EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Crazy_Ivan80]

incidentally: north america is a nice example of mass-migration not going well for the native population.

Particularly when the migrants bring over infectious diseases that kill off 90% of you.

doesn't really change the fact that mass-migration didn't go well for those that remained.

Probably because it wasn't? The Europeans were migrating to the Spanish Empire or whatever not to the Mayan nation.

Since you accept that mass-migration in the americas didn't go well for the natives, your point is what?

[Valmy]

Since you accept that mass-migration in the americas didn't go well for the natives, your point is what?

That people arriving on Ellis Island is fundamentally different than the Mongol Horde sweeping through

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Since you accept that mass-migration in the americas didn't go well for the natives, your point is what?

That people arriving on Ellis Island is fundamentally different than the Mongol Horde sweeping through

Isn't very relevant to the very real fact that the native americans all over the two continents have been marginalised by the newcomers. If they were lucky enough not to be wiped out that is. Wether those migrants came via Ellis Island, with the follow ups to the Mayflower or with the expeditions of Cortez or Pizarro the result was the same: the natives got shafted.
At least the Mongols had the decency to eventually go away/be defeated.

[Malthus]

In Sweden in the 20th century people could make fun of religion without other people trying to murder them. Now people have to tip-toe around (some major examples of) religion. That's just one example of how Swedish culture has changed, and it's a pretty negative change in my book.

or the Sharia courts in Britain. Not a positive evolution either. Especially not for women. Machteld Zee has done a nice study on it.

As a lawyer, the whole "Sharia Courts!!!" scare is something that really irritates me with its stupidity. 

I briefly glanced at Zee's blog. I was not exactly impressed with the little I read of it.

http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/what-happens-at-sharia-councils-part-three-the-muslim-arbitration-tribunal

In my quest on learning the relationship between Sharia councils and state laws, I ask him if a secular judge ever reviewed such an award, which I am told has not been the case. I ask him about the somewhat confusing final article of their procedural rules, article 23: "No appeal shall be made against any decisions of the Tribunal. This rule shall not prevent any party applying for Judicial Review with permission of the High Court.Siddiqi tells me there haven't been appeals as his clients are "satisfied customers who consider it a serious matter".

Later, Chief Crown Prosecutor Nazir Afzal tells me on the phone that the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is known to deter parties from seeking appeal, even though individuals do have an inalienable right to challenge the award in court, which is codified in article 58 of the Arbitration Act.

Yet, when correctly regulated by the Arbitration Act, the Crown Chief Prosecutor sees no problem in the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal using alternative dispute resolution regarding local property disputes, especially when parties are equally matched." 

From this, it seems that the author, despite being a PhD student in legal studies, doesn't know the difference between an "appeal" and a "judicial review" in the Anglo system, given that he finds the (bog standard) article 23 "somewhat confusing". 

This part is where the 'just plain stupid" comes in:

The consequence for the legal status of these religious tribunals is that there are two separate legal systems functioning independently, of which one is operating in the shadow of the law.

Yet, for the proponents it seems morally and principally plain wrong not to grant, at least to a certain extent, judicial autonomy to Muslims. The moral justification lies in the equal treatment of all religions, and, the reasoning goes, because British Muslims are not free to live under their own laws, as institutionalised by their own courts, they are not treated equally. The wish is for more legal latitude to be given to rights rooted in religious identity in the form of Islamic religious tribunals. Interestingly enough, these proponents adhere to notions of non-discrimination between groups. By doing so, they miss the important point of non-discrimination within groups.

No, that isn't the consequence of private arbitration! It is no more a "shadow of the law" situation than any other contract!  Now, there are perfectly good reasons to restrict arbitration in certain cases, because of inequalities in bargaining power - domestic contracts for example. But that's a totally different issue. 

[Martinus]

Yeah that's pretty bogus - usually any private arbitration is "final" in that you cannot simply appeal against the ruling, but it is subject of judicial review if fundamental principles of law or due process were violated.

I guess my only concern with these "sharia courts" is to what extent the decision to refer a dispute to one is fully autonomous for all participants. After all, for the same reason, in certain types of dealings law prohibits private arbitration or allows for special arbitration (with heavy public oversight) to be used only (e.g. consumer or employment disputes). Thoughts on this, Malthus?

[Jacob]

It'll have to be -proverbially, but given the amount that's projected over the next few decades, literally- beaten into them. So whereas - I assume- Zanza expects a relatively bloodless affair I expect something rather worse. Of which Cologne was only the beginning.

So you're basically saying a race war is coming.

[Razgovory]

incidentally: north america is a nice example of mass-migration not going well for the native population.

Particularly when the migrants bring over infectious diseases that kill off 90% of you.

doesn't really change the fact that mass-migration didn't go well for those that remained.

Probably because it wasn't? The Europeans were migrating to the Spanish Empire or whatever not to the Mayan nation.

Since you accept that mass-migration in the americas didn't go well for the natives, your point is what?

That's not really "mass-migration".  The Germans didn't "Migrate" into Belgium in 1914 and 1940 only to "migrate" back after a short time.  Migration is like invasion in the same way a kiss on the cheek is like rape.

[Razgovory]

In Sweden in the 20th century people could make fun of religion without other people trying to murder them. Now people have to tip-toe around (some major examples of) religion. That's just one example of how Swedish culture has changed, and it's a pretty negative change in my book.

And some of that time people of other then Lutherans had complete civil rights!

[Camerus]

There are any number of ways this will play out, from generally successful integration albeit with some (significant) challenges along the way on one end of the spectrum,  to significant chaos, instability and peril of the host cultures on the other.  Much depends on known unknowns ( ) just around the corner, like how many migrants come when the weather begins to warm up again. My own view is that drawing parallels with, say, Chinese immigration is not apples to apples, and that it's rather naive to expect this to result in anything other than, at best, long term social problems and reduction in quality of life for Europeans, but then what do I know?

And my channelling of Rumsfeld was deliberate, as I hope leftists aren't as wrong about the feasibility of this as the right was on Iraq.

[Malthus]

Yeah that's pretty bogus - usually any private arbitration is "final" in that you cannot simply appeal against the ruling, but it is subject of judicial review if fundamental principles of law or due process were violated.

I guess my only concern with these "sharia courts" is to what extent the decision to refer a dispute to one is fully autonomous for all participants. After all, for the same reason, in certain types of dealings law prohibits private arbitration or allows for special arbitration (with heavy public oversight) to be used only (e.g.w consumer or employment disputes). Thoughts on this, Malthus?

Absolutely. I gave one very significant example of that type - family law arbitration. It ought to be limited, "sharia" or not, for the exact reasons you state - the presumption that the parties are really fully autonomous is often pretty weak. Same with any sort of family law type contracts. Heavy public oversight is worthwhile.

There are other situations of a similar sort, as you say consumer and employment, but family law is the biggie.

Thing is that this is an issue generally with ADR, has nothing to do with it being based on "sharia". The notion that sharia based ADR is some sort of creeping Islamic invasion is just dumb. ADR of all sorts existed for years before Muslims discovered it.

It is sorta like people clutching their pearls in horror at the thought of Muslims using this newfangled thing known as a "contract". Why, they are writing their own law! And courts will enforce it! Horrors!

[dps]

There are any number of ways this will play out, from generally successful integration albeit with some (significant) challenges along the way on one end of the spectrum,  to significant chaos, instability and peril of the host cultures on the other.  Much depends on known unknowns ( ) just around the corner, like how many migrants come when the weather begins to warm up again. My own view is that drawing parallels with, say, Chinese immigration is not apples to apples, and that it's rather naive to expect this to result in anything other than, at best, long term social problems and reduction in quality of life for Europeans, but then what do I know?

And my channelling of Rumsfeld was deliberate, as I hope leftists aren't as wrong about the feasibility of this as the right was on Iraq.

If European society is so weak that it can't absorb a million or so refugees, then it deserves to be more than "imperiled";  it needs to be completely overhauled or dismantled.

[Camerus]

There are any number of ways this will play out, from generally successful integration albeit with some (significant) challenges along the way on one end of the spectrum,  to significant chaos, instability and peril of the host cultures on the other.  Much depends on known unknowns ( ) just around the corner, like how many migrants come when the weather begins to warm up again. My own view is that drawing parallels with, say, Chinese immigration is not apples to apples, and that it's rather naive to expect this to result in anything other than, at best, long term social problems and reduction in quality of life for Europeans, but then what do I know?

And my channelling of Rumsfeld was deliberate, as I hope leftists aren't as wrong about the feasibility of this as the right was on Iraq.

If European society is so weak that it can't absorb a million or so refugees, then it deserves to be more than "imperiled";  it needs to be completely overhauled or dismantled.

What makes you so confident that "a million or so" will be the total amount to come to all Europe?

[Martinus]

There are any number of ways this will play out, from generally successful integration albeit with some (significant) challenges along the way on one end of the spectrum,  to significant chaos, instability and peril of the host cultures on the other.  Much depends on known unknowns ( ) just around the corner, like how many migrants come when the weather begins to warm up again. My own view is that drawing parallels with, say, Chinese immigration is not apples to apples, and that it's rather naive to expect this to result in anything other than, at best, long term social problems and reduction in quality of life for Europeans, but then what do I know?

And my channelling of Rumsfeld was deliberate, as I hope leftists aren't as wrong about the feasibility of this as the right was on Iraq.

If European society is so weak that it can't absorb a million or so refugees, then it deserves to be more than "imperiled";  it needs to be completely overhauled or dismantled.

The problem is that there is no "European society" at the moment.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, notwithstanding problems with integrating devout Muslims into the Western society (which cannot simply be brushed over - they are significant, and much bigger than, say, it is to integrate Mexicans or even, say, Indians (as in immigrants from India), into the American society), I think on the European side is that Europeans are generally much more racist/xenophobic than Americans.

This is not even (in most cases) a sort of ideological racism, but mainly the fact that most Europeans simply have not lived for very long (if at all) side by side with people of different races or cultures - even in countries like the UK and France, the long term (say, one or two generations') multicultural experience has been largely limited to bigger cities and elsewhere it is only a few decades old (if at all). This is very different from the exposure Americans have been getting to "strange" people. You can't simply discount this or expect people to grow accepting over night - it is our natural response to be mistrustful of strangers and most people simply are not sophisticated and intelligent enough to separate this from their rational thoughts. The change can only happen with time. Until then it will be difficult to manage.

[The Brain]

There are any number of ways this will play out, from generally successful integration albeit with some (significant) challenges along the way on one end of the spectrum,  to significant chaos, instability and peril of the host cultures on the other.  Much depends on known unknowns ( ) just around the corner, like how many migrants come when the weather begins to warm up again. My own view is that drawing parallels with, say, Chinese immigration is not apples to apples, and that it's rather naive to expect this to result in anything other than, at best, long term social problems and reduction in quality of life for Europeans, but then what do I know?

And my channelling of Rumsfeld was deliberate, as I hope leftists aren't as wrong about the feasibility of this as the right was on Iraq.

If European society is so weak that it can't absorb a million or so refugees, then it deserves to be more than "imperiled";  it needs to be completely overhauled or dismantled.

"A million or so" is what Sweden alone has taken in so far.