealthier over time. LOL! Must be a real paradox in your world..

Dude. Have you looket at that projection? It only extends to 2018. We're looking at a crisis in 2050 to 2060. You are looking at the wrong timeframe here.

Europe would be wise to follow Japanese example. We should accept only those migrants who have better education than average Europeans, higher income than average Europeans, lower poverty rate than average European, lower crime rate than average European, and lower religous extremism and terrorism rate than average Europeans. This is how a really sensible migration policy looks like. And I am afraid it disqualifies most (but not all) muslims. Yet what Europe got instead is a million random Arabs per year, coming inside at will. That is pure idiocy.

For ****'s sake, maslo, learn some economics. A society needs people on all strata, and that means it also needs the unskilled and uneducated. Because we can then train them to become skilled in the areas where we need them to be. If you only accept "high quality" immigrants, all those whining about them dirty foreigners stealing our jobs will suddenly have a point. Immigrants, as bad as that may sound, are more willing to fill out the **** jobs the natives do not want to do.

Japan is not a role model. It's a cautionary tale.

[Aesaar]

Your article about Japan is behind registration, I cannot read it. But I bet it is sensationalist nonsense.

[...]

Instead of sensationalist articles, look at Japanese economic performance itself:

So you condemn an article you can't read as sensationalist because you assume it disagrees with your preconceptions.

Wow.  That's actually impressive.

[Bobboau]

Japan is probably going to end up being a really interesting experiment because if there is one thing I have gained from 15 years of watching anime is that they will never accept foreigners defiling the glorious land of the sun. so you might say they have to, that they have no choice, but I don't think they are going to. they are going to build a robot slave army before they let gaijin take their land.

[666maslo666]

What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change...

Tell that to the IRA.

Of course they are both. They are often citizens, but citizens who immigrated or children of immigrants. Notice that I said "with muslim immigrant background", not strictly first generation immigrants. Almost all islamist terrorist attacks can be traced back to immigration. These attacks would not happen if not for open border policies of the last few decades.

And then 9/11 happened.  You do know that the people who carried out 9/11 entered the US with tourist visas, yes?  Almost as though you don't need to be a legal immigrant to carry out terrorist attacks on a country.

You keep on making grand assertions that are trivially disproven by looking at history.  Maybe you should do what Battuta suggested and actually get informed about this topic before you talk about it.

For every IRA you find, I can point at many other insurrections that didnt end up that nicely. Are you willing to bet your country that islamic extremism will fizzle out, that Europe will end up with Irelands, and not Kosovos or Dagestans, with IRAs and not Boko Harams? For every example of integrated minority, such as Italians or Irish in the US, I can point out problematic minority, such as Roma in Eastern Europe or black people in the US. Are you willing to bet your country that today's muslim immigrants will end up as the former and not the latter? Its your choice, but leave us out of it please. The Communism experiment caused more than enough damage to our countries, we will leave the Mass Immigration experiment to you. If the results will look favorable after 50 years, perhaps we will join (they dont look very favorable now, thats for sure).

And yes, you dont need to be an immigrant to carry out a terrorist attack, tourists can do it too. Its just that in practice, ovewhelming majority of islamist attackers in Europe were of immigrant background, not tourists. Pointing out outliers does not invalidate general trends, and this applies to every statistical claim I have made ITT so far.

[Aesaar]

For every IRA you find, I can point at many other insurrections that didnt end up that nicely. Are you willing to bet your country that islamic extremism will fizzle out, that Europe will end up with Irelands, and not Kosovos or Dagestans, with IRAs and not Boko Harams? For every example of integrated minority, such as Italians or Irish in the US, I can point out problematic minority, such as Roma in Eastern Europe or black people in the US. Are you willing to bet your country that today's muslim immigrants will end up as the former and not the latter? Its your choice, but leave us out of it please. The Communism experiment caused more than enough damage to our countries, we will leave the Mass Immigration experiment to you. If the results will look favorable after 50 years, perhaps we will join (they dont look very favorable now, thats for sure).

Maybe the reason the Troubles ended as smoothly as they did is because of the way the UK government responded to the IRA.  Maybe the reason the Irish integrated so well in the US is, again, the way the US government handled the situation?

You bring up successful integrations and then promptly dismiss them as outliers rather than look at why they were successful, presumably because it doesn't mesh with the narrative you've built in your head.  Or because you're racist and assume that because they're brown, Arabs are less capable of integrating than ~racially superior~ white people.  One of those two. 

Also I look forward to Battuta schooling you over why black people are a "problematic minority", especially because the reality doesn't favor your side of the argument even slightly.  I'd do it myself, but he's far better equipped to.

And yes, you dont need to be an immigrant to carry out a terrorist attack, tourists can do it too. Its just that in practice, ovewhelming majority of islamist attackers in Europe were of immigrant background, not tourists. Pointing out outliers does not invalidate general trends, and this applies to every statistical claim I have made ITT so far.

  You haven't made any statistical claims.  You're provided gut feelings.  Your suggested course of action is based on what you think feels best.  It's aimed at making you feel safer, rather than actually adressing the issues that lead to terrorism.  It's why, when confronted by facts, you shrivel up and return to your talking points, even though those points were disproved a while ago.  Your position isn't based on facts, it's based on feelings. 

You lost this argument over and over again but you're too ignorant to realize it.

[The E]

You know what this whole "we mustn't take in so many refugees" argument reminds me of?
Back in 1938, before the Holocaust was in full swing, Jews and others were fleeing Germany en masse. Unfortunately for them, countries all around the world refused them entry. A lot of the comments back then mirror the arguments maslo makes here. For example, the Australian delegate T. W. White noted: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Sound familiar?

As a result, Jews had nowhere to turn to. The story of the MS St. Louis is emblematic of this: Since the refugees couldn't find safety away from the Reich's reach, they were put in danger. Of the nearly 1000 passengers on board, only 400 were able to get to safety, 600 were returned to continental Europe, where 250 of them died.

By closing the avenues refugees take, we become complicit in their fate. This is not a price I am willing to pay.

[NGTM-1R]

Are you willing to bet your country that islamic extremism will fizzle out

The IRA didn't fizzle out.

In fact, they were in many ways the best, certainly the smartest, terrorist group in the world. They understood the game they were playing intimately, what the rules and the do-not-cross lines were, far better than al-Qaeda or Daesh ever have. They were smart enough to see that things were changing, that they were getting more dangerous and that as the age of the cell phone commenced they were going to be in trouble in a few years. So they made their peace while they still had a chance, rather than dying of the Facebook Age amid a horde of pictures of dead Irish cops who didn't look so different from them. Other groups haven't been that smart; the fate of the FARC, or the Tamil Tigers, are instructive.

Terrorism is about optics. It's not some kind of military struggle. It's purely propagandistic, about making people feel unsafe, and about making them do stupid things to make themselves feel safe.

It's not about the big targets. The big targets hurt you more than they help you. 9/11 was ruinous in the short-term to al-Qaeda for money and recruits, and would have probably stayed so if not for the invasion of Iraq. The IRA took a serious hit on recruitment and fundraising when they killed Louis Mountbatten. They learned from it, too: the Royals and their close associates were placed off-limits, because doing something big, killing someone that everyone recognized, had hurt them. Hezbollah or Hamas are not going to stage an attack on the Wailing Wall because it'd be incredibly bad for them. The results of this attack in Paris are going to cause the Islamic State problems too, unless of course we do what you ask and hand them the kind of optics they so desperately desire.

[karajorma]

You know what this whole "we mustn't take in so many refugees" argument reminds me of?
Back in 1938, before the Holocaust was in full swing, Jews and others were fleeing Germany en masse. Unfortunately for them, countries all around the world refused them entry. A lot of the comments back then mirror the arguments maslo makes here. For example, the Australian delegate T. W. White noted: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Sound familiar?

As a result, Jews had nowhere to turn to. The story of the MS St. Louis is emblematic of this: Since the refugees couldn't find safety away from the Reich's reach, they were put in danger. Of the nearly 1000 passengers on board, only 400 were able to get to safety, 600 were returned to continental Europe, where 250 of them died.

By closing the avenues refugees take, we become complicit in their fate. This is not a price I am willing to pay.

What are you talking about E? We sent large numbers of them to a part of the Middle East and as a result that area never caused any problems ever again.

[666maslo666]

Jews are a model minority, they are actually more succesful than the natives, so thats why this argument does not work for them. The same is not true for muslims. They do bring racial, ethnic and religious tensions with them if they mass immigrate. So they are not welcome here.

And it is not like Europe is the only safe place remaining for refugees. Refugees should seek asylum in first safe area. The reason they are going through 5 safe countries into Germany or Sweden is simple - $$$. They arent even refugees, they are just migrants at that point. We should take care of refugees inside middle east, by increasing foreign aid, building refugee camps and securing at least some safe areas they could flee to. Not only would this enable us to help those who really need it instead of opportunists, it would also be better from a security standpoint.

[Col.Hornet]

You know what this whole "we mustn't take in so many refugees" argument reminds me of?
Back in 1938, before the Holocaust was in full swing, Jews and others were fleeing Germany en masse. Unfortunately for them, countries all around the world refused them entry. A lot of the comments back then mirror the arguments maslo makes here. For example, the Australian delegate T. W. White noted: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Sound familiar?

As a result, Jews had nowhere to turn to. The story of the MS St. Louis is emblematic of this: Since the refugees couldn't find safety away from the Reich's reach, they were put in danger. Of the nearly 1000 passengers on board, only 400 were able to get to safety, 600 were returned to continental Europe, where 250 of them died.

By closing the avenues refugees take, we become complicit in their fate. This is not a price I am willing to pay.

What are you talking about E? We sent large numbers of them to a part of the Middle East and as a result that area never caused any problems ever again.

Except a few wars with every neighbour, internal terrorist attacks and still unsolved cultural conflict
Besides.

Some Europeans say that they don't want immigrants. Everyone is going mad. Israel is not going to take anybody, despite being closest neighbour. No one cares or dares to criticize. Funny, huh?

http://www.newsweek.com/israel-starts-building-jordan-border-fence-one-month-early-369528

So. When Israel is building a wall for better border protection, it's all fine. But when Orban decided to set up a fence because Hungarian Border Security couldn't handle the situation, then EU officials got an enourmous bu**hurt.

[The E]

Jews are a model minority, they are actually more succesful than the natives, so thats why this argument does not work for them. The same is not true for muslims. They do bring racial, ethnic and religious tensions with them if they mass immigrate. So they are not welcome here.

Stop right there. Back in 1938, Jews were denied entry based on the racial, ethnic and religious tensions they were assumed to bring into a country. So they were not welcome in the US, the UK, or other countries around the world.
This is no different from the arguments you're trying to make.

And it is not like Europe is the only safe place remaining for refugees. Refugees should seek asylum in first safe area. The reason they are going through 5 safe countries into Germany or Sweden is simple - $$$. We should take care of refugees inside middle east, by increasing foreign aid, building refugee camps and securing at least some safe areas they could flee to. Not only would this enable us to help those who really need it instead of opportunists, it would also be better from a security standpoint.

Have you, I dunno, actually looked at the statistics? Most of them did stop at the first available places, like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or the UAE. Germany is the only EU country that has taken in more than 100000 refugees.

[Aesaar]

I don't think it's worth engaging with 666maslo666 anymore.  Having made it clear he knows nothing about the topic, he's now showing us that his position is actually based on racism.

What are you talking about E? We sent large numbers of them to a part of the Middle East and as a result that area never caused any problems ever again.

Except a few wars with every neighbour, internal terrorist attacks and still unsolved cultural conflict
Besides.

[666maslo666]

You haven't made any statistical claims.  You're provided gut feelings.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=2000&end_yearonly=2014&dtp2=all&region=8&charttype=line&chart=regions&expanded=no&ob=TotalNumberOfFatalities&od=desc#results-table

List of 20 deadliest terrorist attacks in western Europe from 2000 to 2014. 10 of them are confirmed islamist attacks (located mostly at the top of the list). Now, do muslims make up 50% of population of western Europe? If a group that makes up less than 5% of your population is responsible for 50% of most deadly terrorist attacks, would you call that "gut feeling", or "strong overrepresentation"? You might not like this fact, but statistics are on my side (and there isnt even 2015 added in there yet...).

[Aesaar]

You haven't made any statistical claims.  You're provided gut feelings.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=2000&end_yearonly=2014&dtp2=all&region=8&charttype=line&chart=regions&expanded=no&ob=TotalNumberOfFatalities&od=desc#results-table

List of 20 deadliest terrorist attacks in western Europe from 2000 to 2014. 10 of them are confirmed islamist attacks (located mostly at the top of the list). Now, do muslims make up 50% of population of western Europe? If a group that makes up less than 5% of your population is responsible for 50% of most deadly terrorist attacks, would you call that "gut feeling", or "strong overrepresentation"? You might not like this fact, but statistics are on my side.

And this of course has nothing to do with the fact that extremist groups, motivated by western involvement in the Middle-East, exploit Middle-Eastern strife to motivate people to strike at those Western countries involved in the Middle-East.

No, that's not it.  It's because Arabs and Muslims are just terrorists by nature.  Of course!  That's why it'll totally go away if we stop immigration!

Seriously, this argument you're making has been debunked numerous times in the last few pages, but you continue to do what I said you do in the paragraph you quoted.  This is like talking to a Young-Earth Creationist.  You believe the arguments against your position are invalid because you are unable or unwilling to understand them.

[666maslo666]

Stop right there. Back in 1938, Jews were denied entry based on the racial, ethnic and religious tensions they were assumed to bring into a country. So they were not welcome in the US, the UK, or other countries around the world.
This is no different from the arguments you're trying to make.

Again, the difference is, sometimes it is true. History is littered with examples of various migrant influxes, some of which assimilated very well into mainstream society, and some of which did not and are a problem to this day, or even displaced the natives. It is important to determine which category current mass immigration of muslims into Europe belongs to, and act accordingly. And so far it looks like they are going to be the second category (and no, I dont give a damn why, the mere fact that it is so is enough). It is thus not rational at all for us to open our borders for them. I dunno, maybe if in a hundred years it turns out I was wrong, and all those muslims in Western Europe have assimilated really well, then we can revise this policy. But not a second sooner.

Have you, I dunno, actually looked at the statistics? Most of them did stop at the first available places, like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or the UAE. Germany is the only EU country that has taken in more than 100000 refugees.

I am well aware of that. Then what is that million of random migrants (and counting) doing inside Europe? They should be over there, too. Unless they are actually running for economic reasons and opportunities, not running from war... which they mostly are.