It turns out it's not just Trump or a minority (or majority) of people in the United States that have an issue with immigration from Muslim majority countries. Before Trump even signed the executive order for the ban on seven Muslim majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days, Chatham House did a survey in Europe about immigration.
More than 10,000 people from 10 European countries were asked to what extent did they either agree or disagree with the following statement:
‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’
On average, 55% agreed to stop further migrations from Muslim majority countries, with 25% remaining undecided and the final 20% disagreeing.
Only 2 of the 10 countries had a majority agreement of less than 50%, and none of them disagreed above 32%. That shows that overall, in every country that was surveyed, there are more people that want to stop Muslim immigration. Public opposition to further Muslim migration is strongest in Austria, Poland, Hungary, France and Belgium, with at least 38% strongly agreeing with the surveys statement.
The survey also found that opposition is intense among retired old-age people, with less opposition from those below 30 years old. There is also an educational divide, with 59% of the secondary education level opposed Muslim immigration, while less than half of people that held a college or university degree supported such restrictions.
The location of those surveyed also affected how they responded to the statement. People in rural and less populated areas were 58% opposed to more Muslim immigration, whereas in cities it's just over half of people that agree. Those who feel left behind in the political system, such as two thirds of the population who didn't get the election results they wanted are feeling like they don't have control over their own lives and what is going on in their area, with some being overrun and taken over in some cases.
I will add that Chatham House is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The RIIA is the UK version of the American CFR/Trilateral Commission. I find that interesting. These are the Fabian Socialists (i.e. globalists). You can learn about their "hidden-hand" machinations and manipulations over the previous two centuries in Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, or the smaller Anglo-American Establishment.
References:
- Majority of Europeans say Muslim immigration should be stopped – poll
- Most Europeans want immigration ban from Muslim-majority countries, poll reveals
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
or Reblogging 
below.
me for more content to come!
Please also consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
@krnel
2017-02-08, 4:53pm
@KrNel, your post has been chosen by @STEEMNEWS.ONLINE as one of today's promoted posts for its excellent content. We've upvoted, resteemed and published it through Facebook & Twitter.
As the author of a SNO featured article, you've been awarded one TRAIL coin. Please stop by the SteemTrail Discord server to learn more about how to claim your TRAIL coin. You will need an Open Ledger account to do so.
STEEMNEWS.ONLINE is the @SteemTrail for #news and watches the #steemnews tag most closely. Please consider supporting excellent news articles by making steemnews.online one of your operators on Streemian, in addition to steemtrail.
Thank you for your hard work and contribution of excellent content to Steemit.
If you would rather not be promoted by STEEMNEWS.ONLINE, please inform us by replying to this comment and we will honor your request.
Mass immigration of one culture into another is always going to lead to problems.
Normal immigration, on a small scale, is good however, because the culture clash remains minimal. No one is bothered by a few foreign people. It leads to ideas sharing, and information exchange. People benefit when people of other cultures are able to move about freely.
But mass immigration happens too fast, and changes stable communities too chaotically. It's very dangerous to suddenly import another culture directly on top of an existing one.
People will become extremely furious over this for obvious reasons.
The only logical path is to slow immigration to a steady trickle.
Restrict immigration only to people who've had an education, and are able to work hard at a job once they immigrate, in my opinion.
Good points. Thanks for the feedback.
sometimes I wonder who is hurting who more? everyone is worry about Muslims hurting first world countries, but history has shown that these powerful countries are directly responsible for these messed up situations during last decades(let's not forget Iraq war), it sometimes sickenes me how innocent they act.
and by the way it is not an executive order against Muslim countries, it is an executive order against Muslim countries who are not on the same page with USA(and Israel) policy. Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim, is guilty in 9/11 attack, is killing people in Yemen, has one of the highest rates in capital punishments, is violating human rights (is not even letting women to drive a damn car),ISIS is built by their money and right now lots of ISIS are Saudis, but guess what?! they are not banned from USA? you know why? because they are not against USA/Israel policy, simple and revolting as that
The argument can be made that Islam has doctrinal positions that will create higher levels of culture clash than would be normal in culture clash situations.
Those doctrinal positions could be describes as "xenophobic", "violent", and "tyrannical".
That doesn't mean that all, or even most, Muslims as individuals would adhere to those positions. But it does mean, if you agree with that argument, that Muslims are going to be more likely to engage in culture clash issues.
While I agree with that argument, I won't press it here.
My point is that at least half of the people in the West either agree with the argument OR are looking at patterns of specific activity (terror, sexual assault, no-go neighborhoods, etc). It doesn't help that the institutional powers that be (government and media) stifle discussion about the subject through censorship or criminal penalty.
Finally, we have been told that immigration in itself is a good thing, without even discussing any need for it, or it's affect on unemployment, crime, or welfare support.
@heretickitten makes a valid point that when a society allows immigration of any sort, it should be managed to benefit the society itself.
And I would add, not simply for the benefit of the self-proclaimed "elite"
This is no surprise to me, the only people who are seriously against this are deluded hard left who are still pissed off about Trump winning. Something that is often left out is that Obama actually had set all of this up before Trump even took office, Trump is actually implementing what Obama was already preparing to do.
As for the countries listed, a few of them are fucking warzones, of course we should be checking people over properly to make sure they don't start shit where we live as well.
Pissed about Trump winning?
This is a European poll.
Us Europeans don't actually care much about America, except that the USA has started many wars for profit, and that has lead to severe chaos in the middle-east.
I'm in Europe too and MSM (and probably the people who follow them) are very pissed about Trump. No wonder considering the whole UN thing. That and trade has a huge impact on Europe. It's pretty short sighted to say that the USA don't affect Europe much.
I agree on the part with the wars but many people still believe in the USA are the good guys, Russia are the bad guys narrative.
Here's my theory on that mentality, many of the people who have the viewpoint of 'Russia bad' are baby boomers who lived through the cold war and Clinton was one of them. If you read through her emails and you check out what an actual general was saying about establishing a no fly zone in Syria and how that would cause a war with Russia if they had to shoot them down you will suddenly understand why they say the things they do and why they blame Russia for literally anything.
Clinton was the pro-war candidate, not Trump.
So why has the Minority(guess the globalist elites) been having their way in Europe?
Because in many ways, it's logical to think "be nice to people, and let them live how they want and where they want".
I wouldn't call this idea evil. It's freedom.
But it can still be dangerous.
I'm for the ban.
If you check the source of this poll, you see that the question asked was: "‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’: Do you agree with this statement?". It means that you can't know if people agreed becouse they are against muslim immigration or just becouse they are against immigration tout court.
in fact it's all the same human beings but split because of cultural and religious
I think that peace is more beautiful
Resteemed
thanks krnel, for tip!