4 ms·
Two things. First, your argument makes no sense even if we make the most grossly uncharitable assumptions about the sentiments of middle eastern immigrants. 5%
by throwawaygh 5y ago
Two things.
First, your argument makes no sense even if we make the most grossly uncharitable assumptions about the sentiments of middle eastern immigrants. 5% of the middle east is only about 12 million people, and presumably not even 100% of those people are going to end up Europe. Even if every single one of those people had illiberal sentiments, they wouldn't make a dent on the electorate (and, as immigrants new to the region and therefore without strong historical/institutional inertia, would have a hard-to-impossible time effectuating change via extra-legal avenues).
Second, Immigrants aren't selected uniformly from the underlying population; they largely self-select. At least in the USA, the average Iranian immigrant is far more friendly to democracy, the rule of law, and secular government than the average white conservative. The greatest threat to liberalism in Germany is AfD, etc.
- inglor_cz 5y agoIranians are generally easy to integrate anywhere, as they usually are university-educated people who do not want to live in the oppressive political climate of the Islamic Republic. Iran suffers one of the worst brain drains worldwide. This cannot be generalized to the entire Middle East, though. Environmental or military disasters result in very different migration patterns than political oppression in an otherwise stable country. "those that manage immigration well" The keyword is well. For contemporary Western societies, highly educated, secular migrants cause the least friction. So Hong Kong inhabitants fleeing China are likely to be welcome everywhere. That does not apply as much to inhabitants of Mirpur, Pakistan.