I find it paradoxical that some who advocate for open immigration also describe the United States as fundamentally flawed. It seems contradictory to encourage people to migrate to a place one characterizes as deeply problematic.
Peter - I was very disappointed with your guest. He has worked as a researcher at Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies since 2019. His work at Migration Research Institute focuses on the "integration of European Muslim diasporas" and the dynamics of Middle Eastern societies. I can't say if he is/was a Muslim or not but his interview with you paints the picture of someone trying to defend Islamic Immigration specifically and Islam in general.
When you asked your guest what the LEFT and RIGHT each get wrong about migration the only thing he came up with for what the RIGHT get's wrong is that the focus too much on the migrants religion, specifically when they are Muslim. That's NOT getting something wrong. That is being smart. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Just because some or even a large percentage of it's followers don't practice the more violent and lethal aspects of the faith, that doesn't magically make it a religion of peace. The faiths own text say it's OK to lie and use deception when dealing with infidels, when dealing with non-Muslims. That means we can't any of them take at their word. We can't trust anything a Muslim says until proven because they may be lying to advance their faith.
Pretending that Islam is not a threat to the non-Islamic world is not an act of enlightenment as western academics proclaim. The academic world has this dangerous obsession with promoting Islam as the innocents princess while Christianity is the real threat to "democracy". Both faiths have violent pats but what make's them significantly different today is that with the coming of Jesus Christ the old more violent parts of Christianity were replaced. The New testament replaced the Old Testament making the Old Testament a book of history more so than an instruction manual although it does still have parts applicable today. Islam has NEVER changed it's ultra violent past it has simply chosen to be smarter with how it advances the faith's agenda which is global conquest. This is not something the Muslim world has kept quiet about either; their very open about their goal being complete and total domination of teh planet. Instead of engaging in open conquest today they use deception and it has worked wonderfully with the Western Academics.
Just because it's "not all Muslims" doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful and mindful of what we do with the Muslim world. There are some very radical Christian churches out there like the Westborro Baptists church. While I know the West Borrow churches more violent actions are not representative of Christians as a whole, I can count on their belief that Christ is the savior, is the same across all Christians. Thus it's possible for all within a religion to share a common belief while not sharing that same level of belief in all aspects of the faith.
"...does successful integration depend upon the migrant’s country of origin?"
Absolutely. This is one of those beliefs that I don't think that ANYONE truly disagrees with. We just have many people who publicly claim to disagree with it, in order to win social status.
Indeed. As a matter of fact, how could migration *not* take country of origin into account? As an example, look at the stats of Japanese people abroad and crime. They’re close to zero.
I aver that it is not the geographic or national origin of a migrant that determines successful integration, but that migrant's culture, i.e., his native society's philosophy as expressed in its form of government, laws, politics, beliefs, and art, and his/her personal philosophy as to whether or not it differs from that culture. A migrant who comes from a culture that is epistemologically hostile to reason, logic, and evidence; mistakenly regards a collective as the metaphysical primary unit of society instead of the individual; advocates and promotes a morality/ethics that demands self-sacrifice (to a god, The People, The State, The Common Good); and has a government that enacts and enforces laws hostile to legitimate individual rights; and has developed and maintained a personal philosophy that accords with that culture will find himself at odds within a society that values reason, evidence, and individual rights. and will join with those within his new country who share his opposition to those values.
I find it paradoxical that some who advocate for open immigration also describe the United States as fundamentally flawed. It seems contradictory to encourage people to migrate to a place one characterizes as deeply problematic.
Peter - I was very disappointed with your guest. He has worked as a researcher at Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies since 2019. His work at Migration Research Institute focuses on the "integration of European Muslim diasporas" and the dynamics of Middle Eastern societies. I can't say if he is/was a Muslim or not but his interview with you paints the picture of someone trying to defend Islamic Immigration specifically and Islam in general.
When you asked your guest what the LEFT and RIGHT each get wrong about migration the only thing he came up with for what the RIGHT get's wrong is that the focus too much on the migrants religion, specifically when they are Muslim. That's NOT getting something wrong. That is being smart. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Just because some or even a large percentage of it's followers don't practice the more violent and lethal aspects of the faith, that doesn't magically make it a religion of peace. The faiths own text say it's OK to lie and use deception when dealing with infidels, when dealing with non-Muslims. That means we can't any of them take at their word. We can't trust anything a Muslim says until proven because they may be lying to advance their faith.
Pretending that Islam is not a threat to the non-Islamic world is not an act of enlightenment as western academics proclaim. The academic world has this dangerous obsession with promoting Islam as the innocents princess while Christianity is the real threat to "democracy". Both faiths have violent pats but what make's them significantly different today is that with the coming of Jesus Christ the old more violent parts of Christianity were replaced. The New testament replaced the Old Testament making the Old Testament a book of history more so than an instruction manual although it does still have parts applicable today. Islam has NEVER changed it's ultra violent past it has simply chosen to be smarter with how it advances the faith's agenda which is global conquest. This is not something the Muslim world has kept quiet about either; their very open about their goal being complete and total domination of teh planet. Instead of engaging in open conquest today they use deception and it has worked wonderfully with the Western Academics.
Just because it's "not all Muslims" doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful and mindful of what we do with the Muslim world. There are some very radical Christian churches out there like the Westborro Baptists church. While I know the West Borrow churches more violent actions are not representative of Christians as a whole, I can count on their belief that Christ is the savior, is the same across all Christians. Thus it's possible for all within a religion to share a common belief while not sharing that same level of belief in all aspects of the faith.
I will share these criticisms with my guest.
We haven’t been honest, but many of us are becoming more so.
So?
"...does successful integration depend upon the migrant’s country of origin?"
Absolutely. This is one of those beliefs that I don't think that ANYONE truly disagrees with. We just have many people who publicly claim to disagree with it, in order to win social status.
Strange times.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/ordo-amoris-inverted
Indeed. As a matter of fact, how could migration *not* take country of origin into account? As an example, look at the stats of Japanese people abroad and crime. They’re close to zero.
I aver that it is not the geographic or national origin of a migrant that determines successful integration, but that migrant's culture, i.e., his native society's philosophy as expressed in its form of government, laws, politics, beliefs, and art, and his/her personal philosophy as to whether or not it differs from that culture. A migrant who comes from a culture that is epistemologically hostile to reason, logic, and evidence; mistakenly regards a collective as the metaphysical primary unit of society instead of the individual; advocates and promotes a morality/ethics that demands self-sacrifice (to a god, The People, The State, The Common Good); and has a government that enacts and enforces laws hostile to legitimate individual rights; and has developed and maintained a personal philosophy that accords with that culture will find himself at odds within a society that values reason, evidence, and individual rights. and will join with those within his new country who share his opposition to those values.
Whether the migrant has a marketable skill is vital.
That, too; and among the unskilled, at least sufficient intelligence, motivation, and a mature work ethic to learn marketable entry-level skills.