Poll shows bar on Muslim migration has wide majority support in Europe

Amid these competing views, where do the public in European countries stand on the specific issue of Muslim immigration? There is evidence to suggest that both Trump and these radical right-wing parties reflect an underlying reservoir of public support.

Drawing on a unique, new Chatham House survey of more than 10,000 people from 10 European states, we can throw new light on what people think about migration from mainly Muslim countries. Our results are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

In our survey, carried out before President Trump’s executive order was announced, respondents were given the following statement: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’. They were then asked to what extent did they agree or disagree with this statement. Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.

Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.

chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration

hat tip

Not surprising. The European countries have been having rather more (and more serious) problems with their . . . “guests” . . . than have we.

Those European countries’ reactions are more, shall we say, logical than the odd way in which Trump’s “travel ban” excludes the most obvious choices because, oh, that’s Obama’s list. (Despite the fact that Trump, not Obama, is the president now, and the appellate judges reviewing the ban are likely scratching their heads, too.)

I don’t considering telling a gang-rape victim to hush-up because it will tarnish the public image of refugees to be “logical”.

and yet large sections of the media would suggest that the overwhelmingly number of people are outraged about such a policy.

Is that not fake news?

Are these media organisations not fake news outlets?

many people have woken up to the fact they are fake and are scared of the number of people who take their reality from these channels.

These channels are private companies or government funded. They are ideological centres of the left Progressives. The worst set of moral and economic ideas that has plagued western society.

Who was Karl Marx Video

They are big, they are well financed, they sound authoritative, they have impressive lists of interviewees yet they are totally fake in the underlying set of morality they wish to assume people have.

Dear Holy father. Please listen to the cries of your children. They are not racists or uncaring people. Look after their future and spread the gospel and resist state based moral authoritarianism imposed by a secular elite that long ago abandoned your religion.

Nor do I.

Under international law the refugees should be settled in countries closest to their country of origin. Taking them to Europe doesn’t really make sense.

But it’s OK to refuse to help Syrian women and children who are at a high risk of being raped of course.

I don’t think the news is fake at all. It’s hard to gauge based on one’s own circle but only on CAF have I encountered supporters of the ban. Most people are outraged if they have an opinion, that I have met.

Also, I think God is listening to the cries of his children and wondering why the Christians he instructed do nothing to help his children who most need it. Is he thinking ‘They had one job! Love thy neighbour! And they can’t even do that’?

:thumbsup:

And more so to America.

As for the refugees from Middle East, there are many neighbouring countries that are very wealthy and can afford to provide adequate good amenities to the refugees. Besides, they speak the same language and generally practice the same religion. There would be no cultural shock and less adaptation required. They can always go back to the country of their origin once the situation is stabilized.

So why Europe, why America? And why these neighbouring countries do not take as many as they can? Very strange.

Probably people are concerned about the consequence of revealing their true feelings in person. Probably a number of those polled aren’t willing to admit they support such measures. I wrote this in another thread on the exact same poll:

*It seems the ‘neither’ option is unusually high in the Chatham House data. I don’t remember many issues getting such high numbers for that option or those like it such as ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Won’t say.’ Most polls show no more than 10% would choose such options for other issues. I wouldn’t surprised if a significant portion of people choosing those options were simply unwilling to say they do want restrictions or a ban.

Peter Hitchens assessment and solution to xenophobia is right and few in the world of political commentary and politics (in the West) want to admit to it:*

[If] the ‘west’ really wishes to limit the influence of Islam over its societies, it needs to rediscover the Christian faith in a big way. And that crude, ignorant attacks on Muslims themselves naturally make any intelligent open-minded person come to their defence when he can, whatever he thinks of their faith.
And as long as the ‘west’ doesn’t rediscover Christianity, it flails dangerously about, mistaking strength and wealth for virtue. It puts its faith in reeking tube and iron shard, in bigger weapons, and in ‘tougher’ ‘securidee’ (which bears the same relation to true security as does ‘charidee’ to true charity), in consumer goods and in its own luxurious hedonism. This will not work. As I’ve said before, when George W. Bush used to say that Muslim militants ‘hate our way of life’, I could not forebear to chime in ‘But I also hate our way of life!’.
For I do. The ‘West’ only exists as a coherent part of the world because of the Christian morals, and the extremely high levels of trust and lawfulness based upon them, which allowed Europe and the Anglosphere to develop as they have. Islam has virtues (they have much, for instance, to teach us about hospitality and the care of the old). But Islamic societies have simply not managed to achieve levels of trust and law comparable to those in Christian lands. This could explain why Islam (if you discount oil) has not achieved any great economic success, why education, publishing, freedom of speech and thought do not greatly flourish under its influence - and I am sceptical of claims of Islamic paradises in the distant past.

The part I quoted is pretty far down the blog post if you want to see find it on the Mail on Sunday site. No one has to agree about his views on Russia and Nato in the post but the part I quoted is hard to dispute.
hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co…-few-days.html

Hello? The refugees are not the neighbour of the US or the Europe. Their real neighbours who have all the money in the world, do not want to take them in numbers.

The Christians should liaise with the neighbour countries to take them because that would be the most logical thing to happen.

Both the government of US and Europe happen to anything but Christians.

and that is the problem. The fake news has presented the choice - it is nothing or it is mass migration into our neighbourhoods causing social unrest that we pay for that will not end, nor solve the underlying problems but create new ones.

God is not so stupid to believe the limited presentations of options from fake news sites is a binary choice.

He is probably wondering why so many people are so unGodly that they believe this, castigate those who don’t and why they cause problems and injustice to their own neighbours that were not there before while thinking of themselves as moral.

It’s worth noting that right up to the Catechism of St. Pius X, Catholic catechisms have had very little to say on this issue, because international migration (as opposed to, say, internal migration) is a relatively modern phenomenon and issue.

When dealing with this heated issue, the following quotes from the authoritative Catechism of St. John Paul II come to mind:

#2241: The more prosperous nations are obliged,** to the extent they are able**, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

#2442: It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens.

So if we’re going to get all outraged, we might want to use the above as a starting point before getting swayed by propaganda.

I agree.

And I still say this sudden migration from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe and the United States (not sure how many immigrants Canada or Australia has received was intentionally planned.
It certainly hasn’t provided a lot of safety to the migrants or the host countries.

NPR article about Saudi Arabia and refugees–short but too comprehensive to summarize!

Kuwaiti researcher explains why Gulf States cannot accept refugees. Video

Excerpt:
…At the end of the day, you cannot accept other people, who come from a different atmosphere, from a different place… These are people who suffer from psychological problems, from trauma, and you place them in [Gulf] societies just like that…

Only one of the seven countries has a functioning government that can provide information on its expatriates, and that exception is Iran, the number one worldwide exporter of terrorism.

Some things are just obvious, as it surely seemed to Obama and now to Trump.

The European posters here say something different.

They say everything is okay and the US is far more dangerous than Europe even with all the migrants.

This could also apply to migrants going to Europe or the Americas.

Even more of a different culture. At least in the Gulf states, they have the same religion.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.