Here is the original post:
Chinese Migration Situation vs. EU Migrant Situation
where I compared a historic migrant situation in China with the European one.
It led to an interesting comment from a user, who responded to my comparisons:
“There are some major differences between the migration to China and the migration to Europe. Firstly, China, in the 1970s, already had a huge population that was still growing rapidly. Ethnic Chinese were never in danger of becoming minorities in their own lands. Secondly, the Vietnamese shared a somewhat common religion with the Chinese, being primarily Buddhist. Buddhism has strong historic roots in China, even though most Chinese aren’t actually Buddhist. Thirdly, The Vietnamese people have low crime rates. Their entry into China would not have greatly increased the incidence of rape and murder. Furthermore, it sounds like the Vietnamese were willing to assimilate into Chinese culture and become Chinese.”
Interestingly enough, he did point out some aspects I neglected to consider in regards to the similar religious lineage with the Vietnamese and the fact that ethnic purity was not a concern among the Chinese. However, at the same time, what this user failed to consider is the tense relationship between the Vietnamese and Chinese – two neighboring communist countries and the fact that China still accepted 300,o00 refugees. His assumption that the Vietnamese were willing to assimilate into Chinese culture was flawed, as a general attitude in Vietnam is anti-Chinese, especially as of late when the two countries disputed over territory.
However, the roots of the contemptuous relationship between the two nations appear deep, as the Vietnamese ideologically fell towards the Soviet Union after the Vietnamese war with the U.S. and resulted in a short, devastating war in 1978 – also a blow to China’s pride.
So what this commenter has failed to consider is that Buddhism (I’m surprised he didn’t try to use communism as a link) is perhaps the only real tie between the countries in terms of ideology and yet the Chinese still accepted 300,000 refugees.
And moved on to his arguments, which were mainly against allowing migrants into Europe.
“None of this is true of the migration to Europe. Native European peoples have birthrates that are below replacement. In much of western Europe, they are definitely facing a future where they will be minorities in their own ancestral lands. This is calculated to happen within the next few decades, if not sooner. Europeans cannot be expected to rejoice in this – any more so than Native Americans would have.
Most European countries are accepting Muslim migrants. Slovakia is an exception. This Muslim religion comes packaged with a culture that is historically hostile to native European cultures. The way women, sexual minorities, non-Muslims and animals are treated is clearly inferior to the way they’re treated among native Europeans. Freedom of speech is not a value that is cherished in any majority Muslim land. Even as a minority in Europe, the presence of Muslims has taken a toll on freedom of speech.
The difference in crime rates, between native Europeans and Mideastern/African migrants is not just a matter of stereotype. It’s statistical fact. Incidents of rape have increased dramatically everywhere these migrants have arrived. Witness the child grooming scandal in northern England. For many years, and even until today, Pakistani men have groomed native English girls for prostitution. The English media, and law enforcement, turned a blind eye to the abuse for fear of being branded “racist.” A majority of aggravated rapes in Norway are committed by non-Europeans. In fact, almost all of them are. I could go on and on.”
I responded in the comments with a number of human rights (Articles 2, 3, 10, 13, 18) that maintained that the migrants deserve screening and evaluation to seek security in another nation’s borders despite their religion, race, sex, or regardless of any sociocultural factor such as their country’s status.
In response to his other arguments regarding the European nativity, there are 500,000 Europeans and that is likely to be affected by the streams of immigrants that appear in numbers like 1,000. Also, the fear of the EU failing has existed for over a century and the EU has proved resilient.
And lastly, although his specific examples regarding crimes committed by migrants compel him to state that the difference between natives and migrants in crime rates is not simply a stereotype, Germany has released a report to debunk this stereotype showing that there was no difference between the crime rate of migrants and between German natives.“The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced that crimes committed by refugees stood at the same level as those committed by native Germans.” Hopefully this piece of evidence seems more holistic to this user than his singular examples and helps him reevaluate his biases against the migrants.
Teen in the Jing 