New genetic map of Britain shows waves of immigration going back 10,000 years

No doublethink involved, as long as you see history as a continuum, rather than believing in a fixed set of norms (typically your own, no offense) as an absolute ideal "best" transcending space and time.

For instance, my country only started existing in 1991. But we have written records of people speaking our language and thinking of themselves as us going back to 800 AD. Germany can trace its origins straight back to The Holy Roman Empire, the ruling classes of which spoke German, thought of themselves as Germanic, had the same crest as Germany uses now, and started existing as a state in 962 AD.

And so on.

It's less about genetics and more about language.

Are those kids actually coming to europe in waves of immigration? If not, why do they matter in talks of immigration?

And let's imagine for a moment they are - is denying them entry the right approach? Leave them in whatever neighbouring country they happen to be in at the time? These kids can be fixed. They're not wielding weapons because they're inherently evil. They were raised in a terrible environment and need to be treated like other, non-immigrant kids raised in terrible environments. We don't give up on people just because they're from somewhere else.

We are all humans. This doesn't merely mean that we should treat each individual as a human being - it also means that we should treat our neighbouring countries as we would want our own country to be.

Because humans are humans, regardless of where they originated from. It's our responsibility to take care of people, period. I'm not american but remember "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?

Here's what I don't understand. When it's about blacks, the mentality comes down to being so scared of "being racist" that people want to stop using the word "slave" in database/hardware lingo. But when it's about muslims, it's not our responsibility to integrate them, they are all guilty of terrorism until proven innocent, they should be thankful we even accept them in our country (even though, really, we don't), etc..

The contrast is so fucked up. I just don't get it. And often enough it's the same people talking both talks.

> The social unrest that is spreading through Europe is not _caused_ by yellow journalism (they just profit from it), it's driven by actual contact with radically different, incompatible cultures.

{{cn}}. Most people who will complain about muslims have never met any, if they don't actively entirely avoid them. I'll give you that I can't prove all of the unrest is directly caused by toilet-papers, but I can show you a LOT of people who only know the term islam as a synonym of terrorism because the daily mail is the only place they actually read about islam.

I did give suggestions to improve integration. My edit#2 was directed to your previous (now-deleted) post. But above all you make it sound like nobody's integrating, this is not the case. A large majority of muslims are integrating fine despite how hard the xenophobia and islamophobia is making it.

What about our own citizens that aren't integrating? The poor, the unemployed, the criminals, the homeless, the mentally ill... do we kick em out too because they failed to integrate? Is it always "100% or else"?

I find it fascinating how readily people will act and behave based on what ISIS does. Here's a riddle for you:

Step 1: Let's assume for a second that the marginalization of muslims leads to more hostility and radicalization.

Knowing that ISIS benefits from the radicalization of muslims, what do you think happens when their actions lead to islamophobia, which in turn leads to more marginalization? (Go to step 1).

If you think they're blind to this cycle, you are a fool.