Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[Scandinavian Nations]

It would've been, if it was an optional part.
The appendix is. And so are Muslims.

You're going to treat brain cancer by removing the appendix?

The Muslim problem is not a brain tumor; it's appendicitis.

You do treat appendicitis by removing the appendix, because you don't need it, just like the West doesn't need any more Muslims.

If people who are disenfranchised, living in poverty, discriminated against in employment.. if those people tend to commit more crime (speculative, but let's go with it) - then it isn't their culture that is the problem - it's how they are being treated.
If you literally are not allowed to integrate, you aren't ultimately culpable for your failure to integrate.

Actually, from this scenario description, it's impossible to determine the problem. It could be that they are not allowed to integrate (there's no evidence of that, no one forces them to send their kids to Islamist schools). It could be that they don't want to integrate. Or the problem could in fact be their culture. Or a combination of several of these factors.

All in all, personally, I have no interest in assigning blame. I only care about achieving the best outcome for the Western civilization.

With mass migration, as opposed to individual migration permitted into the US today, you greatly reduce the immigrants' ability to integrate. If they come en masse, they can't just spread thin across the society, there's not enough cheap apartments and non-English-speaking jobs to absorb them all at once. So it's down to building special housing just for them and keeping them on the dole - thus isolating them from the existing society, and depriving them of the opportunity to integrate.

[Grave_n_idle]

Putting it in flippantly simple terms - if a billion people turns up on America's south border, it doesn't matter how many guns you've got or how high the wall is.

Staying flippant - it doesn't matter indeed, because you don't use small arms on an area target, there are special weapons for that. But realistically, they won't come in a billion-sized crowd, and after you open fire just once, the rest will quickly reconsider if they really have to migrate.

Realistically, they WILL come in a billion size crowd, and they really will have to migrate.

They might not turn up on America's south border, in those numbers, at that point - but those migrations are going to happen somewhere. And, inevitably, there.

Hypothetically, if the worst comes to worst, preserving the Western civilization is still more important than raw population numbers.

That's an interesting point of view, and one that you can probably safely defend right now.

But it won't come to that. America and Western Europe aren't attracting immigrants with their climate, they're attracting immigrants with their infrastructure and economy.

Well, yes and no. If your country turns into a dustbowl, the sort of 'infrastructure' and 'economy' you're going to be looking for are things like water. If your country is reclaimed by the sea, you'll be more attracted to not-water.

A lot of migration right now is about jobs and services, but mass migration to come is likely to have them as secondary concerns compared to not-being-dead.

[Senkaku]

The immigration isn't the issue. It's the 'mass' that causes problems. Take a look at how insular and opposed to integration the refugee camps in Europe are. When immigration happens in a per-family basis, then there's a much higher likelihood that they will be setteled in neighborhoods where they WON'T be surrounded by fellow migrants. But when it's en masse, it's not logistically possible for most nations to do that. This leads to populations becoming more insular rather than becoming more accepting, and are now bitter because they're considered an outgroup by the society they fled to.

I mean, people complained about this when Irish and Italians came to the US, and they seem to have managed.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

The immigration isn't the issue. It's the 'mass' that causes problems. Take a look at how insular and opposed to integration the refugee camps in Europe are. When immigration happens in a per-family basis, then there's a much higher likelihood that they will be setteled in neighborhoods where they WON'T be surrounded by fellow migrants. But when it's en masse, it's not logistically possible for most nations to do that. This leads to populations becoming more insular rather than becoming more accepting, and are now bitter because they're considered an outgroup by the society they fled to.

I mean, people complained about this when Irish and Italians came to the US, and they seem to have managed.

And now we have people called Giuliani and Bannon taking up the cause of hardline anti-immigration sentiments. Oh the irony.

[The Alma Mater]

The immigration isn't the issue. It's the 'mass' that causes problems. Take a look at how insular and opposed to integration the refugee camps in Europe are. When immigration happens in a per-family basis, then there's a much higher likelihood that they will be setteled in neighborhoods where they WON'T be surrounded by fellow migrants. But when it's en masse, it's not logistically possible for most nations to do that. This leads to populations becoming more insular rather than becoming more accepting, and are now bitter because they're considered an outgroup by the society they fled to.

I mean, people complained about this when Irish and Italians came to the US, and they seem to have managed.

Sadly, the past 60 years of immigration did not go as well for several European nations.

[Sanctissima]

But if you want proof, see our huge problem with separatism. It isn't even just localized to Québéc anymore. Newfoundland and Alberta actually have some pretty sizable separatist movements because they identify more as Newfies and Albertans than they do as Canadians.

Not to be rude, but what the hell are you talking about? None of the provinces other than Quebec have a significant separatist movement (and I'm setting the bar very low here, since I don't even know of the existence of any Western independence parties), and Quebec's ceased to exist as a significant force way back in 2011.

Nevermind the fact it's completely prevented any integration whatsoever with our Aboriginals. Hell, you can't even go a month without some tribe holding an anti-government rally. In the Maritimes, where I live, it's a bit more docile, but there's still tensions between Acadians (minority Francophones) and the rest of the Anglophone population. I don't know what you've heard, but things are far from being peachy.

The First Nations are advocating for better treatment and dialogue with the government, not separatism or ethnic nationalism. And again government-First Nations relations are the best they've been for a long long time.

Alberta has the Wildrose Party, which came in second place during the last provincial election, so yes, there are pretty sizable separatist movements outside of Quebec. While separatism in Quebec has been in decline ever since the last referendum, it is by no means an insignificant force. Pauline Marois did win Quebec's general election in 2012, after all.

In terms of First Nations, no, they aren't just asking for better treatment and dialogue. They're asking for special rights most other Canadians don't have, as well as ridiculous amounts of federal funding. Of course it depends on the tribe and reserve in question. Some get treated like royalty whereas others are left to live in what amounts to slums.

[Des-Bal]

I mean, people complained about this when Irish and Italians came to the US, and they seem to have managed.

On that particular issue they were completely correct. The proliferation of irish and italian gangs was caused by those sentiments.

[Novus America]

First, even if everything about AGW proves to be true - so far it doesn't

In what way? Anthropogenic global climate change isn't speculation - it's observable.

This isn't the thread to discuss it - you're going to have to accept that people are going to move, en masse, due to climatic concerns WHETHER OR NOT 'AGW' is 'true'.

- it projects at worst 1m of sea level rise by 2100, which isn't even "soon".

2100 is very soon when we're talking about the potential movements of billions of people.

Second, environmental changes can't by themselves result in mass migration. The necessary prerequisite for mass migration is countries opening their borders to it. No open borders, no mass migration.

They'll migrate. People do. Closed borders can slow it, but don't stop it.

Putting it in flippantly simple terms - if a billion people turns up on America's south border, it doesn't matter how many guns you've got or how high the wall is.

And that's why we need to be thinking of REAL solutions. Now.

How would billions show up at the US border? The entire population of the Americans is 1 billion, but 1/3rd are already Americans. So at most it would be 660 million, some how assuming literally EVERYONE not in the US decided to suddenly move here. The places facing the greatest threat are Bangladesh and some small Pacific Islands.

Yes Bangladeshi immigrantion is a problem for India but not us.

Sure we need to cut down pollution and enhance sea walls like the Dutch, but that involves discussions beyond the scope of the topic.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're going to treat brain cancer by removing the appendix?

The Muslim problem is not a brain tumor; it's appendicitis.

You do treat appendicitis by removing the appendix, because you don't need it, just like the West doesn't need any more Muslims.

If people who are disenfranchised, living in poverty, discriminated against in employment.. if those people tend to commit more crime (speculative, but let's go with it) - then it isn't their culture that is the problem - it's how they are being treated.
If you literally are not allowed to integrate, you aren't ultimately culpable for your failure to integrate.

Actually, from this scenario description, it's impossible to determine the problem. It could be that they are not allowed to integrate (there's no evidence of that, no one forces them to send their kids to Islamist schools). It could be that they don't want to integrate. Or the problem could in fact be their culture. Or a combination of several of these factors.

All in all, personally, I have no interest in assigning blame. I only care about achieving the best outcome for the Western civilization.

With mass migration, as opposed to individual migration permitted into the US today, you greatly reduce the immigrants' ability to integrate. If they come en masse, they can't just spread thin across the society, there's not enough cheap apartments and non-English-speaking jobs to absorb them all at once. So it's down to building special housing just for them and keeping them on the dole - thus isolating them from the existing society, and depriving them of the opportunity to integrate.

50% of Muslims are generationally inbred.

http://10news.dk/?p=526

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 442010.stm

Their poverty in part stems from higher levels of genetic disease and lower intelligence.
It's an example of how their culture (Of cousin marriage) directly causes their situation, and why refusing to acknowledge their own part in their poverty and such will naturally mean discrimination against whites and natives.
"The muslims are still poor, it must be YOUR FAULT!"
No. It's because they're genuinely less intelligent on average for biological reasons, because they wont stop marrying their cousins at such large rates.
"No, it must be racism. We're going to try and rig the system to get them equality of outcome, and we refuse to examine their culture and why it might contribute to their situation."

It's also one reason why Islam is a lovecraftian horror for western civilization, because right after we resolved the biological equality thing, here comes the Islamic world, boasting massive rates of genetic disease, stillbirths, and mental deficiency. Their existence is not a thing we are built to comprehend, and our normal values don't apply.

Consider also the impact of this:

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

On our health, welfare, and education services, and the extra costs this will incur that will inevitably have to be paid for by productive citizens.

This is just ONE example of how the progressive left and their "It's discrimination and poverty, not culture!" shit is ignoring a massive part of the picture.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Muslim problem is not a brain tumor; it's appendicitis.

Nope. It's a brain tumor. You're treating the wrong disorder and wondering why it's not working.

You do treat appendicitis by removing the appendix, because you don't need it, just like the West doesn't need any more Muslims.

We don't 'need' anyone.

Personally, I've historically had less problems with Muslims than I've ever had with racists and xenophobes. Let's purge THOSE people from the west first, and then see if Muslims are still a problem?

Actually, from this scenario description, it's impossible to determine the problem. It could be that they are not allowed to integrate (there's no evidence of that...

Stopping you right there. If you won't hire foreigners, that IS evidence that they are not being allowed to integrate. If - as has been mentioned in this thread - you're trying to disenfranchise and even deport them - that is evidence they are not being allowed to integrate. If you only accept one language but hold language education hostage, that is evidence they are not being allowed to integrate. When foreigners aren't tolerated on your street, that is evidence they are not being allowed to integrate. When your shops won't sell the products they want to buy, that is evidence that they are not being allowed to integrate.

When you say 'there's no evidence of that', it's simply untrue.

Sure, some people will also choose their traditions over the cultural traditions they are now immersed in - and provided they break no laws, that's fine - but we shouldn't argue that because some CHOOSE not to integrate, that it means they CAN if they choose.

[Novus America]

I mean, people complained about this when Irish and Italians came to the US, and they seem to have managed.

Sadly, the past 60 years of immigration did not go as well for several European nations.

Immigration in the US did not go very well in the late 1800s either. We had disease and crime plaugued immigrant ghettos with massive poverty and plenty of race riots.

Those were not addressed until immigration was severely restricted in the 20s onward.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Alberta has the Wildrose Party, which came in second place during the last provincial election, so yes, there are pretty sizable separatist movements outside of Quebec. While separatism in Quebec has been in decline ever since the last referendum, it is by no means an insignificant force.

Wildrose is not and was never a separatist party. Or even sovereigntist in the vein of the PQ. It's a pretty bog standard right-of-centre populist party. Their primary beef with the PC's is not their being federalist but being not conservative enough.

Still waiting on proof that the rest of Canada is a hotbed of imaginary separatism.

Pauline Marois did win Quebec's general election in 2012, after all.

A minority government with a pretty tiny mandate. Hence why they called an election two years into their term and blew the resultant contest, losing 30 seats to a federalist party.

In terms of First Nations, no, they aren't just asking for better treatment and dialogue. They're asking for special rights most other Canadians don't have, as well as ridiculous amounts of federal funding. Of course it depends on the tribe and reserve in question. Some get treated like royalty whereas others are left to live in what amounts to slums.

So you're admitting the First Nations do have cause to protest then? Alrighty.

[Jankau-Helmutsberg]

The immigration isn't the issue. It's the 'mass' that causes problems. Take a look at how insular and opposed to integration the refugee camps in Europe are. When immigration happens in a per-family basis, then there's a much higher likelihood that they will be setteled in neighborhoods where they WON'T be surrounded by fellow migrants. But when it's en masse, it's not logistically possible for most nations to do that. This leads to populations becoming more insular rather than becoming more accepting, and are now bitter because they're considered an outgroup by the society they fled to.

I mean, people complained about this when Irish and Italians came to the US, and they seem to have managed.

Because they shared a Judeo-Christian-based culture, similar habits, etiquette, and - concerning the former - language?
And the "Western" or American culture wasn't really that defined yet, so they indeed helped forge it. Comparing the Irish/Italian migration to the US with the current refugee crisis in Europe is, to say, highly frivolous.

In my opinion, non-mass and controlled immigration with strong assimilation expectations is the way for Europe.

[The Alma Mater]

In my opinion, non-mass and controlled immigration with strong assimilation expectations is the way for Europe.

Honestly - do we need assimilation ? The Chinese barely assimilated either for instance; yet few are calling for their removal or restrictions on their arrival.
What we need is participation and/or contributing.

[Novus America]

In my opinion, non-mass and controlled immigration with strong assimilation expectations is the way for Europe.

Honestly - do we need assimilation ? The Chinese barely assimilated either for instance; yet few are calling for their removal or restrictions on their arrival.
What we need is participation and/or contributing.

Chinese Americans are very well assimilated for the most part. But yes we need not require they completely give up every part of their heritage. Just the socially harmful parts. And yes the focus should be on participation and contributing. Participating being key.

We need some assimilation. Not compete and total assimilation.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Muslim problem is not a brain tumor; it's appendicitis.

Nope. It's a brain tumor. You're treating the wrong disorder and wondering why it's not working.

You do treat appendicitis by removing the appendix, because you don't need it, just like the West doesn't need any more Muslims.

We don't 'need' anyone.

Personally, I've historically had less problems with Muslims than I've ever had with racists and xenophobes. Let's purge THOSE people from the west first, and then see if Muslims are still a problem?

Actually, from this scenario description, it's impossible to determine the problem. It could be that they are not allowed to integrate (there's no evidence of that...

Stopping you right there. If you won't hire foreigners, that IS evidence that they are not being allowed to integrate. If - as has been mentioned in this thread - you're trying to disenfranchise and even deport them - that is evidence they are not being allowed to integrate. If you only accept one language but hold language education hostage, that is evidence they are not being allowed to integrate. When foreigners aren't tolerated on your street, that is evidence they are not being allowed to integrate. When your shops won't sell the products they want to buy, that is evidence that they are not being allowed to integrate.

When you say 'there's no evidence of that', it's simply untrue.

Sure, some people will also choose their traditions over the cultural traditions they are now immersed in - and provided they break no laws, that's fine - but we shouldn't argue that because some CHOOSE not to integrate, that it means they CAN if they choose.

Your "Products they want to buy" example:

Shuja Shafi and Jonathan Arkush, writing in The Guardian, say religious slaughter is as humane as the alternatives. They argue that traditional British methods of stunning, using a captive bolt, gas or electricity, only paralyse the animal so it cannot move and "it is impossible to know whether the animal is feeling pain or not".

In both Muslim and Jewish religious slaughter, the act of slitting the throat "stuns the animal", they say, and "there is no delay between stun and subsequent death".

Animal health experts and campaigners disagree. The British Veterinary Association calls for all animals to be effectively stunned before slaughter, while the Farm Animal Welfare Council says cutting an animal's throat is "such a massive injury [that it] would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes".

The RSPCA argues that killing animals without stunning them causes "unnecessary suffering", while activist group Peta says the beasts "fight and gasp for their last breath, struggling to stand while the blood drains from their necks".

http://www.theweek.co.uk/58447/halal-me ... t-inhumane

There's really nothing to it. It's creation science V evolution levels of "Debate."

If you support halal slaughter, you support animal cruelty.
The actual experts are unanimous on it, and their opponents are just muslim commentators babbling pseudoscience and scripture.

Should we allow halal slaughter because otherwise the muslims can't buy products they want?

I'd say no. I'd say it's an example of how our societies are incompatible and they should leave.

Worse, the presence of Muslims in this country means animal cruelty is going to rise across the board as firms switch to halal slaughter to appease them as is already happening. That's a demonstrable example of how their culture has made things worse, and how attempts to integrate them on their terms make the country a regressive place. There is more suffering in the world as a result of them being here.

What other "Product" are you talking about?

[Grave_n_idle]

The Muslim problem is not a brain tumor; it's appendicitis.

You do treat appendicitis by removing the appendix, because you don't need it, just like the West doesn't need any more Muslims.



Actually, from this scenario description, it's impossible to determine the problem. It could be that they are not allowed to integrate (there's no evidence of that, no one forces them to send their kids to Islamist schools). It could be that they don't want to integrate. Or the problem could in fact be their culture. Or a combination of several of these factors.

All in all, personally, I have no interest in assigning blame. I only care about achieving the best outcome for the Western civilization.

With mass migration, as opposed to individual migration permitted into the US today, you greatly reduce the immigrants' ability to integrate. If they come en masse, they can't just spread thin across the society, there's not enough cheap apartments and non-English-speaking jobs to absorb them all at once. So it's down to building special housing just for them and keeping them on the dole - thus isolating them from the existing society, and depriving them of the opportunity to integrate.

50% of Muslims are generationally inbred.

http://10news.dk/?p=526

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 442010.stm

Their poverty in part stems from higher levels of genetic disease and lower intelligence.
It's an example of how their culture (Of cousin marriage) directly causes their situation, and why refusing to acknowledge their own part in their poverty and such will naturally mean discrimination against whites and natives.
"The muslims are still poor, it must be YOUR FAULT!"
No. It's because they're genuinely less intelligent on average for biological reasons, because they wont stop marrying their cousins at such large rates.
"No, it must be racism. We're going to try and rig the system to get them equality of outcome, and we refuse to examine their culture and why it might contribute to their situation."

It's also one reason why Islam is a lovecraftian horror for western civilization, because right after we resolved the biological equality thing, here comes the Islamic world, boasting massive rates of genetic disease, stillbirths, and mental deficiency. Their existence is not a thing we are built to comprehend, and our normal values don't apply.

Consider also the impact of this:

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

On our health, welfare, and education services, and the extra costs this will incur that will inevitably have to be paid for by productive citizens.

This is just ONE example of how the progressive left and their "It's discrimination and poverty, not culture!" shit is ignoring a massive part of the picture.

Much as I value the opinions of an extremist rightwing populist member of Denmark's foremost nativist anti-immigrant party, I can't help but feel the science in the article is coming a distant second to the ideology.

Sure, consanguinity is a problem - but it's neither implicit in Islam as a whole, or specific to it. The Amish populations (and lots of other isolated populations - Appalachian or rural English stereotypes DO exist for a reason) for example.

[Ostroeuropa]

50% of Muslims are generationally inbred.

http://10news.dk/?p=526

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 442010.stm

Their poverty in part stems from higher levels of genetic disease and lower intelligence.
It's an example of how their culture (Of cousin marriage) directly causes their situation, and why refusing to acknowledge their own part in their poverty and such will naturally mean discrimination against whites and natives.
"The muslims are still poor, it must be YOUR FAULT!"
No. It's because they're genuinely less intelligent on average for biological reasons, because they wont stop marrying their cousins at such large rates.
"No, it must be racism. We're going to try and rig the system to get them equality of outcome, and we refuse to examine their culture and why it might contribute to their situation."

It's also one reason why Islam is a lovecraftian horror for western civilization, because right after we resolved the biological equality thing, here comes the Islamic world, boasting massive rates of genetic disease, stillbirths, and mental deficiency. Their existence is not a thing we are built to comprehend, and our normal values don't apply.

Consider also the impact of this:



On our health, welfare, and education services, and the extra costs this will incur that will inevitably have to be paid for by productive citizens.

This is just ONE example of how the progressive left and their "It's discrimination and poverty, not culture!" shit is ignoring a massive part of the picture.

Much as I value the opinions of an extremist rightwing populist member of Denmark's foremost nativist anti-immigrant party, I can't help but feel the science in the article is coming a distant second to the ideology.

Sure, consanguinity is a problem - but it's neither implicit in Islam as a whole, or specific to it. The Amish populations (and lots of other isolated populations - Appalachian or rural English stereotypes DO exist for a reason) for example.

Isolated populations aren't going to be a major impact on the society they occupy because... they're isolated.
It's the difference between an old lady who decides she likes burning tires in the backyard and half the country doing it.

One is an issue. The other is a catastrophe.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Realistically, they WILL come in a billion size crowd, and they really will have to migrate.
They might not turn up on America's south border, in those numbers, at that point - but those migrations are going to happen somewhere. And, inevitably, there.

Here is what will happen if the seas rise 6 meters. That's something we expect by year 2400 or so (anyone's guess if civilization as we know it even still exists by then).

As you can see, the areas worst affected are SEA and Western Europe. Least affected are Africa and Russia. If a migration were to be caused by sea levels, it won't be to Western Europe; it will have to be to Africa.

So, should Africa embrace mass migration? I don't know. I guess it can't get any worse, so it can expect to get better. It will still be up to African "governments" to decide and enforce.

Well, yes and no. If your country turns into a dustbowl, the sort of 'infrastructure' and 'economy' you're going to be looking for are things like water. If your country is reclaimed by the sea, you'll be more attracted to not-water.

Tuvalu doesn't matter. And the vast majority of countries will still have plenty of dry land left, even in the worst-case scenarios.

The calculations with millions displaced are based on the assumption that everyone will forever stay exactly where they are now, no matter what, unless the sea touches their feet, at which point they jump up and run to whatever country is on the opposite side of the globe.

That's not how things work. Human settlements are not static objects, they move over time - new districts are built, old ones abandoned. When the coastline moves, which is a slow and gradual process, the settlements build around it.

Practically, the speed at which human settlements move for other reasons - urbanization, de-urbanization into suburbia, etc - is already much greater than the speed of any climate-induced coastline shifts. The sea level has been rising steadily for 20,000 years now, it's nothing new. Given the rate at which the world economy is changing, sea levels are just about last in the line of reasons causing people to move.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Because they shared a Judeo-Christian-based culture, similar habits, etiquette, and - concerning the former - language?

If you asked the Know-Nothings they'd vehemently disagree on that. Case in point;

The Know Nothings saw American identity as Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Irish Catholics and Germans and pretty much any other ethnicity were 'foreign'.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

It depends on the state of a nation. If you look at a developing nation. An influx of population can stimulate the economy with a cheap labor force - but in a state where a nation is considerably developed and faces a problem with the unemployment of its existing citizens, it can easily become a detriment by straining the availability of capital, housing, resources, etc.
To be honest, simply excusing mass immigration undermines the concept of a nation-state, since it virtually renders void the perception of its borders, its territorial security.
If we're looking at this as a moral question, as in, should we admit masses of people displaced by war, famine, or other tragedy, then yes. The innocent deserve asylum, as long as it can be offered. But the right for immigrants to receive asylum and a better life ends where it threatens the quality of life of the existing population of a state.

In short, it depends.

[The of Japan]

Because they shared a Judeo-Christian-based culture, similar habits, etiquette, and - concerning the former - language?

If you asked the Know-Nothings they'd vehemently disagree on that. Case in point;

The Know Nothings saw American identity as Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Irish Catholics and Germans and pretty much any other ethnicity were 'foreign'.

Know nothings never got above 25% in presidential election

[Des-Bal]

Much as I value the opinions of an extremist rightwing populist member of Denmark's foremost nativist anti-immigrant party, I can't help but feel the science in the article is coming a distant second to the ideology.

Sure, consanguinity is a problem - but it's neither implicit in Islam as a whole, or specific to it. The Amish populations (and lots of other isolated populations - Appalachian or rural English stereotypes DO exist for a reason) for example.

It's hard to pick through the racism but what little I'm willing to look at seriously suggests that the problem in islam is more widespread and more serious than in other groups without even considering that there are more muslims in the UK than there are amish in the world.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

If you asked the Know-Nothings they'd vehemently disagree on that. Case in point;

The Know Nothings saw American identity as Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Irish Catholics and Germans and pretty much any other ethnicity were 'foreign'.

Know nothings never got above 25% in presidential election

That's a considerable proportion.

[Scandinavian Nations]

If - as has been mentioned in this thread - you're trying to disenfranchise and even deport them

No one's proposing deportin legal immigrants. Only illegals and refugees.

If you only accept one language but hold language education hostage, that is evidence they are not being allowed to integrate.

A common language is essential to a nation. You can't integrate without speaking the same language people around you do.

If you want to move to a language X speaking country, it's on you to learn language X before you do.

When your shops won't sell the products they want to buy, that is evidence that they are not being allowed to integrate.

No. Integration is changing your habits to fit the host country; among that, to live with the products sold in the shops of the nation you have decided to move to.

You have decided to move to.

Speaking your own language, hanging out with your own ethnicity, and using the same products you did in your home country is the opposite of integration.