How do the French people stand to benefit from continued Muslim immigration? The negatives are self-evident, so what are the positives which seem to handily outweigh them?
French Election 2017
- Thread starter RockerGuy
- Start date
Funny stuff and Sharia Law and France. Trump just signed an EO that sets the US on the way to Sharia Law just the other day:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion-idUSKBN18025T
Now Muslim groups can be tax exempt and can start wielding their political will on the people. The entire idea of a separation of church and state is to stop this sort of thing. Christian groups will be too busy fighting each other (as usual) to prevent it.
I am sure he thought it was going to be a political donation windfall for team white fright, long term unintended consequences will be the lesson at hand. With this the US will have Sharia Law long before France who really do keep a separation of religions and government.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion-idUSKBN18025T
Now Muslim groups can be tax exempt and can start wielding their political will on the people. The entire idea of a separation of church and state is to stop this sort of thing. Christian groups will be too busy fighting each other (as usual) to prevent it.
I am sure he thought it was going to be a political donation windfall for team white fright, long term unintended consequences will be the lesson at hand. With this the US will have Sharia Law long before France who really do keep a separation of religions and government.
Marseille has had a massive Algerian population for decades. There's more Algerians in Marseille than in most Algerian cities for example. They've coped since then but at a cost. Marseille has a big crime problem, not a big terrorism problem though. France has always had a big immigration population from elsewhere too...Senegal, Tunisia etc. The latest influx isn't huge compared to that. Benefits? I don't know if this is a benefit but in Paris the immigrants were the only ones willing to do some menial jobs. Most of the street sweepers were immigrants for example. Another benefit is that if the immigrant is a refugee then you're helping someone escape an extremely ****** life usually. If the immigrant is an economic migrant with no skills...then maybe there aren't any real benefits to society but if you're going to say "ahhhh see...you agree" then you need to take a look at who the largest group of economic migrants are in these countries and usually it's those from Romania, Albania etc. If you've travelled around Europe you've probably been hassled by "gipsy" kids everywhere you've been.
USA is home to the largest population of Christians in the world. Good luck.
I'm guessing the rationale here was to counterbalance the effect of ultra progressive liberals on changing societal norms. What better way to fight gender fluid unicorn ******** than to allow conservative church-goers a voice in DC? I don't see this as an issue for separating church and state, which btw is meant to work both ways.
That's basically what I thought. Beyond the 'feel good' measure of helping someone in need, it also provides a level of cheap/menial labor that the local population may not wanna do.
To me, that's not enough. The financial and cultural costs, not even mentioning the possibility of further terrorism, are greater than the benefits. I guess the French people didn't agree, which is ok too.
Ashtonator
Well-known member
That's an interesting read and i did indeed learn a few things.
That said and as you mentioned also, there are difference causes and they need to be dealt with on a case to case. basis. While there were many attacks in Europe, they were not in France and they were not concentrated in France, This thread is about the French election and the issues France is facing now.
My whole argument was that France has seen an unprecedented number of terrorist attacks in a short few years which were almost entirely Islam driven. Given that France has the biggest Muslim population in that region (roughly 10% of the population are Muslims). there is a clear correlation between immigration and terrorism and to elect the guy who will carry the same policies that have led to this situation is just stupid imo.
Good read nonetheless.
The way to fix the economic migrant problem is to fix the economics of the place they are fleeing. I have talked about it before, something like the Marshall Plan for the middle east, it will cost lots of money but it will be cheaper than the current approach. That or a time machine back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire...
Marseille is something like 40% Muslim. It is an interesting case study, very (VERY VERY) high crime rate but a very disproportionately low terrorism problem. Why, organized crime--terrorism does not pay. Sort of a bad economic fix...
Think about this, Trump does what he says he will do, crashes the fragile Mexican economy, wall or not will this mean more or less Mexicans crashing the border? Why should Europe be any different, west gets the ball rolling on the destruction of the middle east, then leaves a huge power and economic vacuum behind, does that equal more or less economic migrants? Does it make the problem worse or better? We see the results.
Marseille is something like 40% Muslim. It is an interesting case study, very (VERY VERY) high crime rate but a very disproportionately low terrorism problem. Why, organized crime--terrorism does not pay. Sort of a bad economic fix...
Think about this, Trump does what he says he will do, crashes the fragile Mexican economy, wall or not will this mean more or less Mexicans crashing the border? Why should Europe be any different, west gets the ball rolling on the destruction of the middle east, then leaves a huge power and economic vacuum behind, does that equal more or less economic migrants? Does it make the problem worse or better? We see the results.
Yes because minority groups have never taken over the rule of a country before....
Of course they fall under different categories, some forms of killing are called 'collateral damage', some are 'capital punishment'. But the folks are sill dead. Dead is dead.
The question is why are some of you so much more upset over deaths from one category of murder over another? Do you guys think there's such a thing as culturally appropriate forms of murder? "Keep them furriners out, we want only our kind of killers!" I don't know any other explanation for the obsessions with terrorism.
Huh, it was a question, and only a few posts ago it was liberals who were accused of failing to answer questions. By that standard, you must be a liberal.
It was a question you had your own idiotic answer for. I quoted it here. And you continue in the same vein. Sad, what a banal way to argue.
One sad aspect to it is, by calling terrorists and terrorism by its current name society gives this scum what they want and it gives them more power. At the same time other modern terror acts are not called terrorism because it does not suit the agenda (many on the list in the US, white supremacist Christian shoots Sikh in driveway,another shoots up a black church...as examples). If we just called them all mass-murders and serial killers my guess is we would all be better off, or call them all terrorists. Don't give power to one group.
I cannot say for France but in Canada 500+ people are murdered per year, ~100 of them are completely "random" (victim was not a criminal, did not know the attacker, innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time). I am way more likely to be killed by these people than a terrorist, why give the terrorist more power? Just food for thought, why fear the less likely more than the more likely? How much money is spent fighting the less likely vs the more likely? Fear is good for business I guess.
Last edited:
Now that's a great question! Finally we're getting to the heart of the matter.
I don't have the answer TBH. I'm sure we can all agree that all immigrant groups bring with them some proportion of criminals and some proportion of entrepreneurs. Which ones bring more good than bad, and how do they compare to the native population as a group? I dunno, but it would be a shame to turn away beneficial immigrants for the sake of preconceptions gained through the perspective of splashy terrorist events.
Problem is it may be impossible to ever have those unequivocal answers, and as any mature person knows, we usually have to make important decisions before we have all the facts. On that basis, I don't think it's unreasonable to judge (without claiming it as fact) that Muslim immigration is a net cost to France. Even if so, my opinion is that it's not so easy as to decide simply to ban them from entry, for a few reasons:
1- Europe is a borderless region. Any restriction would have to be applied across the EU to be effective. While legit immigrants and refugees might be deterred, we can't expect malicious immigrants to respect the law when there's no enforcement of it!
2- That brings to light the concentration of attacks in France, and some significant portion of the blame for their attacks has to be laid at the foot of their intelligence services, who seem to drop the ball quite a lot. With better intel, the attacks they suffer might be reduced to a level that matches neighbouring countries.
3- I'm no historian but to the best of my knowledge there is no history in all of human civilization of positive outcomes stemming from the banning or segregating of people from different cultures. Apart from the obvious disasters that led to genocides, more moderate examples exist. In Canada we had Japanese interment camps, and native residential schools. In South Africa there was apartheid.
4- Refugees. Our morals (derived from Christianity) don't support turning people away at their moment of greatest need. Doing so would be doubly hypocritical given how much the West has a responsibility for the chaos happening in the Middle East. And ironically, getting us to abandon our morals would be a win for terrorists.
5- A ban would raise the impossible expectation that all such attacks can be prevented, and when reality demonstrates that we can't stop them all (see Israel), there will be demands for increasingly stringent and even violent 'safeguards' which only entrench the resentment without improving any outcomes.
In essence, terrorism is a fact of life. That doesn't make it a good thing of course, any more than killing someone for their shoes is a good thing. But they are part of real life and we have to accept their inevitability and deal with them responsibly as best we can, without any illusions about enforcing one cultures 'superior' morality over another's.
What you call an answer was in fact clearly a question. I think we have a fundamental communication problem here.
You no speeky English?
There's a bit of a difference with the way the French do immigration though.....all the immigrants I mentioned have French as a common language. Yes there's ghettos but there's also a pretty good degree of integration. It helps to have role models like Zinedeen Zidane (ignore the on pitch headbutts though) from the Algerian community. Some of France's biggest soccer stars are from immigrant families and kids see that and it helps.
Marseille is a bit nasty though. I used to travel from Paris to the South of France regularly. First few times I took the train but just outside Marseille there would usually be a commotion as someone was robbed and the thieves would jam open a door and run out into the countryside at night. I watched a few times when conductors would give chase. I took the plane after that.
You're not asking if I speeky English. You're making a statement. Are you knew on the planet?*
*that's not a question either
Another issue with France is their rampant nationalism which makes everyone from outside France a second-class citizen.
I experienced their intolerant indignation first hand when I visited. This was from a server, while I was ordering food, and I'm a white, French speaking guy (but obviously not from France)! Another example was an immigrant from France who I used to work with who was originally from... Algiers maybe(?) He was a chemical engineer but couldn't land a job that suited his qualifications there. He knew from his interactions with the French that he wasn't wanted and wasn't going to be accepted. I helped him move to Brantford where he found a job related to his field not long after moving here.
France is fertile soil for recruiting terrorists.
Last edited:
You LIEberal! Questions are not statements just because you have a hard time answering them without feeling like an idiot.
Last edited:
Yeah those couple million Muslims are totally gonna institute Sharia law in a country with 250 million Christians. Pass the pipe.
Because killing someone for their shoes affects the dead person and maybe some friends and family. Flying a 757 into a building or shooting 100 club goers with AK47s spreads fear and uncertainty through half the world. You're being laughably dismissive of this, dumbing down your argument to "a dead person is a dead person" is why your remarks are idiotic.
