A fifth of European Union will be Muslim by 2050

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
11
Aether Island
However, crime (statistics on demand) has declined in Canada as it has become more cosmopolitan. You were right not to draw any inference. The truth is, the fuss about changing demographics is baseless mistrust of difference. Notice, I did not use "ignorance" as a descriptor.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Why do Canadians always get so defensive about everything, were not referring to Canada or the U.S. for that matter. :) The only place in Europe that I do know about is that in southern France petty crime has gone up due to high unemployment caused by uncontrolled immigration from their old African colonies.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Why do Canadians always get so defensive about everything, were not referring to Canada or the U.S. for that matter. :)

I get the impression that there is an unhealthy relationship here between the US and Canada. If you go to US political forums, they consider single-payer health care to be proof of a communist state!8O

And here in Canada, any suggestion of two-tier health care (which we have already to a limited degree as taboo as it is to admit to it) stinks of US-style capitalist excess.

As a result, it seems few Americans and few Canadians are capable of discussing the issue rationally. For Americans, anything involving more government invovlement, even if it emans improvements, is dogmaticlaly rejected as 'anti-American' or even unconstitutional, or even communist!8O

In Canada, anything less than single-payer health care is considered American, contrary to Canadian mores and values, rampant and unbridled capitalism, etc.

With that kind of attitude on both sides of the border, any rational discussion, any advancement of ideas for improvement, is simply impossible, and that kind of attitude will get neither side anywhere.

The only place in Europe that I do know about is that in southern France petty crime has gone up due to high unemployment caused by uncontrolled immigration from their old African colonies.

Not entirely accurate. Algeria was not just a French colony, but a department of France, referred to as 'la France outremere', France abroad. It was viewed as an extension of France, as French territory, and all its citzens were French citizens. That being the case, migration from Algeria to France at that time was simply intranational migration and not immigration in the strictest sense of the word. It's only after Algerian independence that some Algerians immigrated to France, but most French of Algerian descent today do not come from recent Algerian immigraiton, but rather from parents who'd migrated inland from 'la France outremere'.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Actually, a US equivalent would be Puerto Rico, almost. Puerto Rico, unlike Algeria prior to independence, is not considered US territory but simply a protectorate. In that respect, they are not equal. Hoever, all Puerto Ricans are US citzens, and so legally, migration from Puerto Rico to the US cannot be considered immigration but simply migration of US citizens.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
It cannot continue as it is today, they doomed themselves when people started having fewer children. You getting your wish though, the non white population is expanding in leaps and bounds as is petty crime. But I won't make a correlation there.

Ironsides, that indeed is what rankles the Fundamentalist Christians. According to them Christians have a God given mandate to multiply and populate the earth, and Europeans don’t seem to tow the Fundamentalist party line. No doubt religious right would like to go back to good old days, when families had 5 or 6 children each, husband worked outside home and the little woman stayed home, looking after the kids.

What really upsets conservatives is the low birth rate of Europe, they think it is unbiblical. I think that is what is at the heart if his hysteria.

Anyway, why does it bother American conservatives so much what is happening in Europe? Wouldn’t you agree that it is up to Europeans to decide what to do with their society?
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
I get the impression that there is an unhealthy relationship here between the US and Canada. If you go to US political forums, they consider single-payer health care to be proof of a communist state!8O

And here in Canada, any suggestion of two-tier health care (which we have already to a limited degree as taboo as it is to admit to it) stinks of US-style capitalist excess.

As a result, it seems few Americans and few Canadians are capable of discussing the issue rationally. For Americans, anything involving more government invovlement, even if it emans improvements, is dogmaticlaly rejected as 'anti-American' or even unconstitutional, or even communist!8O

In Canada, anything less than single-payer health care is considered American, contrary to Canadian mores and values, rampant and unbridled capitalism, etc.

With that kind of attitude on both sides of the border, any rational discussion, any advancement of ideas for improvement, is simply impossible, and that kind of attitude will get neither side anywhere.



Not entirely accurate. Algeria was not just a French colony, but a department of France, referred to as 'la France outremere', France abroad. It was viewed as an extension of France, as French territory, and all its citzens were French citizens. That being the case, migration from Algeria to France at that time was simply intranational migration and not immigration in the strictest sense of the word. It's only after Algerian independence that some Algerians immigrated to France, but most French of Algerian descent today do not come from recent Algerian immigraiton, but rather from parents who'd migrated inland from 'la France outremere'.


If the government (the U.S.) can do it better, why not fix what we now have first before throwing most of it out and starting all over. We have a very good health system with a few holes in it. Our treasury is being looted, I don't care what party gets blamed, they all had a hand in it over the years. Can anyone think of a poor leader in either party?

What is so wrong for a person who can afford it to see any physician they want to heal them? I hope we will always adhere to the policies of free enterprise to the point that a person still is free to chose who controls their medical decisions. I would like to compare it with a country with a population similar to ours to see how theirs may or may not work.. I just cannot see how a system can work with 300+ million people. Much easier to work with smaller populations.


1. China - 1,332,660,000 - rated 144
2. India - 1,168,250,000 - rated 112
3. United States - 307,261,000 rated 37
4. Indonesia - 229,965,000 rated 92
5. Brazil - 191,772,000 rated 125
11. Mexico - 107,550,697 rated 61

If you rate countries by population the United States is far better than any of the above. I am not being snobbish, but the other countries have a much smaller population to work with in every category.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Ironsides, that indeed is what rankles the Fundamentalist Christians. According to them Christians have a God given mandate to multiply and populate the earth, and Europeans don’t seem to tow the Fundamentalist party line. No doubt religious right would like to go back to good old days, when families had 5 or 6 children each, husband worked outside home and the little woman stayed home, looking after the kids.

What really upsets conservatives is the low birth rate of Europe, they think it is unbiblical. I think that is what is at the heart if his hysteria.

Anyway, why does it bother American conservatives so much what is happening in Europe? Wouldn’t you agree that it is up to Europeans to decide what to do with their society?

No SJP, I am not quoting Christian doctrine, so lets not go there. The reason given by most is that the world is to over populated and they want to do their part to improve Mother Earth. That's just fine with me, but do not expect a jump in your population if you follow that option.

In answer to your question, if that is what they want then don't complain when minorities become the majority. In France and Germany I know they are unhappy with what is happening. (Germany is still not happy with unification. :smile: )
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If the government (the U.S.) can do it better, why not fix what we now have first before throwing most of it out and starting all over. We have a very good health system with a few holes in it. Our treasury is being looted, I don't care what party gets blamed, they all had a hand in it over the years. Can anyone think of a poor leader in either party?

What is so wrong for a person who can afford it to see any physician they want to heal them? I hope we will always adhere to the policies of free enterprise to the point that a person still is free to chose who controls their medical decisions. I would like to compare it with a country with a population similar to ours to see how theirs may or may not work.. I just cannot see how a system can work with 300+ million people. Much easier to work with smaller populations.


1. China - 1,332,660,000 - rated 144
2. India - 1,168,250,000 - rated 112
3. United States - 307,261,000 rated 37
4. Indonesia - 229,965,000 rated 92
5. Brazil - 191,772,000 rated 125
11. Mexico - 107,550,697 rated 61

If you rate countries by population the United States is far better than any of the above. I am not being snobbish, but the other countries have a much smaller population to work with in every category.

If the problem simply has to do with too big a population, then wouldn't a simple solution be to just decentralize it? In Canada, health care is generally administered not at the federal level, but at the local level. In Sweden, the central government lays out basic principles and provides the funding while local health boards that are democratically elected at the same time as the central government every few years at the county or even municipal level decide on how to implement those principles. Why could the US not consider the idea of the US federal government simply laying out principles and providing funding, but with local health boards, elected at the same time as the House of Representatives every four years, deciding on how to use that money to implement those basic principles. This would ensure a highly decentralized system that can be handled locally. Another advantage with the central government being involved in Sweden, or the federal in the US, is that no matter where in the country a citizen travels, he'd always be covered. In Canada, there are sometimes a few restrictions to health care outside one's own province (Canada Health Act - Frequently Asked Questions), a point many Canadians are unaware of as they live blissfully with the idea that there is no need for private insurance in Canada.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
In answer to your question, if that is what they want then don't complain when minorities become the majority.

If they want to complain, isn’t that their right? It is their country, they can do what they want. If they want to let in Muslims and then complain if they become a majority (and it is only’ if’, not ‘when’, what you are sang is conjecture only), isn’t that up to them?

Indeed, Europe has gone though many changes over the ages. At one point it was totally non Christian. Then it slowly converted to Christianity and became totally Christian. It has entered into a post Christian era now. If in the future it becomes Muslim, what is so surprising about that? That is all part of the evolution.

Mind you, I am not saying it will happen, I think the far right is wildly exaggerating (as they usually do). But suppose it happens, so what? Over long periods of time, countries change, counties evolve.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario



1. China - 1,332,660,000 - rated 144
2. India - 1,168,250,000 - rated 112
3. United States - 307,261,000 rated 37
4. Indonesia - 229,965,000 rated 92
5. Brazil - 191,772,000 rated 125
11. Mexico - 107,550,697 rated 61

If you rate countries by population the United States is far better than any of the above. I am not being snobbish, but the other countries have a much smaller population to work with in every category.

Comparing USA with China, India, Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil? That is pretty low, ironsides.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
IN APRIL 1968 Enoch Powell, a Tory cabinet minister, destroyed his political career when he denounced mass immigration as a disaster (“like the Roman”, he said, “I seem to see ‘the river Tiber foaming with much blood’”). Today Powell’s arguments, if not his classical allusions, are becoming dangerously mainstream.

Christopher Caldwell is an American journalist who writes for the liberal Financial Times as well as the conservative Weekly Standard. He has spent the past decade studying European immigration, travelling widely and reading voraciously in an impressive variety of languages. His controversial new book repeatedly echoes Powell’s warnings all those years ago.

Mr Caldwell argues that “Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind.” European policymakers imported people to fill short-term job shortages. But immigrants continued to multiply even as the jobs disappeared: the number of foreign residents in Germany increased from 3m in 1971 to 7.5m in 2000 though the number of foreigners in the workforce did not budge. Today immigrants account for about 10% of the population of most west European countries, and up to 30% in some of Europe’s great cities.


Policymakers were even more mistaken about culture than they were about numbers. They assumed that immigrants would quickly adopt the mores of their host societies. But a surprising number of immigrants have proved “unmeltable”.

Mr Caldwell argues that the reason why so many immigrants failed to assimilate can be summed up in a single word: Islam. In the middle of the 20th century there were almost no Muslims in Europe. Today there are 15m-17m, making up about half of all new arrivals in Europe.

For the most part European countries have bent over backwards to accommodate the sensibilities of the newcomers. A French law court has allowed a Muslim man to annul his marriage on the ground that his wife was not a virgin on their wedding night. The British pensions department has a policy of recognising (and giving some benefits to) “additional spouses”.

But European public opinion is tiring of such bending. Mr Caldwell cites a poll that shows that only 19% of Europeans think immigration to be a good thing for their country; 57% think that their country has “too many foreigners”. Such numbers have recently forced politicians to adjust their policies.

Many countries are tightening their immigration laws, shifting to a skills-based immigration system and setting citizenship tests for would-be immigrants. The French have banned girls from wearing veils in schools. British politicians, such as Tony Blair and Jack Straw, have denounced the veil as a symbol of separation. The old welcome-mat seems to have been replaced by a “Love it or leave it” sign.

For Mr Caldwell this is all a matter of too little too late. Europe’s indigenous population is ageing fast, with a quarter of it over 60. Immigrants have large families. Moreover, Europe is no match for Islamic self-confidence: “When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter.”

Mr Caldwell’s unremitting pessimism about Europe raises all sorts of questions, both large and small. Are Europeans really as feeble as he asserts? They have discovered that some principles are non-negotiable in their relations with Islam, particularly women’s rights. And is Islam really as self-confident? The willingness of so many Muslims to take offence at any slight—a cartoon here, a novel there—could be a sign of profound cultural anxiety.

Mr Caldwell is also worryingly selective in his use of evidence. He all but ignores the multiple examples of upward mobility and successful integration. He dwells on the fact that many Muslim men feel emasculated by the success of their women without bothering to wonder why so many of the women are successful.

That said, this is an important book as well as a provocative one: the best statement to date of the pessimist’s position on Islamic immigration in Europe. Supporters of liberal policies need to sharpen their arguments if they are to prevent neo-Powellism from sweeping all before it.

Emphasis mine.

Europe and Islam: A treacherous path? | The Economist
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
It does seem like Karma to me. European countries have occupied and enslaved many nations, interfered with internal politics, particularly in the middle east so it seems only right that Muslim people get their revenge.
I wonder what the aboriginal people of the Americas have up their sleeve for their European occupiers?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Indeed, Spade. quote]


In order for that to be a reasonable statement would require you to use logical argument to show where my analysis is wrong. Why don't you try that, instead of just yelling "racist".


I have already showed you that, Extrafire, you assumptions are questionable. You basically assume that the same birth rate and the same rate of immigration to Europe will continue for the next 50 years.

Reminds me of the time when NASDAQ was at 5500 and experts were confidently talking of it going to 6000 shortly. Nortel was 120 at that time and experts were talking about it going to 200 shortly. They based their projections upon the assumption that the same trend, same assumptions will continue over the next few years.

They were totally wrong. You are assuming that the same trend will continue for the next 50 or 100 years. In my opinion, that is nonsense.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I remember Enoch Powell from when I lived in Britain. He was always a loose cannon. Even after 1968, he kept on with his anti-immigrant tirade. Which was a shame really. He came across as educated, intelligent, erudite man and could have gone far in British politics, could have become another Mrs. Thatcher. Instead he wasted his life on a senseless anti-immigrant crusade.