It's unfortunate to me that it is impossible to have a discussion about how this kind of immigration dilutes European culture and identity. The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, said[0]
If we don't stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state ... This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity.
While he has come under some criticism for these statements, can you imagine what would happen if a European prime minister made this kind of statement?
But how could these be diluted? Do you perhaps mean "change", "expand", "put into question"? And is it more important to save those fleeing for their lives or your sense of "undiluted" identity? (Moreover, an identity historically forged through their exploitation.)
The prime minister of Israel should be reminded that Israel was created as a sanctuary for his people fleeing those exact völkisch sentiments he now preaches. I know from personal experience that there are many Israelis who share this view and are appalled by his words [0].
First of all, Israel is a special case. It has been founded artificially on a land that was predominantly inhabited by muslims, surrounded by countries predominantly inhabited by muslims.
I won't dive into any discussion if that was a good idea, or if they were right to do that, I am just stating that a lot of non-muslims streamed into a place where there were lots of muslims. The idea that this jewish state, would manage to keep out the majority population in the region without some major "ethnic cleansing" is ridiculous.
In Europe it's the other way around. The large majority here is not muslim, and there is a small (yes, it's tiny compared to the whole population) influx of muslims.
There is no reason to fear a islamification of Europe. The numbers just don't allow it.
I believe refugees are mostly people in need that don't deserve the situation they find themselves in and should be given asylum in countries which are stable and at peace.
However, my impression is that they mostly request asylum in Western countries (EU, Australia, USA, UK, Canada...). Assuming my impression is right (correct me otherwise!). Why is it like that?
In the case of Muslim refugees, why don't they apply for asylum to Muslim countries, particularly those unbelievably oil-rich countries ( or even some more stable ones like Morocco for example), instead of some poor countries in the West such as Greece/Italy/Spain?
Most refugees from Syria have ended up in camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, not Western countries. Life in these camps is not especially good compared to asylum in Western countries with infrastructure for accepting migrants such as Germany; however, getting asylum in these countries is more difficult.
As for Greece, the migrants who end up there probably weren't looking at Greece as a final destination, but as a stepping stone for better destinations in Europe.
I don't know about oil-rich countries, but Lebanon has allowed over 1 million Syrian refugees in. I don't think it has to do with Muslims only, it's an Arab issue.
Such stark madness in the Western world. Sweden has no responsibility towards Syria. None. None at all, and there is no arguing otherwise. The grandchildren of today's rulers will either curse them, or simply not exist. It depends on how fast said rulers can wipe out the native populations.
And yes, it can happen--in fact, it is happening right now, and far faster than it happened to the Indigenous Americans.
The last civil wars in europe were 30-50 years ago. Back then moving between borders wasn't as easy. There were big movements of immigrants in europe , mainly to germany, but this is different. It seems people affected from war take immigration as the first option now, which leaves their countries even more devastated. Also, most of them seem to have no interest in ever going back making it even worse. Given that europe is not exactly flourishing, so it can provide jobs to those immigrants, it seems an interventive strategy would be a better idea.
[+] [-] JesperRavn|10 years ago|reply
If we don't stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state ... This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity.
While he has come under some criticism for these statements, can you imagine what would happen if a European prime minister made this kind of statement?
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/20/israel-netanyah...
[+] [-] nsns|10 years ago|reply
The prime minister of Israel should be reminded that Israel was created as a sanctuary for his people fleeing those exact völkisch sentiments he now preaches. I know from personal experience that there are many Israelis who share this view and are appalled by his words [0].
[0] http://972mag.com/special/aslyum-seekers-2/
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|10 years ago|reply
I won't dive into any discussion if that was a good idea, or if they were right to do that, I am just stating that a lot of non-muslims streamed into a place where there were lots of muslims. The idea that this jewish state, would manage to keep out the majority population in the region without some major "ethnic cleansing" is ridiculous.
In Europe it's the other way around. The large majority here is not muslim, and there is a small (yes, it's tiny compared to the whole population) influx of muslims.
There is no reason to fear a islamification of Europe. The numbers just don't allow it.
[+] [-] lllllll|10 years ago|reply
However, my impression is that they mostly request asylum in Western countries (EU, Australia, USA, UK, Canada...). Assuming my impression is right (correct me otherwise!). Why is it like that?
In the case of Muslim refugees, why don't they apply for asylum to Muslim countries, particularly those unbelievably oil-rich countries ( or even some more stable ones like Morocco for example), instead of some poor countries in the West such as Greece/Italy/Spain?
[+] [-] cyorir|10 years ago|reply
As for Greece, the migrants who end up there probably weren't looking at Greece as a final destination, but as a stepping stone for better destinations in Europe.
[+] [-] moubarak|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynameishere|10 years ago|reply
And yes, it can happen--in fact, it is happening right now, and far faster than it happened to the Indigenous Americans.
[+] [-] return0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rasputhin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HelloThereHuman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] return0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ads_are_shite|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]