Clear majority of Europeans want a total ban on Muslim immigration

Hank Scorpio

55% of Europeans agree, with only 20% disagreeing.

Can European Politicians continue justifying large scale immigration from problem regions when this report makes it clear Europe is against it. If it continues what effects will it have not only on economic and social issues long term, but also Politically.

If the continued path continues one must ask at what point do more right wing nationalistic parties like Front National become the norm. Worth pointing out this report was created before Trumps announcement of a travel ban.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration

FreudianSlippers

1,000 people per country weighted by population is hardly a representation of how "Europeans" feel about immigration.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1,000 people per country weighted by population is hardly a representation of how "Europeans" feel about immigration.

Does it say how it chose the participants? On my way to work so can't check.

I agree though, 1,000 in countries, some of which are over 50 million is disgraceful.

Richard Hillman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1,000 people per country weighted by population is hardly a representation of how "Europeans" feel about immigration.

That's the about the sample size for most polls. Usually with a 3% or so margin of error

Conservative

Whatever about the merits of the report I don't find it the least bit unbelievable.

The French presidential election is starting to look like Trump all over again. The media writing off the National Front at their peril.

johnnyskeleton

I wonder if the same people surveyed were asked whether their countries should leave the Geneva Convention on Refugees and refuse to take in any new refugees they would agree with that?

One has to be very careful with surveys like this, as they allow little room for nuance.

Nody

Conservative wrote: »

Whatever about the merits of the report I don't find it the least bit unbelievable.

The French presidential election is starting to look like Trump all over again. The media writing off the National Front at their peril.

I simply don't see her getting enough vote in a second round; yes you can get 25% - 30% with Le Pen but I don't see her going higher in the second round between lack of charisma, wanting to get out of EU, flattering Trump (which I've not seen the French exactly cosy up to) etc.

Could be wrong but if Le Pen wins then it's good bye to EU and Europe will spiral into a deep depression in the south (Greece, Italy and Portugal defaulting, French farmers losing their subsidies causing mass strikes, Germany going to DMark again and costs shooting up etc.). If anyone think we have problems now with immigration wait until EU collapse and it will be on a whole new level of issues.

Varik

Nody wrote: »

I simply don't see her getting enough vote in a second round; yes you can get 25% - 30% with Le Pen but I don't see her going higher in the second round between lack of charisma, wanting to get out of EU, flattering Trump (which I've not seen the French exactly cosy up to) etc.

Could be wrong but if Le Pen wins then it's good bye to EU and Europe will spiral into a deep depression in the south (Greece, Italy and Portugal defaulting, French farmers losing their subsidies causing mass strikes, Germany going to DMark again and costs shooting up etc.). If anyone think we have problems now with immigration wait until EU collapse and it will be on a whole new level of issues.

25% - 30% would be a very low number out of all the predictions and polls.

Also not just the presidential election that the french have this year.

weisses

Richard Hillman wrote: »

That's the about the sample size for most polls. Usually with a 3% or so margin of error

Only 10 countries polled

Does saying 55% of Europeans wants a Muslim ban seems accurate ?

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

I simply don't see her getting enough vote in a second round; yes you can get 25% - 30% with Le Pen but I don't see her going higher in the second round between lack of charisma, wanting to get out of EU, flattering Trump (which I've not seen the French exactly cosy up to) etc.

Could be wrong but if Le Pen wins then it's good bye to EU and Europe will spiral into a deep depression in the south (Greece, Italy and Portugal defaulting, French farmers losing their subsidies causing mass strikes, Germany going to DMark again and costs shooting up etc.). If anyone think we have problems now with immigration wait until EU collapse and it will be on a whole new level of issues.

LePen will only leave via referendum and that's if she is successful. A point against her now is that people see that anti-establishment protest votes have consequences, ie Trump and Brexit. That said, it's going to be a very interesting year for European politics.

Hexen

weisses wrote: »

Only 10 countries polled

Does saying 55% of Europeans wants a Muslim ban seems accurate ?

Population of the countries polled is about 400 million; population of the EU is about 740 million. It's looks to be a pretty good poll by a credible institution. The findings fit, broadly, with other polls, such as Eurobarometer findings on non-EU immigration, and the Pew Research Center on European attitudes to refugees.

General split in respondents follows Brexit vote divide on gender, urban/rural, educated/less educated, etc.

It is very worrying. I don't see any credible solution.

Help!!!!

This survey was done before Trump's travel ban. Maybe the Politicians should start listening to the people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT4dxXvF2ow

Chips Lovell

Merged. We already have a thread on this.

Elemonator

As much as Marine Le Pen is a Eurosceptic, I can't see her being the one to drag down the EU by herself. The French are a lot closer to the EU than the UK (literally on the continent as well as ideologically). It would do huge damage to their economy as well as their neighbours. I don't think they would want that rep set upon themselves.

Help!!!!

<Video dump removed>

Chips Lovell

Hi folks,
Please remember to read the charter. Video dumping isn't allowed. Its fine to use a video to support your point, but you need to write a clear account of what's being said in the video alongside it.

KingBrian2

Elemonator wrote: »

As much as Marine Le Pen is a Eurosceptic, I can't see her being the one to drag down the EU by herself. The French are a lot closer to the EU than the UK (literally on the continent as well as ideologically). It would do huge damage to their economy as well as their neighbours. I don't think they would want that rep set upon themselves.

If the EU is not working for them then they will tear it down and start from scratch the problem with Le Pen is she offers no answers. Even with Trump at least he had no ideological baggage whereas Le Pen has an economic formula right out of the 1930's. Charge people to come to France that's one sure way to drive tourists and business out of the country and who will benefit well Germany of course so will Britain. I also don't see Le Pen getting the all important Pied Noir's to turn out to voter for her.

demfad

Hexen wrote: »

It is very worrying. I don't see any credible solution.

Curtailing the fake news, propaganda and trolling currently flooding European media channels would be a good start.

RobertKK

I think a lot see the troubles in certain Muslim countries, versus what is life in their own country, versus the rise of terrorism in Europe.

I see a lot of people scared that their countries are going to import the turmoil from the Middle East/North Africa, and their way of life in their own country will change forever.

What Germany did in 2015 was wrong, the intention at the time was good, but the outcome has not been good for refugees as a whole, as the sheer numbers of people from foreign lands who do not share a culture, is bound to have consequences - helped the far right, and also played a role in Brexit.

I am not in favour of mass immigration from Muslim countries into Europe, one may think it is being racist or being a bigot, but look at what it leads to in society. It helps push people who may have voted centre right to move further right, while making the left seem more deluded, so there is a general push to the right.
While if sensible policy while being strict was used, it would have been better for everyone.
A total ban is not practicable, but it should be limited, which is what was learned after 2015, one can't allow a dead boy washed up/or as some claim placed on the beach as the basis for immigration/refugee policy, which is what happened in 2015.

ScumLord

What if they start declaring they're atheists?

I think all religion is nonsense, but I just don't see how we could have a ban on muslims. We can't allow something like scientology and then say Muslims are too crazy to let in.

The bottom line is we're all the same machine. The difference between any two humans in minute in a physical sense and everything else is down to programing. Building a wall between us and them, isolating the two groups from each other isn't going to help us get along and we do need to get along going into a future with less resources. We need to find a way to stop demonizing each other, I just don't see that happening any time soon.

demfad

RobertKK wrote: »

I think a lot see the troubles in certain Muslim countries, versus what is life in their own country, versus the rise of terrorism in Europe.

I see a lot of people scared that their countries are going to import the turmoil from the Middle East/North Africa, and their way of life in their own country will change forever.

What Germany did in 2015 was wrong, the intention at the time was good, but the outcome has not been good for refugees as a whole, as the sheer numbers of people from foreign lands who do not share a culture, is bound to have consequences - helped the far right, and also played a role in Brexit.

I am not in favour of mass immigration from Muslim countries into Europe, one may think it is being racist or being a bigot, but look at what it leads to in society. It helps push people who may have voted centre right to move further right, while making the left seem more deluded, so there is a general push to the right.
While if sensible policy while being strict was used, it would have been better for everyone.
A total ban is not practicable, but it should be limited, which is what was learned after 2015, one can't allow a dead boy washed up/or as some claim placed on the beach as the basis for immigration/refugee policy, which is what happened in 2015.

The amount of immigration into the EU is minimal. Jordan takes more immigrants in total than the EU. So perspective is necessary. These people are fleeing real wars in Syria, Lybia and elsewhere.

The amount of propaganda being poured into Europe for political reasons is shocking. The arguments against immigrants are contrived, exaggerated.
There is even a real fear that Russia is more heavy fisted with its pounding of Syria knowing a wave of refugees helps its political ambition of destroying the EU.
The correct order is to continue to honour the geneva convention, help people as we would like to be helped in peril.
Next we need to freeze the aggressors who are causing the issues. That means the west not invading more countries.
And it means sanctioning Vladimir Putin out of power once Trump is impeached.

Help!!!!

demfad wrote: »

The amount of immigration into the EU is minimal. Jordan takes more immigrants in total than the EU. So perspective is necessary. These people are fleeing real wars in Syria, Lybia and elsewhere.

The amount of propaganda being poured into Europe for political reasons is shocking. The arguments against immigrants are contrived, exaggerated.
There is even a real fear that Russia is more heavy fisted with its pounding of Syria knowing a wave of refugees helps its political ambition of destroying the EU.
The correct order is to continue to honour the geneva convention, help people as we would like to be helped in peril.
Next we need to freeze the aggressors who are causing the issues. That means the west not invading more countries.
And it means sanctioning Vladimir Putin out of power once Trump is impeached.

Minimal?? Over 1million in 2015 is not minimal. Trump has the right idea by wanting Saudi Arabia to take in the refugees. If they were in such peril they would have been happy to stay in Turkey. The majority of " refugees " are not from Syria but from Pakistan, Afganistan, Nigeria.

Varik

ScumLord wrote: »

What if they start declaring they're atheists?

I think all religion is nonsense, but I just don't see how we could have a ban on muslims. We can't allow something like scientology and then say Muslims are too crazy to let in.

To bring it back to the troubles, wasn't there a joke about catholic atheists and protestant atheists.

US ban and the poll was on Muslim majority countries, so it doesn't matter. I'd be all for banning Scientology majority countries too.

ScumLord wrote: »

The bottom line is we're all the same machine. The difference between any two humans in minute in a physical sense and everything else is down to programing. Building a wall between us and them, isolating the two groups from each other isn't going to help us get along and we do need to get along going into a future with less resources. We need to find a way to stop demonizing each other, I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Getting along isn't what generally happens in times of scarcity, and when the time does come I doubt the west or anyone else would be sharing too much.

ScumLord

Varik wrote: »

Getting along isn't what generally happens in times of scarcity, and when the time does come I doubt the west or anyone else would be sharing too much.

Not traditionally, even though it's clearly better to agree to use resources responsibly rather than use them to fight over what's left. We know that now.

Interestingly Putin has been clear that Russia believes the Americans are prepared to fight everyone on the planet. They've surrounded Russia and the middle east and are able to obliterate Moscow within a few minutes if they really wanted to.

I think Russia has a point, the Americans have set the stage for war and they are antagonizing anyone with resources or enough power to put up a fight.

demfad

Help!!!! wrote: »

Minimal?? Over 1million in 2015 is not minimal. Trump has the right idea by wanting Saudi Arabia to take in the refugees. If they were in such peril they would have been happy to stay in Turkey. The majority of " refugees " are not from Syria but from Pakistan, Afganistan, Nigeria.

Population is 500 million. 1 million is 0.25% ..... which is minimal

For comparison the US would have taken a million famine Irish with a population of only 30-40 million then. (3-5%)

Considering the that there are far more refugees in Syria than were in Ireland this is tiny. The States around Syria are taking the vast majority.

KingBrian2

Now with Enda Kenya stepping down as Táoiseach the upcoming departure of Britain from the EU and the German, French and Dutch elections we are seeing a turning point in Europe. This would be the time to start putting forward better policies on the influx of immigrants coming into Europe.

RobertKK

The problem is not amount, but culture, and for the most part these migrants do not share much in common with Europeans - they don't share language, culture and for the most part religion.
This is where the problem lies and it is then up to the migrants to integrate into the society they are in, rather than expect the society of the country they go to change for them.
The terrorism problem in Europe is mostly home grown Islamist terrorist, not exclusively, but mostly, and with collaboration from terrorists outside of Europe.
No one knows how the new migrants who came to Europe will integrate, I would guess very little was known about the people who entered Europe in 2015.

demfad

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is not amount, but culture, and for the most part these migrants do not share much in common with Europeans - they don't share language, culture and for the most part religion.
This is where the problem lies and it is then up to the migrants to integrate into the society they are in, rather than expect the society of the country they go to change for them.
The terrorism problem in Europe is mostly home grown Islamist terrorist, not exclusively, but mostly, and with collaboration from terrorists outside of Europe.
No one knows how the new migrants who came to Europe will integrate, I would guess very little was known about the people who entered Europe in 2015.

Not at all. We are western democracies not fascist states. We dont impose an homogenous culture. We provide a legal umbrella and as long as citizens stay legal we are all equal under the law. YOUR culture has no more rights than anyone elses.

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Now with Enda Kenya stepping down as Táoiseach the upcoming departure of Britain from the EU and the German, French and Dutch elections we are seeing a turning point in Europe. This would be the time to start putting forward better policies on the influx of immigrants coming into Europe.

Turning point has happenned and now deflating. People are seeing what authoritarian nationalism is through Trump and Europe is saying no thanks.
Putin trying to throw dirt on LePens competitors is the only way she will get near election. Says it all.

weisses

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Now with Enda Kenya stepping down as Táoiseach the upcoming departure of Britain from the EU and the German, French and Dutch elections we are seeing a turning point in Europe. This would be the time to start putting forward better policies on the influx of immigrants coming into Europe.

Better policies are needed indeed

Unfortunately that will never be achieved by the likes of Wilders because he seems to be caught in a rhetorical loop . He was asked many many times how he would implement his policies and he could not give an answer to that other then attacking the person asking the question, and go on a tirade ... Its embarrassing at this stage

Rightwing

ScumLord wrote: »

What if they start declaring they're atheists?

I think all religion is nonsense, but I just don't see how we could have a ban on muslims. We can't allow something like scientology and then say Muslims are too crazy to let in.

The bottom line is we're all the same machine. The difference between any two humans in minute in a physical sense and everything else is down to programing. Building a wall between us and them, isolating the two groups from each other isn't going to help us get along and we do need to get along going into a future with less resources. We need to find a way to stop demonizing each other, I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Declaring it is one thing, abiding by it is another.

Moreover, is there no limit to the number of these muslims and others people are willing to allow in ?

Help!!!!

demfad wrote: »

Not at all. We are western democracies not fascist states. We dont impose an homogenous culture. We provide a legal umbrella and as long as citizens stay legal we are all equal under the law. YOUR culture has no more rights than anyone elses.

Well unfortunately most Muslims want some form of Sharia Law. How many radical Muslims are there is the world?? Radicals rather than terrorists? More than half world wide

WinnyThePoo

Help!!!! wrote: »

Well unfortunately most Muslims want some form of Sharia Law. How many radical Muslims are there is the world?? Radicals rather than terrorists? More than half world wide

Wow

Can you back up any of this?

Help!!!!

Indonesia = 205million - 2009 poll half the population want strict Sharia Law not just in Indonesia - 100million +
Egypt = 80million - 2009 poll 65% want stict Sharia Law in every Muslim country - 52million +
Pakistan = 179million - 76% strict Sharia Law in all Muslim countries - 135million +
Bangladesh = 149million - 2013 just over a quarter said suicide bombings was sometimes justified + 82% want Sharia Law to be the law of the country & 2/3's said honour killings of women can sometimes be justified - 121million +
Nigeria = 75million - 71% favour Sharia Law - 53million +
Iran = 74million - 83% favour Sharia Law - 62million +
Turkey = 74 million - 32% said honor killings of women could be sometimes justified - 23million +
Morocco = 32million - over 3/4 support Sharia Law - 24million +
Iraq = 31million - 78% said honour killings of women sometimes justified - 24million +
Thats over 500million radical Muslims without doing the rest of the world

MadYaker

Where did you get those numbers from?

Help!!!!

MadYaker wrote: »

Where did you get those numbers from?

Theres similar numbers here
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Peregrinus

Help!!!! wrote: »

Theres similar numbers here
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Similar in the sense of "strikingly different".

Where did you get your original numbers from?

ScumLord

Rightwing wrote: »

Declaring it is one thing, abiding by it is another.

It wouldn't be easy for anyone to prove their atheist, so we're basically back to restricting the movements of anyone of a particular race because they might be Muslim.

Moreover, is there no limit to the number of these muslims and others people are willing to allow in ?

There are limits, already in place that I don't think anyone is breaking.

Rightwing

ScumLord wrote: »

It wouldn't be easy for anyone to prove their atheist, so we're basically back to restricting the movements of anyone of a particular race because they might be Muslim.

There are limits, already in place that I don't think anyone is breaking.

I wouldn't restrict anyone just because they are a muslim, but I would restrict everyone from those countries listed above.

But why have limits? Is letting some in at the expense of others not inherently unfair?

Peregrinus

Rightwing wrote: »

I wouldn't restrict anyone just because they are a muslim, but I would restrict everyone from those countries listed above.

But why have limits? Is letting some in at the expense of others not inherently unfair?

Um, Rightwing, "I would restrict everyone from those countries listed above" is a limit. Are you asking whether your own position here is inherently unfair?

Rightwing

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, Rightwing, "I would restrict everyone from those countries listed above" is a limit. Are you asking whether your own position here is inherently unfair?

The current system of having limits is unfair, why have them at all if one is so liberal and kind and caring ?

ScumLord

Rightwing wrote: »

The current system of having limits is unfair, why have them at all if one is so liberal and kind and caring ?

There's basic practicality. Even if we were to allow all of them in, we'd only be able to process a certain amount each day. But it's a bit extreme to say letting in some is the same as letting in everyone including criminals.

The refugee program is there to help people in need, to help families flee war zones or places where they're persecuted. It's not for everyone, there's a different system for the other people. Of course others are going to try and abuse the system, just like we have native people who try and abuse the welfare system here. For many people it's worth a shot. That's human nature.

Yourself isit

demfad wrote: »

Curtailing the fake news, propaganda and trolling currently flooding European media channels would be a good start.

Worrying totalitarian attitude.

Yourself isit

demfad wrote: »

Not at all. We are western democracies not fascist states. We dont impose an homogenous culture. We provide a legal umbrella and as long as citizens stay legal we are all equal under the law. YOUR culture has no more rights than anyone elses.

Since when? France has strong secular laws. The UK has an established church.

The different nations of Europe are not blank slates.

Yourself isit

Peregrinus wrote: »

Similar in the sense of "strikingly different".

Where did you get your original numbers from?

He seems to have underestimated some alright.

Rightwing

ScumLord wrote: »

There's basic practicality. Even if we were to allow all of them in, we'd only be able to process a certain amount each day. But it's a bit extreme to say letting in some is the same as letting in everyone including criminals.

The refugee program is there to help people in need, to help families flee war zones or places where they're persecuted. It's not for everyone, there's a different system for the other people. Of course others are going to try and abuse the system, just like we have native people who try and abuse the welfare system here. For many people it's worth a shot. That's human nature.

It's a failure. Politicians are changing rules as they go along, see which way the wind is blowing type stuff.

Problem needs to be dealt with at source.

ScumLord

Rightwing wrote: »

It's a failure. Politicians are changing rules as they go along, see which way the wind is blowing type stuff.

Politicians follow the general consensus, that's how they work. If they didn't they'd be dictators.

Problem needs to be dealt with at source.

I totally agree, but what do we do in the meantime?

Sureiknow

ScumLord wrote: »

What if they start declaring they're atheists?

I think all religion is nonsense, but I just don't see how we could have a ban on muslims. We can't allow something like scientology and then say Muslims are too crazy to let in.

Taqiyya.

Scientology hasn't voved to kill all non scientolists.

Annasopra

Richard Hillman wrote: »

That's the about the sample size for most polls. Usually with a 3% or so margin of error

Really? For most polls across the whole of Europe?

weisses

Sureiknow wrote: »

Taqiyya.

Scientology hasn't voved to kill all non scientolists.

You must be living under ground at this stage right ?

From the bible

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

moneymad

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1,000 people per country weighted by population is hardly a representation of how "Europeans" feel about immigration.

It's largely uncontrolled mass immigration. There is a world of difference.