Naguib Sawiris wants to make a new country for migrants

[Storebought]

I have had an evil thought in mind for a few days ...

The migrant friendly nation-state in the Middle East should be Palestine (West Bank Authority, Gaza). OK, perhaps not Gaza, but the West Bank can easily host up to 100,000 refugees from the various wars and failed countries in the region. The idea is to place the refugee camps in the portions of the West Bank, outside of the cities, most likely to be annexed by Israel, or that best complicate any attempt at current settlement expansion.

The biggest issue is that Palestinians see themselves as the refugees in their own nation, and would not accept Middle Eastern Muslim / Christian foreigners moving into their former homes and farms any more than they accept Jewish foreigners and settlements. But I say that the PA has to change its dynamic -- they need allies in the Middle East besides Iran and Assad, and hosting refugees will redound well to Palestinians' credit internationally.

Yes, I am aware that Palestinians are looked down upon by most other Arabs and would disdain to share living space among them. So much the better -- Palestine will then be more attractive to least fanatic Sunnis, non-Arab minorities, and perhaps Christians, whose numbers have already been worse than decimated there.

Netanyahu will of course complain, but what doesn't he complain about?

Yes, this is only a shot in the dark and I expect this to be ignored or hated. It would be interesting all the same to see Palestine play Israel's game (better) of being a refuge for Middle Eastern violence.

[SNJ1985]

If you need an influx of foreigners to make your system sustainable, something is wrong with your system.

The less crazy solution would be "have more children".

This.

Look at Urk in the Netherlands. They have the highest TFR (total fertility rate) in the country. This is because they hold to conservative values.

I never knew that, I had always thought of the Netherlands as a country that is almost completely socially liberal.

The town is actually part of a whole belt of devoutly Christian and socially conservative towns. I find it fascinating that such a bastion of conservative Christianity still exists in one of the world's most socially liberal countries.

[Zinneke]

If you need an influx of foreigners to make your system sustainable, something is wrong with your system.

The less crazy solution would be "have more children".

This.

Look at Urk in the Netherlands. They have the highest TFR (total fertility rate) in the country. This is because they hold to conservative values.

I never knew that, I had always thought of the Netherlands as a country that is almost completely socially liberal.

The town is actually part of a whole belt of devoutly Christian and socially conservative towns. I find it fascinating that such a bastion of conservative Christianity still exists in one of the world's most socially liberal countries.

The Dutch system is actually a collection of different factions rather than a reformist liberal one. The famous Dutch tolerance is more about letting these groups co-exist than "lol drugs prostitutes".

Urk is not a good example of a stable society. Suicide and cocaine. That's all I will say...

Back to topic, as others has said the reason multiculturalism has failed is because of ghettoisation. They've been allowed to keep certain aspects of their society that are abnormal and sometimes unacceptable in ours. If the village people weren't so scared of brown people we could house them around the country. But instead we ghettoise them, and then the same racist people complain that their country is going to the dogs.

You reap what you sow...

[PJ]

Perhaps it would work as a temporary residence for refugees until they can be accepted by a welcoming country, but I don't like the idea of a separate country for refugees to be segregated into so that Europeans don't have to live amongst them.

[Famous Mortimer]

If you need an influx of foreigners to make your system sustainable, something is wrong with your system.

The less crazy solution would be "have more children".

This.

Look at Urk in the Netherlands. They have the highest TFR (total fertility rate) in the country. This is because they hold to conservative values.

I never knew that, I had always thought of the Netherlands as a country that is almost completely socially liberal.

The town is actually part of a whole belt of devoutly Christian and socially conservative towns. I find it fascinating that such a bastion of conservative Christianity still exists in one of the world's most socially liberal countries.

The Dutch system is actually a collection of different factions rather than a reformist liberal one. The famous Dutch tolerance is more about letting these groups co-exist than "lol drugs prostitutes".

Urk is not a good example of a stable society. Suicide and cocaine. That's all I will say...

Back to topic, as others has said the reason multiculturalism has failed is because of ghettoisation. They've been allowed to keep certain aspects of their society that are abnormal and sometimes unacceptable in ours. If the village people weren't so scared of brown people we could house them around the country. But instead we ghettoise them, and then the same racist people complain that their country is going to the dogs.

You reap what you sow...

Ghettoism isn't all the fault of racist villagers. The immigrants themselves are very resistant to assimilation. They WANT to live in the ghettos, or at least they want to live in the cities and refuse to live anywhere else.

[DavidB.]

The Dutch system is actually a collection of different factions rather than a reformist liberal one. The famous Dutch tolerance is more about letting these groups co-exist than "lol drugs prostitutes".

Urk is not a good example of a stable society. Suicide and cocaine. That's all I will say...

Back to topic, as others has said the reason multiculturalism has failed is because of ghettoisation. They've been allowed to keep certain aspects of their society that are abnormal and sometimes unacceptable in ours. If the village people weren't so scared of brown people we could house them around the country. But instead we ghettoise them, and then the same racist people complain that their country is going to the dogs.

You reap what you sow...

Of course you're right on the Netherlands and on Urk.

But where does the whole idea of some sort of a "racism gap" between villagers and urban people come from? This might have been true in the past, and it might still be true in some countries (France, Sweden), but in many countries, like the Netherlands (and probably Belgium), it certainly isn't the case. I don't think one can say "multiculturalism has failed", it hasn't: it is a popular soundbite among politicians, but it doesn't reflect reality. In reality, people from lots of backgrounds coexist in harmony. The problem is that there are issues with Muslim minorities, sure, but that doesn't render multiculturalism itself "failed" - it is simply the new reality. And it is exactly like Famous Mortimer said: people want to live with people who are similar to them. So of course a Moroccan family would prefer to live in a neighborhood with a mosque, a halal butcher, and other Moroccans. This is normal. It's the same with European Jews, who are not "ghettoized" (anymore) at all.

[SNJ1985]

It's perfectly normal and natural for people to want to live around others who share their culture, religion, values, etc. Homogenous societies tend to be more cohesive.

Mass immigration has led to a big increase in violent crime in many European countries:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/immigration_rates_and_violent_crime_in_northwestern_continental_europe.html

I would be surprised if Europeans commit more violent crimes against non-European immigrants than vice versa.