Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Migration Megathread
Comments
-
I'd use the term realist. I prefer evidence based policy. I examine the policy of mass migration pursued over the past 70 years and it has clearly failed to improve the lives of Europeans. Therefore it is a bad policy which should be discontinued.
Is the Britain of Brexit and the USA of Trump usefully described as very successful and tolerant? All across Europe where societies have experienced mass migration, you find division, increasingly repressive policing and a disconnect between the establishment and the people.
Italy has just seen an election where the governing party promised to deport 600,000 people from Italy. If open border advocates persist in sowing dragon teeth, anything is possible.
After-all, you claim not to be in favour of open borders, but what else is to be done with millions of illegal migrants? Anything other than mass deportation will only fuel further resentment from Europes voters.
This is just gaslighting. Here is Gary Younge, editor at large at the Guardian ( a paper of record) calling for an end to all immigration controls. Democrats in the US want to abolish ICE. And a Swedish girl who sabotages the legal deportation of an illegal migrant (with a serious criminal record) to Afghanistan is celebrated as a hero. NGO's busily 'rescue' illegal migrants from the coast of Libya and ferry them to Europe. These are all open border advocates. These are widely held and championed views.
Even you consider it unthinkable to deport the illegal migrants who force their way across Europe's borders. What makes debate difficult is when people take a position, but then pretend that they have not.
Well, I don't agree that the challenge is to placate those who have reservations about immigration. That contains a prejudgement that they are clearly wrong, and must be circumvented or fooled somehow while the policy of mass migration continues. This attitude is entirely corrosive to politics. This is how you breed the politics of Brexit and Trump.
In terms of what should be done; mass migration from outside Europe should be halted. It should begin with illegal migrations from the African coast or Asia minor. Partly by criminalising the people trafficking NGOs, partly by massively stepping up deportations of illegals already in Europe, partly by publicising an end to the open gate policy in the countries of origin. I think all of that would buy credibility and some time to review and end mass migration by legal means. Of course, these are all negative steps.
There has been 20-70 years of madness, depending on how you count it. A significant correction is necessary.
Your level of engagement in a discussion never surprises me oscar.
Firstly, I find those “that’s how you breed the politics of Brexit /Trump” statements to be a supreme and recurring annoyance in discourse these days. Not going to get into it here but I would implore you to reflect on why saying something like that is even more patronising to a Trump/Brexit voter than using a word like ‘placate’ . . . . anyway . . .
I’m still struggling to understand this view you have of immigration failing to ‘improve’ the lives of Europeans – because the whole concept requires a start point and an end point. In other words, you should be able to demonstrate a pinpoint moment in history where life was better in Europe, then demonstrate how immigration has taken us from that point to a worse point. When was this high point in history from which we have fallen – and how did immigration cause this fall?
Your interpretation of that Gary Younge article is a fairly narrow-minded by the way. He makes some eloquent intellectual points about the nature of borders and speaks of an aspiration that we could live in a world without borders. He’s not exactly calling out specifically for the immediate lifting of all immigration control as you seem to be suggesting – he’s speaking purely of an aspiration. Also -- Democrats looking to abolish ICE does not constitute wanting open borders.
Anyway, as for your proposed solution (and really this is what I want to focus on) – some questions for the purposes of teasing out a little more detail:
- What do you mean by halting ‘mass migration’? Does this mean halting all migration or just halting all / some migration from Africa and Asia minor?
- Aren’t you conflating the topic of immigration with the different topic of refugees?
- Criminalising NGOs, really? Which NGOs would you criminalise, and what would be the basis of this criminalisation?
- Ending the open gate policy in the countries of origin – could you elaborate on this please ?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Firstly, I find those “that’s how you breed the politics of Brexit /Trump” statements to be a supreme and recurring annoyance in discourse these days. Not going to get into it here but I would implore you to reflect on why saying something like that is even more patronising to a Trump/Brexit voter than using a word like ‘placate’ . . . . anyway . . .
No, I think saying that people who reject mass migration need to be somehow managed and pacified, but ultimately ignored is more patronising. Why else did 'take back control' have such resonance?I’m still struggling to understand this view you have of immigration failing to ‘improve’ the lives of Europeans – because the whole concept requires a start point and an end point. In other words, you should be able to demonstrate a pinpoint moment in history where life was better in Europe, then demonstrate how immigration has taken us from that point to a worse point. When was this high point in history from which we have fallen – and how did immigration cause this fall?
Well, how about the high point in European history where there was not a 'homegrown' Islamic insurgency in Europe complete with truck attacks and suicide bombings? Lets call that a relative high-point.Your interpretation of that Gary Younge article is a fairly narrow-minded by the way. He makes some eloquent intellectual points about the nature of borders and speaks of an aspiration that we could live in a world without borders. He’s not exactly calling out specifically for the immediate lifting of all immigration control as you seem to be suggesting – he’s speaking purely of an aspiration. Also -- Democrats looking to abolish ICE does not constitute wanting open borders.
Again, gaslighting.- What do you mean by halting ‘mass migration’? Does this mean halting all migration or just halting all / some migration from Africa and Asia minor?
Lets separate migration from short-medium term tourism, business, diplomacy, sport, academic conferences, students etc. Lets focus on mass migration as meaning long term or permanent settlement by foreign peoples in such numbers that they form sustainable separate societies, altering the culture of the area they settle in. That is what needs to end. Europeans simply don't want it. It is not in their interests.
This is not even controversial. Liechtenstein is a micro-state of 37,000 people spread over just 61 square miles. Its able to participate in the European single market but has negotiated an exclusion from Freedom of Movement. The EEA recognised that Liechtenstein could be swamped by mass migration, and accepted restrictions would have to remain to maintain Liechtenstein as a meaningful entity.
Its perhaps too late for London which is no longer an English city in any meaningful manner.- Aren’t you conflating the topic of immigration with the different topic of refugees?
No, I consider them separate. But I don't view an Afghan (for example) who reaches Europe to be a refugee in any genuine meaning of the word.- Criminalising NGOs, really? Which NGOs would you criminalise, and what would be the basis of this criminalisation?
The ones that traffic people. People trafficking.Ending the open gate policy in the countries of origin – could you elaborate on this please ?
European states simply have to ensure that people in the countries of origin understand that they will not be picked up from the Libyan coast and ferried to Europe. That if they somehow illegally enter Europe, they will be deported. That if they hand themselves over to criminal gangs they will risk being enslaved in Libya. Part of this should be the liberation of such slaves in Libya, and funding their return from Libya to their country of origin. They will be the best advertisement for why illegal migration is not the dream that is sold by the traffickers.0 -
No, I think saying that people who reject mass migration need to be somehow managed and pacified, but ultimately ignored is more patronising. Why else did 'take back control' have such resonance?
Well, how about the high point in European history where there was not a 'homegrown' Islamic insurgency in Europe complete with truck attacks and suicide bombings? Lets call that a relative high-point.
Again, gaslighting.
Lets separate migration from short-medium term tourism, business, diplomacy, sport, academic conferences, students etc. Lets focus on mass migration as meaning long term or permanent settlement by foreign peoples in such numbers that they form sustainable separate societies, altering the culture of the area they settle in. That is what needs to end. Europeans simply don't want it. It is not in their interests.
This is not even controversial. Liechtenstein is a micro-state of 37,000 people spread over just 61 square miles. Its able to participate in the European single market but has negotiated an exclusion from Freedom of Movement. The EEA recognised that Liechtenstein could be swamped by mass migration, and accepted restrictions would have to remain to maintain Liechtenstein as a meaningful entity.
Its perhaps too late for London which is no longer an English city in any meaningful manner.
No, I consider them separate. But I don't view an Afghan (for example) who reaches Europe to be a refugee in any genuine meaning of the word.
The ones that traffic people. People trafficking.
European states simply have to ensure that people in the countries of origin understand that they will not be picked up from the Libyan coast and ferried to Europe. That if they somehow illegally enter Europe, they will be deported. That if they hand themselves over to criminal gangs they will risk being enslaved in Libya. Part of this should be the liberation of such slaves in Libya, and funding their return from Libya to their country of origin. They will be the best advertisement for why illegal migration is not the dream that is sold by the traffickers.
I'm just curious. Can I ask from your posts, do you view it as a cultural issue?
I mean forgetting the fact that you can point to acts of terrorism, if there were none, would you still be OK with migration or do you think that there are distinct European cultural identities that we should keep free from outside influence?0 -
No, I think saying that people who reject mass migration need to be somehow managed and pacified, but ultimately ignored is more patronising. Why else did 'take back control' have such resonance?
Well, how about the high point in European history where there was not a 'homegrown' Islamic insurgency in Europe complete with truck attacks and suicide bombings? Lets call that a relative high-point.
Again, gaslighting.
Lets separate migration from short-medium term tourism, business, diplomacy, sport, academic conferences, students etc. Lets focus on mass migration as meaning long term or permanent settlement by foreign peoples in such numbers that they form sustainable separate societies, altering the culture of the area they settle in. That is what needs to end. Europeans simply don't want it. It is not in their interests.
This is not even controversial. Liechtenstein is a micro-state of 37,000 people spread over just 61 square miles. Its able to participate in the European single market but has negotiated an exclusion from Freedom of Movement. The EEA recognised that Liechtenstein could be swamped by mass migration, and accepted restrictions would have to remain to maintain Liechtenstein as a meaningful entity.
Its perhaps too late for London which is no longer an English city in any meaningful manner.
No, I consider them separate. But I don't view an Afghan (for example) who reaches Europe to be a refugee in any genuine meaning of the word.
The ones that traffic people. People trafficking.
European states simply have to ensure that people in the countries of origin understand that they will not be picked up from the Libyan coast and ferried to Europe. That if they somehow illegally enter Europe, they will be deported. That if they hand themselves over to criminal gangs they will risk being enslaved in Libya. Part of this should be the liberation of such slaves in Libya, and funding their return from Libya to their country of origin. They will be the best advertisement for why illegal migration is not the dream that is sold by the traffickers.
1. Sorry I'm really going to have to press you for something slightly more specific here than "when there was no homegrown Islamic insurgency". Please pinpoint the precise time when (a) life was better in Europe; (b) how it has demonstrably gotten worse and (c) why immigration is the reason for that deterioration. If the threat of bloodshed is your chosen barometer, sure, even if there was a time when there was little to no Islamic insurgency happening in Europe, we did have the IRA, ETA, lots of other terror groups and of course Palestinian-related violence. There were more terror attacks happening in Europe in the 70s and 80s than have happened in this century. Go further back and I seem to recall that Europeans were slaughtering eachother on battlefields and concentration camps . . . even further back and Europeans were unleashing the full horror of mechanised mass warfare on eachother for the first time. All of this without the help of immigrants from "Africa and Asia minor".
2. In fact, while you are carefully scanning the timeline of European history to find the moment everything was so rosy before the immigrants landed (i.e. the African/Arab variety), you might also pull out a map and tell me all the other regions of the developed world which are so much safer than Europe today?
3. I'm also going to have to press you for specifics on these NGOs who are trafficking people. I want to research this as I was previously unaware that NGOs were engaging in this -- which I imagine is a breach of international law. So please, the names.
4. Your refusal to differentiate between immigrants and refugees is, with all due respect, callously obtuse. There is no doubt that there are many who try their luck through the asylum system. But to refuse to differentiate migrants simply looking for better prospects from refugees fleeing carnage and trying to get to a country where they can feel as secure as possible is bordering on inhumane. I can only hope that you are never forced to undergo the supreme humility of being a refugee yourself, should this island be devastated by war or natural / nuclear disaster. You might hope that there are less people of your persuasion in the country you flee to with your loved ones than there are people of my view.
5. All well and good saying that European navy vessels shouldn't be ferrying people from the coast of Libya. Is that really happening though or are you referring to the vessels intercepting boats of migrants in the Mediterranean or trying to rescue drowning people?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »1. Sorry I'm really going to have to press you for something slightly more specific here than "when there was no homegrown Islamic insurgency". Please pinpoint the precise time when (a) life was better in Europe; (b) how it has demonstrably gotten worse and (c) why immigration is the reason for that deterioration. If the threat of bloodshed is your chosen barometer, sure, even if there was a time when there was little to no Islamic insurgency happening in Europe, we did have the IRA, ETA, lots of other terror groups and of course Palestinian-related violence. There were more terror attacks happening in Europe in the 70s and 80s than have happened in this century. Go further back and I seem to recall that Europeans were slaughtering eachother on battlefields and concentration camps . . . even further back and Europeans were unleashing the full horror of mechanised mass warfare on eachother for the first time. All of this without the help of immigrants from "Africa and Asia minor".
a) Life was better before there was an Islamic insurgency in Europe. b) Suicide bombings and truck attacks in the name of Allah are demonstrably worse than not having them. c) Mass immigration created the Islamic enclaves from which the insurgents hail from.
I don't see any value in your other argument. That Europe suffered the horror and devastation of the Thirty Years War in the 17th century does not mean that Europe must accept another Thirty Years War in the 21st century as the price of doing business.2. In fact, while you are carefully scanning the timeline of European history to find the moment everything was so rosy before the immigrants landed (i.e. the African/Arab variety), you might also pull out a map and tell me all the other regions of the developed world which are so much safer than Europe today?
Why do you think I am saying Europe is worse off than the rest of the developed world? Its not necessary. Its only necessary to examine has mass migration benefited Europeans, or not. It has not.3. I'm also going to have to press you for specifics on these NGOs who are trafficking people. I want to research this as I was previously unaware that NGOs were engaging in this -- which I imagine is a breach of international law. So please, the names.
Any of the NGOs picking up illegal migrants from the Libyan coast and delivering them to Europe are trafficking people. MV Aquarius for example.4. Your refusal to differentiate between immigrants and refugees is, with all due respect, callously obtuse.
I literally said I consider them separate. Your usage of obtuse is ironic in that context.There is no doubt that there are many who try their luck through the asylum system. But to refuse to differentiate migrants simply looking for better prospects from refugees fleeing carnage and trying to get to a country where they can feel as secure as possible is bordering on inhumane. I can only hope that you are never forced to undergo the supreme humility of being a refugee yourself, should this island be devastated by war or natural / nuclear disaster. You might hope that there are less people of your persuasion in the country you flee to with your loved ones than there are people of my view.
Spare me the dramatics.5. All well and good saying that European navy vessels shouldn't be ferrying people from the coast of Libya. Is that really happening though or are you referring to the vessels intercepting boats of migrants in the Mediterranean or trying to rescue drowning people?
If they are trying to rescue drowning people, the best course of action is to deliver them to either the Libyan coast guard or back to the Libyan coast. The NGOs refuse to do so. So rescue is not their priority.
Their priority is acting as the final hand-off in a long criminal network, trafficking people into Europe illegally.
Let me ask you a question about *your* vision of the future. What is the end game? What is the upper limit to the number of migrants you would permit to enter Europe?0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm just curious. Can I ask from your posts, do you view it as a cultural issue?
I mean forgetting the fact that you can point to acts of terrorism, if there were none, would you still be OK with migration or do you think that there are distinct European cultural identities that we should keep free from outside influence?
I don't think you can keep cultural identities 'free from outside influence'. European cultural identities (nations?) have almost always been influenced by external factors. Look at the recent Swedish meatballs expose: a signature Swedish dish which was actually rooted in Turkey. Charles XII of Sweden was harboured in the Ottoman Empire in the early 18th century after a failed campaign in Russia. He tried the local food and loved it so much he brought it back to Sweden where it became the Swedish national dish.
But mass migration is not cultural growth and development, informed by what is occurring abroad. It is Sweden on course to by 30% Islamic by 2050 under current conditions, with the Swedes on course to become a minority in their own homeland. It think its possible to reject that outcome while at the same time not wanting Europe to become insular and cutoff. It is not all or nothing.0 -
Interesting information in the news today regarding the Islamic Manchester bomber Salman Albedi, Albedi had been rescued by the British navy in Libya and brought to England just three years prior to the attack.0
-
-
I don't think you can keep cultural identities 'free from outside influence'. European cultural identities (nations?) have almost always been influenced by external factors. Look at the recent Swedish meatballs expose: a signature Swedish dish which was actually rooted in Turkey. Charles XII of Sweden was harboured in the Ottoman Empire in the early 18th century after a failed campaign in Russia. He tried the local food and loved it so much he brought it back to Sweden where it became the Swedish national dish.
But mass migration is not cultural growth and development, informed by what is occurring abroad. It is Sweden on course to by 30% Islamic by 2050 under current conditions, with the Swedes on course to become a minority in their own homeland. It think its possible to reject that outcome while at the same time not wanting Europe to become insular and cutoff. It is not all or nothing.
But mass migration worked for Sweden for ages. What about the non-Islamic people or early waves of Islamic migration? Clearly they've reached a tipping point in terms of how many can be accommodated without integration issues but to say mass migration has failed there is not correct.0 -
a) Life was better before there was an Islamic insurgency in Europe. b) Suicide bombings and truck attacks in the name of Allah are demonstrably worse than not having them. c) Mass immigration created the Islamic enclaves from which the insurgents hail from.
I don't see any value in your other argument. That Europe suffered the horror and devastation of the Thirty Years War in the 17th century does not mean that Europe must accept another Thirty Years War in the 21st century as the price of doing business.
Why do you think I am saying Europe is worse off than the rest of the developed world? Its not necessary. Its only necessary to examine has mass migration benefited Europeans, or not. It has not.
Any of the NGOs picking up illegal migrants from the Libyan coast and delivering them to Europe are trafficking people. MV Aquarius for example.
I literally said I consider them separate. Your usage of obtuse is ironic in that context.
Spare me the dramatics.
If they are trying to rescue drowning people, the best course of action is to deliver them to either the Libyan coast guard or back to the Libyan coast. The NGOs refuse to do so. So rescue is not their priority.
Their priority is acting as the final hand-off in a long criminal network, trafficking people into Europe illegally.
Let me ask you a question about *your* vision of the future. What is the end game? What is the upper limit to the number of migrants you would permit to enter Europe?
I note that you have yet to specify a specific time there -- not even a rough decade or quarter century? You are using terrorism as the barometer, suggesting that immigration has led to terrorism and now all our lives are worse. But even by your own chosen barometer, the statistics are not in your favour. There is less terrorism in Western Europe now than there was in the 70s, 80s or 90s. Western Europe remains one of the safest if not the safest region on the planet. So even with the rise of 'mass immigration', we are statistically safer now! None of this is to demote the threat of Islamic terror, which has proven itself dangerous, but if it is one adverse effect of immigration then proportionally speaking it still doesn't justify your belief that immigration has made our lives worse. So far you have been unable to pinpoint a precise time in history from which life in Europe has gotten demonstrably worse, nor been able to point out a single example of somewhere else in the world we can look to as an exemplum -- you'll forgive for not yet joining the Sand School of Declinism.
It simply does not make any sense to claim that immigration has made our lives worse, when by all quality of life measures, Western Europe continues to thrive and outdo almost every other region on earth -- including countries who have much more restrictive immigration policies and more monoculturalism.
My vision for the future is that we first look inwards to strip the away the layer of sludge which prevents reasoned assessments of the immigration situtation -- namely the xenophobia, stereotyping, resentment and scapegoating. People particularly need to get over this outrageously daft suspicion of ordinary Muslim people on the apparent premise that all 1.8 billion Muslims are fundamentalist nutcases who all think the same way. If we can get beyond the hatred, then the first battle for healthy immigration is won -- because it is much easier to integrate your immigrant population when you aren't treating them as parasitical dangerous scum.
Outward looking, immigration policy needs to take account of the overall narrative that birth rates are declining in Europe and we are now competing with not just America and the Far East, but China, the emerging economies of South America and the Middle East -- and of course the economic and military threat of Russia to European stability. To retain our status as a competitive and vibrant economic bloc, we simply need to have a criticial mass of people. Without people, our market shrinks and prosperity shrinks with it. You think I take Europe for granted -- I do not -- manpower is needed to maintain its productivity and armed forces. Europeans just are not having as many babies anymore and our population is ever-ageing.
So it is not to me a question of 'caps' on immigration. It is a question of both maintaining the very thing which has made Europe tolerant and successful (integration of cultures and international outlook) and also the sheer pragmatism of needing to supplement our ageing population. This is not to say that I don't believe the immigration system can't be improved -- it surely could be made more efficient in preventing illegal entry -- nor do I believe that countries should not weigh up immigration numbers vs economic capacity to deal with them.
But so far, none of the anti-immigration crowd have been able to tell me what we do once we dramatically decrease our immigration and Europe eventually becomes a market and military force of grey haired pensioners . . .0 -
Advertisement
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »But so far, none of the anti-immigration crowd have been able to tell me what we do once we dramatically decrease our immigration and Europe eventually becomes a market and military force of grey haired pensioners . . .
Native Europeans are still capable of regeneration. I believe that European countries should give greater encouragement to their people to reproduce through lower taxes and some intervention in childcare to make it easier for working Europeans to have children.
This is the saner, safer option than throwing the gates open to the near East and Africa with the inevitable side effects of Islamic insurgencies, Islamist political activity, ghettoisation and the increased criminality and sexual violence against the most vulnerable sections of the indigenous community attendant with this type of migration.
Pro immigration people seem to think this a price worth paying for some imagined greater good, I do not.
There is little to indicate that the recent influxes will pay anyone’s taxes. Most of Merkel’s million and the illegal migrants “rescued” from the Med are wholly unsuited to operate in a modern, first world economy- most are dependent of welfare handouts and will be for the foreseeable.
As automation consolidates itself and technology progresses it will become ever more difficult for these people to penetrate labour markets. This provides Islamism with an enormous and ever growing pool of idle young Muslim men who largely despise the nation they live alongside.
Now, the situation may improve but looking at inter generational welfare dependency among immigrant communities in Europe and the nature of the European economy, I think not.
If European nations need to improve their birthrate then the answer is not to replace them in large swathes of their homelands. This would not be wise or right even if the populations encouraged to surplant them did not carry in them a colossal (and observable) potential for rape, murder and religious supremacism.
Third World Immigration; little to gain, everything to lose.0 -
Your level of engagement in a discussion never surprises me oscar.
I asked two questions. I was told, in as many words: "I'm not going to answer your questions."
But yeah, I'm the one not engaging in discussion.
Anyway, I'll let you get back to (verbosely) not answering ArthurDayne's questions.0 -
It could be a moot point in the next 100 years in any case. If we continue to treat the planet the way we are doing, it won't matter if Muslims "conquer" Europe or not as we'll all probably be dead or living in some apocalyptic hell
I'm far from being an eco-warrior type, and probably contribute as much as the next person to carbon emissions, consumerism or whatever. But I sometimes worry that we really are fu(king this planet up far worse than we care to think about. If so, I would suggest that this is the "biggest story of our time".0 -
Native Europeans are still capable of regeneration. I believe that European countries should give greater encouragement to their people to reproduce through lower taxes and some intervention in childcare to make it easier for working Europeans to have children.
This is the saner, safer option than throwing the gates open to the near East and Africa with the inevitable side effects of Islamic insurgencies, Islamist political activity, ghettoisation and the increased criminality and sexual violence against the most vulnerable sections of the indigenous community attendant with this type of migration.
Pro immigration people seem to think this a price worth paying for some imagined greater good, I do not.
There is little to indicate that the recent influxes will pay anyone’s taxes. Most of Merkel’s million and the illegal migrants “rescued” from the Med are wholly unsuited to operate in a modern, first world economy- most are dependent of welfare handouts and will be for the foreseeable.
As automation consolidates itself and technology progresses it will become ever more difficult for these people to penetrate labour markets. This provides Islamism with an enormous and ever growing pool of idle young Muslim men who largely despise the nation they live alongside.
Now, the situation may improve but looking at inter generational welfare dependency among immigrant communities in Europe and the nature of the European economy, I think not.
If European nations need to improve their birthrate then the answer is not to replace them in large swathes of their homelands. This would not be wise or right even if the populations encouraged to surplant them did not carry in them a colossal (and observable) potential for rape, murder and religious supremacism.
Third World Immigration; little to gain, everything to lose.
But the problem here is that you are presuming that so-called ‘Native’ Europeans want to have more children but some external circumstances are preventing them from doing so. The simple reality is that people are content to raise 2-3 kids to adulthood and then go off and enjoy their lives. Women generally (and unsurprisingly) don’t seem to want to go through 4-5 pregnancies between the ages of 29-35 – they want to enjoy their 20s, have careers, and have a couple of kids around 30 or so. Added to that is the fact that low infant mortality and child death rates are dissuading people from the antiquated practice of having as many children as possible.
So , in ‘incentivising childcare’ – what you’re really saying in practice is trying to reverse a now well-established trend that women want to actually do stuff with their lives and careers aside from being vessels for population growth. The other irony of course is that I have no doubt that many people would quickly turn on the idea of incentivising childcare when Ireland-born children of Muslim immigrants start having their own kids at a higher frequency (i.e. incentivising childcare is only good when pure-blood White Europeans are availing of it)!
So your incentivising childcare proposal, to my mind, doesn’t really answer the issue of who is going to pay the pensions of ageing Europe! Automation makes no difference – you still need a critical mass population to actually be a market (i.e. what’s the point in spending money on robots to build things if there is nobody to sell the things to!). The market will always be a human one and, where robots fill a gap, humans move towards other ways of providing value.
Finally the disaster-scenario you paint about immigrants in Europe is just pure tabloid sensationalism – there are problems but there is also a more sensible middle ground for tackling them. Does immigration present problems and challenges? Yes. Is there a real and dangerous threat from Islamic insurgents? Yes. Do we need a better and more effective immigration control to ensure we keep out terrorists, repel illegals and take account of our economic capacity? Of course – this is what we try to do but it is difficult to create a perfect system.
Yet the fact remains that, despite the Migrant Apocalypse which many claim we have had in the past 50 years, Europe now has lots of migrants and lots of native Europeans descended from migrants who form a valuable part of our society. Europe has become more tolerant, increasingly prosperous … and SAFER! I have grown up, worked with, partied with, been friends with immigrants of many nationalities and indeed religions (and I have been an immigrant myself) – it has had a remarkable and positive effect on my mindset and has broadened my mind. That is the true value of immigration, aside from the realpolitik of demographic ecnomics – but even cold statistics don’t suggest that the growth of migration has made Europe deteriorate!0 -
But mass migration worked for Sweden for ages. What about the non-Islamic people or early waves of Islamic migration? Clearly they've reached a tipping point in terms of how many can be accommodated without integration issues but to say mass migration has failed there is not correct.
If a people are on track to become a minority within their own homeland in our lifetime, as the Swedes are, its safe to say mass migration has failed. At least for the Swedes.ArthurDayne wrote: »I note that you have yet to specify a specific time there -- not even a rough decade or quarter century? You are using terrorism as the barometer, suggesting that immigration has led to terrorism and now all our lives are worse. But even by your own chosen barometer, the statistics are not in your favour. There is less terrorism in Western Europe now than there was in the 70s, 80s or 90s. Western Europe remains one of the safest if not the safest region on the planet. So even with the rise of 'mass immigration', we are statistically safer now! None of this is to demote the threat of Islamic terror, which has proven itself dangerous, but if it is one adverse effect of immigration then proportionally speaking it still doesn't justify your belief that immigration has made our lives worse. So far you have been unable to pinpoint a precise time in history from which life in Europe has gotten demonstrably worse, nor been able to point out a single example of somewhere else in the world we can look to as an exemplum -- you'll forgive for not yet joining the Sand School of Declinism.
This is just whataboutery. Mass migration into Europe has created additional Islamic terrorism that would not exist without Islamic populations to fuel it. Whatever the base line of 'native' terrorism in Europe mass migration added to it, making the lives of Europeans worse than they would be without mass migration. This is not complicated to follow.If we can get beyond the hatred, then the first battle for healthy immigration is won -- because it is much easier to integrate your immigrant population when you aren't treating them as parasitical dangerous scum.
Yes, Europe has tried that. Back in 2010 Merkel was saying multiculturalism had failed as a response to mass migration. The problems inherent to mass migration did not appear just in 2015. When you permit mass migration to create non-assimilated enclaves in your country, you are going to have tension and conflict. Again, worsening the lives of Europeans.Outward looking, immigration policy needs to take account of the overall narrative that birth rates are declining in Europe and we are now competing with not just America and the Far East, but China, the emerging economies of South America and the Middle East -- and of course the economic and military threat of Russia to European stability. To retain our status as a competitive and vibrant economic bloc, we simply need to have a criticial mass of people. Without people, our market shrinks and prosperity shrinks with it.
I think it is quite telling you see Europe as simply an economic bloc, whose only goal is GDP growth. Europeans themselves see it as a collective group of nations with a shared heritage which serves as their homeland. As is increasingly demonstrated by the turn towards nationalist parties across Europe, your vision is alien to most peopleYou think I take Europe for granted -- I do not -- manpower is needed to maintain its productivity and armed forces. Europeans just are not having as many babies anymore and our population is ever-ageing.
Manpower is not required in an era of ever increasing automation. As for an army who are you planning to invade? The EU *heavily* outspends Russia in military expenditure and the EU armed forces *heavily* outnumber Russian forces.
Europeans are falling below replacement levels of births. Despite your belief that Europe is doing incredibly well, I think its clear Europe increasingly lacks the ability or will to complete the most basic function of a successful society: reproduce. European governments should be investigating and addressing the causes to benefit Europeans.
Whatever the case, bringing in non-Europeans to have the children Europeans will not does not benefit Europeans. Not politically, culturally, economically or in any other fashion.But so far, none of the anti-immigration crowd have been able to tell me what we do once we dramatically decrease our immigration and Europe eventually becomes a market and military force of grey haired pensioners . . .
Do what Europe did for thousands of years prior to mass migration? Europe wont fail because a supply of economically useless third world migrants stop draining our resources.0 -
If a people are on track to become a minority within their own homeland in our lifetime, as the Swedes are, its safe to say mass migration has failed. At least for the Swedes.
Safe to say ? Really? Sweden ranks around the top of most of the credible quality of life rankings. They are, on an evidential basis, doing fairly well for themselves in Sweden. As is usually the most sensible stance, there is a middle ground: there have been problems caused by some of the migrants but reports of which vary from the sensible objective studies (e.g. the ones which deconstruct the Farageisms of Malmo being a 'rape capital') to the sheer sensationalist.
Plus, Sweden has been one of the best performing economies in Europe recently. One concern was the growing gap between GDP growth and growth per capita -- but rather than being the pesky migrants causing it, it was actually caused by increased numbers of retirement (that old ageing population chestnut eh?).
As for being "a minority in their own homeland" -- what do you mean? If migrants have children in Sweden, then those kids are born as Swedish citizens. If the birth rate of kids in Sweden being born to immigrant parents is higher than those of 'pure blood Swedish' (who of course do not exist), all those kids are Swedes. This has been the way for millennia, populations interbreed and blood gets mixed.
I must say Sand . . . I feel like we're drifting back to your low-point of fantasies of unobtainable monoethnicity.This is just whataboutery. Mass migration into Europe has created additional Islamic terrorism that would not exist without Islamic populations to fuel it. Whatever the base line of 'native' terrorism in Europe mass migration added to it, making the lives of Europeans worse than they would be without mass migration. This is not complicated to follow.
Yes, Europe has tried that. Back in 2010 Merkel was saying multiculturalism had failed as a response to mass migration. The problems inherent to mass migration did not appear just in 2015. When you permit mass migration to create non-assimilated enclaves in your country, you are going to have tension and conflict. Again, worsening the lives of Europeans.
Here we go again. I note once more that you have failed to answer the question. Now, before we drift into Michael Howard levels of question-evasion, please ...please....pinpoint to me a time (seriously feel free to go as broad as a quarter or even a bloody half century if it gets the answer out of you) when the life of the average European was better than it is now. Whether you perceive it to be whataboutery or not -- I presume someone as sure of their view as you are will be able to absolutely flatten me with tales of a time in history to which we should all aspire to return in time machines and live out our days in the great Fantasy Land / paradise of monocultural bliss before the foreign hordes arrived and ruined it all.I think it is quite telling you see Europe as simply an economic bloc, whose only goal is GDP growth. Europeans themselves see it as a collective group of nations with a shared heritage which serves as their homeland. As is increasingly demonstrated by the turn towards nationalist parties across Europe, your vision is alien to most people
Please provide evidence that my view is alien to most people in Europe. I'm presuming that, if this is the case, then the nationalist parties must have been romping home to victory everywhere right? You might inform me as clearly I am poorly informed - - - which nationalist parties in European have won clear majorities? I presume there is quite a list. Please provide it.Manpower is not required in an era of ever increasing automation.
Automation has been around since the Industrial Revolution yet more people are working now than ever before. It is a simple demonstration of economics -- to have a market you require people with money to buy your goods. People are always ...always...the beating heart of the market and as such humans will gravitate towards providing value in other ways in return for remuneration.
Automation presents challenges -- not in the sense that it destroys the market, but it recalibrates the nature of the market. But of course, the Declinists like yourself cry doom while others actually deal with making the best of inevitable progress. Where you see the great looming spectre of a world where somehow the market can operate on the basis of only a small niche of computer nerds being able to get jobs and pay for goods, others with greater vision simply see the opportunity to provide value in other ways.Europeans are falling below replacement levels of births. Despite your belief that Europe is doing incredibly well, I think its clear Europe increasingly lacks the ability or will to complete the most basic function of a successful society: reproduce. European governments should be investigating and addressing the causes to benefit Europeans.
The reasons are fairly obvious Sand. I discussed this earlier today in the thread with another contributor. Our ageing population is an unfortunate symbol of our success where we have created an environment where young women can aspire to enjoy the freedom of their teens and twenties while also pursuing careers. They just don't want to sit around having 4-5 kids anymore. Settling down 30ish and having 2, maybe 3 kids. Luckily of course, our success means that we can attract numbers in to maintain a critical mass in Europe to ensure that it remains a vibrant market and once which is attractive for investment.Whatever the case, bringing in non-Europeans to have the children Europeans will not does not benefit Europeans. Not politically, culturally, economically or in any other fashion.
This is not just merely your opinion, it is ideological entrenchment. If a black Irish child is born to working class Nigerian parents, are we to take it then that you see this child as some sort burden on us, less capable of benefiting Irish society than a white working class child born to Italian parents?
If not, why not ?0 -
If a people are on track to become a minority within their own homeland in our lifetime, as the Swedes are, its safe to say mass migration has failed. At least for the Swedes.This is just whataboutery. Mass migration into Europe has created additional Islamic terrorism that would not exist without Islamic populations to fuel it. Whatever the base line of 'native' terrorism in Europe mass migration added to it, making the lives of Europeans worse than they would be without mass migration. This is not complicated to follow.Yes, Europe has tried that. Back in 2010 Merkel was saying multiculturalism had failed as a response to mass migration. The problems inherent to mass migration did not appear just in 2015. When you permit mass migration to create non-assimilated enclaves in your country, you are going to have tension and conflict. Again, worsening the lives of Europeans.I think it is quite telling you see Europe as simply an economic bloc, whose only goal is GDP growth. Europeans themselves see it as a collective group of nations with a shared heritage which serves as their homeland. As is increasingly demonstrated by the turn towards nationalist parties across Europe, your vision is alien to most peopleEuropeans are falling below replacement levels of births. Despite your belief that Europe is doing incredibly well, I think its clear Europe increasingly lacks the ability or will to complete the most basic function of a successful society: reproduce. European governments should be investigating and addressing the causes to benefit Europeans.
Whatever the case, bringing in non-Europeans to have the children Europeans will not does not benefit Europeans. Not politically, culturally, economically or in any other fashion.Do what Europe did for thousands of years prior to mass migration? Europe wont fail because a supply of economically useless third world migrants stop draining our resources.
I have left those parts in your quoted post to remain on which I mostly agree and removed the others on which I don't, including the posts you've been responding to.
Just some points to that. I don't see it as quite being the case right now that Swedes are on track to become a minority in their own country. Not yet, and the Swedish govt has tightened their immigration laws to curb the influx of immigrants and that has many aspects for why they did so. It has probably more to do with them immigrants becoming more a burden for their welfare system, as this happens in other EU member states who took large numbers of them in too.
As Europe being seen as just an economic bloc, which you argue against that this isn't just so in the perception of the many Europeans, I just like to point out that the main issue of the Brexiteers in the UK is quite that. They have pressed for this BrexitRef and voted for Leave because they do want to have the EU going back to the times when it was the EEC, a trade bloc with no political Union. But there is no way for going back to the past and one can state that Brexiteers neither consider themselves as nor to they feel being European at all. That is the driving force behind Brexit, an ugly anti-european nationalism that harks back to the long gone times of the BE. In fact, the nationalists across the EU who gain more support by the voters because of the failures of the current and previous governments are talking about a 'Europe of the Fatherlands' which is quite the opposite of what the EU stands for. Their aim is to break up the EU and the current immigration issue brings much water on their mills and thus gain in votes. But they don't have any answers for the future where other matters in economy etc. are concerned, nothing but the old patters which are no longer workable in this fast progressing times.
The progressing automatisation in the industrial nations of this world will be the challenge for the present young and future generations when work places for humans are going to be more reduced. From this pov I do agree with you that more influx of third world immigrants will never solve that and other problems which come with it, it will make it far worse for all because for the reasons you already mentioned.0 -
Having read back on this thread a bit, and accepting that I'm not as eloquent or as skilled at debate as some of the posters in here, I'm finding it really hard to see anything beyond a more or less racial/cultural purity argument being pushed by one side in terms of the original issue.
It seems to have become a conversation about mass migration, which clearly Europe is experiencing a problem with, and people have stated their case very well. But this isn't quite the question/issue at hand.
So I'm unsure why 'Muslim takeover' is in the title. Does it matter if the mass migrants are Mulsims or Hindus or Catholics or whatever? All the very eloquent arguments made here are simply based on migration rather than religion.
In terms of migration to Ireland, do we care what religion people declare when arriving or are we just after sustainable levels of migration?0 -
Having read back on this thread a bit, and accepting that I'm not as eloquent or as skilled at debate as some of the posters in here, I'm finding it really hard to see anything beyond a more or less racial/cultural purity argument being pushed by one side in terms of the original issue.
It seems to have become a conversation about mass migration, which clearly Europe is experiencing a problem with, and people have stated their case very well. But this isn't quite the question/issue at hand.
So I'm unsure why 'Muslim takeover' is in the title. Does it matter if the mass migrants are Mulsims or Hindus or Catholics or whatever? All the very eloquent arguments made here are simply based on migration rather than religion.
In terms of migration to Ireland, do we care what religion people declare when arriving or are we just after sustainable levels of migration?
The title fits the thread because as you might know yourself, the masses of immigrants are from muslim countries.0 -
The title fits the thread because as you might know yourself, the masses of immigrants are from muslim countries.
Ah yeah but what's the difference of being Muslim? Insinuated in the thread title is the notion that 'Muslim' is the story.
I'm simply saying that given the discussion
'migrant takeover of Europe....' would make more sense.0 -
Advertisement
-
The title fits the thread because as you might know yourself, the masses of immigrants are from muslim countries.
Ah yeah but what's the difference of being Muslim? Insinuated in the thread title is the notion that 'Muslim' is the story.
I'm simply saying that given the discussion
'migrant takeover of Europe....' would make more sense.
It would had a more 'neutral' bearing regarding the religious background of the migrants, but would also distract from it. Not for long I'd say.
'What's the difference of being Muslim'? Well, I think that there is a huge one between the islamistic terrorists and the average Muslim but the problem is how to tell one from another.0 -
'What's the difference of being Muslim'? Well, I think that there is a huge one between the islamistic terrorists and the average Muslim but the problem is how to tell one from another.
Ireland has a lot of experience with Irish terrorists ... How did you tell one from the other ?0 -
As much as easy by their appearance as as much as difficult by the very same. But what they all have in common, no matter what ideology or Religion stands behind it, is that they all use the population as human shields to take cover among them and hide themselves which makes the population suffer.'What's the difference of being Muslim'? Well, I think that there is a huge one between the islamistic terrorists and the average Muslim but the problem is how to tell one from another.
Ireland has a lot of experience with Irish terrorists ... How did you tell one from the other ?0 -
It would had a more 'neutral' bearing regarding the religious background of the migrants, but would also distract from it. Not for long I'd say.
'What's the difference of being Muslim'? Well, I think that there is a huge one between the islamistic terrorists and the average Muslim but the problem is how to tell one from another.
I was jumped and robbed by two lads in Rathmines one night. I have since decided to err on the side of caution and refuse to speak or do business with Irish people, because you never know which ones are the criminals. It's difficult as I'm Irish, especially over the Christmas visiting family. I stay in the kitchen.
Maybe I'm being ridiculous?0 -
As much as easy by their appearance as as much as difficult by the very same. But what they all have in common, no matter what ideology or Religion stands behind it, is that they all use the population as human shields to take cover among them and hide themselves which makes the population suffer.
Like the IRA.
If any group decide to become terrorists/freedom fighters, what ever, they'll find reasoning. If the Muslim religion ceased to exist, or never existed, do you think these lads would be going about their business with a laissez-faire attitude?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »It would had a more 'neutral' bearing regarding the religious background of the migrants, but would also distract from it. Not for long I'd say.
'What's the difference of being Muslim'? Well, I think that there is a huge one between the islamistic terrorists and the average Muslim but the problem is how to tell one from another.
I was jumped and robbed by two lads in Rathmines one night. I have since decided to err on the side of caution and refuse to speak or do business with Irish people, because you never know which ones are the criminals. It's difficult as I'm Irish, especially over the Christmas visiting family. I stay in the kitchen.
Maybe I'm being ridiculous?Matt Barrett wrote: »As much as easy by their appearance as as much as difficult by the very same. But what they all have in common, no matter what ideology or Religion stands behind it, is that they all use the population as human shields to take cover among them and hide themselves which makes the population suffer.
Like the IRA.
If any group decide to become terrorists/freedom fighters, what ever, they'll find reasoning. If the Muslim religion ceased to exist, or never existed, do you think these lads would be going about their business with a laissez-faire attitude?
Sorry to hear that but I really don't get it who it was that had a go at you. I don't think you're being ridiculous, rather much scared and proably traumatised by that assault. I think that I would be as cautious as you are after such a bad experience. Normally I don't seek to get into contact with many people, apart from daily business. That is for the same reason you mentioned, you never know who you encounter.
As for your last line, I can't tell as there are intelligence and peaceful as well as stupid and violent people among them like in any other country / population. I see it that way that the more worse off people are, the more easy they are to fall for radicalism. I mean that not just in material ways, but also social ones. But for some of the radicals they haven't to be worse off, it is easy for them to fall for the radicals for various reasons.
Regarding the IRA, some poster on this site recently stated that to him the IRA are no terrorists. I think that it tells a lot about that poster. I didn't respond to that comment because I have encountered too many of the same like on this an other boards to know that it is pointless to try to convince them that they are wrong. Just like to convince a Unionist / Loyalist in NI that their organisations were terrorists as well. Worse than this is to talk about collusion between them and the Brits military and secret service branches. That is also pointless. In fact it all comes down on whether one condones or condemns violence and terrorism as means to achieve a political aim. I clearly condemn all sorts of violence and terrorism because nothing good grows out of it and there are more, even too much people who have to suffer for that.0 -
Sorry to hear that but I really don't get it who it was that had a go at you. I don't think you're being ridiculous, rather much scared and proably traumatised by that assault. I think that I would be as cautious as you are after such a bad experience. Normally I don't seek to get into contact with many people, apart from daily business. That is for the same reason you mentioned, you never know who you encounter.
As for your last line, I can't tell as there are intelligence and peaceful as well as stupid and violent people among them like in any other country / population. I see it that way that the more worse off people are, the more easy they are to fall for radicalism. I mean that not just in material ways, but also social ones. But for some of the radicals they haven't to be worse off, it is easy for them to fall for the radicals for various reasons.
Regarding the IRA, some poster on this site recently stated that to him the IRA are no terrorists. I think that it tells a lot about that poster. I didn't respond to that comment because I have encountered too many of the same like on this an other boards to know that it is pointless to try to convince them that they are wrong. Just like to convince a Unionist / Loyalist in NI that their organisations were terrorists as well. Worse than this is to talk about collusion between them and the Brits military and secret service branches. That is also pointless. In fact it all comes down on whether one condones or condemns violence and terrorism as means to achieve a political aim. I clearly condemn all sorts of violence and terrorism because nothing good grows out of it and there are more, even too much people who have to suffer for that.
Regardless of anyones views on the IRA, they would have been Irish people hiding among the population. Hard to tell who was and wasn't one. That's the point. You cannot go about generalising about people. You could, but that would be racism or the ethnic/religious equivalent.
Should we treat all Russians as potential terrorists because Putin is their dictator?
When the Legion of Mary knock on your door and hassle you about baby jebus, you don't say 'fuppin' Catholics' you say 'fuppin' Legion of mary'. Some terrorists working under the guise of Islam does not make all Muslims potential threats. I think, as a poster pointed out, we've far bigger problems in the environment and monitisation of societal values IMO.0 -
Sorry to hear that but I really don't get it who it was that had a go at you. I don't think you're being ridiculous, rather much scared and proably traumatised by that assault. I think that I would be as cautious as you are after such a bad experience. Normally I don't seek to get into contact with many people, apart from daily business. That is for the same reason you mentioned, you never know who you encounter.
I just wanted to highlight this because I think it is rather illustrative of my belief that many peoples' views on the world are based on a perception of reality rather than plain objective reality. Let me clarify though that I don't mean this as a personal attack on you -- far be it from me to presume to know anything about you or experiences you have had in life which make you cautious about dealing with people. But would I be right in taking from the above quote that you are someone who is inclined to be wary of coming into contact with strangers?
I ask because I often wonder if peoples views on immigration and/or Muslims are based on a personal perceptions they have developed -- whether though media stories, sticking to reading articles which confirm their own view, or suffering from group-think. The other driver, in my opinion, is that people tend to veer towards declinism --- whereby they remember the past as being better than it really was (i.e. nostalgia) and that things have deteriorated since. The reasons behind this are clear, we look back on our earlier years and envy our younger selves. The younger we are, the less complicated life tends to be, and this gives us the impression that the increasing complexity of life with age and responsibility is indicative of living in a world which is losing its way. The corollary to that is that we become more tentative and fearful of the future.
So with the above in mind -- if we do fall into declinism and perceived realities of impending danger -- then naturally we look for the most obvious signs of "What has changed about the world around me ?". As the number of foreigners living among us increases, and we see more non-White, non-European, non-Christian people in our midst, then they become the easy scapegoat -- the perceived decline of society can be pinned on them. This of course is a problematic view because the countries which have experienced high levels of immigration (and a wide variety of national, religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds) are among the most successful, prosperous, peace and tolerant nations on this planet. So the perception of immigration being a bad or even terrible thing does not seem to stack up with the objective evidence around us, even if it does undoubtedly pose challenges and sometimes problems.
What I then wonder is, if you lived for example on a street in Dublin which had recently become the home of 50 newly-arrived Muslim immigrants, to what extent would any trepidation you have about this be based on your own personality trait of being wary of strangers -- and potentially then even more wary of strangers from a different country and religion? Is it a case then that on the full body of reasoned evidence you think that immigration, in particular of Muslims, is a bad thing --- or is it a case that your personal caution of strangers makes you more likely to perceive immigration in a certain way?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »I must say Sand . . . I feel like we're drifting back to your low-point of fantasies of unobtainable monoethnicity.
There are 87 distinct 'peoples' or nations in Europe, speaking dozens of languages and dialects. Sweden itself has Finnish and Sami minorities. Its laughable to pretend the choice is between mass migration or grey monoculturalism.Whether you perceive it to be whataboutery or not
It is whataboutery.Automation has been around since the Industrial Revolution yet more people are working now than ever before.
If you're unaware of the tends in automation, I suggest you educate yourself. Mass migration of poorly educated, functionally illiterate peoples bring no benefit to Europeans now, and even less in the future.The reasons are fairly obvious Sand.
Oh right. I thought it might be a complicated problem with multiple factors, requiring study and thought. But apparently you already know the single cause, without any investigation at all.They just don't want to sit around having 4-5 kids anymore. Settling down 30ish and having 2, maybe 3 kids.
Women are not even having 2 kids. The total fertility rate in the EU is 1.6. What we do know is that when surveyed, women do want to have 2-3 kids. But they end up with less kids than they want to have. Why that is deserves a little more thought than you've given it.Luckily of course, our success means that we can attract numbers in to maintain a critical mass in Europe to ensure that it remains a vibrant market and once which is attractive for investment.
Vibrant market. Attractive for investment. The shallowness of your vision for the future ought to embarrass you.This is not just merely your opinion, it is ideological entrenchment. If a black Irish child is born to working class Nigerian parents, are we to take it then that you see this child as some sort burden on us, less capable of benefiting Irish society than a white working class child born to Italian parents?
If not, why not ?
I'm not aware of studies in Ireland, but its known that in UK, BAME citizens are twice as likely to be unemployed as White British. And further studies show non-EU migration into the UK is a net loss to the UK taxpayer. There is no reason not to expect similar themes in Ireland. Of course the burden is not just financial. "Diverse" communities are low trust communities, with less civic engagement or trust.
Italians are EU citizens, not immigrants as such. Studies in the UK show EU migration is a net positive to the UK. Again, we can expect similar themes in Ireland.
As to why, I don't really have to explain why to observe it is the case. But my guess is EU citizens are better educated, more compatible with cultural norms, and more likely to return to their own countries to start families or retire.Just some points to that. I don't see it as quite being the case right now that Swedes are on track to become a minority in their own country.
Swedish fertility rates are below replacement levels (2.1). If they don't address that, while opening their borders to mass migration, they are on track to become a minority in their own homeland in our lifetime. The core issue for Europeans is the low fertility. The solution is not importing other people to have children instead.As Europe being seen as just an economic bloc, which you argue against that this isn't just so in the perception of the many Europeans, I just like to point out that the main issue of the Brexiteers in the UK is quite that. They have pressed for this BrexitRef and voted for Leave because they do want to have the EU going back to the times when it was the EEC, a trade bloc with no political Union.
My view, and I've expressed it before, is that Remain in the UK lost because they had no vision of the UK's place in Europe beyond GDP and economics.0 -
Advertisement
-
There are 87 distinct 'peoples' or nations in Europe, speaking dozens of languages and dialects. Sweden itself has Finnish and Sami minorities. Its laughable to pretend the choice is between mass migration or grey monoculturalism.
I am glad that, out of all the things I said about Sweden being a hugely successful country, this was the only point you disputed.
It is whataboutery.
Sand, I have to say . . . I can fully appreciate why you won't answer my question despite what must be 4 or 5 attempts to extract it from you (i.e. you can't answer it because there is no answer). I can also fully appreciate that one's intellectual pride sometimes cannot bear the thought of saying they are wrong. But the fact that you continue to soapbox about the life of the Europeans worsening, despite your blatant and now somewhat comical inability to pick even a broad period of time when the life of the average European was better than it is now, I will have to take it that you have conceded on this point.
But seeing as we now have most certainly wound up in a Michael Howard vortex -- are you going to answer the question or shall we continue this dance?If you're unaware of the tends in automation, I suggest you educate yourself. Mass migration of poorly educated, functionally illiterate peoples bring no benefit to Europeans now, and even less in the future.
Very aware, but to be honest I don't think you really understand its implications. The market cannot function without humans spending capital -- if humans don't have jobs they cannot spend capital back into the market. That means businesses don't get any money and all those robots are producing stuff that can't be sold. Therefore the business world must gravitate towards finding ways to make humans useful, and the consumer population moves towards finding ways of providing value in return for remuneration. It is basic economics. The 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have provided well over 100 years of automation trend -- and what I have said above rings true throughout it all.
In fact the real danger is not to low-skilled workers at all, who by the very nature of low skilled can gravitate flexibly towards providing whatever low skilled work provides value at the time. The real danger is to the professional class who deal with highly specialised jobs and less ability to flexible across fields. Fortunately, the very nature of the professional class shows that the trend towards STEM subjects and jobs is now rapidly growing. In other words -- humans are gravitating towards that where they provide value. So, there are challenges inherent in automation, but your cry doom approach and misplaced confidence that I don't understand automation approach once again leave you looking like a guy who is all concern and no answers (like the rest of the declinists).Oh right. I thought it might be a complicated problem with multiple factors, requiring study and thought. But apparently you already know the single cause, without any investigation at all.
Women are not even having 2 kids. The total fertility rate in the EU is 1.6. What we do know is that when surveyed, women do want to have 2-3 kids. But they end up with less kids than they want to have. Why that is deserves a little more thought than you've given it.
Then educate me. Or is this another case of all concern and no answers?Vibrant market. Attractive for investment. The shallowness of your vision for the future ought to embarrass you.
And your naivety on the importance of the markets and investment ought to embarrass you. Didn't you describe yourself as a realist? Are you really going to make me explain to you why prosperity is important?
I always find it interesting . . the anti-immigration crowd seem to take solace in the belief that the 'lefties' and 'liberals' are all just idealists who don't understand the nasty world and the 'conservatives' are the realists who are all about cold hard facts etc. Yet from the course of this conversation all I'm getting from you is ideas and ideals ground in perception rather than evidence -- to the point we now find ourselves in the bizarre situation where a self-described realist fails to grasp the importance of a prosperous economy.I'm not aware of studies in Ireland, but its known that in UK, BAME citizens are twice as likely to be unemployed as White British. And further studies show non-EU migration into the UK is a net loss to the UK taxpayer. There is no reason not to expect similar themes in Ireland. Of course the burden is not just financial. "Diverse" communities are low trust communities, with less civic engagement or trust.
Italians are EU citizens, not immigrants as such. Studies in the UK show EU migration is a net positive to the UK. Again, we can expect similar themes in Ireland.
This isn't what I asked you Sand. I asked you if the black kid was less capable than the white kid. The fact you have deflected on that one is particularly unnerving.
Now, firstly please link me to the studies about BAME citizens being twice as likely to be unemployed. I have no reason to dispute that -- but I am interested in seeing what those studies say about why this is the case, and whether you have actually read all the detail in those studies (i.e. I would venture that the studies are much more nuanced than it simply being a case of 'the children of black immigrants are less likely to be employed because they are non-white children of immigrants who are inherently unable to contribute).
So please, the links.
As for your sources on non-EU migration being a net loss to the UK taxpayer, could you please confirm whether the studies you are reading take into account the larger number of children non-EU immigrants tend to have vs EU immigrants? This is significant because I imagine the cost of the children's education and upbringing etc would obviously have factored into the figures but as the children themselves were UK-born (i.e. therefore not immigrants) their subsequent tax contributions as adult British citizens would not have been included in the report. Please confirm and send the links.0
Advertisement