I enjoy reading Roger Cohen's columns in the New York Times.
But I wonder about his latest, "Germany, refugee nation".
He says:
Christopher Caldwell in "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe" shows that it is not the first generation of Muslim immigrants to Europe that are the problem. It is the second generation, those born in Europe, who become (for complicated reasons I won't go into here, but which Caldwell investigates) more attracted to Islamism, Sharia and Jihad than their parents.
I would't care two hoots if the migrants flooding into Europe were Nigerian Christians, Arabic Copts or Persian Zoroastrians. I only care because they're Muslim. Bigoted? Well, the figures are in and they're damning. About 50% of Muslims living in the west want to see the west ruled by sharia law. A significant minority -- 2% to 20% depending on the survey -- support Islamism or violent Jihad. Therefore, it is a statistical certainly that as more Muslims settle in Europe there will, in time, be more jihadi attacks and more pressure to introduce sharia. (See "Islam in figures" above. There are plenty of surveys on this topic, too many for me to reference all and they tell the same, sad, story: substantial numbers of Muslims -- large minorities to majorities -- hold views that are antithetical to our enlightenment beliefs in the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, gender equality and the equal rights of women and minorities).
Moreover the majority of migrants are economic migrants, and not truly refugees escaping the violence in Syria. That is to say, they are jumping the queue of other would-be economic migrants who are trying to get into Europe though normal channels.
A Danish Minister recently said that the reason Denmark didn't want to take in any more Muslim migrants was not because (or not only because) they were concerned about violent jihad, but because they knew that in any thousand migrants there would be about 500 who believed that Denmark should not have the right to practice its freedom of speech to publish the sort of Muhammad cartoons they did in 2005. They don't want that. And why should they? It's a valid concern.
Cohen mentions the late Steve Jobs, whose biological father was a Syrian. For every one in a million Steve Jobs, there are 20,000 to 200,000 would-be jihadis. Is that the balance we want?
I think all of this is a cause for concern, and don't call me a bigot for it.
But I wonder about his latest, "Germany, refugee nation".
He says:
As a result [of mass Muslim immigration] over the next generation, Germany will become a stronger, more vital, more dynamic, more open country. Abdulfattah Jandali, a Syrian immigrant known as John, was the biological father of Steve Jobs. Perhaps a future Syrian-German Jobs has just entered school.What evidence does Cohen have for the "result" that "Germany will become stronger, more vital, more dynamic, more open country"? Why, none.
Christopher Caldwell in "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe" shows that it is not the first generation of Muslim immigrants to Europe that are the problem. It is the second generation, those born in Europe, who become (for complicated reasons I won't go into here, but which Caldwell investigates) more attracted to Islamism, Sharia and Jihad than their parents.
I would't care two hoots if the migrants flooding into Europe were Nigerian Christians, Arabic Copts or Persian Zoroastrians. I only care because they're Muslim. Bigoted? Well, the figures are in and they're damning. About 50% of Muslims living in the west want to see the west ruled by sharia law. A significant minority -- 2% to 20% depending on the survey -- support Islamism or violent Jihad. Therefore, it is a statistical certainly that as more Muslims settle in Europe there will, in time, be more jihadi attacks and more pressure to introduce sharia. (See "Islam in figures" above. There are plenty of surveys on this topic, too many for me to reference all and they tell the same, sad, story: substantial numbers of Muslims -- large minorities to majorities -- hold views that are antithetical to our enlightenment beliefs in the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, gender equality and the equal rights of women and minorities).
Moreover the majority of migrants are economic migrants, and not truly refugees escaping the violence in Syria. That is to say, they are jumping the queue of other would-be economic migrants who are trying to get into Europe though normal channels.
A Danish Minister recently said that the reason Denmark didn't want to take in any more Muslim migrants was not because (or not only because) they were concerned about violent jihad, but because they knew that in any thousand migrants there would be about 500 who believed that Denmark should not have the right to practice its freedom of speech to publish the sort of Muhammad cartoons they did in 2005. They don't want that. And why should they? It's a valid concern.
Cohen mentions the late Steve Jobs, whose biological father was a Syrian. For every one in a million Steve Jobs, there are 20,000 to 200,000 would-be jihadis. Is that the balance we want?
I think all of this is a cause for concern, and don't call me a bigot for it.
