Obama aims to show Islam, Western communities can coexist

[Scott]

There is little doubt in my mind that there is currently a problem with what is happening in a variety of places and the root seems to be buried somewhere in Islam. The point for Western countries is to try to minimize, if they can't stem, the flow of radicalism. Great efforts have to be made to get immigrants out of a state-dependent situation and into being productive members of society. In particular, young men need to be productively involved in something. Whether it is gov't sponsored work programs or mandated education. The goal has to be some semblance of integration. Integration is a process and it does not mean giving up your own culture, but it does mean incorporating the new culture into your lifesyle.

To do this immigration has to be controlled and it has to be tightly controlled. New arrivals have to participate in programs to help them adjust.

It's not a good idea to have folks collecting welfare and spending their days sitting around the Mosque listening to hate speech.

[phrodan]

Obama aims to show Islam, Western communities can coexist

I think that there is plenty of evidence around the world, that shows Obama is talking out his @rse.

So what is the other option??

Other option ?

If you think that there is only one other option available.

I would be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

Man, how condescending are you?

Answer the question.

[Morch]

I was involved in helping to resettle a large number of refugees from Iraq after the Second Gulf War and the re-invasion of Northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein. This is from the OP and I would have to agree:

Ample evidence suggests that Muslims in America do feel more integrated into society than those living in Europe. Often marginalized and relegated to poorer neighborhoods in European cities, many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. have flourished as doctors and scientists and in other white-collar professions. Middle-class, predominantly Muslim or Arab-American enclaves have cropped up in places such as Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, allowing immigrants to carve out their own stories.

Of the people resettled the vast majority were settled in the US, with a small number in Europe. I visited many of them (both officially and unofficially) after resettlement. The ones in the US were doing well. At the time, nearly all were employed. With the exception of a few with advanced degrees, most were in low end factory type work. A whole group of them worked at a hog butchering plant in Iowa. Not one family was on welfare or public assistance.

Within a matter of 5 years most had or were in the process of purchasing a home. Very few of them lived even in the same neighborhood, and they were resettled all over the US. I was often treated to dinner at their homes and quite a few had alcohol in the home. A few drank, but sparingly.

The families that I visited in Europe (the two main places were in France and Switzerland) had not fared as well. Even though they had family connections, all of them were on welfare or public assistance. None of them had managed to buy a home or a car and were living in gov't furnished housing. There was little signs of integration.

Such comparisons are anecdotal but noteworthy.

None of the people resettled were very fundamental in their religious views, they were mixed Shia and Sunni, but predominantly Sunni. (There were a few Christians in the mix). They were mostly Kurdish and they were mostly members of large families (I believe the largest family resettled included a father, mother and 22 children -- of which about 8 were young adults). They had good family support and plenty of young people who were anxious and willing to work, even at very low paying jobs.

I am still in contact with many and they continue to do better in the US in general.

You mention that most of these immigrants were Kurdish. Were there noticeable differences in adjustment compared to other Muslim groups?

[Morch]

Any deluded opinion that U.S Muslims are more integrated due to the treatment they receive vis Europe is pure baloney. Look at how Sweden bends over backwards to try and placate its Muslims. The explanation is the percentage of Muslims and the Stage of jihad the Muslim minority finds itself in. The 300,000 Muslim immigrants to the U.S last year are a sign the U.S will soon enough reach stage two of 'defensive' jihad from the whining and claims of victimization that characterize stage one.

You have to give high marks for infiltration from the top though. As Emmet Scott remarked about the Persian Empire, there is compelling evidence it was islamicized from the top down.

In terms of percent of total population the USA is nowhere near Sweden (or most Western European countries, for that matter).

The USA's handling and treatment of immigrants is nothing like Sweden's bending over (which I agree might be a misguided notion). As for the top down angle - how is this suppose to work out, seeing Obama will be leaving office within a couple of years? Is there any viable candidate which will carry out this alleged (and for me, nonsensical) scheme? Or is it asserted that in less than two years the USA will be too far down and on the way for Islamic subjugation?

[khaowong1]

"For being a Muslim American growing up in America, I really don't feel a part of it," she said.

Of course you don't. You stay in your own enclaves, refuse American food, dress like 17th century nomads (lacking the camels) and don't really try to fit in. Even within America, you are separatists.

Take a hard look at other cultures which have immigrated. Other than some identifying skin colors, they have taken up American culture. The Chinese were one of the first (for the 1800's gold mine work) and they excell.

Any ethnic or racial group which stays to itself and has its own culture always feels left out. Imagine that.

Exactly the point I was going to make. There are a lot of immigrants who come to the US and do not try to fit in and then feel like they are being picked on.. They live in their own enclaves, then scream about being left out. If you took a look at most of the illegals who came across the border, same thing. By and large, we in the US are all a family of immigrants, but our great grandfathers worked together, lived together, fought together and worked to make this country strong. We have a constitution and laws that we expect everyone who comes here to abide by. You want to stay in your own ethnic or religious group, cool, just don't be bitching to us that you don't feel like you belong.

[ABCer]

OP: Obama aims to show Islam, Western communities can coexist.

He only has to point to himself - there is nothing else to prove.

If such coexistence is good for the Western communities is another matter.

Edited February 20, 2015 by ABCer

[JockPieandBeans]

There is little doubt in my mind that there is currently a problem with what is happening in a variety of places and the root seems to be buried somewhere in Islam. The point for Western countries is to try to minimize, if they can't stem, the flow of radicalism. Great efforts have to be made to get immigrants out of a state-dependent situation and into being productive members of society. In particular, young men need to be productively involved in something. Whether it is gov't sponsored work programs or mandated education. The goal has to be some semblance of integration. Integration is a process and it does not mean giving up your own culture, but it does mean incorporating the new culture into your lifesyle.

To do this immigration has to be controlled and it has to be tightly controlled. New arrivals have to participate in programs to help them adjust.

It's not a good idea to have folks collecting welfare and spending their days sitting around the Mosque listening to hate speech.

Scott,

This is my opinion and mine only. This is the best post I personally have seen you compose on any of the threads that pertained to anything Muslim. I could be wrong, but I sense a subtle change in your way of thinking.

To that end, I would like to expand on some of the points that you make.

1. Tightly controlled immigration.

This is something that myself and others have been saying for a long time. However, it normally produced a chorus of '' You are nothing more than a bunch of racist, bigoted Islamophobes ''

2. Great efforts have to be made to get immigrants out of a state-dependent situation and into being productive members of society. In particular, young men need to be productively involved in something.

I could go into a whole raft of sub-points here, I wont. Suffice to say, that this has to be a 2 way process. What is to be done with those that have no wish to be productive members of society ?

3. Integration is a process and it does not mean giving up your own culture, but it does mean incorporating the new culture into your lifestyle.

Too late for large parts of Europe. It is also true that large numbers of immigrants have no desire to integrate or incorporating ANY new culture into their lifestyle. What is to be done with them ?

IMO this is now at least 30 years too late for Europe. This should have been a pre-condition to immigration to the UK and the rest of Europe from the get-go.

[khaowong1]

Scott, you and JockPieandBeans have made some very great posts.. I'm going to try and find a way to post them on facebook.. thanks..

[Scott]

Just a couple of points that need clarification and a few answers:

First, the group that I referenced were Refugees, they were not immigrants coming to join family. They had certain welfare benefits and assistance to get settled. Immigrants are usually sponsored by family members. So, there is no need for 7by7 to clarify the difference. Benefits in the US are short lived and in Europe they seem to be extended and in some cases they don't ever end.

Morch asked about how the Kurds compared to other groups. I don't have a lot of background in resettlement of large numbers of other groups, but the Kurds appear to be a better group than some groups. I think there have been a large number of Somalis resettled and it does not appear that they have fared particularly well, but that is only a guess. I do have experience with the resettlement of Iranian refugees and they tended to fare very well, so I suspect the differences are due to other factors. The other group which I was involved with were Vietnamese refugees and they were settled in large numbers, but they aren't Muslim. Both the Kurds and the Iranians that were resettled tended to be better educated (or had a primary person in the family who was educated). The Somalis, as I understand it, were educationally at a distinct disadvantage.

JP&B: There has been no shift in my opinion on Islam (or any other religion). To paraphrase someone, there have always been good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things. The immigration of people from different religions and cultures needs to be tightly controlled. What we are seeing is a failure on two fronts, first, a country can only assimilate so many people at any given point in time and second, immigration of large numbers makes it hard for the new arrivals to adjust. This results in 'ghettos' and probably to what has arguably been called 'no-go zones'.

The dominant culture of host countries does not need to, and probably should not, change extensively to accommodate new arrivals. The new arrivals need to change, or adjust their lifestyle to fit into the new culture. The difference between Europe and the US (and Canada) is that European countries have long and deep traditions; traditions that have developed over hundreds, if not thousands of years. The US doesn't really have a culture in the same sense that European countries do, The US and Canada have a more eclectic culture. This has to be taken into account in allowing immigrants/refugees into a country.

[JockPieandBeans]

Thank you for the timely reminder in the difference between Refugees and Immigrants both legal and illegal. A lot of people have trouble distinguishing between them.

JP&B: There has been no shift in my opinion on Islam (or any other religion). To paraphrase someone, there have always been good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things. The immigration of people from different religions and cultures needs to be tightly controlled. What we are seeing is a failure on two fronts, first, a country can only assimilate so many people at any given point in time and second, immigration of large numbers makes it hard for the new arrivals to adjust. This results in 'ghettos' and probably to what has arguably been called 'no-go zones'.

The dominant culture of host countries does not need to, and probably should not, change extensively to accommodate new arrivals. The new arrivals need to change, or adjust their lifestyle to fit into the new culture. The difference between Europe and the US (and Canada) is that European countries have long and deep traditions; traditions that have developed over hundreds, if not thousands of years. The US doesn't really have a culture in the same sense that European countries do, The US and Canada have a more eclectic culture. This has to be taken into account in allowing immigrants/refugees into a country

Again, probably without realising it, you are getting closer and closer to the crux of the problem.

The above 2 paragraphs highlight this.

Now I wonder when and by whom the backlash will begin with ?

[Scott]

My opinions are more academic in nature when it comes to immigrants and refugees and movements of people (including internally and externally displaced people).

The one point that does need to be taken into account is that if the majority of the native born citizens of a country are unhappy with the level of immigration or the type of people being resettled, then it is a good idea for those in charge to take a careful look at the situation. It is not good for new arrivals to be resettled in a hostile environment. This isn't so easy to do with immigrants, but it can be done with refugees because countries have the right to select whom they want.

Many of the current problems started a long time ago and finding solutions now is a daunting task. Solutions that work for one country might now work for another one.

[phrodan]

You're overlooking the fact that Britsih industry went looking for many of these people - promised them jobs and houses - and when they arrived in the country they were subjected to 1950's/1960's racism writ large.

They were rejected by British society - forced into effective ghettos, and vilified everywhere they went. Then the industries shut down and left them abandoned - first and second generation factory workers isolated in a country that hated them.

So while you congratulate yourself on your cleverness - remind yourself of the abuse that was handed out to the Paki bastids - and the amount of people that moved home as soon as one of these Paki bastids moved into their street. And the way white people would refuse to buy a house next door to them in case they ended up stinking of curry.

Just as shameful as the infamous "rooms for rent, blacks need not apply," signs all over London in the sixties -

And you know what? - I know you know I'm telling the truth - and I'm quite prepared to bet you were that type - effin Paki bastids - "Do you know why they're banned from the world cup? every time they get a corner they build a shop."

"What's black and brown and looks good on a Pakis throat? a rottweiler."

And it goes on and on and on - then people like you start spieling about how they never integrated into society

They never had a chance.

There is little doubt in my mind that there is currently a problem with what is happening in a variety of places and the root seems to be buried somewhere in Islam. The point for Western countries is to try to minimize, if they can't stem, the flow of radicalism. Great efforts have to be made to get immigrants out of a state-dependent situation and into being productive members of society. In particular, young men need to be productively involved in something. Whether it is gov't sponsored work programs or mandated education. The goal has to be some semblance of integration. Integration is a process and it does not mean giving up your own culture, but it does mean incorporating the new culture into your lifesyle.

To do this immigration has to be controlled and it has to be tightly controlled. New arrivals have to participate in programs to help them adjust.

It's not a good idea to have folks collecting welfare and spending their days sitting around the Mosque listening to hate speech.

Scott,

This is my opinion and mine only. This is the best post I personally have seen you compose on any of the threads that pertained to anything Muslim. I could be wrong, but I sense a subtle change in your way of thinking.

To that end, I would like to expand on some of the points that you make.

1. Tightly controlled immigration.

This is something that myself and others have been saying for a long time. However, it normally produced a chorus of '' You are nothing more than a bunch of racist, bigoted Islamophobes ''

2. Great efforts have to be made to get immigrants out of a state-dependent situation and into being productive members of society. In particular, young men need to be productively involved in something.

I could go into a whole raft of sub-points here, I wont. Suffice to say, that this has to be a 2 way process. What is to be done with those that have no wish to be productive members of society ?

3. Integration is a process and it does not mean giving up your own culture, but it does mean incorporating the new culture into your lifestyle.

Too late for large parts of Europe. It is also true that large numbers of immigrants have no desire to integrate or incorporating ANY new culture into their lifestyle. What is to be done with them ?

IMO this is now at least 30 years too late for Europe. This should have been a pre-condition to immigration to the UK and the rest of Europe from the get-go.

Edited February 21, 2015 by phrodan

[JockPieandBeans]

You're overlooking the fact that Britsih industry went looking for many of these people - promised them jobs and houses - and when they arrived in the country they were subjected to 1950's/1960's racism writ large.

They were rejected by British society - forced into effective ghettos, and vilified everywhere they went. Then the industries shut down and left them abandoned - first and second generation factory workers isolated in a country that hated them.

So while you congratulate yourself on your cleverness - remind yourself of the abuse that was handed out to the Paki bastids - and the amount of people that moved home as soon as one of these Paki bastids moved into their street. And the way white people would refuse to buy a house next door to them in case they ended up stinking of curry.

Just as shameful as the infamous "rooms for rent, blacks need not apply," signs all over London in the sixties -

And you know what? - I know you know I'm telling the truth - and I'm quite prepared to bet you were that type - effin Paki bastids - "Do you know why they're banned from the world cup? every time they get a corner they build a shop."

"What's black and brown and looks good on a Pakis throat? a rottweiler."

And it goes on and on and on - then people like you start spieling about how they never integrated into society

They never had a chance.

There is little doubt in my mind that there is currently a problem with what is happening in a variety of places and the root seems to be buried somewhere in Islam. The point for Western countries is to try to minimize, if they can't stem, the flow of radicalism. Great efforts have to be made to get immigrants out of a state-dependent situation and into being productive members of society. In particular, young men need to be productively involved in something. Whether it is gov't sponsored work programs or mandated education. The goal has to be some semblance of integration. Integration is a process and it does not mean giving up your own culture, but it does mean incorporating the new culture into your lifesyle.

To do this immigration has to be controlled and it has to be tightly controlled. New arrivals have to participate in programs to help them adjust.

It's not a good idea to have folks collecting welfare and spending their days sitting around the Mosque listening to hate speech.

Scott,

This is my opinion and mine only. This is the best post I personally have seen you compose on any of the threads that pertained to anything Muslim. I could be wrong, but I sense a subtle change in your way of thinking.

To that end, I would like to expand on some of the points that you make.

1. Tightly controlled immigration.

This is something that myself and others have been saying for a long time. However, it normally produced a chorus of '' You are nothing more than a bunch of racist, bigoted Islamophobes ''

2. Great efforts have to be made to get immigrants out of a state-dependent situation and into being productive members of society. In particular, young men need to be productively involved in something.

I could go into a whole raft of sub-points here, I wont. Suffice to say, that this has to be a 2 way process. What is to be done with those that have no wish to be productive members of society ?

3. Integration is a process and it does not mean giving up your own culture, but it does mean incorporating the new culture into your lifestyle.

Too late for large parts of Europe. It is also true that large numbers of immigrants have no desire to integrate or incorporating ANY new culture into their lifestyle. What is to be done with them ?

IMO this is now at least 30 years too late for Europe. This should have been a pre-condition to immigration to the UK and the rest of Europe from the get-go.

I see that this is aimed at me.

If you want to talk about the 50's and 60's, as I recollect, that was an immigration policy based mainly on Hindu's and Sikh's, all to do with the 2nd world war.

To this day, I do not see any Hindu's and Sikh's going mental over perceived injustices.

So what is your point about 'Paki's' ?

Edited to add:

I see that you are a betting man. So I will give you same odds as another couple of posters. Whenever you are ready, coffee, you name the place, bring 1M Baht, winner takes all. I will let you dial, from my phone, 3 guys in Southall. Guess what, they are all 'Paki's'

Edited February 21, 2015 by JockPieandBeans

[konying]

I was involved in helping to resettle a large number of refugees from Iraq after the Second Gulf War and the re-invasion of Northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein. This is from the OP and I would have to agree:

Ample evidence suggests that Muslims in America do feel more integrated into society than those living in Europe. Often marginalized and relegated to poorer neighborhoods in European cities, many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. have flourished as doctors and scientists and in other white-collar professions. Middle-class, predominantly Muslim or Arab-American enclaves have cropped up in places such as Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, allowing immigrants to carve out their own stories.

Of the people resettled the vast majority were settled in the US, with a small number in Europe. I visited many of them (both officially and unofficially) after resettlement. The ones in the US were doing well. At the time, nearly all were employed. With the exception of a few with advanced degrees, most were in low end factory type work. A whole group of them worked at a hog butchering plant in Iowa. Not one family was on welfare or public assistance.

Within a matter of 5 years most had or were in the process of purchasing a home. Very few of them lived even in the same neighborhood, and they were resettled all over the US. I was often treated to dinner at their homes and quite a few had alcohol in the home. A few drank, but sparingly.

The families that I visited in Europe (the two main places were in France and Switzerland) had not fared as well. Even though they had family connections, all of them were on welfare or public assistance. None of them had managed to buy a home or a car and were living in gov't furnished housing. There was little signs of integration.

Such comparisons are anecdotal but noteworthy.

None of the people resettled were very fundamental in their religious views, they were mixed Shia and Sunni, but predominantly Sunni. (There were a few Christians in the mix). They were mostly Kurdish and they were mostly members of large families (I believe the largest family resettled included a father, mother and 22 children -- of which about 8 were young adults). They had good family support and plenty of young people who were anxious and willing to work, even at very low paying jobs.

I am still in contact with many and they continue to do better in the US in general.

Sounds like America cherry picked the educated ones with something to contribute (nothing wrong with that) and the dross were sent to Europe, hence the reason they are uneployed and fail to fit in.

Wouldnt imagine there are too many openings for goat herders in Europe

One very important fact to remember is that US social welfare does not even come close to EU Social welfare.

If those in US did not work, they would have been living on the streets, while the ones in EU, do not need to work, as social welfare is enough to do nothing and get cheap housing.

Australia is another place, where social system is a heaven.

Suburbs of public housing mainly populated by muslims,2nd and 3rd generation, who do not work, do not wish to work and do not try to work.

They get subsidized housing, with welfare payments enough to sustain a decent living, plus free healthcare, public transport, education, discounted electricity, phone,gas and more.

Funny enough crime rate in those area's is sky high against non muslims in general.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Please exercise care in your wording of responses to other posters.

[ABCer]

My opinions are more academic in nature when it comes to immigrants and refugees and movements of people (including internally and externally displaced people).

The one point that does need to be taken into account is that if the majority of the native born citizens of a country are unhappy with the level of immigration or the type of people being resettled, then it is a good idea for those in charge to take a careful look at the situation. It is not good for new arrivals to be resettled in a hostile environment. This isn't so easy to do with immigrants, but it can be done with refugees because countries have the right to select whom they want.

Many of the current problems started a long time ago and finding solutions now is a daunting task. Solutions that work for one country might now work for another one.

Appreciate your moderate attempt to solve the problem academically.

You are absolutely right that the root of any Religion induced problem is in Islam.

You are absolutely wrong hoping that patchwork measures will solve the problem with Islam in any non-Muslim country.

I use 'patchwork' here to indicate that no half measures aimed at co-existence, inclusion, integration, assimilation etc. can be relied upon.

True, current problems started long time ago. The solution of the problems lies only in Isolationism. The task of Isolation of 45 - 50 Muslims in the West is daunting indeed.

But there is no other way. And I am not talking about refugees. I am talking about Isolation of the West from Islam, period.

P.S. The 'integration' seems to be the fashionable word today. Unfortunately integration is inherently connected with differentiation - one branch of maths.

Reverse immigration (infiltration) or perish. No alternatives.

Edited February 22, 2015 by ABCer

[shirtless]

Ok Mr Obama , you go live in a Muslim community as usual it wont affect him one bit we will be the ones putting up with their crap, they all secretly want world domination its just the radicals are showing their colours