Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

realitykeeper

gobsh!te wrote: »

Well, its obviously not that bad ...

I see Hungary is now deploying its army with rubber bullets.

How bad does it have to be?

gobsh!te

realitykeeper wrote: »

How bad does it have to be?

Well they aren't staying in Hungary or Croatia. So when you say bad I think you should investigate the welfare payments for "refugees".

Hungary and Croatia must be really bad considering hardly any "refugees" want to stay there. So I guess that's how "bad" it has to be in places like Germany and Sweden in order for "refugees" to reconsider Europe as a destination of choice.

Lockstep

jank wrote: »

I think you are utterly wrong. First of all the German people would never support such a measure as they did reunifying Germany in 1990. There in lies a hint of why you are wrong in your gross assumption.

Well the majority of Germans are supportive of the refugees .
Ultimately, the original question was whether or not Germany could cope with the numbers of refugees. Given they absorbed millions of East Germans (who still demonstrate different attitudes and culture to their Western counterparts) and the majority of Germans support the refugees, I'm not sure what your point is here. Unless you want to engage in hyperbole and wonder what if millions of foreigners arrived. Doubtless, Germany would adapt, as they always do.

jank wrote: »

So in other-words you take the politicians way out and refuse to answer the question. How very Hamlet of you. An average Russian will have more in common with an average Serb then an average Nigerian as they are Slavs and the Nigerian isn't. Russia is regarded as the 'Protector of the Slavs'. One can use all the words in the world they want but its the truth, just like how the Irish have more in common with the English then say the French (no matter what the Shinners say).

No, I'm saying that different people will have different things in common with one another. Even when people do have stuff in common, I'm not sure why you place such a heavy emphasis on this. That's the entire point of liberal democracies: that it doesn't matter whether you're a gay, atheist leftie or a Christian conservative: you're left alone to do your own thing.

jank wrote: »

Once you travel the world a bit

Eh, I can do without being patronised on travel thanks.

jank wrote: »

They can become 'Irish' but what do you mean by Irish? I am an Australian citizen as well as an Irish one so I do have some understanding in this regard. Yet, I would not call myself Australian to be honest. I have only been here 6 years yet would identify myself as Irish first and foremost. Ask me in 30 years maybe. No doubt many migrants in Ireland who came in the last 10 years would still call themselves Polish, Latvian and so on more so then Irish. Many an American would call themselves Irish yet would never have set foot in the country. This is going off topic though and can be a thread in itself.
My approach to nationality differs depending on the nation state. Immigrant nations like the USA's and Australia are different of course to the Germany's and France of this world. The old world vs the new. It is no surprise so that migration and multiculturalism is more successful in the former then the latter, for two reasons. The old world does not have the same history of migration and the concept of assimilation is not as strong as the former where certain things are expected of you in that regard. Hence why you have ethnic ghettos in the old world where the concept is almost alien in the new world. If all of a sudden we think that Poland or France can become like USA and invite millions of non French nationals to the state with no push back or political repercussions then people need a desperate reality check

jank wrote: »

you see that people are just people but have very very different cultures, morals and views on sometimes very simple and subtle things.
The whole 'we are all the same' is feel good stuff that grows old when you reach primary school. Yes, we are all people but scratch the surface people want vastly different things and are self interested in their own way. Spend a month in China and then tell me that they have as much in common with a West German as an East German.
I do not know, they may both speak English for example or follow Arsenal and work for the Royal Mail. It is really a mindset more then anything and it depends how each of them assimilate to British life, which of course is the more important thing. If each state set out rules for assimilation many people who feel more at ease. However the word assimilate is a dirty word yet I think it is imperative to successful immigration policy and multiculturalism. One has to adhere to a framework that under pins that society and culture and we in the West have certain values in this regard. If large numbers of people do not adhere to these values and in fact reject them outright then that can cause many issues down the line as we are seeing now with 2nd generation Muslims across the Western world. Again, more British Muslims are fighting for ISIS then the British army, a worrying statistic. Another example, the BBC editorial policy expressly forbids any mention, depiction or insults to the Prophet Mohammad, because it may offend British Muslims. This is a state tax payer funded broadcaster censoring opinion because of a minority grouping. Why did this happen?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/01/is-the-bbc-reconsidering-its-restrictions-on-depicting-mohammed/

Indeed: people have different cultures but that's exactly it: it's cultural. Does a British Jew have much in common with an Israeli Jew? Possibly. What about a British Christian? Again, possibly. What about a British person
I agree with you that it's all about a mindset but you're placing a disturbingly high emphasis on ethnicity and assuming it's a vital factor in civic participation. It's not. That's why we don't have ethnic nationalism in the West (unless groups like the FN get their way)
For example, when working with them, I found Arabs quite similar to the Irish: they're gregarious, family orientated and utterly terrible at timekeeping. Even though they were from (what you assume to be) an entirely alien culture and religion, this doesn't preclude them from participating in our way of life.
People are just people. They have different cultures but as cultures are learned, they can be altered. Presumably you've a slightly different mindset since moving to Australia than when you left Ireland?

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Well they aren't staying in Hungary or Croatia. So when you say bad I think you should investigate the welfare payments for "refugees".

Hungary and Croatia must be really bad considering hardly any "refugees" want to stay there. So I guess that's how "bad" it has to be in places like Germany and Sweden in order for "refugees" to reconsider Europe as a destination of choice.

Ever think it might be about ability to work and the treatment they receive rather than an obsession with getting welfare?
Or maybe we should just institute a European wide workhouse system. That'll sort them out.

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

Ever think it might be about ability to work and the treatment they receive rather than an obsession with getting welfare?
Or maybe we should just institute a European wide workhouse system. That'll sort them out.

Not really. I have no reason to think this.

In all the interviews with the migrants they always mention they are going for the welfare. If you need links, let me know.

Also, have you seen the stats for Muslim asylum seekers on welfare in Sweden and The Netherlands? Once again, I can provide links if you need to see this.

I get it, I get it....you're a leftie so emotion rather than facts are what are important to you in debates.

That'll sort them out....yeah...more trash talk...Give me facts please

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

Not really. I have no reason to think this.

In all the interviews with the migrants they always mention they are going for the welfare. If you need links, let me know.

If you were able to prove that I'd be amazed.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Not really. I have no reason to think this.

In all the interviews with the migrants they always mention they are going for the welfare. If you need links, let me know.

Somehow, I suspect you're looking for cases which confirm your pre existing opinions

Can you provide any evidence that they're coming here solely to apply for welfare?
Now, by evidence, I mean actual evidence. Not ancedotal interviews with refugees where one says they're coming to seek welfare.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Also, have you seen the stats for Muslim asylum seekers on welfare in Sweden and The Netherlands? Once again, I can provide links if you need to see this.
I get it, I get it....you're a leftie so emotion rather than facts are what are important to you in debates.

What facts?
Before its civil war, Syria was a middle income country with a literate population.Are you honestly arguing that they've randomly decided to move to Europe
Ironic that amidst your paranoia and scaremongering, you're accusing others of relying on emotion.

gobsh!te wrote: »

That'll sort them out....yeah...more trash talk...Give me facts please

Sure.
THe Economist reports that the vast majority of those arriving in Europe are refugees rather than migrants. They're hardly coming here for the craic.
Likewise, out of those seeking to reach the UK, the British Red Cross reports that they're mostly doing so either as they think they've a better prospect of finding work or as they have relatives in the UK

But don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

This should be the ultimate lesson then. All this 'theory' about getting rid of nationalism and borders is just theory, just like Marx and Communism. Sounds great on paper but in reality does not work.

If the ultimate lesson you take from altruism being defeated by selfishness is that selfishness is therefore better... I really don't know what to say to that.

A Union of like minded nations all banding together for both social and economic good in the 50's,60's and 70's has turned into a German centric union where the needs and wants of the bigger nations outweigh many others.

Outside of a tabloidesque Euroskeptic mindset, it really hasn't. That's the popular narrative from people who believe that the German government should put Irish considerations ahead of German considerations, which is a strange thing to believe.

...nation states, like people are inherently self interested. It is part of the human condition and if you deny it then you are essentially deny anthropological and biological truth.

The nice thing about society is that it aims to transcend anthropology. Once again, you're basically arguing that since selfishness is natural, it trumps other considerations.

I'm arguing that we should be kind to people whether or not we share a nationality with them. You seem to be arguing against that on the basis that nationalism dictates otherwise, which is a circular argument, since I'm arguing against nationalism itself.

Merkel will be more concerned with German people in Colonge rather then the Irish people and in Cork. After all, is is they that elect her. Its only natural. Likewise we in Ireland would be more concerned with our own problems rather then problems in Italy or Spain.

My point, which you seem to continue to want to argue against by reinforcing it, is that the more narrowly-focused our attention is, the worse off we all are collectively. If Enda Kenny was to decree that all future investment by the government should be spent in Mayo, that would - by your very own argument - be "natural" - but it would be bad for the country. If Angela Merkel puts Germany's interests ahead of the EU's, it would be "natural" - but it would be bad for the Union. If the EU puts its citizens' interests ahead of the lives of refugees, that's "natural" - but it's bad for the world.

If you're arguing that we should keep doing what's "natural" even though it's morally wrong, I'd love to know why.

realitykeeper

gobsh!te wrote: »

Well they aren't staying in Hungary or Croatia. So when you say bad I think you should investigate the welfare payments for "refugees".

Hungary and Croatia must be really bad considering hardly any "refugees" want to stay there. So I guess that's how "bad" it has to be in places like Germany and Sweden in order for "refugees" to reconsider Europe as a destination of choice.

But isn`t good better than bad? Isn`t it better to be nice to people?

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

If you were able to prove that I'd be amazed.

Am I allowed to post numerous links here? I can provide about 5 showing them going for welfare. If anyone can show links where people are looking for work that'd be great.

realitykeeper wrote: »

But isn`t good better than bad? Isn`t it better to be nice to people?

Was that a response to why the migrants are looking for good welfare as opposed to being safe? So they are just taking advantage of Swedish and German taxpayers? IS that your point?

K-9

gobsh!te wrote: »

Not really. I have no reason to think this.

In all the interviews with the migrants they always mention they are going for the welfare. If you need links, let me know.

This was your initial post, provide the links then.

Nichard Dixon

Lockstep wrote: »

Sure.
THe Economist reports that the vast majority of those arriving in Europe are refugees rather than migrants. They're hardly coming here for the craic.
Likewise, out of those seeking to reach the UK, the British Red Cross reports that they're mostly doing so either as they think they've a better prospect of finding work or as they have relatives in the UK

Does this not make the point? Their decision to leave Syria is indeed because of the war. Having left Syria, though, they have become economic migrants seeking to maximise their own income. The issue is not that they should be forced to stay in Syria, the issue is whether they can pick and choose where they wish to live regardless of the laws of that place.

If the dole is great in Luxembourg, can 2m Syrians just decide to there?

gobsh!te

K-9 wrote: »

This was your initial post, provide the links then.

I can't post as I am a new member so I have sent you them in a message
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhOOPSwnMA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U_BQ-4WfK8A
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WgU_4AJMfE&feature=youtu.be&t=24s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axOuN5Uj0AU&feature=youtu.be&t=2m32s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHM6TNrXKU&feature=youtu.be&t=3m3s

gobsh!te

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Does this not make the point? Their decision to leave Syria is indeed because of the war. Having left Syria, though, they have become economic migrants seeking to maximise their own income. The issue is not that they should be forced to stay in Syria, the issue is whether they can pick and choose where they wish to live regardless of the laws of that place.

If the dole is great in Luxembourg, can 2m Syrians just decide to there?

Eurostat has stated that only 21% of the migrants are Syrian. Can you please comment on the other 79%?

Thanks

deni20000

gobsh!te wrote: »

Not really. I have no reason to think this.

In all the interviews with the migrants they always mention they are going for the welfare. If you need links, let me know.

Also, have you seen the stats for Muslim asylum seekers on welfare in Sweden and The Netherlands? Once again, I can provide links if you need to see this.

I get it, I get it....you're a leftie so emotion rather than facts are what are important to you in debates.

That'll sort them out....yeah...more trash talk...Give me facts please

I'd like to see the links, please.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the ultimate lesson you take from altruism being defeated by selfishness is that selfishness is therefore better... I really don't know what to say to that.

Well, its easy to be altruistic with other peoples money and nation right, especially with cute little meaningless sound bites.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Outside of a tabloidesque Euroskeptic mindset, it really hasn't. That's the popular narrative from people who believe that the German government should put Irish considerations ahead of German considerations, which is a strange thing to believe.

That is not what I said at all but anyway..
Hang on, what about this altruism you were on about earlier? Are you saying that the EU and especially the Euro is not dominated by one country? Therefore are you saying it is a union of 'equals'.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The nice thing about society is that it aims to transcend anthropology. Once again, you're basically arguing that since selfishness is natural, it trumps other considerations.

Looking after ones family and community is natural you saying otherwise. Therefore you are entering the 'theory phase' of the argument and ignoring the practicalities and dare I say it reality itself. As I said, communism is great in theory but... well you know the rest. It was that dammed thing called the human condition that caused it to fail. A bit of social engineer perhaps could solve that for the 'greater moral good'

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm arguing that we should be kind to people whether or not we share a nationality with them. You seem to be arguing against that on the basis that nationalism dictates otherwise, which is a circular argument, since I'm arguing against nationalism itself.

Where did I say that? I didn't so stop putting words in my mouth to big up your own counter argument and take the high moral ground. An argument that begins and ends with 'morality' is not a rational or logical argument and you seem to be cherry picking my quotes.

Anyway, I did say that people do want to help BUT in an ordered and limited way. Ireland currently spends 600 million in foreign aid and currently does take in refuges. Ireland is already being 'kind' to put it in your simple terms.

However, the problem stems from what limit one can put on this kindness. The EU and Ireland is already being 'kind' but you want them to be 'kinder' without ever defining stating what that actually means in reality.
When you see stories about Irish homelessness, a housing crisis, OAP's having to stay on trolleys for days on end, huge infrastructure deficit then it is not surprising that the average Irish voter and taxpayer would rather pay to help these problems first before opening the door to as yet unspecified number of migrants/refugees. You are free to specify by the way.

Of course we can do both in limited ways as we are currently, but housing 4,000 people has to paid for by some Irish taxpayers. I do not see anyone arguing that we should increase it 10 fold and that to pay for it, USC for all will have to go up 2%. That would be political suicide, why? Well I will leave you work that out for yourself.

oscarBravo wrote: »

My point, which you seem to continue to want to argue against by reinforcing it, is that the more narrowly-focused our attention is, the worse off we all are collectively. If Enda Kenny was to decree that all future investment by the government should be spent in Mayo, that would - by your very own argument - be "natural" - but it would be bad for the country. If Angela Merkel puts Germany's interests ahead of the EU's, it would be "natural" - but it would be bad for the Union. If the EU puts its citizens' interests ahead of the lives of refugees, that's "natural" - but it's bad for the world.

A few things here

a) We as a nation, as citizens and tax payers can choose to vote out Enda Kenny if we so wish and Mayo is not a 'nation state' with its own borders, so nice strawman.

b) Merkel putting Germany ahead of the union is what is exactly happening here where Germany has the lowest unemployment in the eurozone and the lowest birth rate. Germany needs lots of migrants. Places like Spain and Greece do not. This is 'good' for Germany and 'bad' for Spain using your simple binary view on the world

c) The best thing the EU can do is try and make other places in the world better to live in, not plunder their population for their most able and most educated. Having millions of people come to the EU is actually 'bad' for these countries in the long run..

http://www.rferl.org/content/afghanistan-fighting-migration-brain-drain/27262971.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/why-us-brain-drain-harms-developing-countries-201411553847358568.html
http://www.globalissues.org/article/599/brain-drain-of-workers-from-poor-to-rich-countries

...but yea, narrow view or something....

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're arguing that we should keep doing what's "natural" even though it's morally wrong, I'd love to know why.

You mean taking in 4,000 refugees and spending 600 million a year on FDI in developing countries is 'morally wrong'...? What is morally right so, define it in exact terms...

Is it morally wrong to look after an older Irish taxpayer by affording him a bed in hospital over a refugee from the Middle East? (You like simple binary choices so I am giving you one back)

By the way, I do love the way you speak in generalities yet never ever state how many or how much we should spend on this problem. Again, lots of 'theory' and hot air about morals as if you are the moral arbitrator in this debate.

jank

Lockstep wrote: »

Well the majority of Germans are supportive of the refugees .

Did they ask would they like to assimilate 15 million Syrians? I dare say that poll outcome would be rather different Therefore its a mute point and my point stands that the German people would not have supported it like they did reunifying east and west Germany. Hence, there IS a difference for all your arm waving.

Lockstep wrote: »

No, I'm saying that different people will have different things in common with one another. Even when people do have stuff in common, I'm not sure why you place such a heavy emphasis on this. That's the entire point of liberal democracies: that it doesn't matter whether you're a gay, atheist leftie or a Christian conservative: you're left alone to do your own thing.

Because like it or not we are Tribal in nature. Even in tolerant liberal western democracies people from different ethnic backgrounds generally tend to live in and around people like themselves. We may work side by side but often we get on the train/bus and go back and live in a community that is dominated by one ethnicity. An organic process itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sydney#/media/File:Sydney_CoB_dots.png

Lockstep wrote: »

Indeed: people have different cultures but that's exactly it: it's cultural. Does a British Jew have much in common with an Israeli Jew? Possibly. What about a British Christian? Again, possibly. What about a British person
I agree with you that it's all about a mindset but you're placing a disturbingly high emphasis on ethnicity and assuming it's a vital factor in civic participation. It's not. That's why we don't have ethnic nationalism in the West (unless groups like the FN get their way)
For example, when working with them, I found Arabs quite similar to the Irish: they're gregarious, family orientated and utterly terrible at timekeeping. Even though they were from (what you assume to be) an entirely alien culture and religion, this doesn't preclude them from participating in our way of life.
People are just people. They have different cultures but as cultures are learned, they can be altered. Presumably you've a slightly different mindset since moving to Australia than when you left Ireland?

It seems you are placing zero emphasis on ethnicity, which is a mistake. I am not saying that ethnicity is the be all and end all. Cultures do change over time. However, you seem to even refuse to acknowledge any value to it, despite the evidence I have put forward that to many, it does matter.

Also, working along side people is not the same as living beside or with people. In the work place, most people want to get along and be professional. In Sydney if you are in IT and white, you are in a minority. Never has bothered me in the slightest and I get on with everyone. Yet, I would not choose to live in Cabramatta or Chatswood or Lakemba or Hurstville. Mostly because as you said these people are very family oriented. I am here with only my wife and have no extended family over here, I would rather live somewhere that I can make friends with people of a similar age group and circumstances. That would be areas of the inner-west, south Sydney or east suburbs where 30 something immigrants would be in the same boat as myself.

As you said, I have changed my mindset since travelling and coming to Australia. Before I may been subject to airy notions about people being people and all that, however when living in arguably one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world, I see what works and doesn't work and see why its a success in Sydney. Which I why I have the views of today.

Lessons I have learned, Assimilation is very important. Some cultures/ethnicity are more compatible then others e.g. Christian Lebanese have a good reputation for being loyal and hard working. Muslim Lebanese have a bad reputation, which when you see it firsthand can be sometimes justified.
Ethnicity does matter too in what is expected off you, what roles you play in society and where you may live.

Of course the important thing here is that Australia has a selection policy when it comes to immigration, which also works. It does not matter if you are an IT expert from China, Ireland,Zimbabwe or Brazil or what color your skin is or what religion you are, if you have the skills, have a clean bill of health and do not have a criminal record, you can get in. It is very fair and very transparent. Open door immigration will/can causes issue as we see in Europe.

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

Am I allowed to post numerous links here? I can provide about 5 showing them going for welfare.

Well you stated
"In all the interviews with the migrants they always mention they are going for the welfare." so presumably they've interviewed more than five....?

Nichard Dixon

gobsh!te wrote: »

Eurostat has stated that only 21% of the migrants are Syrian. Can you please comment on the other 79%?

Thanks

Nationality fluid?

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

Well you stated
"In all the interviews with the migrants they always mention they are going for the welfare." so presumably they've interviewed more than five....?

I provided 5 links as an example to those who wanted me to send them in a PM.

Can you provide one link showing migrants saying they are going for work?

Just look at the stats on the welfare situation with Islamic migrants into Europe, not to mention the covered up statistics on rape and gang rapes.
Sh!t...more facts....I know they mess up the emotional stance that lefties like to argue with but I still believe that facts are far more useful than emotions in a debate.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Am I allowed to post numerous links here? I can provide about 5 showing them going for welfare. If anyone can show links where people are looking for work that'd be great.

If you can show emperical evidence showing refugees are mostly going for welfare then go for it. Feel free to PM me. If you just send a few youtube videos of individual refugees saying they're going for welfare, you'll need to try a lot harder.

I'm not going to get into a flurry of "Here's a refugee looking for welfare" "Yeah well here's a refugee looking for work" videos. Those don't prove anything.

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Does this not make the point? Their decision to leave Syria is indeed because of the war. Having left Syria, though, they have become economic migrants seeking to maximise their own income. The issue is not that they should be forced to stay in Syria, the issue is whether they can pick and choose where they wish to live regardless of the laws of that place.

If the dole is great in Luxembourg, can 2m Syrians just decide to there?

No, that's not how claiming asylum works. A refugee doesn't suddenly become a migrant the minute they leave the nearest safe country and there's no requirement for them to seek asylum at the nearest safe country either.
A refugee is someone who can't return to their country because of persecution and they're entitled to flee and seek protection elsewhere. They'll then flee to a country where they can build a new life. Let's say the UK collapsed into anarchy tomorrow and large groups were persecuted. Many would flee to Ireland (the nearest safe country) but you'd also have a lot going to Australia or the US for reasons such as a common language, family connections and so on.
Using your logic, Jews who fled to the US from the Third Reich were not actually refugees as they should have gone to England or the USSR.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Eurostat has stated that only 21% of the migrants are Syrian. Can you please comment on the other 79%?

Thanks

This has already come up in the thread and been addressed.
If you're referring to the Eurostat figures for first time asylum claims from April to June, you might want to have a read of http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/reality-check/2015/sep/19/daily-mail-syrian-refugees-story-three-problems] this
The refugee crisis reached its crisis stage in July, as evident here The Eurostat figures are from April to June when the numbers of refugees were far less and Syrians made up just one third of arrivals.
By contrast, the numbers are far higher now: Syrians now account for 54% of migrants entering from the Mediterranean. Include Eritreans and Afghanis and that's three quarters of those entering Europe by sea who will almost certainly be granted asylum. source Even using Frontex's figures (which don't take into account the 125,000 arrivals in September over two thirds are from these three countries
As such, it's a refugee crisis, not a migrant one as you seem so keen to stick to.
In addition, there'll be discrepancies between the numbers arriving and those claiming asylum as evident in Germany simply as there's a "significant delay" between someone arriving and their being able to claim asylum.

Lockstep

jank wrote: »

Did they ask would they like to assimilate 15 million Syrians? I dare say that poll outcome would be rather different Therefore its a mute point and my point stands that the German people would not have supported it like they did reunifying east and west Germany. Hence, there IS a difference for all your arm waving.

I really don't think I'm one arm waving here.
Germany has shown its both willing (numbers supporting the refugees arriving) and able (having coped with assimilating 15 million East Germans) in the past.
If all you can say is "Yeah, well, they'd struggle to assimilate 15 million Syrians" then you're more interested in arguing hyperbole than anything and I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. Why stop at 15 million? Why not 100 million?

jank wrote: »

Because like it or not we are Tribal in nature. Even in tolerant liberal western democracies people from different ethnic backgrounds generally tend to live in and around people like themselves. We may work side by side but often we get on the train/bus and go back and live in a community that is dominated by one ethnicity. An organic process itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sydney#/media/File:Sydney_CoB_dots.png

Eh, speak for yourself. Even if you prefer hanging with people of your own ethnicity, this isn't a thread on who we like to hang out with. It's a thread on the refugee crisis.

jank wrote: »

It seems you are placing zero emphasis on ethnicity, which is a mistake. I am not saying that ethnicity is the be all and end all. Cultures do change over time. However, you seem to even refuse to acknowledge any value to it, despite the evidence I have put forward that to many, it does matter.

Also, working along side people is not the same as living beside or with people. In the work place, most people want to get along and be professional. In Sydney if you are in IT and white, you are in a minority. Never has bothered me in the slightest and I get on with everyone. Yet, I would not choose to live in Cabramatta or Chatswood or Lakemba or Hurstville. Mostly because as you said these people are very family oriented. I am here with only my wife and have no extended family over here, I would rather live somewhere that I can make friends with people of a similar age group and circumstances. That would be areas of the inner-west, south Sydney or east suburbs where 30 something immigrants would be in the same boat as myself.

What evidence have you provided? You just keep going on about ethnicity and a creepy assertion that immigrants of different ethnicity cannot function well in our society. Steady on there Farage.

jank wrote: »

As you said, I have changed my mindset since travelling and coming to Australia. Before I may been subject to airy notions about people being people and all that, however when living in arguably one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world, I see what works and doesn't work and see why its a success in Sydney. Which I why I have the views of today.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion but if it boils down to rejecting "people being people" you'll need to provide more concrete evidence.

jank wrote: »

Lessons I have learned, Assimilation is very important. Some cultures/ethnicity are more compatible then others e.g. Christian Lebanese have a good reputation for being loyal and hard working. Muslim Lebanese have a bad reputation, which when you see it firsthand can be sometimes justified.
Ethnicity does matter too in what is expected off you, what roles you play in society and where you may live.

Next you'll be saying the Irish are all coarse, drunken and borderline simian while the Jews are all money-grasping shylocks. Stereotyping doesn't count for much.
Again, you're reminding me of Disraeli.

Benjamin Disraeli wrote:

[The Irish] hate our free and fertile isle. They hate our order, our civilisation, our enterprising industry, our sustained courage, our decorous liberty, and our pure religion. The wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their fair ideal of human felicity is an alteration of clannish brawls and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.

jank wrote: »

Of course the important thing here is that Australia has a selection policy when it comes to immigration, which also works. It does not matter if you are an IT expert from China, Ireland,Zimbabwe or Brazil or what color your skin is or what religion you are, if you have the skills, have a clean bill of health and do not have a criminal record, you can get in. It is very fair and very transparent. Open door immigration will/can causes issue as we see in Europe.

Europe doesn't have "open door immigration". So there's that.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

I provided 5 links as an example to those who wanted me to send them in a PM.

Can you provide one link showing migrants saying they are going for work?

Just look at the stats on the welfare situation with Islamic migrants into Europe, not to mention the covered up statistics on rape and gang rapes.
Sh!t...more facts....I know they mess up the emotional stance that lefties like to argue with but I still believe that facts are far more useful than emotions in a debate.

So basically, you've found 5 refugees saying they intend on claiming welfare and are using that as a basis for the hundreds and thousands arriving? Then bring up the boogeyman of Muslims being rapists.
I really don't think you're in a position to accuse others of appealing to emotion here.

ancapailldorcha

gobsh!te wrote: »

I provided 5 links as an example to those who wanted me to send them in a PM.

Can you provide one link showing migrants saying they are going for work?

Just look at the stats on the welfare situation with Islamic migrants into Europe, not to mention the covered up statistics on rape and gang rapes.
Sh!t...more facts....I know they mess up the emotional stance that lefties like to argue with but I still believe that facts are far more useful than emotions in a debate.

If you can't make your point in a civil and constructive manner then please don't post here. In addition, please back up your points. Merely alluding to "covered up statistics on rape and gang rapes" does not meet the standard of debate expected here.

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

I provided (................) than emotions in a debate.

I believe this has been answered by others.

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

So basically, you've found 5 refugees saying they intend on claiming welfare and are using that as a basis for the hundreds and thousands arriving?

No you misunderstood...I have not seen any videos showing otherwise. Perhaps most of the young men that perhaps left their women and children behind in the 79% of random countries that are not Syria are coming to work in an already struggling labour market....This may be true....But I would like you to provide some facts on this...5 links may be small....but its a lot more than zero

Then bring up the boogeyman of Muslims being rapists.
I really don't think you're in a position to accuse others of appealing to emotion here.

If you are going to challenge my argument on high numbers or rapes in Sweden and Norway being directly linked to Islamic immigration then you need to counter my argument with something stronger than dismissing it by using the word boogeyman.

What's next? Call me a racist....lol....anything but use facts.

Islamic immigration and rapes ARE directly linked.
Once again, if you need the statistics I am happy to provide them...........Now, are you going to counter the argument with more emotion or facts?

gobsh!te

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you can't make your point in a civil and constructive manner then please don't post here. In addition, please back up your points. Merely alluding to "covered up statistics on rape and gang rapes" does not meet the standard of debate expected here.

I cant provide links as I said due to being a new member...Surely you would have known that.

If you want I can send you Sweden's rape stats:

But if you type in "Sweden: 77.6% of all rapes are committed by Muslim males, who total only 2% of population – Gov report" you will find one of the links pretty easily however you will need to translate the source document which is in Swedish

Once again, lets not let facts be offensive....The truth is the truth....Agreed?

K-9

gobsh!te wrote: »

I can't post as I am a new member so I have sent you them in a message
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhOOPSwnMA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U_BQ-4WfK8A
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/

Links added, 3 didn't come out right in the pm but I think we get the idea of your sources.

ancapailldorcha

gobsh!te wrote: »

What's next? Call me a racist....lol....anything but use facts.

This is exactly the sort of comment I am referring to.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

No you misunderstood...I have not seen any videos showing otherwise. Perhaps most of the young men that perhaps left their women and children behind in the 79% of random countries that are not Syria are coming to work in an already struggling labour market....This may be true....But I would like you to provide some facts on this...5 links may be small....but its a lot more than zero

No, five anecdotes aren't sources. Feel free to send them onto me though. If it's really the best you can do.
What if we got five videos of Irish people wrecking hotel rooms? Does this mean all Irish people wreck hotel rooms?

Also, it's interesting that even after it's been shown that the Eurostat figures are misleading, you're still rigidly sticking to them.

gobsh!te wrote: »

If you are going to challenge my argument on high numbers or rapes in Sweden and Norway being directly linked to Islamic immigration then you need to counter my argument with something stronger than dismissing it by using the word boogeyman.

What's next? Call me a racist....lol....anything but use facts.

Islamic immigration and rapes ARE directly linked.
Once again, if you need the statistics I am happy to provide them...........Now, are you going to counter the argument with more emotion or facts?

Go on so, feel free to prove your case that Muslims are behind increased rape rates in Norway and Sweden. Please provide reputable sources. Not youtube videos and blogs. Don't bother linking to that MuslimStatistics wordpress. It's sources are laughable.
"The foreign rape figures at 77.6% Muslim has been anonymously confirmed by Swedish polish in a phone conversation.”


Once again, you're the one engaging in emotion here. You keep banging on about rape and asylum seekers only coming to claim welfare but if your "sources" are the ones K9 posted, it's pretty damn hilarious.