Muslim integration into Western Europe


I'm here for the respectful discourse.

By "respectful" you mean that we discuss things and arrive at conclusions that are acceptable to you, correct?

Ignore him. His parents did and they knew him better than anyone. Well at least for the three years before they left him on that park bench.

Oh, someone's panties are in a bunch.

Tyler, the Bertelsmann study is really really weak as argued here for example:

Flawless integration into the labor market just doesn't fit to other facts we know like the very high share of (Turkish) immigrants in unemployment.

The whole survey more or less consists out of questions like "how well integrated are you?". No views on values have been asked or whether the Muslims really feel as German. There are much better studies that show that Muslims, especially the highly religious ones, do have problems with integration. Look for Ruud Koopmans' work for example, he has a new book.

Thanks for the Koopmans reference. It's hard to take the Bertelsmann study seriously since it doesn't show the survey instrument. It also includes a fair bit of editorializing, which further reduces its credibility. This looks like agenda-driven findings for political utility, not valuable research.

I would go as far as calling the study propaganda. Here is more on its many shortcomings:

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is dig faster.

-- Not Will Rogers

seems like Tyler did a lot of cherry picking for his text (though those who oppose immigration also do the same)

The issue nobody talks about is the racism of immigrant communities again europeans.
For example, just visiting the US an very educated, african american asked me where I am from, when I said Germany, he was like "uh, all germans are evil racist nazis". when i asked him to apologize for his racist insult he lectured me that i dont know what racism is and only whites are racist..

In Europe, racism is wide spread in the immigrant communities against Europeans. Tyler can pull out all the statisics he wants, but if Turks in Germany overwhelmingly vote Erdogan/akp and mhp... sorry integration did not occur

an very educated, african american asked me where I am from,

Just out of curiosity, bad-attitude lawyer, bad-attitude social worker, or bad attitude school administrator?

Or figment of someone's imagination? Just trying to be fair minded here, after all, without resorting to any stereotypes.

'when i asked him to apologize for his racist insult he lectured me that i dont know what racism is and only whites are racist'

You would literally be the very first German I have known living in 25 years who would ask an American, much less an African America, to apologize for the fact that an American insulted them by referring to the recent genocidal past of Germany. And it is interesting how the erratic capitalization is not typical for a German writing English either. Do you have a Canadian girlfriend too?

He said all *current* Germans are racists. The guy, the American, was an ass and should have been called out on his own racism. I've met a few Germans, but never one who would go along with being called a nazi.

Again, not a single German I have met in 25 years of living here would demand an apology from an African-American because that person called them a racist.

An event I already don't actually believe occurred, as the term of art to insult a living German, and not just in immigrant communities but throughout the entire world, is 'Nazi.' In part because everyone already knows the Nazis were genocidal racists, and in part because racist is such a broad term, while Nazi is quite specific in terms in targeting Germans. And it is isn't as if basically all living Germans have not heard that insult directed towards them already. It comes with the territory of being German.

Really, you don't think there is even one German who would object to being called a Nazi?

hey prior test
i guess erdogan also made no nazi comparisons and german politicians didnt want an appology?

'but never one who would go along with being called a nazi'

I've experienced Germans being called Nazis in a number of settings, in a number of countries. To the extent that the situation already involved a lot of friction, of course the Germans would not back down. However, they would be very unlikely to ask for an apology - admittedly, my experience is mainly in Europe, where the Nazis did actually kill a number of people, possibly including people connected to those hurling such insults.

I also admit that a transition is going on, in one sense - no 20 year old German feels particularly connected to events that happened 50 years before they were born. Which is certainly fair, though considering that there are still people alive from that era, it remains a complex subject.

Art Deco: ironically it was a person guarding the trump tower on fifth avenue - i am pretty certain it was secret service, but it could also be private security.

prior test: again, i dont understand what you mean. I am german (mother tongue, passport, father, born and childhood, identity) but lived half of my life outside of germany. my girlfriend is a nafri actually.


That I really, really, doubt, if google is any guide -

And if you have lived half your life outside of Germany, then you have been called a 'Nazi' as an insult multiple times, undoubtedly - did you demand an apology in each case, or did you learn to give up when people just mocked you more - you know, like throwing a Hitler salute while clicking their heels and saying 'Jawohl, mein Führer' in fine Hollywood fashion? Leaving aside that you might live in a Muslim country - there, you have likely learned how to deal with how many people talk to you about what a good idea Hitler had concerning the Jews. Which is considerably more disgusting than being called a racist, again talking about every single German I know, as not a single one of them thinks that genocide is a good idea.

Leave it to prior_test to argue against the facts.

"I don't want to hear what you are saying, so you must be lying."

nope i live in switzerland as i told you. how can i prove to you that i am german? give you a call next week?

You know, whenever one of the prank posts appear under my name, I use German to say it was not mine. And there are several other Germans who have no problem using German in this comment section.

And it would seem odd that someone who insists they are German would not come up with that idea on their own, nicht wahr?

Particularly since that wikipedia article points out that at least in Germany, 'Nafri' is used to refer to „Nordafrikanischer Intensivtäter.“ Obviously, Switzerland is not Germany, so who knows - but Blick reported on how the term was used by the NRW police, without referencing it as a common in Schweizerdeutsch. After a further couple of minutes of google searching, I still cannot find a German language source that uses 'Nafri' in any context where one would use the term to describe a female, much less any source that finds the word used as a common way to describe someone from North Africa - except in connection with being a criminal. Which is kind of interesting, actually. Especially since 'North African' is not how a German speaker is likely to call someone they know. Instead, their girlfriend would be a Marokkanerin, or an Algerierin, for example.

Also from wikipedia "Nafri is a Papuan language of Papua, Indonesia"

Maybe she's Indonesian.

Lieber priortest

du (korrekt du, nicht Sie!) liebst es Wikipedia Artikel zu posten (mit extrem langen Abschnitten - das nervt - lern mal Texte zu kuerzen) aber liest du die auch durch?Deutsches Sprichwort wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil. Dort steht naemlich "Eine eindeutige und amtliche Definition für Nafri existiert nicht.", jedoch ist Nafri eine Abkuerzung fuer für „Nordafrikaner“ oder „Nordafrikanischer Intensivtäter“... wieso zitierst du nur letzteres? "dishonest" wuerden amerikaner dazu sagen...
Aber du hast recht, eigentlich benutzt man es nicht fuer Frauen, jedoch habe ich mal eine Ausnahme gemacht :)


Catholic German

(PS: ich schreibe von meinem Handy)

Okay, die Tatsache ist, dass ich hier posten, weil ich nicht viel in meinem Leben gehe und ich bin wütend auf Dr. Cowens Arbeitgeber, weil ich mich vor Jahrzehnten gefeuert habe. Tut mir leid, dich zu stören, Deutscher Bruder

kein problem, du stoerst mich nicht. und skeptisch zu sein was Leute im Internet sagen ist ja gut, nur in diesem fall lagst du leider daneben :)

What does what you claim happened to you in New York have to do with allegedly racist attitudes of immigrants in Europe? Most African-Americans have deep roots in the United States.

true. it was an example of racism against europeans. i gave this example as it happened to me two days ago and most readers are american, to give the american readers an example. turkish people in germany constantly use the same slur against germans, as does erdogan who most turks in germany vote for

'turkish people in germany constantly use the same slur against germans'

I have lived in Germany for 25 years, known a number of both German citizens with Turkish roots and Turkish citizens, and this is simply made up, which is about what I would expect at this point. To be honest, I have heard more people from the UK call Germans 'Nazis' than any other group living in Germany - a place you don't live in anyways, according to you.

prior test logic, if something does not fit his world view - its made up..

another technique by him is just to ignore and forget - e.g. just before he stated no german would ask for an appology if called a nazi, i showed him a link of german politicians demanding that from erdogan (who is extemely popular among turks).. but prior test ignores and forgets

another link that support my point that prior test will ignore,view=amp.bildMobile.html

Oh man now Catholic German is destroying p_t3. Not a good day for our man in Germany.

Are you sure you weren't just not getting his sense of humor?

I can imagine saying something like that to a German visitor - in jest.
"You're from Germany? I heard all ya'all are racist Nazis.... just kidding"

Or you could just chalk it up to ... private security guards are the guys who were too dumb to be allowed into the TSA.

private security guards are the guys who were too dumb to be allowed into the TSA.

Justice would be served if one of them strip searched you while the other tore your carry-on to pieces.

I think Art has a crush....

i find it amusing that when i givr an example of racism of "minority" against "european", the replies are you are lying (prior test) or he was joking (you). would it be the same reaction if i gave an example of white racism against a minority?

no it was no joke...

And yet you have yet to actually respond to any of the reasons I consider what you have written to be untrue.

'Nafri' seems to be nothing but a German language term used to describe male criminal North Africans, for one extremely concrete example.

"And yet you have yet to actually respond to any of the reasons I consider what you have written to be untrue."

Maybe that's because repeatedly saying: "You must be a liar, because the Germans I know are different and I've lived in Germany for 25 years" isn't an actual rebuttal.

He gave an anecdote that's clearly plausible. Your response is to question his authenticity. This whole conversation makes you look more kooky than normal. No one appointed you as the official Certified German Poster auditor.

Oh man JWatts just messed you up, p_a

thank you jwatts, plus his statements are false.. the wikipedia article he linked said that there is no consensus about the word nafri and that it could be north african or north african criminal... he just cited the later translation and ignores the rest.

same as the links i provided to refute his points (no german would ask for an appology he said, well the link i shared had german politicians asking turkish politicians to appologize for just that) or my long text in german to proof me being german...

And the solutions to problems with integration is MOAR immigration. Color me unsurprised. Color me unsurprised that religious observance is defined as problematical. Color me unsurprised that rates of inter-marriage go unmentioned. Color me unsurprised that that a fuzzy variable 'report frequent social contact' is adduced (one that could apply to any minority in our own country other than the Mennonite-Amish). Color me unsurprised that no data on social or political attitudes is reported.

I'm a whore for MOAR!

Casual empiricism says that employment-based immigration into Europe where the immigrant has a job ready has not worked ok all things considered, whereas non-employment-based immigration into Europe where the immigrant doesn't have a job lined up before entering has been a bit of a disaster.

_has_ worked ok all things considered, I meant to write. I'm thinking all the foreign workers in German car factories for example. High productivity, high wages, nice cars, and decent integration.

Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon in Western Europe. This conclusion is drawn in a study published by Ruud Koopmans from the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. The author analyzed data from a representative survey among immigrants and natives in six European countries. Two thirds of the Muslims interviewed say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Three quarters of the respondents hold the opinion that there is only one legitimate interpretation of the Koran.

These numbers are significantly higher than those from local Christians. Only 13 percent of this group put religious rules above national law; just under 20 percent refuse to accept differing interpretations of the Bible. For Ruud Koopmans, this powerful tendency toward Muslim religious fundamentalism is alarming: “Fundamentalism is not an innocent form of strict religiosity”, the sociologist says. “We find a strong correlation between religious fundamentalism – actually among both Christians and Muslims – and hostility toward out-groups like homosexuals or Jews.” Almost 60 percent of the Muslim respondents reject homosexuals as friends; 45 percent think that Jews cannot be trusted; and an equally large group believes that the West is out to destroy Islam. The Christians’ answers for comparison: As many as 9 percent are openly anti-Semitic; 13 percent do not want to have homosexuals as friends; and 23 percent think that Muslims aim to destroy Western culture.

The Six Country Immigrant Integration Comparative Survey collected data in more than 9,000 telephone interviews in Germany, France, Netherlands, Austria, Belgium and Sweden. The respondents were Turkish and Moroccan immigrants, as well as control groups of natives. This study is the first that allows analysis on an empirical base of the extent and impact of religious fundamentalism.

Ruud Koopmans’ article “Fundamentalism and out-group hostility. Comparing Muslims and Christians in Europe” has just been published in the December issue of the quarterly WZB-Mitteilungen. The issue presents various contributions on migration and integration topics, mainly in German.

And here the paper

'Two thirds of the Muslims interviewed say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. '

And Bavarians still hang crucifixes in public school classrooms, though the Verfassungsgericht has ruked against it. Not just Muslims think their traditional religion is more important than the laws of the country they live in, as one can see here - ' A Regensburg school's decision to honour a father's request to remove a crucifix from his child's classroom has reportedly sparked outrage among Bavarian conservatives.

Bavaria puts a crucifix in every public school classroom in the heavily Catholic state, but education officials are required to take them down if parents complain.

Exactly that situation occurred at the beginning of the school year at the Albertus Magnus university-preparatory high school, daily Süddeutsche Zeitung reported Wednesday.

Taking down crosses is rare, but obligatory if someone complains following a court ruling in 1995, which found that the Christian symbols violated the religious neutrality of the school system.

“Usually it happens quietly and within the school community,” spokesperson for the Bavarian Education Ministry Ludwig Unger.

But members of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) have been outraged since the incident came to light over the weekend. A Christian committee within the CSU led by state parliamentarian Thomas Goppel has demanded the cross be returned to its position immediately.

“I have no understanding for one parent's demand to take a cross out of a classroom if it defies the wishes of the majority of other parents,” Mayor and CSU member Gerhard Weber told the paper. '

'Three quarters of the respondents hold the opinion that there is only one legitimate interpretation of the Koran.'

Which is fascinating considering that both of the major groups of Muslims in Europe disagree that the other group has a fully legitimate interpretation of the Koran.

'Only 13 percent of this group put religious rules above national law; just under 20 percent refuse to accept differing interpretations of the Bible.'

The Catholics in Bavaria are chortling - see above. And do note that the crucifix is generally considered a Catholic symbol, compared to a simple cross.

That's what separate countries are for.

Very well said, Anti-Gnostic.

Well, it is true that a number of Bavarians don't consider themselves really a part of Germany, but it seems surprising to hear a non-German say Bavaria is not part of Germany. Of course, a number of Franken don't consider themselves Bavarians either, though they definitely consider themselves Germans.

‘Two thirds of the Muslims interviewed say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live.‘

The problem is not that there is some religious affiliation. This is true of Merkel voting Bavarian Catholics too. It's that the word "rules" isn't fully unpacked. For many Muslims "rules" here encompasses a lot, culturally, politically etc. And that is a worry.

Seems a bit weird that recent Muslim immigrants would be well integrated into German society while Turkish immigrants who have lived there for several generations don't seem to be. A quick read of the article does not give the impression that the writer approached the facts with a disinterested point of view.

Tyler, you are citing a study that has been found to be completey at odds with the figures of e.g. labor market integration of Muslim immigrants published by German academics using actual micro data and not just asking people (on the phone!) about it like Bertelsmann did. In Germany, Bertelsmann is known to be leftist-diversity-partisan-hacks with no credibility.
One of the authors, by the way, is funded by a semi-academic German-Turkish thinktank that has a clear partisan bias in terms of Islam and Turkey's government.

Tyler doesn't care.

"Muslim" are not a homogenous group. In general well educated urban Muslims integrate far better than rural and/or poorly educated Muslims. Iranians have integrated well, Moroccans, Algerians and Afghans not well at all. Lebanese are often accused of fostering organized crime, but Russian immigrants aren't much better. Turkish integration is complicated by the fact that the Turkish government funds and actively encourages groups and religious leaders in Germany opposed to integration and Western values.

'Turkish integration is complicated by the fact that the Turkish government funds and actively encourages groups and religious leaders in Germany opposed to integration and Western values.'


What about the Saudis? Is this true for them as well?

The Saudis have close to zero presence in Germany (certainly compared to Turks), and their Salafi acolytes tend to be under a fairly high level of police monitoring.

"...tend to be under a fairly high level of police monitoring."

That is an area in which German's are highly proficient.

Not really, as the RAF era demonstrates, but the Salafis, like the Nazis, have as an explicit goal the replacement of the current government with one that follows their ideology.

You are welcome to read here -

I was just referring to police monitoring, it sounds like you are dejected that it's not something more Stasi like.


100% correct.
immigration debate would advance much further if we see that the groups are heterogenous and success of immigration differs between group.
second, turkish and saudi arabian influence via mosques and organizations is very dangerous

What the latest data published by the Ministry of the Interior reveal about the impact of immigration on crime in Germany isn't exactly cause for optimism either... It turns out that, brace for it, immigrants in general and asylum seekers in particular offend at several times the rate of natives.

This is the kind of crap I expect from the New York Times, Tyler, you're really taking your signalling duties seriously. Start with this apples to oranges comparison:

Only about one in 10 French Muslims report leaving school before age 17; the American high school graduation rate for all attendees is lower, at 83 percent.

And whereas the paper reports that "Opening the labor market to immigrants and actively promoting gainful employment has a positive effect on the participation of Muslims in working life. In this area, Germany far outranks the other countries studied," Tyler simply cites Germany as if it were a typical case in Europe:

Only about one in 10 French Muslims report leaving school before age 17; the American high school graduation rate for all attendees is lower, at 83 percent. In Germany, employment for Muslim immigrants is on a par with employment for non-Muslims, though Muslim wages are lower. The rate of unemployment for French Muslims is a disappointing 14 percent, but that looks less troubling when you consider that migrants are relatively young and French youth unemployment as a whole is about 25 percent. Labor market reforms and better economies can help integrate foreign migrants, and Europe is currently showing decent economic growth, again reasons for hope.

It makes sense that Tyler jumps from a stat about schooling in France to a stat about employment in Germany and then back to France, cherry picking which facts he cares to report. Here's what the paper reports about education in various European countries:

In education as well, subsequent generations of Muslims make up for the gap experienced by their (grand)parents. This takes time—especially in countries such as Germany, where the early sorting of students tends to maintain existing educational
disadvantages. Here, 36 percent of Muslims born in Germany complete their education before age 17. In Austria—where the school system is considered to be not very conducive to integration—this proportion is also relatively high, at 39 percent. Muslims have significantly better educational outcomes in France—a country with a particularly equitable school system. There, only about one in ten Muslim students leaves school before age 17.

He reports the rate of unemployment for Muslims, 14%, but does not compare it to the rate reported for non-Muslims of 8 percent, rather he alleges that this is caused by their relative youth. Possible.

He then cherry picks a statistic about religiosity of Muslims in Europe:

By no means is religion always a dominant influence on Muslims in Western Europe The U.K. is the only country of the five where a majority of Muslims report staying highly religious after their migrations. Only 26 percent of Swiss Muslims report being highly religious, barely higher than the 23 percent of Swiss residents as a whole who count themselves to be highly religious.

The other countries reported are 40% vs 16%(Germany), 42% vs 18%(Austria), 64% vs 11%(Britain) and 33% vs 13%(France).

It's also too simplistic to say that the terrorist threat reflects a failure to integrate Muslims. Integration is going relatively well in France, even though the country has had a number of high-profile Muslim-related terror attacks. Austria arguably does worse in making Muslim immigrants feel at home, yet terror attacks in Austria are not currently a significant phenomenon, suggesting that violence can give a misleading picture of aggregate progress.

The Occam's Razor explanation: that there are simply a lot more Muslims in France then in Austria and so more potential Islamic terrorists, does not occur to Tyler, nor does he think of the obvious ethnic differences between the Arab/Berber Muslims in France and the Turkish/Balkan Muslims in Austria. After all, this is not a subject in which we are encouraged to think in terms of numbers and ethnicity. So, he theorizes that there is more terrorism in France because the Muslims are more integrated.

It's also notable that Tyler says that: "Angela Merkel's much-criticized bet proved correct: Germany, and other countries, can integrate Muslim migrants" and then relies on a study which excludes the refugees who arrived after 2010 from consideration. Here's how Merkel's boner is actually going:

Oh put a sock in it you old cuck.

Sock ... get it ... as in "---" puppet...

Loving the title image used in that study:

A mulatto man surrounded with an Arab-looking woman in a Hijab and four White women. Very "subtle."

At least he didn't state outright that there is less violence in Austria because the Muslims there are more complacent.


Sorry, Tyler, but your Bloomberg article is one of your weakest ever. It is entirely based on one survey, which itself is mostly based on self-reporting. If in the current political climate in Europe you ask Muslim migrants whether they are assimilating, how many do you think will respond that they are not?

In any event, integration isn't only about speaking the language or having social contacts. The mistake self-declared atheists like you make is that they think all religions are a private matter and thus treat them neutrally. But Muslims do not treat their religion as a private matter. Islam inherently seeks to impose Islamic law on society. Name one Islamic country that has separation of state and church. Europe is built on Christian values, but not on a Christian law, and these values are frequently inconsistent with Islam. The more Muslim migrants Europe admits, the faster it will find that Islam is turning into a political force. Europe will one day pay for this, whether all Muslims speak the language of their host country or not. Indeed, even if terrorism subsides. Terrorism may dominate current events, but the political challenges of Europe's desire to hand itself over to Islam are yet to come.

"Name one Islamic country that has separation of state and church."

Bosnia, Albania, Turkey(though it's trending in the other direction), Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. It's true that the teachings of Islam are inherently political in a way that Christianity isn't, but they can always ignore the teachings of their religion if they don't like it, as many Christians and Jews do in the West today. I'm opposed to mass immigration and concerned about the rise of Islamism in the West, but we shouldn't overstate our case. It would be a mistake to see all Muslims as a homogeneous mass, there are many ethnic and religious differences within the Muslim world.

'are inherently political in a way that Christianity isn’t'

Every European monarch that hung their crown on the divine right of kings disagrees.

It is only when a group of avowedly secular revolutionaries took over in a new land that the concept was finally confronted in a way that led to its eventual heave onto the junk heap of history.

So not very many kinds seeing as how the divine right of kings emerged from the post-reformation confessional struggles. Until that point European monarchies unlike like Islamic ones were characterized by a division of secular and religious authority.

This was Hobbes whole point something just looking at the cover of the book would make clear.

This man would disagree, as does his realm, if their motto is to be believed - 'In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science. For example, Richard I of England declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193 "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions", and it was Richard who first used the motto "Dieu et mon droit" ("God and my right") which is still the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom.'

Yikes you just quoted the portion of the hastily scoured wiki page that proves my point. Secular and religious authority are separate in medieval kingship they aren't in Islam.

You are unbelievable ignorant.

No, I just showed, with sourcing, that your understanding, even restricted to only the English speaking world, is quite limited.

' Secular and religious authority are separate in medieval kingship they aren’t in Islam.'

Strangely, another English king would disagree with that (though you might argue that he was at the transition between two historical periods) , but I'm sure you already knew that. Just like you knew who is currently the titular head of the church that he founded

What you are truly missing is that popes claimed both religious and secular power in the realms they ruled, just as kings claimed that God supported their power, a very cozy medieval arrangement where the Pope's armies would occasionally fight a monarch's armies - both, of course, claiming that they were in the right both in religious and in legal terms.

As can be noted in the motto of the person who heads the Church of England, though the motto predates the establishment of that church by centuries.

Unlike Christianity Islam (in principle*) endorses a specific political structure, rule by the Caliph and a specific (albeit a bit variable by time and place) set of religiously-based laws. "The Divine Right of Kings" was made up rather late in the history of Christendom to justify absolutism-- which was definitely not common or even attempted until the early modern era-- and Christianity has always accepted republics (Venice, the pre-1815 Netherlands, etc.) and as well as monarchies. And civic law in Christian countries was based on either secular Roman models or Anglo-Saxon strictures dating back before the Christian conversion of the English.

* In actual practice Islamic lands tended to have secular authorities-- assorted emirs, viziers, beys etc.-- actually running the government and various mullahs and the like running the religion while many caliphs were powerless figureheads partying with their harem girls (and boys) and getting stoned on hashish.

Thank you for the informed response, I will study the situation in these countries more closely, particularly Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Although you would have been more convincing had you left Turkey out of this list....

And if Bosnia weren't only 51 percent Islamic and wasn't ultimately answerable to the outside OHR. Also if Azerbijan weren't one of the most irreligious countries on earth. But sure I bet studying Kazahkstan will shed a ton of light on the issue.

Wonder if the 70 years of state atheism has something to do with it...

This is such a completely laughable argument that immediately collapses into farce when you begin to analogize it to anything else.

You do realize you're laughing at the arguments put forward by the brilliant economist with a galatic brain, Bryan Caplan. He's thought very deeply about this. Open borders are an easy way for a massive GDP boost.

Yeah, a galactic brain. As in, Caplan thinks like some sort of space alien.

Or, alternatively, he thinks like a Bolshevik. Here's a quote from Caplan's case for Open Borders ("Open Borders in Four Easy Steps):

(1) Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

(2) To overcome this presumption, you'd have to show that free immigration has consequences so awful that they clearly overshadow the horrible consequences of restriction. And you'd have to show that there isn't any cheaper, more humane way to avert these consequences.

Okay. Let's do a little find-and-replace to replicate an argument that might have been stated a hundred years ago:

(1) [Capitalism] denies very basic human rights: The right [to not be effectively enslaved by unproductive rent-seekers and to earn a living wage for honest work]. The predictable result for people born [in the wrong social class] is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against [Capitalism].

(2) To overcome this presumption, you'd have to show that [Communism] has consequences so awful that they clearly overshadow the horrible consequences of [Capitalism]. And you'd have to show that there isn't any cheaper, more humane way to avert these consequences.

Some immigration, yes. Mass immigration, no. Someone needs to understand that these posts are about Europe. Your reference to dollar bills only indicates that you don't know anything about it.

Bryan Caplan is a brillant economist with a galatic brain. The reference to trillion Dollar bills on the ground refers to the fact that allowing mass immigration into Western nations is a very easy way to get a massive GDP boost.

Many Europeans don't want Muslim immigrants, even if they are supposedly fully assimilated (whatever that means), and peaceful. The idea that they will all magically endorse the traditions of western civilization and abandon any deep hidden feeling of solidarity with Muslims is false. A peaceful German speaking Muslim may still form a sectarian or ethnic minority interest lobby group disrupting the system and changing the culture. And that's the best case scenario. Islam, particularly in its 21st century forms, is an unattractive religion and culture and Europe would be better off without it.

I think this page pretty much refutes your crap arguement.

'A peaceful German speaking Muslim may still form a sectarian or ethnic minority interest lobby group disrupting the system and changing the culture.'

Considering who is running Baden-Württemberg these days, and considering who is one of that party's national co-chairs, you might be right. After all, it isn't as if Cem Özdemir decided to join the CDU -

Of course, this assumes that environmentalism could be considered along the lines of a sect.

Your ludicrous article is based on an un-sourced "study" from a leftist foundation. Shorter you: Believe me, not your lying eyes. In every W. European country Muslim performance lags in education, labor force participation and wealth, and they have higher welfare dependence and crime rates well into the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation, not to mention terrorism and their quite different cultural attitudes.

Immigration restrictions are a form of Jim Crow.

Thia survey cited is to some extent a form of social science. Isn't there a whole social science replicability crisis going on? Many any of the contributing mistakes being made in social sciences could might apply to this survey, such as respondents intuiting the answer the interviewers wanted to hear, shelving forms questions that gave unwanted preliminary results. Sure, this could all apply to a right-wing study as well. So no one study should be cited in a vacuum.

Not convinced at all by the study or its conclusions, partly for the many reasons cited above by others.

But I also think that the success of 'integration' is not something that can be measured over timescales like this. There are many examples of mixed ethnic or religious communities existing in relative harmony for decades of even centuries, who then end up massacring each other when certain political or economic stresses emerge.

It's not integration but its reverse: islamization. It's France taking on measures to assuage and accept Islam in the public sphere.So you cannot criticize Islam or you're immediately labeled islamophobe. You see more burkas in the street, often prayers in the street. Women are strongly pressured to dress modestly in some suburbs for fear of being assaulted. You cannot wear a kippa in Paris because antisemitism is so pervasive among muslims. About 50% of inmates in French prisons are muslims. They commit crimes at a much higher rate than non muslims.
Here is a very recent book by a french high school principal. He witnessed daily the push for Sharia law in public schools, parents who don't want girls and boys to mix and don't believe in equality of the sexes.

1000 French Muslims joined Isis. The 14th of July , there were 100,000 soldiers in the street for security: that's multiculturalism.
Try to have a pissChrist version for Islam in France and see what happens. See if the reaction matches expected western values for free speech or matches Charlie Hebdo's. Yes, someday there will be a complete and successful integration. France will have become an Islamic society.

Please. Don't let your facts get in the way of Tyler's hypothesis.

"By no means is religion always a dominant influence on Muslims in Western Europe ... Only 26 percent of Swiss Muslims report being highly religious"

In other words, they can't be highly religious because they self-report that way, forget whether their own thresholds for "high religiosity" rises as a consequence of religiosity.

The use of such weak arguments don't show much more than the author's own preferences.

And if tens of thousands of little girls get assimilated into mass child rape muslim culture in Rotherham and elsewhere, that makes Tyler especially happy. Writing about Muslims without dealing with Rotherham is criminal.

Comments for this post are closed