Quote: (11-11-2014 08:24 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:
Some solutions off the top of my head:
I think that your hate for Islam is confusing your judgement. You are just trying to ostracize Muslims . The focus is on immigration, not on religion. Put the hate aside for some minutes please. You are just trying to conceal your wish to eliminate Islam from Western World, under the pretext of regulating immigration.
1. Immediate halt to any and all new immigration from Turkey, Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and other Islamic countries. Immigration isn't the problem, Muslim immigration is the problem.
You might as well suppress completely immigration then. Most of immigration is coming from these countries. However should I remind you that these countries also have non-Muslim populations who want to immigrate? You want to deny them right to immigrate because you have an issue with NON RELATED people who just happen to be of the same country ?
Further using religion criterion to deny entry to people is no different than using race card to do so. You are acting exactly like the Nazi regim (hurray Goodwin point! ) who put restrictions on the Jews and other people for religion and race criteria. I am highly doubtful you care that much about all the religious people from the aforementionned countries who emigrated AND behave well in Western World? Because most of the trouble guys are Muslims you equate Muslims with trouble? It is like feminist saying "Manosphere creates troubles. Manosphere are men. So men create troubles".
Again this is your blind hate for Islam which is making you generalize so quickly and focus on the narrative that's suits you much. I have no stats to back this up but I am sure that at least 80% of immigrants are people who never cause troubles, pay taxes, practice their religion with discretion and recognize themselves in the values of the host country. Why do you never talk about these?
And finally: you are equating Africa with Islam. If you carried at least a bit of research you would see that Africa is far from an Islam zone. Further, countries like Centrafrica, with Christians at the top, are beheading and cooking Muslim people, whereas there are countries with a dominant Muslim which have ZERO religion issues, like Senegal or Morocco, and are well known for their hospitality. By your logic all these countries should be equated?
2. Significant budget reductions for existing integration programs (e.g. free housing), with those funds allocated instead towards national programs that benefit the majority.
In essence I agree with that. However this has to be treated more on a case by case basis. Some immigrants really need a small help to get the ball rolling. Of course, those who abuse welfare should be expelled.
3. Require sworn, legal statements from all Muslims that Swedish law will take precendence over Islamic law, and that while they have the right to practice their religion freely, the promotion of alternate legal systems or cultural values contrary to established EU human rights is criminally punishable.
What about the immigrants who are not Muslims? Does it mean they will commit less violence? Further would you make Christian Natives do it too? After all, doesn't God say also in Christianism "Eye for Eye"? You are by doing that just criminalizing the practice of Islam,even if you think the opposite. You are like a SJW saying "you must swear that law that benefit females take precedence over those catering towards men. You can still practice your masculinity freely". Islam says that when you are in the house of your host, respect him. Actually, it considers so much the neighbour that the Prophet tought the neighbour was entitled to a share of the heritage, like the family.
Now because some guys do not respect that ( I add again: mostly located to the middle and southern East , or in direct relation to these locations -like Somalia) you conclude that the entire Islam is violent and is not respectful? Islamic tribunals do not really exist outside the aforementionned zones, or places where terrorism has found its way(Nigeria). Get over your Sharia fear. If you commit a crime in West Africa (except maybe Nigeria) the country law will prevail, not Islamic law.
Your sentence is also ignorant because you consider that you cannot be Muslim and follow a laic country's rules. Again this is mostly a class issue. People middle and high class do not cause trouble. They behave like the locals most of the time. There is no difference with the high and middle class Asians , who I did not hear you complain about. The richest among them especially follow both the local laws, and stick to their traditions. No one bats an eye.
I get that your issue is the low-class immigrants. However throwing everyone under the same bus is not the best solution.
Further, if you forgot that, Islam does indeed have some laws of conduct, however except for radicalized countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, the majority of the muslim zones in the world DO NOT FOLLOW the leadership of the former countries. You are taking the shortcut that Islam promotes values opposed to human rights. While I could show you bunch of counter examples , it would be off topic. I will just say that you would have to define what Islam is right and what Islam is wrong. I am sure you would be surprised to find the huge differences about Islam in America, West Africa, Maghreb, South Asia, Europe etc. Again equating everything a Muslim person does with Islam is the same as equating MRA with all the manosphere.
4. Immediate deportation of non-citizens who break existing Swedish laws.
Again it must be a case by case. And deporting everyone who commits a mistake is anticonstitutionnal in every way possible. Everyone deserves a second chance. Those who recidive enough, sure, deport them. Serious cases like murder or homejacking? Go ahead. Getting deported because you stole for the first time a loaf of bread in a supermarket? Fuck no.
5. Spouses of immigrants may not enter the country through pre-arranged marriages, and family members brought with them (with the exception of those under 18) must prove they can contribute economically.
This is already the case. A bit of a study is conducted before giving papers to the spouse. At least it is the case in France. I know people who had to wait years before getting a permanent residency card, being suspected of pre-arranged marriage. Further, who are you to decide who should marry who? This is a private issue. How about the westerners who marry foreign Asian women and have them join them? The former exist on this very forum. Would you have the same severity towards them? Given the tone of your posts, I am sure it wouldn't be the case.
Again, their economical contribution is none of your business. Not giving them welfare if they are not working? Sure. The rest? not your problem.
Anyway, if they have no welfare, this should reduce already the "they come her to take our hard earned money" complaints.Because this is the root of the problem, their "welfare advantadge".
I will also insist on the fact that the welfare goes primarily to the low-class people. Other ones do not get much. I am middle-class and contributed to France's economy with internships, and jobs. If I am fired, I get nothing. I don't get any money from the French government right now. Am I your enemy? I think not (if you exclude my religion from the picture, of course).
6. Mandatory language, ethics, and citizenship tests (laws, values) for all immigrants at least once after the age of 18.
You should do this to natives too then. The amounts of them who
would fail would very likely be astronomical.What would you do to them?
7. Ban the niqab, hijab, and any other religious clothing that conceals the face.
What is the correlation between the hijab and citizenship? Burqa, niqab and the rest are not mandatory in Islam, and are even for some of them from certain traditions(like burqa). Only hijab is mandatory, the rest is just posterious additions. And you can see the face of the woman with a hijab. This is again a misknowledge of Islam from you.
How does the hijab make a woman less of a citizen? Are nuns less of citizens?On the other hand, sure, ban burqa if you wish.
A girl with just a hijab is no different from a nun. Would you ban the nuns' clothes from public space? I am sure not.
8. Muslims may not serve in the military, defense industry, intelligence community, or any other private/public sector entities responsible for territorial integrity.
Again on what basis you are infering that because you are a Muslim, you might side with any enemy country of the same religion? You think that all Muslim soldiers think -Oh they are Muslims, let's not shot them?
Further, an immigrant being promoted to a "sensible" sector in the host country will most of the time even be harsher than the natives. Because he will try to show his professionalism to his coworkers.
And further, I thought this was an immigration thread, not a religion thread?
I suggest you calm down your paranoia. Because this argument is so ridiculous it does not belong to a serious discussion.
To be perfectly clear, no one on either the left or right is denying the value of immigration. Immigrants have contributed to every country on earth at one point or another. The issue is that the wrong people (those with cultural and religious values fundamentally contradictory to Western human rights) are allowed in the wrong quantities.
Lay off the Muslim hate for another religion thread. We are discussing immigration primarily, not Islam.