Danivon asked...

And I don't really know what you are driving at. Are you simply suggesting that in addition to quotas we might set them at different levels because the source countries are a bit Muslim? Or are you suggesting that within such quotas we might have a check on how many Muslims are allowed in or not?

First, thank you all for your comments. I love this site for what a person can learn here. Second, I did mean to type algorithm but pressed the spell check without catching that. Third, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm wanting to know how this stuff works. I want to know how a European country arrives at a quota. I want to know how the politics of a given European country factors in religion as part of that quota if at all. I want to know how Marseilles and other European cities like it have such a large Muslim population.

and again in response to Ray Danivon wrote...

Reading the questions, it seemed less about how we deal with people when they are here, and more about how many immigrants we allow in in the first place. Thus references to immigration laws, looking at numbers/proportions of immigrants by country of origin etc.

Danivon is correct here. I want to know how the "quotas" exist in the first place, if they exist at all and who develops them and what the parameters are in doing so.

I believe such quotas do exist in the US but honestly I don't even know that. I'm fairly ignorant on this topic. I know that in my hometown we have a growing number of Bosnian and Ethiopians. As an aside I'll add that both groups are thriving and do not appear to be a burden to the community in any way. But I do know that in the case of the Bosnians the US took in more than a few during the Serbian War and that many were here for political asylum.

What I need to do is take up Ricky's advice and simply grab a book or two on the subject but I'm too lazy for that and have a stack of other books I've yet to get to.

Danivon, your points on the need for labor as one reason for an influx of immigration was a helpful reminder. After WWII Germany didn't have a workforce to speak of and turned to Turkey for help I believe? So I get the Muslim community there. Your point about the clandestine immigrants in Spain and Italy makes sense. All I know is that the Muslim population in Europe is growing which means European culture is changing and this will continue to have ramifications on the political and religious landscapes there.

Sassenach, can you confirm if EU countries take in political asylum seekers annually? I assume so. If so, how many are accepted annually and do the numbers vary from one country to another?

Again, thank you all.

There are always going to be a few who can be attracted to extremist groups, particularly those who respond to the romantic notions that ISIS puts out on the internet. The question is, at what point is the number significant. And are the numbers enough to represent a true trend?
Moreover, if the kinds of attitudes measured in Saunders data about European Muslims is right, then only a few lunatics on the fringe and some dazed and confused youth are responding to ISIS. Everyone else is worrying about paying their mortgages and wondering how Arsene Wenger keeps his job year after year.

I'm not sure why we have to treat Saunders' data as gospel. There was a recent poll here which found that 27% of British Muslims agreed that the Charlie Hebdo murders were justified and a further 8% answered 'don't know'. I find it hard to believe that anybody could really not know whether cold-blooded murder is justified so you have to make the logical assumption that the don't knows are really in the yes camp but didn't want to admit it. That means well over a third of British Muslims supported an act of terrorism if this poll is to be believed. Slightly more concerning than the figures you're quoting is it not ?

American Muslims tend to be much wore economically successful and with the exception of a very limited number of locations such as Dearborn in Detroit, they don't cluster together in cultural ghettos like they do in Europe. Little wonder that they've assimilated much more easily than they have in Europe.

Danivon is correct here. I want to know how the "quotas" exist in the first place, if they exist at all and who develops them and what the parameters are in doing so.

There are no quotas. Occasionally countries will reach an agreement to accept a certain number of refugees from particular disaster zones (Syria being the most recent of these), but this represents a small proportion of overall migration figures and so it's largely irrelevant. Here in the UK we do have a cap on the number of work visas that can be issued in any given year (to non-EU migrants) but there certainly isn't any discrimination between different ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds.

sass

I'm not sure why we have to treat Saunders' data as gospel.

You don't. Offering evidence that contradicts it is welcomed.
However what Saunders does is put a lot of the polls under the microscope and offer context.
It would be interesting to see the actual question, methodology and responses to this..

There was a recent poll here which found that 27% of British Muslims agreed that the Charlie Hebdo murders were justified and a further 8% answered 'don't know

'
What percentage of non-muslims responded similarily?
For instance: (from link above)

9. Muslims in the West cheer for terrorist violence
While it might seem chilling to learn that 8% of American Muslims feel that violence against civilian targets is “often or sometimes justified” if the cause is right, you have to compare that to the response given by non-Muslim Americans, 24% of whom said that such attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”
This is reflected in most major surveys. When a large-scale survey asked if “attacks on civilians are morally justified,” 1% of the French public, 1% of the German public and 3% of the British public answered yes; among Muslims, the responses were 2%, 0.5%, and 2%. Asked if it is “justifiable to use violence for a noble cause,” 7% of the French public agreed, along with 8% of French Muslims; 10% of the German public and fewer than 2% of German Muslims; 10% of the British public and 8% of British Muslims. This may well be because 85% of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.

sass

American Muslims tend to be much wore economically successful and with the exception of a very limited number of locations such as Dearborn in Detroit, they don't cluster together in cultural ghettos like they do in Europe. Little wonder that they've assimilated much more easily than they have in Europe

If you limit the economic freedom of immigrants (France) , if their religion is demonized by many in society, the youth who see no future will become disaffected and more open to the propaganda offered on the Internet by ISIS. You create potential recruits...(Something the current Canadian government is accused of doing... )

Similar points were made Monday in Ottawa during a hearing of the Senate committee on security and defence by the president of the Manitoba-based Islamic Social Services Association, Shahina Siddiqui (no relation). She is a member of the RCMP Commissioner’s Advisory Committee on Diversity and works closely with Winnipeg police.
She said the steady stream of propaganda by the Islamic State tells young Canadians that “you cannot be a Canadian and cannot be a Muslim. ‘Look at how they attack and demonize your faith and stigmatize the Muslim community and how they won’t allow Muslim women to wear the hijab.’
“Then they turn on the Muslim community and say, ‘Look, they are not doing anything for you; they’re not doing anything for the brothers and sisters in Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq.’
“Those are the ways in which they are trying to reach some of the vulnerable youth.”
To counter that, “we have to show our youth that they are part of Canada; that Canada is their country; and that they can be both loyal Canadians and devout Muslims. There is no dichotomy. Terrorism is not jihad. It is terrorism, it’s evil and we need to purge it. At the same time, we need to tell our youth and our community that the majority of Canadians are not Islamophobic and are not racist. They may not be well-informed, so our job is to inform, educate and reach out.”
Yet “when I am called a terrorist supporter or somebody who caters to that, you are attacking me. I have two Canadian grandkids. How do I tell them that your own country, your own people are turning on you? I don’t have the heart to tell them that the Canada I chose to be my home, and I will defend to my last breath, is attacking my community.”

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commenta ... diqui.html

Although the idea of muslim residents of western countries joining ISIS or other terror organizations is deeply concerning - perhaps some context is also required.
In any conflict, foreigners seem to find a reason to enter the fray.
For example: in Ukraine right now there are thousands of foreign fighters on both sides of the battle...Some motivated by "the cause", some the money.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28951324

The difference is in the Middle east is that there is active recruitment of volunteers going on. And that isn't something that generally occurs. Excepting for the french foreign legion and the Israelis Defense force recruitment of dual citizens in other countries).
But prior to American involvement in the WWI and WWII thousands of young American men joined the Canadian armed forces. Several thousand Canadians joined the US forces to fight in Vietnam. (And way back when in the Civil War on the Union side) There were foreign brigades from many countries in the Spanish Civil War. All of these young men (mostly) were motivated differently. Often "the cause" was the primary motivation.
If young Muslims find the conflict in the Middle East a worthy cause the question has to be "why"? ISIS is trying to portray this conflict as a war against Islam. And their atrocities are often aimed at generating responses that make this seem true. And indeed some in the west are comfortable with that portrayal as well. Responsible policies will ensure that governments in the West avoid this snare and ensure that the conflict is not seen as a religious war or cultural war.
And responsible policies domestically are required to ensure that young western Muslim's aren't driven to disaffection by lack of equal opportunity or unequal treatment under law. Things like bans on ha-jibs or religious clothing are symbols that speak loudly and have potential consequences that proponents of these kinds of laws have probably not considered

It would be interesting to see the actual question, methodology and responses to this..

It was a poll of 1000 British Muslims covering their social attitudes. The specific question was 'do you have sympathy with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo killers ?'. Doesn't get much clearer than that really. It's one thing to ask an abstract question about whether violence is justified in a noble cause and another to ask a specific question about whether somebody has sympathy with terrorists. I'd venture to suggest that a poll of non-Islamic Britons would not have come up with anybody who had any sympathy, or if so then it certainly wouldn't have been anything like 27%. The same poll, incidentally, found that 20% of British Muslims believe that Islam is incompatible with Western liberal society and 11% believed that anybody who publishes satirical cartoons of the Prophet deserve to be attacked. 51% do not believe that Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion. Just think about that last figure for a second...

You seem to believe that there's some kind of historical determinism at work which will inevitably lead to Muslims following the exact same path as other immigrant groups. I daresay most of them probably will, but if a very substantial minority do not then we have a problem. If the 1000 people sampled in that poll I just mentioned are a representative sample then it means we have approximately 750000 people living in this country who sympathise with those who murder journalists. I'd say we have a long way to go before this community are successfully integrated.

sass

The specific question was 'do you have sympathy with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo killers ?

'.
What they are saying is that they understand that the murderers outrage at the intentional insult to their religion.
That's a far cry from condoning the act. Or saying that the murdered 'got what they deserved."
I think you over state what it means. In fact you report that the poll

11% believed that anybody who publishes satirical cartoons of the Prophet deserve to be attacked.

and the words used there are "attacked." So understanding "or sympathizing," isn't the same is it?
Do you have a link to the poll?

sass

51% do not believe that Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion. Just think about that last figure for a second

If this refers to clerics in the middle east, it probably represents an accurate statement. That mainstream Muslim opinion in the middle east right now hold particular resentments against the west... The poll isn't asking them if this is a properly held sentiment, only if they think that it is widely held...

sass

You seem to believe that there's some kind of historical determinism at work which will inevitably lead to Muslims following the exact same path as other immigrant groups. I daresay most of them probably will, but if a very substantial minority do not then we have a problem

.
Yes. And I agree that if a substantial number decide to join the ISIS cause that's a huge problem.
If they don't become disillusioned in doing so. (Or killed whilst in the middle east)
So the question becomes, just as it always had, what drives these individuals to make common cause with ISIS. And how can it be combated to ensure the numbers are only a few... or the individual\s monitored...
I frankly worry less about the handful who go join the battle then the ones who stay behind, perhaps because fr some simple reason like cost or the inability to get a passport to travel ...who then decide to act as alone wolf.
There's no existential threat in any of this, but there is potential for the kinds of acts we saw in Boston and Ottawa.

Thousands from the UK, Ray Jay? I would like you to cite a source on that, as I have not seen estimates that high. Hundreds, yes. Thousands no.

A lot of Muslims in the USA are Shia, whou would not support ISIS.

danivon wrote:Thousands from the UK, Ray Jay? I would like you to cite a source on that, as I have not seen estimates that high. Hundreds, yes. Thousands no.

I see that I may have misinterpreted. Per this article it is thousands joining Islamic extremists. This is from August 2014, so I would think higher now:

http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-brit ... ces-265865

Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, estimates that at least 1,500 young British Muslims have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria in the last three years.

Mahmood told Newsweek that this figure had been building since the start of the Syrian conflict: "If you look across the whole of the country, and the various communities involved, 500 going over each year would be a conservative estimate.”

According to the Ministry of Defence, there are only around 600 British Muslims currently serving in the Armed Forces, making up approximately around 0.4% of total personnel. 4.3% of the British population are Muslim.

The UK Foreign Office said that they believe over 400 individuals have travelled to Syria since the uprising began, but said that they could not give exact numbers.

However Mahmood described such low estimates as “nonsense”

Danivon:

A lot of Muslims in the USA are Shia, whou would not support ISIS.

Per Wikipedia,

Approximately half (50%) of the religious affiliations of Muslims is Sunni, 16% Shia, 22% non-affiliated and 16% other/non-response.[

Would UK Muslims of Bangladeshi or Pakistani descent be less likely to join ISIS than a Muslim of Arab descent?

Sass I found the ComRes Poll site, but it doesn't show the methodology OR the actual questionnare. (Thats troubling, as they don't really open themselves to scrutiny.It doesn't even ay if these were in person, on the phone or Internet interactions) Only this summary is provided . But I think that even this summary is less alarming than what you seem to indicate. Note bolds.

More than two in five (46%) feel that being a Muslim in Britain is difficult due to prejudice against Islam.
Almost all Muslims living in Britain feel a loyalty to the country (95%). Just 6% say they feel a disloyalty.
Nine in ten (93%) British Muslims believe that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws.
One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
However, two thirds (68%) say acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet can never be justified while a quarter (24%) disagree.
Muslim women are more likely than men to feel unsafe in Britain.
One in nine (11%) British Muslims feel sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests while 85% do not.
Half (49%) believe Muslim clerics preaching that violence against the west can be justified are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion, while 45% disagree.

I ask you this... If you asked 1,000 C of E members would 7% disagree with the question "Christians should always obey British laws."?
I think maybe not. There are always a small percentage of people who answer polls perversely. And there are enough that might have particular beefs with specific laws ... etc.
This poll would have had more meaning ir if also measured the opinions of ordinary Brits. I wouldn't be surprised to find many conservative Christians who had some sympathy for the "motives" of the Charlie Hebdo murderers too... Deliberate insults to religion can be that way...

Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, estimates that at least 1,500 young British Muslims have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria in the last three years

.

I wonder how Mahmood arrived at this estimate?

rickyp wrote:

Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, estimates that at least 1,500 young British Muslims have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria in the last three years

.

I wonder how Mahmood arrived at this estimate?

It's a reasonable question. He is a Labour MP and sympathetic to the Muslim community (and I guess a member of it).

What they are saying is that they understand that the murderers outrage at the intentional insult to their religion.
That's a far cry from condoning the act. Or saying that the murdered 'got what they deserved."
I think you over state what it means.

How do you know what they're saying ? The question they were asked was whether they have sympathy with the motives of the attackers. I'm merely reporting the facts, you're the one who's trying to spin them to fit your agenda.

I personally find it very worrying that over a quarter of British Muslims sympathise with the idea that it's ok to murder somebody who insults their faith. It's indicative of a mindset that's totally at odds with our values. The fact that a further 8% answered 'don't know' and another 2% refused to answer at all is not much more reassuring.

and the words used there are "attacked." So understanding "or sympathizing," isn't the same is it?

You're wilfully missing the point. I freely posted both of these findings and in doing so implicitly accepted that there's a distinction between those who openly think the Charlie Hebdo guys had it coming and those who merely have sympathy with the killers. So what ? Both findings are inherently worrying.

If this refers to clerics in the middle east, it probably represents an accurate statement. That mainstream Muslim opinion in the middle east right now hold particular resentments against the west... The poll isn't asking them if this is a properly held sentiment, only if they think that it is widely held...

Again, so what ? The fact is that they seem to regard it as mainstream Muslim thinking. This alone is very concerning and suggests that cultural assimilation of Muslims is going to be a long, difficult process.

I ask you this... If you asked 1,000 C of E members would 7% disagree with the question "Christians should always obey British laws."?
I think maybe not. There are always a small percentage of people who answer polls perversely. And there are enough that might have particular beefs with specific laws ... etc.

I'm pretty sure 20% of CofE members wouldn't regard Christianity as being incompatible with liberal values, 27% of them wouldn't have sympathy with the motives of anybody who committed mass murder in the name of Christ and half of them wouldn't agree that preaching violence against the state constitutes mainstream Christian thinking.

You're trying to downplay all of this because it doesn't fit your complacent narrative that everything is fine and dandy and nothing is happening with respect of Muslim migrants that's any different to previous waves of migration. I'm afraid that doesn't wash.

sass

I personally find it very worrying that over a quarter of British Muslims sympathise with the idea that it's ok to murder somebody who insults their faith.

But thats not what they said was it?
They were asked if they sympathize with the motives....

For example: people might express sympathy for the motives of a person who murdered someone who abused them sexually.... but not support the act of murder.

sass

You're wilfully missing the point

respectfully, you are missing the point. And perhaps misrepresenting the poll results. Thats hard to know for sure since the pollsters don't publish their methods or questionnare.
Sympathy for motives is not support for the act...

sass

I'm pretty sure 20% of CofE members wouldn't regard Christianity as being incompatible with liberal values

Well, unless you have a poll that replicates the poll done within the Muslim community we don't really know.
But lets consider that we do know that fundamental christian's as a group have real difficulty with many aspects of a liberal society. (same sex marriage, sex education in school, curriculum in school) . I don't think this group is very large in UK - but we see this in the US don't we?
We do know that there is a strong conflict between Christians who oppose access to abortion for instance. And some of them in the US and the UK have taken violent action against abortion providers. I'm certain that Christians who oppose abortion might "sympathize with the motives" of the criminals who conducted the crimes...
Would their sympathy for the motives of anti abortion crimes mean something significant about Christians support for this violence?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 16410.html

Sympathy for motives is not support for the act...

I didn't say it was. What you're clearly not getting though is that this is a question which was asked in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity. Frankly, anybody answers yes to that question surely can't have been doing so merely as an abstract intellectual exercise. They were answering yes to a question of whether they have sympathy with cold-blooded murderers. I very much doubt that anybody could have failed to make that connection before they answered the question and yet 27% of respondents said yes anyway.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the motives themselves are antithetical to our values. Frankly I'm less concerned about a few isolated instances of terrorism than I am by the creeping change to our culture which is undermining free speech and slowly chipping away at the liberal values which have underpinned our society. The fact that you consistently keep trying to make out that it's only a problem if people are actively joining terror groups shows me that you don't understand the problem.