And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either. Where are all the terrorists? Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?
I am pretty sure there was an attack in Boston a while back..
Holy ****, two people! Out of 3 million! Unacceptable percentage!
When it comes to immigration from MENA countries, US and Canada gets the cream of the crop, while Europe gets the bottom of the barrel - its harder to emigrate from MENA to America than to Europe. The quality of immigrants is different, so you cant directly compare the two populations.
[citation needed]
Or is this another one of your gut feelings?
Its pretty obvious that its harder to immigrate into a country that is on the other side of the globe, not reachable by land, than to a close country, reachable by land. Why do you think we dont have any poor Mexicans in Europe, whereas US has plenty? Or US muslims are on average wealthier and more educated than European ones? The world is effortlessly globalized only for the rich, for the poor people, distance and obstacles play a role, so they act as a filter. Thats why US muslims are better integrated. They are the muslim elite. US gets the cream of the crop, Europe gets everyone including the bottom of the barrel. Since Europe does not have Atlantic ocean between us and them, it needs strict immigration policy to play the same role.
Here you go again with your unspoken assumption that they will assimilate easily, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking just about terrorism).
All evidence to the contrary, yes. I agree, all those millions of Muslims living peacefully in the West are clear evidence that Muslims just can't live peacefully in the West.
Not at the rate I would like
We will see the effects after some time. Just like we see the effects of past open border policies now.
Yep, we sure are seeing the effects of that policy. I mean, there might be one terrorist for every million Muslims. Way too much of a risk to take.
That "laughably small" percentage of terrorists in an already small percentage of immigrants is responsible for half of top 20 terrorist attacks in Europe in the last 15 years. Its still a lot, compared to native Europeans. Its like you dont understand how statistics work, and that when comparing different populations, per-capita rates of the phenomenon in question are important, not absolute numbers.
You're ready to close borders and deny better lives to hundreds of thousands of people because a combined total of less than 200 people (of a population of ~20 million) have, in the last 15 years, killed less than two thousand people (of a population of 500 million). And you claim I don't understand statistics. What the **** is wrong with you?
Yes, if some population proves to have far higher rates of terrorism than the natives, to the point where they are responsible for half of the biggest attacks in the last 15 years in western Europe while making less than 5% of the population, I would think twice before letting too much of them into my country. Sorry, but thats a pretty big overrepresentation. I am not opposed to taking some, but current mass immigration needs to stop, and we certainly cant take the amounts the proposed permanent quotas would result in.
And its not just about terrorism, you know. The rates of extremism itself are a problem (I dont want to live next to people from which double digit percentages believe apostates must be killed, see the earlier polls I posted). The
crime rates are significantly higher than the natives all over Europe.
Economic performance is abysmal. Mass unregulated immigration proves to be simply a bad idea whichever way you look at it. For every deadly terrorist attack, there are a thousand instances of lower-level violence. You cant have one without the other. Thats even bigger issue, IMHO.
I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH that you're saying this in a thread about an attack orchestrated by Daesh is ****ing amazing.
Organized by
homegrown terrorists, European nationals with immigrant background. If they werent here, IS, or anyone who comes afterwards, would have no one to radicalize.
----
Lets summarize our main differences:
You believe successful integration of these people at the rate they are coming will be easy or manageable, I believe its going to be very problematic or impossible.
You believe positives of mass immigration into Europe outweight the negatives, I believe the opposite.
You believe the demograpic crisis in Europe is going to be a bigger problem in the long run than the negatives stemming from mass immigration, I believe the negatives stemming from mass immigration will be a bigger problem than demographic crisis, so it does not make sense to implement a solution that is worse than the problem its trying to fix.
You believe that restricting immigration will result in more terrorism in Europe in the long run by inciting extremism outside our borders, I believe restricting immigration will result in less terrorism in Europe in the long run (or at least halt its increase) by decreasing (at least not increasing) the proportion of populations which are overrepresented in terrorism, compared to the alternative of not doing so.
Its pretty clear that one side wont convince the other when it comes to these issues, so lets just agree to disagree and leave them at that. Let the history (future?) judge who was right. Just leave Eastern Europe out of the Great Multicultural Experiment, please. Its not worth the risk.
