>>688548
I didn't make the point, >>688531 did, it being that issues in Islamic societies are endemic to them being Islamic, and that Muslims seeking hand-outs from other nations will not actually aide them. This implies an important point: What truly helps these people? Will allowing them into countries only for money actually help them, or is there another solution? Pro-immigration folk like yourself seem to believe that subsidising their migration produces a net positive in terms of their well-being, yet there is little evidence for this (not to mention the fact that the cost alone – not monetary, but in terms of violence and disorder – makes it questionable enough). Do we consider well-being only in terms of animal needs such as food and water, or should we also consider the spiritual aspect to all of this?
Firstly, virtually all of these migrants are Sunni Muslims, i.e., pagans, who are going to Hell whether or not they migrate to the West. If we truly loved them, we'd wish for their conversion to Christianity. When they migrate, however, they form enclaves and ghettos, keeping themselves to themselves and outside influences – excepting capital – out. Perhaps they would stand a better chance at converting living in proximity to our Arabic Christian brothers (leaving out the fact that Arab and Middle-Eastern Christians generally are being systematically bred out of existence by their Muslim neighbours, e.g., Egypt, Turkey, etc.).
Secondly, what spiritual good does mass immigration do to host countries? Lower social trust, violent outbursts and increasing segregation are several of the wondrous fruits of this sort of population activity, none of which help anyone – neither native nor foreign. How can people cooperate when their very metaphysical underpinnings are different? Surely you aren't ignorant of the fact that the general feeling of religions are different; the style or genre of spirituality relays its deepest aspects, and it is clear that there is a stark contrast between Christianity and Islam, not dissimilar to the the contrast between the religion of the Israelites and the idolatrous religions of their ancient neighbours.
What you are suggesting is that we mix and match regardless of the consequences – the future be damned. This betrays a deep ignorance of Christ's words on welcoming strangers. Whilst indeed loving acts are objective, meaning that their value is immediate and intrinsic, if later consequences produce hatred and sin, can the immediate well-intentioned act really be called good? Of course not. Christians are called to be loving, not stupid, and where love in one instance produces later sin, perhaps an approach which avoids that later sin (in this case the mass Islamification of Europe) should be explored.
These migrants should stay in their homelands, fix their broken societies and eventually be converted to Christianity. Shipping them elsewhere does not fix their homelands, mend their broken societies nor convert them. It only causes chaos.