Migration Megathread

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

Yes, because Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan etc. are such wonderful places to live. Perhaps you should move there, you wouldn't have to worry about any of those nasty white christians wielding any power over you.

Far right countries like Hungary have massive emigration. Its not much of an argument you present, as examples of less than nice places to live can be provided where people are "white".

Gravelly

wes wrote: »

Far right countries like Hungary have massive emigration.

What has that got to do with the op's argument that a muslim majority would be better? Do you think the women being stoned to death in Afghanistan are better off than women who emigrate from Hungary to get a better paid job?

wes wrote: »

Its not much of an argument you present, as examples of less than nice places to live can be provided where people are "white".

Not sure what you are trying to say there, since I didn't argue that at all. The OP argues that he would prefer more muslims and less christians in power. I demonstrated that this hasn't worked out terribly well for those living in countries where this is the case.

James Brown

Gravelly wrote: »

Yes, because Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan etc. are such wonderful places to live. Perhaps you should move there, you wouldn't have to worry about any of those nasty white christians wielding any power over you.

'Whatabout' aside, you cannot treat people differently because you prefer one group over another. It gets back to broad generalities; if a person or group are acting illegally, treat them for that within the confines of law. Blubbing about lower rates of a favoured skin colour or religious persuasion, does not give licence to treat a less preferable group more poorly.

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

What has that got to do with the op's argument that a muslim majority would be better? Do you think the women being stoned to death in Afghanistan are better off than women who emigrate from Hungary to get a better paid job?

OK, and in Mexico we have drug cartel murdering people. I can present plenty of awful countries where people aren't Muslim till the cows come home. The irony is that the Taliban are basically a drug cartel these days themselves.

Gravelly wrote: »

Not sure what you are trying to say there, since I didn't argue that at all. The OP argues that he would prefer more muslims and less christians in power. I demonstrated that this hasn't worked out terribly well for those living in countries where this is the case.

Well Christianity doesn't run governments anymore really, and anywhere they have, they haven't been any better than any other Religious group. In the sense of Christianity being the ruling ethos that is.

Secularism is what has brought about improvements in most "Western" countries.

Gravelly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

'Whatabout' aside, you cannot treat people differently because you prefer one group over another. It gets back to broad generalities; if a person or group are acting illegally, treat them for that within the confines of law. Blubbing about lower rates of a favoured skin colour or religious persuasion, does not give licence to treat a less preferable group more poorly.

Hilarious that you would mention "whatabout" when that is exactly what you and your buddy are attempting.

You tried to argue that more muslims and less christians in power would be better.

I showed a list of countries where muslims are in power.

Now you are pretending that you are arguing for fairness and saying something unintelligible about skin colour. Either argue the point you made, or admit it was wrong (not to mention racist).

James Brown

Gravelly wrote: »

Hilarious that you would mention "whatabout" when that is exactly what you and your buddy are attempting.

You tried to argue that more muslims and less christians in power would be better.

I showed a list of countries where muslims are in power.

Now you are pretending that you are arguing for fairness and saying something unintelligible about skin colour. Either argue the point you made, or admit it was wrong (not to mention racist).

Nope. In your mind maybe. The subtext of the op is Muslims are overtaking white Christians, what should be do, lest Muslims take over?

The only thing you can do is ask white Christians to procreate more. Any moves to stifle or retard the growth of a people because you prefer another, is tantamount to racism and not acceptable.

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

Hilarious that you would mention "whatabout" when that is exactly what you and your buddy are attempting.

Except that your argument pretty much necessitates comparison to other countries in that countries you present are uniquely awful according to you, hence I pointed out that they are not unique in that regard. Its a valid counter argument based on your assertion.

Still you didn't make any kind of argument really, you offer no comparison on how these countries are uniquely awful to all the other countries in the world. You just name some countries and then gave a single example of something awful that happens in one of them. You lump in all these countries in together as if there is a sole reason for the state that they are in, which is of course reductive in the extreme.

BabyCheeses

Sand wrote: »

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

I've tried to give you a chance. I will remember that people like you have no substance and it is pointless even trying with you.

Walter Bishop

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I've tried to give you a chance. I will remember that people like you have no substance and it is pointless even trying with you.

Don't try with him. You can't change his mind, but you may be able to change the outlooks of other, somewhat more moderate, people who are reading.

Sand

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If the white christian minority become an even smaller minority, such is life on planet Earth. Any moves to actively encroach upon the civil liberties, human rights of one group, to favour the numbers of another, more preferable group, would be the epitome of racism.

Can European politicians prioritise the interests of Europeans over the interests of non-Europeans? Or is that racist too?

Any moves to stifle or retard the growth of a people because you prefer another, is tantamount to racism and not acceptable.

No one is calling for that.

wes wrote: »

Secularism is what has brought about improvements in most "Western" countries.

Are "Western" countries improved, when they are marked by their people being increasingly unable or unwilling to have children? Isn't a society's ability to continue itself the key marker of a successful society?

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I've tried to give you a chance. I will remember that people like you have no substance and it is pointless even trying with you.

I guess I will miss out on your low grade Cathy Newman contributions then. I'll get over it.

Odhinn

Gravelly wrote: »

What has that got to do with the op's argument that a muslim majority would be better? ................

Unless I'm missing a few posts, I have to say that nobody has said any such thing.

Gravelly

Odhinn wrote: »

Unless I'm missing a few posts, I have to say that nobody has said any such thing.

He edited his post after being called out on it.

James Brown

Sand wrote: »

Can European politicians prioritise the interests of Europeans over the interests of non-Europeans? Or is that racist too?

Yes they can of course, as long as any favourable legislation doesn't discriminate against Europeans of the Muslim faith.

IAmTheReign

Gravelly wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If the white christian minority become an even smaller minority, such is life on planet Earth. Any moves to actively encroach upon the civil liberties, human rights of one group, to favour the numbers of another, more preferable group, would be the epitome of racism.
Personally I think the world could do with less Christians in power.

Yes, because Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan etc. are such wonderful places to live. Perhaps you should move there, you wouldn't have to worry about any of those nasty white christians wielding any power over you.

You're right. We should all stick to living in Christian countries because they're all such wonderful places to live. Maybe somewhere like Rwanda, or maybe Haiti, Congo or the Philippines?

Gravelly

IAmTheReign wrote: »

You're right. We should all stick to living in Christian countries because they're all such wonderful places to live. Maybe somewhere like Rwanda, or maybe Haiti, Congo or the Philippines?

Whatabout whataboutery?

IAmTheReign

Gravelly;107258456

IAmTheReign wrote: »

You're right. We should all stick to living in Christian countries because they're all such wonderful places to live. Maybe somewhere like Rwanda, or maybe Haiti, Congo or the Philippines?

Whatabout whataboutery?

That's rich coming from the person who said this!

Gravelly wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If the white christian minority become an even smaller minority, such is life on planet Earth. Any moves to actively encroach upon the civil liberties, human rights of one group, to favour the numbers of another, more preferable group, would be the epitome of racism. 
Personally I think the world could do with less Christians in power.

Yes, because Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan etc. are such wonderful places to live. Perhaps you should move there, you wouldn't have to worry about any of those nasty white christians wielding any power over you.

Odhinn

Gravelly wrote: »

He edited his post after being called out on it.

You quoted the "original" and it doesn't contain anything that could be construed to mean that.

Sand

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes they can of course, as long as any favourable legislation doesn't discriminate against Europeans of the Muslim faith.

So its perfectly valid for European politicians to take actions which are in the interests of European people. Such as ending mass migration from outside Europe, and deporting illegal migrants back to their home countries. No need for panic.

James Brown

Sand wrote: »

So its perfectly valid for European politicians to take actions which are in the interests of European people. Such as ending mass migration from outside Europe, and deporting illegal migrants back to their home countries. No need for panic.

Yes. You seemed to be concerned about Muslims taking over in your many comments. Numerous times I have asked you what your fear is, why and what you might do about it?
Surely you don't think all Muslims are new or even illegal immigrants, especially so in the United States?

Sand

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes. You seemed to be concerned about Muslims taking over in your many comments. Numerous times I have asked you what your fear is, why and what you might do about it?
Surely you don't think all Muslims are new or even illegal immigrants, especially so in the United States?

I think you have me confused with someone else. You are fascinated with Muslims, focusing on them to an odd extent. Let me ask you a question, if Islam, - not the people, the art, the beliefs and practises, the culture, the philosophy, the history - was to disappear tomorrow would anything of value have been lost in your opinion?

I am concerned with mass immigration and its negative effects on Europeans, now and into the future. Mass immigration has clearly been a bad policy for Europeans and their communities. What other reason is necessary to end a bad policy? Why are you unconcerned with the interests of Europeans? Why do you continue to push for mass immigration which is clearly harmful to Europeans?

MayoSalmon

IAmTheReign wrote:

You're right. We should all stick to living in Christian countries because they're all such wonderful places to live. Maybe somewhere like Rwanda, or maybe Haiti, Congo or the Philippines?

Some would probably say stick to "white" Christian countries and leave it at that...

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

I think you have me confused with someone else. You are fascinated with Muslims, focusing on them to an odd extent. Let me ask you a question, if Catholicism , - not the people, the art, the beliefs and practises, the culture, the philosophy, the history - was to disappear tomorrow would anything of value have been lost in your opinion?

I am concerned with mass immigration and its negative effects on Europeans, now and into the future. Mass immigration has clearly been a bad policy for Europeans and their communities. What other reason is necessary to end a bad policy? Why are you unconcerned with the interests of Europeans? Why do you continue to push for mass immigration which is clearly harmful to Europeans?

I would like to ask youThe same question

Sand

Let Matt answer first, so he doesn't end up second guessing himself.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

I think you have me confused with someone else. You are fascinated with Muslims, focusing on them to an odd extent. Let me ask you a question, if Islam, - not the people, the art, the beliefs and practises, the culture, the philosophy, the history - was to disappear tomorrow would anything of value have been lost in your opinion?

I am concerned with mass immigration and its negative effects on Europeans, now and into the future. Mass immigration has clearly been a bad policy for Europeans and their communities. What other reason is necessary to end a bad policy? Why are you unconcerned with the interests of Europeans? Why do you continue to push for mass immigration which is clearly harmful to Europeans?

Why are all questions so loaded?

Large scale immigration is perceived by some as negative. Presenting immigration as contrary to the "interests of europeans" is thus a false dichotomy.

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

Why are all questions so loaded?

Is Matts question about "fear" and "muslims taking over" not incredibly loaded?

Large scale immigration is perceived by some as negative. Presenting immigration as contrary to the "interests of europeans" is thus a false dichotomy.

We know from studies in the UK that non-EU migration is an economic cost not a benefit. We know that European communities and neighbourhoods have been destroyed and dispersed to make way for mass migration. We know from studies by the like of Putnam that diverse communities are marked by significantly reduced trust and civic life compared to homogeneous communities. We know that politically mass immigration has required increasing restrictions on Europeans freedoms to try mitigate the discord of this new society. We know that European law enforcement must increasingly monitor for incidents FGM and children being brought abroad for forced marriages. We know that Europeans must now accept soldiers patrolling the streets of their cities to fight an insurgency waged against them by the products of mass migration. We know that thousands of English girls have been targeted, groomed, raped, tortured and even murdered by gangs originating from mass migration.

So, it is a lot more than perceived when we say the European experience of mass migration has been negative. You can wilfully ignore the evidence, but that is your own perception.

What have you got that is positive for Europeans? A wider array of ethnic cuisine restaurants in your locality? For that, Pamela Mastropietro died?

weisses

Sand wrote: »

Is Matts question about "fear" and "muslims taking over" not incredibly loaded?



We know from studies in the UK that non-EU migration is an economic cost not a benefit. We know that European communities and neighbourhoods have been destroyed and dispersed to make way for mass migration. We know from studies by the like of Putnam that diverse communities are marked by significantly reduced trust and civic life compared to homogeneous communities. We know that politically mass immigration has required increasing restrictions on Europeans freedoms to try mitigate the discord of this new society. We know that European law enforcement must increasingly monitor for incidents FGM and children being brought abroad for forced marriages. We know that Europeans must now accept soldiers patrolling the streets of their cities to fight an insurgency waged against them by the products of mass migration. We know that thousands of English girls have been targeted, groomed, raped, tortured and even murdered by gangs originating from mass migration.

So, it is a lot more than perceived when we say the European experience of mass migration has been negative. You can wilfully ignore the evidence, but that is your own perception.

What have you got that is positive for Europeans? A wider array of ethnic cuisine restaurants in your locality? For that, Pamela Mastropietro died?

I think you are mixing things up

For instance .. What is wrong with hiring Non EU nurses to fill the needs in the NHS, due to the brexit clusterfukc ?

Sand

weisses wrote: »

I think you are mixing things up

For instance .. What is wrong with hiring Non EU nurses to fill the needs in the NHS, due to the brexit clusterfukc ?

Its just papering over the cracks of the core problem that a wealthy country like the UK is not training enough nurses itself? It denies non-EU nurses to the non-EU taxpayers that paid to train them?

I think there is an argument for rare or exceptional skills being imported. Nursing is not one of them.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

Its just papering over the cracks of the core problem that a wealthy country like the UK is not training enough nurses itself? It denies non-EU nurses to the non-EU taxpayers that paid to train them?

I think there is an argument for rare or exceptional skills being imported. Nursing is not one of them.

You just miss the fact that non EU migration is not necessary an economic cost, The core problem is that if you have allowed people in and all of a sudden people are not welcome anymore you have a problem, this has nothing to do with the UK training enough nurses. Its about nationalist populist rhetoric backfiring resulting in 10.000 EU nationals quitting the NHS alone

Sand

weisses wrote: »

You just miss the fact that non EU migration is not necessary an economic cost, The core problem is that if you have allowed people in and all of a sudden people are not welcome anymore you have a problem, this has nothing to do with the UK training enough nurses. Its about nationalist populist rhetoric backfiring resulting in 10.000 EU nationals quitting the NHS alone

You're missing the reality that it is an economic cost. Studies reviewed the economic benefits and costs of non-EU migration to the UK, and it was negative. All the nurses were included. And it was still negative.

Only 13% of the doctors, engineers and scientists who arrived in Germany in 2015-16 found work. But 100% had to have shelter, food, education, recreation, etc all paid for by the German taxpayer.

You are stating what you wish was true as fact. Mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans. The UK may have to increase training numbers, boost pay and improve working conditions to retain and attract nurses from within the UK. What an awful outcome that would be for the people of the UK.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

You're missing the reality that it is an economic cost. Studies reviewed the economic benefits and costs of non-EU migration to the UK, and it was negative. All the nurses were included. And it was still negative.

source ?

Sand wrote: »

Only 13% of the doctors, engineers and scientists who arrived in Germany in 2015-16 found work. But 100% had to have shelter, food, education, recreation, etc all paid for by the German taxpayer.

This is not about mass migration ... You are mixing things up .....again

And a source for the numbers would be nice

Sand wrote: »

You are stating what you wish was true as fact. Mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans. The UK may have to increase training numbers, boost pay and improve working conditions to retain and attract nurses from within the UK. What an awful outcome that would be for the people of the UK.

See above ... I never stated mass migration as being positive ... I am talking about Migration