Migration Megathread

Thomas_IV

Sand wrote: »

Thomas_IV wrote: »

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.

Regarding Sweden, it is a matter it shares with many other EU member states and that is also partly because both parents have to work to finance the living of themselves and their children. Further it is housing. I don't know much about that regarding the conditions in Sweden, whether people live in houses or in flats, I presume that it depends on whether they live in towns / cities or in rural areas. The area also has its prices for housing and in towns and cities where people with middle or low income live in flats, the flats are not that laid out for families with more than one to two children. Matters like the aforesaid and others which come into that too are the basis for Family planning and for decisions to whether they like to have children and then how many.

As for the Remainers in the UK. I differ from your view as I have read many of their pamphlets and leaflets of the BrexitRef campaign and what they did was to present the facts and the conclusions based on them to tell the people what will happen if the UK Exits the EU and what advantages they still have will be lost. See, the Brexiteers have no Vision of a post-Brexit UK either which would mirror a future that would meet the realistic estimations. They played on emotions and that was the way they succeeded because the major emtional card was the immigration card. Not Long after they have won the referendum the Brexiteers had to admit that the supposed £350 mil per week for the NHS after the UK has left the EU were a ly and that was admitted by BoJo the other 'Brexit celebrity' next to Farage. When you look at the developments in the UK re Brexit since 2016, the Brexit govt has as of today no realistic vision for a post-Brexit UK. They always stick to their wishful thinking and cherry picking style in the Brexit negotiations and that despite that they have been told by the EU for many times that their proposals are a no go for reaching a deal. Therefore, whether they admit it or not, they are heading for a hard Brexit and imo, it has become clear to me for a long time that this was always their aim all along and they have wasted two years for nothing.

Some (i.e. just a few) Brits on the guardian site still believe that in the end there will be no Brexit because the UK govt won't take the risk to face the real hard consequences of a hard Brexit.

I don't think so, because the DUP has the hand on the lever by her backing this minority Tory govt and press for a hard Brexit as well (no matter how much NI and its people will suffer from that because of their idiotic stubborn and deluded awful sense of 'Britishness' which means that if GB goes down the drain NI has to follow suit), the UK govt, consisting of hard Brexiteers in the higher ranks of the Tory Party as well, has less room for manouvering. Therefore, if they don't give in to have a BrexitRef2 which would at least open up the chance to reverse Brexit altogether with a switching majority in votes from Leave to Remain, it'll be a hard Brexit in the end.

For me, Remain lost the referendum because they appealed on the rationality and reasonability of the UK voters but as we know, 52% of them didn't care about the facts, they wanted to have immigration to the UK stopped. Everything else didn't matter and as stupid as many Brexiteers are, they didn't care about the other aspects that matter and still ignore them in spite the facts of the to anticipate consequences emerge day after day. I had never thought that 52% of the Brits are so easy to be deluded and misled, but there you go, one never stops learning.

demfad

Sand wrote: »

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

It is quite telling that you imply far-right nationalism is a majority position in Europe. It's not. It's a small minority pushed by far right wing -millionaires/billionaires and useful idiots to push the agenda.

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.

Taking the UK as an example migration positive to a countries economy. It also adds diversity to cultures which are constantly evolving.

Based on your world view taking Europeans out of Europe and replacing them with migrant Europeans would benefit Europe greatly. This was certainly the case in the 1940s when the removal of the scum of Europe who tried to annihilate outsiders resulted in the arguably greatest period of European history.

People who stoke irrational fear are a lot less useful than those they target.

I hope people will remember this when they listen to your hateful monologues.

Thomas_IV

demfad wrote: »

It is quite telling that you imply far-right nationalism is a majority position in Europe. It's not. It's a small minority pushed by far right wing -millionaires/billionaires and useful idiots to push the agenda.

Taking the UK as an example migration positive to a countries economy. It also adds diversity to cultures which are constantly evolving.

Based on your world view taking Europeans out of Europe and replacing them with migrant Europeans would benefit Europe greatly. This was certainly the case in the 1940s when the removal of the scum of Europe who tried to annihilate outsiders resulted in the arguably greatest period of European history.

People who stoke irrational fear are a lot less useful than those they target.

I hope people will remember this when they listen to your hateful monologues.

I think that you're missing some aspects in your reply to Sand. Partly you're right, partly you're omitting the negatives that is also part of immigration.

If the way you see it and look at it would be 100% true, why are there generations already born in the countries their grandparents emigrated to and their children who either came later after one parent has settled in the country or were already Born afterwards in the host Country still more inward looking and strong bound to the Country of their parents? Why was it that in the many of the Western EU member states who had a constant influx of immigrants for work, settlements consisting of them either only or in majority have developed and created quaters with social problems because real integration never took place and wasn't intended to take place?

He certainly has his right-wing views, probably bordering on the far-right (depending on the angle from where one looks at it). Even in such regards, the facts are there and it is no wonder why far-right and right-wing people take these up to use it for their propaganda because the other parties never really addressed and worked on solving these problems.

You take the UK as a perfect positive example for the benefit of mass immigration (in regards over the decades since the end of WWII). Still, you omit to take into account that it was exactly the immigration topic that tipped the Balance in favour of Brexit. The 52% of Brits which voted for Leave are hardly all far-right people.

Immigration works both ways, for the good and the bad. For the good when integration takes place and separation either implemented by the natives in rejecting the immigrants or by the immigrants themselves by rejecting to adopt the culture of their host country (without being even forced to give up their own culture, just to adopt that of the host country) is avoided. You're talking about and looking at the ideal too much and dismissing the negative effects of a failed integration because it was never intented by the host country to integrate them because from the outset the immigrants were meant to leave after their work contracts expired. But as they were needed further the contracts were either renewed or extended.

Europe has had a mass influx of many for the standards of western european countries unskilled, unqualified or less qualified immigrants during the years from 2014 to 2016 with 2015 reaching the peak. This has tipped the Balance among the native Europeans and the once welcoming mood has turned to the contrary. It comes with that that far-right and right-wing parties across the EU are in the rise. But instead to answer the turn of the mood within the population, the left-wing parties still continue to be immigration friendly as if the amount of people that came to Europe in the past years wasn't enough yet. This stance is often felt as a provocation by the establishment parties and those who have to deal with the shortcomings and decline in benefits, who have work to sustain the welfare state by paying their taxes but have to watch immigrants getting more out of the system they have paid in than themselves, are no longer tolerating this development or non-stop immigration.

More Immigration means more pressure on the social system, more pressure on the housing problems, more pressure on the job market and more so for those who are unskilled and I include long residing immigrants to the whole of that group of people who always have to struggle to find and keep a job. The already tense problems cannot be solved that quickly like newcomers come in as it takes years to solve them and what sort of a future does an Immigrant in Europe have when he or she doesn't finds work, no housing but has to stay in camps because rents for flats have gone up to a scale where even people with average good wages have to struggle to afford them and make ends meet.  

Curious that the Immigrant defenders from the left-wing side always turn a blind eye on the already existing Problems which rather grow than get solved. But for that reason, the left-wings also bear a part of responsibility for the rise of the right-wing and far-right because they don't address the problems because to them it would be like being 'racist' or 'anti-immigrant', 'discriminatory' or whatever term fits to avoid the problems which are out there for real and which create social tensions. The worst what emerges from this ill-handling of the problem is that the natives get not just a feeling but the manifestating perception of being discriminated because of being a native while immigrants get preferred and can skip the waiting list for social housing. Such problems were already there long before BrexitRef in the UK and it nourished the establishing of the 'hostile environment' for immigrants. The native people felt and saw themselves as being treated unfair. Nothing has changed since and they make the former Labour govts of Blair and Brown responsible for that in the first place.  

Why is it so hard to face reality and deal with it instead to always as usual stick to the pro-Immigrant stance? The gain in votes for the far-right and right-wing parties will not cease until these immigration problems are addressed in the way the growing amount of people which are fed up with this are satisfied by experiencing improvements in a curb of immigration numbers.

You can rant about them and call them racists, it doesn't matter to them because they're beyond the point being offended by this by now. They vote for those politicians they trust to bring about a decline in numbers of immigrants. They don't care whether they're being labelled as racists, they just shake it off. That is the way it is today, name calling doesn't work anymore.

demfad

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I think that you're missing some aspects in your reply to Sand. Partly you're right, partly you're omitting the negatives that is also part of immigration.

If the way you see it and look at it would be 100% true, why are there generations already born in the countries their grandparents emigrated to and their children who either came later after one parent has settled in the country or were already Born afterwards in the host Country still more inward looking and strong bound to the Country of their parents? Why was it that in the many of the Western EU member states who had a constant influx of immigrants for work, settlements consisting of them either only or in majority have developed and created quaters with social problems because real integration never took place and wasn't intended to take place?

He certainly has his right-wing views, probably bordering on the far-right (depending on the angle from where one looks at it). Even in such regards, the facts are there and it is no wonder why far-right and right-wing people take these up to use it for their propaganda because the other parties never really addressed and worked on solving these problems.

You take the UK as a perfect positive example for the benefit of mass immigration (in regards over the decades since the end of WWII). Still, you omit to take into account that it was exactly the immigration topic that tipped the Balance in favour of Brexit. The 52% of Brits which voted for Leave are hardly all far-right people.

Immigration works both ways, for the good and the bad. For the good when integration takes place and separation either implemented by the natives in rejecting the immigrants or by the immigrants themselves by rejecting to adopt the culture of their host country (without being even forced to give up their own culture, just to adopt that of the host country) is avoided. You're talking about and looking at the ideal too much and dismissing the negative effects of a failed integration because it was never intented by the host country to integrate them because from the outset the immigrants were meant to leave after their work contracts expired. But as they were needed further the contracts were either renewed or extended.

Europe has had a mass influx of many for the standards of western european countries unskilled, unqualified or less qualified immigrants during the years from 2014 to 2016 with 2015 reaching the peak. This has tipped the Balance among the native Europeans and the once welcoming mood has turned to the contrary. It comes with that that far-right and right-wing parties across the EU are in the rise. But instead to answer the turn of the mood within the population, the left-wing parties still continue to be immigration friendly as if the amount of people that came to Europe in the past years wasn't enough yet. This stance is often felt as a provocation by the establishment parties and those who have to deal with the shortcomings and decline in benefits, who have work to sustain the welfare state by paying their taxes but have to watch immigrants getting more out of the system they have paid in than themselves, are no longer tolerating this development or non-stop immigration.

More Immigration means more pressure on the social system, more pressure on the housing problems, more pressure on the job market and more so for those who are unskilled and I include long residing immigrants to the whole of that group of people who always have to struggle to find and keep a job. The already tense problems cannot be solved that quickly like newcomers come in as it takes years to solve them and what sort of a future does an Immigrant in Europe have when he or she doesn't finds work, no housing but has to stay in camps because rents for flats have gone up to a scale where even people with average good wages have to struggle to afford them and make ends meet.  

Curious that the Immigrant defenders from the left-wing side always turn a blind eye on the already existing Problems which rather grow than get solved. But for that reason, the left-wings also bear a part of responsibility for the rise of the right-wing and far-right because they don't address the problems because to them it would be like being 'racist' or 'anti-immigrant', 'discriminatory' or whatever term fits to avoid the problems which are out there for real and which create social tensions. The worst what emerges from this ill-handling of the problem is that the natives get not just a feeling but the manifestating perception of being discriminated because of being a native while immigrants get preferred and can skip the waiting list for social housing. Such problems were already there long before BrexitRef in the UK and it nourished the establishing of the 'hostile environment' for immigrants. The native people felt and saw themselves as being treated unfair. Nothing has changed since and they make the former Labour govts of Blair and Brown responsible for that in the first place.  

Why is it so hard to face reality and deal with it instead to always as usual stick to the pro-Immigrant stance? The gain in votes for the far-right and right-wing parties will not cease until these immigration problems are addressed in the way the growing amount of people which are fed up with this are satisfied by experiencing improvements in a curb of immigration numbers.

You can rant about them and call them racists, it doesn't matter to them because they're beyond the point being offended by this by now. They vote for those politicians they trust to bring about a decline in numbers of immigrants. They don't care whether they're being labelled as racists, they just shake it off. That is the way it is today, name calling doesn't work anymore.

Please provide substantiation for these (largely baseless IMO) assertions and I will answer. You see there has been evidential findings of massive influxes of RW propaganda into Europe particularly from Russia. RW groups have been financially bolstered with help also coming in the form of operations by the GRU etc. For example would it suprise you to learn that almost 50% of new ISIS recruits speak Russian as their first language?
If these views are propaganda driven then its important to establish if they are validly held views or exactly how many people really hold them. It may be found that the problems largely dissappear with the propaganda. Most of the people bulling on about immigrants have never personally had a bad experience with any.

On the cultural aspect, cultures are very slow to evolve. Societies with a lot of trade or trading posts have historically been muliticultural. This has always been the case.

But please clarify the sources for your assertions above to assertain that they are not learned from propaganda or fake news emanating from Russian disinformation operations.

Midlife

People blaming immigration and immigration being responsible are two different things IMO.

Many of the countries taking a lurch towards the right are now hitting levels of income inequality not seen for quite a long time. Wages in the UK and US for the non-wealthy have been stagnating or decreasing for decades. That's not the fault of immigrants.

However, IMO, low-income people look around and search for someone to blame and very often miss the true culprits.

demfad

Midlife wrote: »

People blaming immigration and immigration being responsible are two different things IMO.

Many of the countries taking a lurch towards the right are now hitting levels of income inequality not seen for quite a long time. Wages in the UK and US for the non-wealthy have been stagnating or decreasing for decades. That's not the fault of immigrants.

However, IMO, low-income people look around and search for someone to blame and very often miss the true culprits.

And very often it's the true culprits who point them towards immigrants. Look at billionaires Trump, Putin millionaires Bannon, Farage, Banks, Wigmore etc.

4068ac1elhodqr

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.
.

Not very aware. The great unskilled (and their wives who in certain traditions won't work anyway) will be left on the scrapheap due to the rise of automation.

PWC reckons 44% of the unskilled will be replaced. For the (very) highly qualified and skilled this figure is much much lower.

There will always be 'spend' however it won't be as much, just the essentials that UBI will allow for.

Yesterday the UK's SHADOW CHANCELLOR (John McDonnell) says the Labour Party could trial replacing benefits with a universal basic income (UBI) if they win the next General Election in a controversial bid to fight poverty.

Another study by the Oxford Martin School estimates that over the next 20 years, 40 percent of UK jobs could be taken over by machines.

ArthurDayne

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.  
.

Not very aware. The great unskilled (and their wives who in certain traditions won't work anyway) will be left on the scrapheap due to the rise of automation.

PWC reckons 44% of the unskilled will be replaced. For the (very) highly qualified and skilled this figure is much much lower.

There will always be 'spend' however it won't be as much, just the essentials that UBI will allow for.

Yesterday the UK's SHADOW CHANCELLOR (John McDonnell) says the Labour Party could trial replacing benefits with a universal basic income (UBI) if they win the next General Election in a controversial bid to fight poverty.

Another study by the Oxford Martin School estimates that over the next 20 years, 40 percent of UK jobs could be taken over by machines.

I presume you are referring to this study? : https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf ;
Allow me to spell out what it says, as I can see that you have not read it and simply lifted the figures which seemed convenient: "Furthermore, other analysis we have done suggests that job losses from automation are likely to be broadly offset in the long run by new jobs created as a result of the larger and wealthier economy made possible by these new technologies."

Their point is, like the point I was making, is that automation threatens current jobs and as such poses a challenge for people and businesses as the market recalibrates.  But the market does recalibrate.  This is not blind optimism --- this is a recognition of what the challenge is and how the challenge needs to be dealt with.   
So -- instead of just Googling "automation will kill jobs" and extracting whatever snippets of information seem to confirm your world view, why don't you sit down and actually read the full reports?  Then come back and let's talk.

4068ac1elhodqr

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I presume you are referring to this study? : https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf 
Allow me to spell out what it says, as I can see that you have not read it and simply lifted the figures which seemed convenient: "Furthermore, other analysis we have done suggests that job losses from automation are likely to be broadly offset in the long run by new jobs created as a result of the larger and wealthier economy made possible by these new technologies."

So you're wholly reliant on the 'blind fallback' idea of 'new jobs' (due to automation sweeping up all the traditionally unskilled roles).

Tell me this, will the 'great unskilled' (and often illiterate and/or illegal migrants) be the ideal candidates for these 'new jobs', over say an already over-educated and fluent population?

Thomas_IV

demfad wrote: »

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I think that you're missing some aspects in your reply to Sand. Partly you're right, partly you're omitting the negatives that is also part of immigration.

If the way you see it and look at it would be 100% true, why are there generations already born in the countries their grandparents emigrated to and their children who either came later after one parent has settled in the country or were already Born afterwards in the host Country still more inward looking and strong bound to the Country of their parents? Why was it that in the many of the Western EU member states who had a constant influx of immigrants for work, settlements consisting of them either only or in majority have developed and created quaters with social problems because real integration never took place and wasn't intended to take place?

He certainly has his right-wing views, probably bordering on the far-right (depending on the angle from where one looks at it). Even in such regards, the facts are there and it is no wonder why far-right and right-wing people take these up to use it for their propaganda because the other parties never really addressed and worked on solving these problems.

You take the UK as a perfect positive example for the benefit of mass immigration (in regards over the decades since the end of WWII). Still, you omit to take into account that it was exactly the immigration topic that tipped the Balance in favour of Brexit. The 52% of Brits which voted for Leave are hardly all far-right people.

Immigration works both ways, for the good and the bad. For the good when integration takes place and separation either implemented by the natives in rejecting the immigrants or by the immigrants themselves by rejecting to adopt the culture of their host country (without being even forced to give up their own culture, just to adopt that of the host country) is avoided. You're talking about and looking at the ideal too much and dismissing the negative effects of a failed integration because it was never intented by the host country to integrate them because from the outset the immigrants were meant to leave after their work contracts expired. But as they were needed further the contracts were either renewed or extended.

Europe has had a mass influx of many for the standards of western european countries unskilled, unqualified or less qualified immigrants during the years from 2014 to 2016 with 2015 reaching the peak. This has tipped the Balance among the native Europeans and the once welcoming mood has turned to the contrary. It comes with that that far-right and right-wing parties across the EU are in the rise. But instead to answer the turn of the mood within the population, the left-wing parties still continue to be immigration friendly as if the amount of people that came to Europe in the past years wasn't enough yet. This stance is often felt as a provocation by the establishment parties and those who have to deal with the shortcomings and decline in benefits, who have work to sustain the welfare state by paying their taxes but have to watch immigrants getting more out of the system they have paid in than themselves, are no longer tolerating this development or non-stop immigration.

More Immigration means more pressure on the social system, more pressure on the housing problems, more pressure on the job market and more so for those who are unskilled and I include long residing immigrants to the whole of that group of people who always have to struggle to find and keep a job. The already tense problems cannot be solved that quickly like newcomers come in as it takes years to solve them and what sort of a future does an Immigrant in Europe have when he or she doesn't finds work, no housing but has to stay in camps because rents for flats have gone up to a scale where even people with average good wages have to struggle to afford them and make ends meet.  

Curious that the Immigrant defenders from the left-wing side always turn a blind eye on the already existing Problems which rather grow than get solved. But for that reason, the left-wings also bear a part of responsibility for the rise of the right-wing and far-right because they don't address the problems because to them it would be like being 'racist' or 'anti-immigrant', 'discriminatory' or whatever term fits to avoid the problems which are out there for real and which create social tensions. The worst what emerges from this ill-handling of the problem is that the natives get not just a feeling but the manifestating perception of being discriminated because of being a native while immigrants get preferred and can skip the waiting list for social housing. Such problems were already there long before BrexitRef in the UK and it nourished the establishing of the 'hostile environment' for immigrants. The native people felt and saw themselves as being treated unfair. Nothing has changed since and they make the former Labour govts of Blair and Brown responsible for that in the first place.  

Why is it so hard to face reality and deal with it instead to always as usual stick to the pro-Immigrant stance? The gain in votes for the far-right and right-wing parties will not cease until these immigration problems are addressed in the way the growing amount of people which are fed up with this are satisfied by experiencing improvements in a curb of immigration numbers.

You can rant about them and call them racists, it doesn't matter to them because they're beyond the point being offended by this by now. They vote for those politicians they trust to bring about a decline in numbers of immigrants. They don't care whether they're being labelled as racists, they just shake it off. That is the way it is today, name calling doesn't work anymore.

Please provide substantiation for these (largely baseless IMO) assertions and I will answer. You see there has been evidential findings of massive influxes of RW propaganda into Europe particularly from Russia. RW groups have been financially bolstered with help also coming in the form of operations by the GRU etc. For example would it suprise you to learn that almost 50% of new ISIS recruits speak Russian as their first language?
If these views are propaganda driven then its important to establish if they are validly held views or exactly how many people really hold them. It may be found that the problems largely dissappear with the propaganda. Most of the people bulling on about immigrants have never personally had a bad experience with any.

On the cultural aspect, cultures are very slow to evolve. Societies with a lot of trade or trading posts have historically been muliticultural. This has always been the case.

But please clarify the sources for your assertions above to assertain that they are not learned from propaganda or fake news emanating from Russian disinformation operations.

In regards of the alleged financial support of far-right and right-wing parties across the EU by the Russians, I know all you have written. I don't doubt it to be true, despite that it is very hard to find evidence for this. The fact alone that Putin has received the FN leader speaks for itself and is proof enough for me.

I don't know for how Long you have been observating the developments of Immigration in Europe and I don't know what experiences you have made with immigrants yourself in your life. However, observations via the media (the neutral or say non-tabloid ones) forms one Impression, the direct contact and interaction with immigrants forms another which correspond with each other by balancing the experiences.

It appears to me that you might not have read what I wrote that carefully, probably because it looks like anti-Immigrant to you. Maybe you always look at the matter from a more personal angle, related to the immigrants you know yourself and maybe count to your circles of friends. I look at the matter from my perspective which includes various angles. That means my own experiences with immigrants during my whole life, right from the start of my childhood as I grew up with them, starting at the kindergarden, to school and also later at work, even during my military service time. As long as politics doesn't comes into it or any other aspect that judges the person based on where he or she comes from, what cultural background the person has and most important, whether he or she speaks the language, all is no problem when being a child. The moment the differences become important, by random remarks from the adults or other same aged children who got it from somewhere else, the differences come to the fore and start to play its part. What was once no matter at all, cos as a child you act different to when becoming an adolescent and finally an adult, appears to be some new Thing which one doesn't understand because the importance of that difference was never felt at all. The more this manifestates and the more one grows a distance because of that and the fact that without exactly knowing it, prejudices told by others start to thrive. This makes it then a bit more difficult to either maintain a friendship that was growing or even to establish one.

Nationality or cultural Background of the others wasn't important to me, as I had no idea of that as a child at all. Later in my schooldays, when immigrants which were in my classes were the children of the so called 'Gastarbeiter', mainly from Turkey and from Yugoslavia, some other countries too, the mix of the class regarding nationality was on a scale that the others were always a minority. As it is in life, you get on well with some and less so with others. But growing up is - as you know yourself - not an easy way and some mistakes are on the way too. I didn't befriend myself with my foreign national class mates. In fact I have been rather a loner among the others, more preferring to follow my own interests and if the interests of the others didn't match with mine, I simple didn't take part (as far as I had to choice to make). That doesn't means that I had no interactions with them. Like it is with people, when you meet them alone, their behaviour is always different from when you meet them within the class of a group. I had some conversations with them, but on both sides, although my parents were rather open minded to other cultures, there was hardly an Invitation of any of them for a visit at home. I remember that I for myself didn't give an Invitation. In return I didn't receive any as well, quite normal as one has to start it, but this didn't go that far. We were on rather distant contacts which means that it rarely went beyond the schoolyard. That way I went to my school years. In one School term, two young boys came new into my class, right in the middle of the term. They have been brought to the country by their parents. The two didn't speak our language, not a single word. But because to attend School is compulsory no matter what, they had to come into my class. They couldn't follow what was going on, naturally when you don't speak the language. They had to rely on the translations given to them by their fellow country pals to just get a notion of what has been said, but it was clear right from the start that they won't make it to the next class as they couldn't take part in tests anyway. When looking back at this, I remember myself don't understanding how it was even possible to throw them into a School class with neither understanding nor speaking a word of the language. They must have felt very displaced and in some ways I pittied them. That was in the early 1980s. This changed later and newcomers were first taken in preparation classes to learn the language first (what I have witnesses was utterly senseless).
Concluding this time, I can say that probably apart from sports outside of School, the other nationals (to be precise the Turks) were rather keeping themselves to themselves and this was probably so because their parents wanted to have it that way.

In my first apprenticeship, there were no foreign nationals in my class. But at work there were. The nationalities of them weren't quite a problem to me, but as it is with humans, not every character suits oneself. The mentality of the individual plays the major part in social interaction. Shortly after completing my apprenticeship, I volunteered to do my national service at the military. Fifteen months service, first general training and then to the unit I was supposed to serve the main term of that service. Naturally, in the Military there are serving only people with the same citizenship. Every quater of the year, newcomers arrived at the unit. With those who came as Newcomers after myself there was one of a mixed background and brown skin colour (Father was an American) and another of Italian. I got on well with the dark skinned comerade, but not with the Italian because he was a stinker who rarely washed himself and slept in his bed with his uniform on, changed the clothes occasionally and was by his behaviour for that not very liked. The other lad, the dark skinned, was a funny one, but as racism is a Thing that lurks around the corner, the Sgt. Major had a 'special eye' on him and harassed him with special work to do. Disgusting Sgt. Major and he didn't like me as well as I despised him. In fact, I never had any reservations or dislike for dark skinned people, but I had my quarells with some of the Turks. Less so the Yugoslavs. That is because of the mentality of the Turks. So much from my experiences during that time.  

After returning to my Job from the national service, a couple of years later I took up a second apprenticeship for a different Job than that I had before. After finishing that, I became involved in my work to deal with Immigration matters. That continued for some years. This Job has given me a very different view on Immigration from a professional angle and from a different human one as well. It all has formed my opinions on immigrants and Immigration, that includes migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The good and the bad, like in every way of life. The fortunate and the less fortunate, the one who by their appearance present themselves as the successful ones and then you have the others from the bottom of the society, the troublemakers, the ones with home problems which overlapped to their School Terms, the parents who took them out of School to send them to Q'ran Schools in Turkey and afterwards make them return from them. Some of them drift down and get a record of offences, in worst cases ending up with a criminal record. Their life is ruined and that because they were pushed between two cultures, two school systems of which the first is very liberal and the other quite the opposite of it, very disciplined and restrictive. When you put yourself in the shoes of such a person, by which I do have to say what whatever they have experienced it doesn't justify their behaviour to make life a hell for the others in his class who are not responsible for the decisions his father made for him and which forced him into a system the person couldn't cope with. Such people like this one don't know where they belong to, where their home is, what perspective they have because they couldn't go and follow one straight path to get an education and a job to build a life on. You can pity them, I didn't pity him because I knew what he has done re the way he behaved. There is no more to say to it because what I can tell you is only possible in a General way to say because things like this, the sending of Turkish children to Q'ran Schools in Turkey was a thing done by many parents not just one alone.

I have given you some examples from my own life experiences, covering various parts of it. You might certainly understand that I cannot Forget all that and I never will. I might have adjusted my views on such matter from time to time, in regards of taking my experiences into account to adjust them. What I like to Show you by this is, that there is no such way of easy Integration, that Integration only works both ways, it takes the Immigrant and the host society to work on it to make it successful, but above all, it takes a society that is treating them like any other human being and not putting the ethnicity at the centre of the judgement of that person but his skills and character. Many western EU member states which have similar problems have failed in integration because they weren't prepared nor were they interested in integrating them in the first place. This has produced a couple of generations that didn't integrate, for various reasons. Those who did make the difference and so are their children, integrated like their parents. The other who always had no interest and in their view no need to integrate are the losers of that process. 

A society has, depending on the country, its limits to cope with the numbers of newcomers and get them through an Integration process, given that such is provided like today. When the numbers of newcomers are to high and to many of them come in such a short time like in 2015 at the peak of the crisis, the system and the society can't cope with it and more problems arise because the system can't take it and the newcomers become more frustrated by their disappointment they experience in contrast to what others have told them to anticipate when they set out to make their journey to Europe.

You already pointed out that it takes time to let this development of Integration work, but it takes even more than this, it takes also patience, trust, reliability, capability and a will to adapt to the new country and you can't close your eyes in front of the problems and just say that somehow and in some way it will all work out in time and by itself. In this post, I have only addressed the 'normal' cases, not mentioned the terrorists who came with them and hid among them.

There has to be a stop to this permanent influx of People because there is no room for more here in Europe. It's a pity for those who are lost and can't make it. Just look what happens to the boat People in Italy. They are exploited by corrupt employers, in some cases even the Mafia has her Hands in it. Is this the bright future and the humanitary Treatment they deserve like any other human and what they expect? Is it really worth for them to risk their lives crossing the Med to end up as a cheap labourer which borders on modern slavery? Is that humanitarian to leave them to such a faite because the NGO boats only pick them out of the water and bring them on land, what happens afterwards is of no concern to them. Those who exploit them know where to go and to find them. That is no prospect of a better life, but for some of them even that seems to be better than what they have back home, which is according to them, nothing.

Sorry for boring you but I find it important to shed a light at the other aspects which the 'do gooders' always seem to either downplay or ignore, but they should know better, in case they are not just the ones who talk but are serving those partly really wretched people who have to watch their dreams falling apart by the harsh reality that confronts them. Such like in this linked article, which just shows what a switch in government with a far-right party in power can do:

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/aug/03/warning-of-dangerous-acceleration-in-attacks-on-immigrants-in-italy

I think that criminal acts against immigrants like this might be just a start and that it'll get worse.

Thomas_IV

To demfad. If you like to respond to my post above, please take not that I won't be able to respond on my side before Monday.

ArthurDayne

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I presume you are referring to this study? : https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf ;
Allow me to spell out what it says, as I can see that you have not read it and simply lifted the figures which seemed convenient: "Furthermore, other analysis we have done suggests that job losses from automation are likely to be broadly offset in the long run by new jobs created as a result of the larger and wealthier economy made possible by these new technologies."

So you're wholly reliant on the 'blind fallback' idea of 'new jobs' (due to automation sweeping up all the traditionally unskilled roles).

Tell me this, will the 'great unskilled' (and often illiterate and/or illegal migrants) be the ideal candidates for these 'new jobs', over say an already over-educated and fluent population?

Blind fallback?! One second you're quoting PwC as gospel and the next you are talking about their opinion (which matches mine) being blind fallback?  This is the danger with quoting snippets from reports without actually reading them.  

As for your second point -- no matter how much the economy changes there will always be low skilled and high skilled workers.  The concept of 'skill' is a relative one which changes over time.  Therefore, as jobs which might now be considered medium-skill slowly become low-skill, they simultaneously become more accessible because the super-educated are clamouring for jobs which are now considered high skill thus better-paid.  Therefore it becomes less difficult for uneducated or less educated migrant workers to access roles (or their future equivalent of those roles) which nowadays they have more difficulty accessing.  So while the university graduates in 2100 fight it to join firms which develop ever more advanced algorithms for robotics, simpler technological worked will be dealt with by lower skilled / unskilled.   

The other point of course is that 'high-skilled' jobs of the future will still rely on the simple concept of supply and demand -- and making money.  If the world has plummeted to a point where only a small niche of ultra intelligent people are in decent jobs while everyone else has very little money  -- who are all these intelligent high-skilled workers and their robots going to sell their products to?  One way would be to drive prices up and target the small niche --- but there are only so many PlayStation 30's you can sell to people.  The other option is drive the prices down and target the masses -- but in the world of Briggs Full Sunblock and Sand -- we got rid of the masses and our money-holding population got smaller and older.  So, either the economy collapses or you find ways to make humans useful again . . . . orrrr of course you just p**s off to a cheaper place with a larger less affluent population and set up a cheaper less automated factory where you can manufacture more affordable goods -- while all the fools in empty Ireland try to figure out what to do with a warehouse full of virtual reality ski goggles.  It is, as I have said before, simple economics.  Business only works when you have human consumers -- which is why the market will ALWAYS recalibrate to make humans as useful as possible.

4068ac1elhodqr

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Blind fallback?! One second you're quoting PwC as gospel and the next you are talking about their opinion (which matches mine) being blind fallback?  This is the danger with quoting snippets from reports without actually reading them.  

As for your second point -- no matter how much the economy changes there will always be low skilled and high skilled workers.  The concept of 'skill' is a relative one which changes over time.  Therefore, as jobs which might now be considered medium-skill slowly become low-skill, they simultaneously become more accessible because the super-educated are clamouring for jobs which are now considered high skill thus better-paid.  Therefore it becomes less difficult for uneducated or less educated migrant workers to access roles (or their future equivalent of those roles) which nowadays they have more difficulty accessing.  So while the university graduates in 2100 fight it to join firms which develop ever more advanced algorithms for robotics, simpler technological worked will be dealt with by lower skilled / unskilled.   

The other point of course is that 'high-skilled' jobs of the future will still rely on the simple concept of supply and demand -- and making money.  If the world has plummeted to a point where only a small niche of ultra intelligent people are in decent jobs while everyone else has very little money  -- who are all these intelligent high-skilled workers and their robots going to sell their products to?  One way would be to drive prices up and target the small niche --- but there are only so many PlayStation 30's you can sell to people.  The other option is drive the prices down and target the masses -- but in the world of Accumulator and Sand -- we got rid of the masses and our money-holding population got smaller and older.  So, either the economy collapses or you find ways to make humans useful again . . . . orrrr of course you just p**s off to a cheaper place with a larger less affluent population and set up a cheaper less automated factory where you can manufacture more affordable goods -- while all the fools in empty Ireland try to figure out what to do with a warehouse full of virtual reality ski goggles.  It is, as I have said before, simple economics.  Business only works when you have human consumers -- which is why the market will ALWAYS recalibrate to make humans as useful as possible.

You're very selective in your reading. It says it's 'harder to gauge new job creation' than it is to predict the (assured) loss of current roles.
The next page also continues to show the typical low-skilled sectors most at risk. Previous to this this, another big chart showing those without high levels of education are most at risk.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf

3.5. Our other research23 suggests that the net long term effect on employment in advanced economies like the US and the EU may be broadly neutral, although it is harder to quantify new job creation than it is to estimate the proportion of existing jobs at risk of automation (precisely because those jobs exist now and we therefore know a lot about their characteristics). We can, however, gain some more insight into potential areas of job losses and gains by considering how automatability varies by industry sector, which is the subject of the next section of this report.

It's a simple proposal, if manual, routine, low-skilled tasks are most at risk, how are the great unskilled going to cope... Your 'quantifying' new (unskilled) roles will appear for them out of a magical top hat.

On the plus side the bunch of lads (refugees/illegal migrants) that jumped out of a van coming from one the ports to middle Ireland recently, created employment (well and significant costs also) for the Garda helicopter that was out trying to locate them for a few hours.

ArthurDayne

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

You're very selective in your reading. It says it's 'harder to gauge new job creation' than it is to predict the (assured) loss of current roles.
The next page also continues to show the typical low-skilled sectors most at risk. Previous to this this, another big chart showing those without high levels of education are most at risk.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf

3.5. Our other research23 suggests that the net long term effect on employment in advanced economies like the US and the EU may be broadly neutral, although it is harder to quantify new job creation than it is to estimate the proportion of existing jobs at risk of automation (precisely because those jobs exist now and we therefore know a lot about their characteristics). We can, however, gain some more insight into potential areas of job losses and gains by considering how automatability varies by industry sector, which is the subject of the next section of this report.

It's a simple proposal, if manual, routine, low-skilled tasks are most at risk, how are the great unskilled going to cope... Your 'quantifying' new (unskilled) roles will appear for them out of a magical top hat.

On the plus side the bunch of lads (refugees/illegal migrants) that jumped out of a van coming from one the ports to middle Ireland recently, created employment (well and significant costs also) for the Garda helicopter that was out trying to locate them for a few hours.

It's admirable that you did actually read it ....but somewhat of a pity that the extract you have quoted does not go against what I said at all. Did I ever say the low skilled sectors weren't most at risk ? Is it not always that those with less education will struggle versus those who have high education? These are well-established economic truths -- not some great revelation you have just discovered. In any case, the reason future job creation is harder to quantify is that you can't determine with quantifiable certainty how many jobs will be created, while it is much easier to quantify how many jobs are available currently. I do not imagine that the guys in PwC who put that report together decided to contradict themselves openly. Take for example the first computers -- no economist or business analyst could ever have just predicted to you that companies like Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Dell etc would come along and create vast employment opportunities. The opportunities computers would provide were simply not quantifiable back then either. That doesn't change the trend of the human-centric market -- and the passage of time has proven that. So again -- the quote you have chose from the report is absolutely correct, but I find it unfortunate that you do not seem to realise that it's not really backing up your view.

I gave you a fairly in-depth overview of how employment recalibrates to suit the market and have explained to you exactly how those with lower skills eventually gravitate towards providing value in other ways. I have the trends of the Industrial and Digital Revolutions on my side --- that when the market was subject to extreme change by automation and machinery, it adapted eventually. There are more people working today than ever before despite the almost incessantly increasing automation of processes for a century. You have one-liners about top hats, little references to the 'great unskilled' and to be honest I have no idea what your last paragraph was all about . . . .

4068ac1elhodqr

ArthurDayne wrote: »

It's admirable that you did actually read it ....but somewhat of a pity that the extract you have quoted does not go against what I said at all. Did I ever say the low skilled sectors weren't most at risk ? Is it not always that those with less education will struggle versus those who have high education? These are well-established economic truths -- not some great revelation you have just discovered. In any case, the reason future job creation is harder to quantify is that you can't determine with quantifiable certainty how many jobs will be created, while it is much easier to quantify how many jobs are available currently. I do not imagine that the guys in PwC who put that report together decided to contradict themselves openly. Take for example the first computers -- no economist or business analyst could ever have just predicted to you that companies like Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Dell etc would come along and create vast employment opportunities. So again -- the quote you have chose from the report is absolutely correct, but I find it unfortunate that you do not seem to realise that it's not really backing up your view.

I gave you a fairly in-depth overview of how employment recalibrates to suit the market and have explained to you exactly how those with lower skills eventually gravitate towards providing value in other ways. I have the trends of the Industrial and Digital Revolutions on my side --- that when the market was subject to extreme change by automation and machinery, it adapted eventually. There are more people working today than ever before despite the almost incessantly increasing automation of processes for a century. You have one-liners about top hats, little references to the 'great unskilled' and to be honest I have no idea what your last paragraph was all about . . . .

You forgot to list Amazon on your short list, the richest chap in the world does not employ many folks in remote warehouses anymore, as it's 'automated' now. In the UK alone he's 'halved his tax bill' down to around just £45m (from £2bn worth of sales). Yes the rich get richer, but the unskilled poor will get poorer.

You can't keep quoting past patterns or revolutions and should know better to rely on that crutch. You can indeed dig around and cite the smaller passages from the PWC report all you want, but they're certainly not the singular prophet of doom for the next generation of the unskilled.

Currently nearly every government in the world is pondering over the idea of UBI trials, not because they want to, but may well have to address the matter of supporting the low/un-skilled masses, in future years, all within the context of a 'zero-hours contract gig world'.

This of course ties in directly with mass migration.

A point-based system is the best solution for the countries of Europe, taxiing 'people of unknown origin' across the Med, isn't of any great benefit to anyone including themselves.

Phoebas

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

You forgot to list Amazon on your short list, the richest chap in the world does not employ many folks in remote warehouses anymore, as it's 'automated' now.

Amazon employ over half a million worldwide (around the number for Microsoft, Apple, Intel and Dell combined) including 2500 in Ireland (and are adding 1000 more).
They are a huge employer

Midlife

The biggest story of our time with relation to job automation is the income gap, not Islamic migration.

No-one truly has a clue what automation will do to the labour market bar change the type of work that people do. It's just another 'monster under the bed story' for xenophobics to hide behind IMO.

4068ac1elhodqr

Phoebas wrote: »

Amazon employ over half a million worldwide (around the number for Microsoft, Apple, Intel and Dell combined) including 2500 in Ireland (and are adding 1000 more).
They are a huge employer

And how many work in the retail sector worldwide?

Not saying it's a bad thing as such, yes it's simply 'technological progress and logistical process efficiency'.

But it does illustrate the coming redundancy for the great un/semi/low-skilled. Retail is generally considered a low-skill industry.

Not necessarily Muslim as such, but they are a focus currently, due to high levels of illegal migration patterns to Europe, combined with integration issues, skill-level concerns, over-representation in prisons, and other crime-poverty loops.

The recent UK sample, for Amazon illustrates this perfectly. The online retailer paid £4.6million last year – or just over 6% on profits of £72million – despite the firm’s UK sales soaring by a quarter to £8.8billion in 2017. The CEO is now worth £113billion.

Meanwhile the high street is being decimated. Job losses, closures and profit warnings are all in place for these folks there:

Mothercare (-50 stores & -800 jobs), House of Fraser (-6,000j for 2019), Debenhams, Tesco Direct, Marks & Spencer, Carphone Warehouse (100 stores), NewLook (69 stores & -980j), Maplin (200 stores & -2,500j), Poundworld (5,300j at risk), Carpetright (92 stores), Claire's Accessories (378 stores), ToysRUs (all stores), Prezzo (-1000j), Jamie's Italian (-450j), Homebase (12,000 at risk), ByronBurger (-20 stores), Thomas Cook (-50 stores).

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.

When I look at your incorrect, uninformed posting and sigh, and focus on the core topic I am just prioritising. Do not take it as endorsement.

Sand, I have to say . . . I can fully appreciate why you won't answer my question.

Yes, because its whataboutery. My position is not that Europeans quality of life is worse now than it was in some golden age in the past. My position is that Europeans quality of life right now is worsened by the policy mass migration.

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.

You know, I'm economically quite liberal and even I find this incredibly naive. If the business world was as benevolent and far sighted as you think, trade unions must have been pushing against an open door when struggling for better wages and improved conditions. But they weren't. The new era of automation means capital is going to achieve a decisive advantage over labour. And society is going to have to determine how to account for low-mid skilled workers who cannot secure better than subsistence level wages.

Then educate me. Or is this another case of all concern and no answers?

I'm glad you're acknowledging you don't know what you're talking about. My position is that it is a problem, and the solution is not to import the rest of the world to have children instead. I don't claim to have the answers to what is clearly a complicated, difficult problem. So I think it ought to be investigated. That's my position. Your position is we should shrug and ignore it.

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 asked you about your vision for the future of Europe. All you can offer is making Europe the best place in the world to run a corporation.

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.

I haven't deflected. I told you that BAME kids in the UK are twice as likely to be unemployed as indigenous British kids. Twice as likely to fail in getting a job. Twice as likely to be a drain on UK workers, rather than a contributory factor. Maybe BAME kids are just as capable, but they're not demonstrating it.

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.

Why doesn't matter. You asked if they were less capable. The statistics demonstrate they are less capable of being employed. You don't dispute that.

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.

I find this very telling. The Politics discussion forum enforces rules, to get a better level of discussion on political topics than is found in say, After Hours or the Politics Cafe. The idea is, I presume, that people try to exchange evidence supporting their views, the evidence is discussed and the discussion moves on.

So, I've already provided you with the study showing that non-EEA migration is a net loss to the UK economy. You know this, because you reacted to it and commented on it. So we have the evidence that non-EEA migration is a cost, not a benefit. We should be able to agree on this, objectively, and move the discussion on. Or you provide contrary evidence I can review and perhaps adjust my position to account for. But instead, here you are pretending you never even heard of the study. Still pretending that to say non-EEA migration is a cost is still hugely controversial, when instead it is what the evidence tells us.

I don't think you're debating in good faith. I think you're heavily ideologically committed to mass migration. You're obviously posting strong opinions, while acknowledging you have no real knowledge of the evidence. You're asking me for links, and have none of your own. I think whatever evidence I show you, you will ignore it and just double down on your irrational views, like Weisses before you.

There is psychological studies around why people double down on incorrect views even when presented with evidence contrary to them. Apparently its to do with our primal self defence instinct kicking in. An attack on our views is confused as an attack on our lives, triggering the same rage response. So, its not your fault really. Its that irrational part of your brain kicking in, perceiving a threat and reacting primitively.

Or having read the research I provided earlier, do you accept that non-EEA migration is a net loss to the UK? If you do, lets move on. If you dont, what exactly is the point of me providing you with further evidence? You'll just ignore it. And it will make you more angry. Nobody wins.

Sand

demfad wrote: »

It is quite telling that you imply far-right nationalism is a majority position in Europe. It's not. It's a small minority pushed by far right wing -millionaires/billionaires and useful idiots to push the agenda.

What I'm implying is that Europe's peoples wish to retain control of their borders and their homelands. If you want to call that 'far-right nationalism' to highlight your own extremist views, fair enough. But I've been very clear: Europe's voters have not veered into the far right. Europe's mainstream parties have veered into the ideological wilderness of open borders and multiculturalism which people do not want. The 'far right nationalist' parties that have turned to are largely cranks, but they do prioritise the interests of Europeans. Which is something the 'mainsteam parties' have failed to do for decades.

Taking the UK as an example migration positive to a countries economy. It also adds diversity to cultures which are constantly evolving.

The evidence says non-EEA migration is not a positive to the UK economy. The evidence from the US also says the most diverse communities are low trust communities, with less civic trust and engagement than homogeneous communities.

Based on your world view taking Europeans out of Europe and replacing them with migrant Europeans would benefit Europe greatly. This was certainly the case in the 1940s when the removal of the scum of Europe who tried to annihilate outsiders resulted in the arguably greatest period of European history.

People who stoke irrational fear are a lot less useful than those they target.

I hope people will remember this when they listen to your hateful monologues.

And breathe. Feel better?

I offered you evidence that challenged your opinions. Instead of rationally reviewing the evidence and adjusting your view, you instead vomit up a frankly embarrassing spew of irrational hate up to and including genocide. An impressive tantrum. As I said above, this is your primal subconscious protecting you from a threat. It's okay, its not your fault. I forgive you.

ancapailldorcha

I wonder if the UCL link Sand provided explains why non-EEA migrants are a net drain on the UK economy. When I have a chance, I'll try to give it a proper read. If it's due to tight working restrictions then comparing EEA migrants with non-EEA migrants becomes a false comparison.

I was in Cuba recently and was quite surprised by how safe the place is. A woman I met there suggested that, despite being horrendously poor (Children running around in their underwear were not uncommon sights) it was still quite a cohesive society because there was very little socio-economic disparity. I don't know if I need to clarify that I do not recommend Cuba as a country for Western nations to aspire to, simply that it's an interesting observation.

I do not think that it is inherently racist to express concern over things like the numerous grooming gang scandals, ghettoes and the like or the particularly Islamic nature of such things. The problem is that much of modern political discussion has become highly polarised. The modern left have decided to go off the reservation entirely with a heavy focus on identity politics while deriding, in very broad strokes a lot of people as racist. The right seems to have realised that blaming immigrants is a facile way to explain away modern economic woes. The result is a paucity of serious and reasoned discussion on the topic.

I'm reading rapper Darren McGarvey, aka Loki's Poverty Safari at the moment. McGarvey hails from the poor Pollok region of Glasgow and so is well informed about conditions in such communities unlike most people who tend to speak on the subject. He is a socialist and an activist. However, much of Poverty Safari involves deriding the modern left for ceding the idea of self-improvement and taking matters into your own hands to the right in favor of identity politics and stirring up cultural barriers where none existed previously. Subjects like immigraition and poverty are inherently complex so it sets a dangerous precedent when either party claims to have a magical solution to either.

Unfortunately, that's what has happened. The left think that regressing to the sixties is the answer while the right have adopted an altered version of the left-wing identity politics playbook. It's far easier for a politician to throw out soundbytes about multiculturalism than suggest to people that maybe they should consider learning to code or going back to school. I listened to an excellent podcast recently where Nick Clegg interviewed former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden recounted meeting several successful entrepreneurs. He asked them what they needed from future workers. The answer as the same from all of them. They need better educated workforces but are unwilling to pay for them themselves.

I still hold to the idea that much of what is driving modern resentment politics is economical in nature. Not exclusively but primarily. Brexit and Trump do not happen in societies where all is well. Neoliberal capitalism has caused wealth to become concentrated in ever fewer hands. This is particularly apparent in the media which has now become little more than mouthpieces for their owners. Rather than challenging and stimulating their readers, they've opted to attempt sell nationalist or socialist ideologies to them instead. I mentioned Cuba above. A wealthy Cuban maybe owns his own property and perhaps a few luxuries. A poor Cuban will be provided for by the state. In the West, the working classes can avail themselves of so many wonderful things. However, people think that the elites are making off like bandits while they suffer and pay the real cost. For the left, it's media barons, Conservatives and oligarchs. For the right, it's liberals (particularly the college-educated), the unemployed and trade unions.

The danger is that we see a Pendulum effect whereby people switch one extreme for another when the initial ideology fails which is all but guaranteed when ideological purity is afforded precedence over pragmatism. I don't know how things will pan out but some sort of change is desperately needed.

Sand

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Regarding Sweden, it is a matter it shares with many other EU member states and that is also partly because both parents have to work to finance the living of themselves and their children. Further it is housing. I don't know much about that regarding the conditions in Sweden, whether people live in houses or in flats, I presume that it depends on whether they live in towns / cities or in rural areas. The area also has its prices for housing and in towns and cities where people with middle or low income live in flats, the flats are not that laid out for families with more than one to two children. Matters like the aforesaid and others which come into that too are the basis for Family planning and for decisions to whether they like to have children and then how many.

I agree that's there is a number of issues behind actual fertility falling below planned fertility. Some are broadly economic: less job security, both parents having to work to subsist, stagnant wages increasingly divorced from the wider economy. Some are less well defined: housing is a limitation on families. Parents putting off children until their mid to late 30s run into some hard biological realities. Male fertility in particular is plunging in Europe.

There is a lot of facets to the problem, but I think in general the lives of Europeans would be better improved by attempting to investigate and address those issues. As opposed to ignoring them and importing non-Europeans to have the children instead.

As for the Remainers in the UK. I differ from your view as I have read many of their pamphlets and leaflets of the BrexitRef campaign and what they did was to present the facts and the conclusions based on them to tell the people what will happen if the UK Exits the EU and what advantages they still have will be lost. See, the Brexiteers have no Vision of a post-Brexit UK either which would mirror a future that would meet the realistic estimations. They played on emotions and that was the way they succeeded because the major emtional card was the immigration card.

I think we agree though. My view is that the facts are not enough. See, I have given facts to Weisses, ArthurDayne and Demfad. How have they reacted? With rage.

What wins people over is the appeal to emotion, a positive argument. That is why Brexit won. They presented an argument of the UK as a strong, independent nation with a proud past and a glorious future. It was fact free, but it was a positive argument. Yes we can.

All the Remainers had were negative arguments. No we cant. They should have presented a positive argument for the UK in Europe, as a European nation. They didn't. It was all negative, transactional, evidence based. People don't believe in evidence. Weisess, ArthurDayne and Demfad demonstrate this.

For me, Remain lost the referendum because they appealed on the rationality and reasonability of the UK voters but as we know, 52% of them didn't care about the facts, they wanted to have immigration to the UK stopped. 

Again, we agree. I think the mainstream neoliberals have underestimated just how unpopular mass migration is. They felt, and still feel, that it can be rammed down the throats of the European voters. Brexit demonstrated how greatly European voters prioritise opposition to mass migration over all other concerns.

You would think this would lead to some re-evaluation on the part of the mainstream. And to be fair, it has. Merkel of 2018 is not the Merkel of 2015. But Brexit and Trump are still seen as some sort of 'blip' rather than a clear message from the relevant electorates. It just demonstrates how greatly the mainstream prioritises mass migration over all other concerns.

Das Reich

If muslims became the majority in Ireland I would be glad to see them repeal this homosexual marriage and abortion, things that are defended by the same people who defend the open borders.

fash

Das Reich wrote: »

If muslims became the majority in Ireland I would be glad to see them repeal this ... abortion, things that are defended by the same people who defend the open borders.

Actually in Sunni Islam ( and I assume on other forms), they believe that the foetus is born without a soul and only gets one at 4 months. So you are free to abort up to that point.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder if the UCL link Sand provided explains why non-EEA migrants are a net drain on the UK economy. When I have a chance, I'll try to give it a proper read. If it's due to tight working restrictions then comparing EEA migrants with non-EEA migrants becomes a false comparison.

I don't believe it is given the UK's liberalism, but even if it was it wouldn't change the conclusion. If tight working restrictions mean X is a loss, then X is still a loss all other things being equal.

Biden recounted meeting several successful entrepreneurs. He asked them what they needed from future workers. The answer as the same from all of them. They need better educated workforces but are unwilling to pay for them themselves.

The issue is that American (and European) workforces are better educated than they were even a few decades ago. But wages still stagnate. In the US, its increasingly a dubious bet for young Americans to take on huge college debts for a degree that is of less and less value. US corporations just import cheap Indians to do their IT for half the price using the infamous H1B visa. The minimum wage on that has not been adjusted for decades, so it undercuts Americans who did learn to code.

I still hold to the idea that much of what is driving modern resentment politics is economical in nature. Not exclusively but primarily. Brexit and Trump do not happen in societies where all is well. Neoliberal capitalism has caused wealth to become concentrated in ever fewer hands.

Agreed. And another factor is those fewer hands increasingly deny any collective responsibility to or for the less well off in their societies. Even the left has embraced this winner take all mentality. Its a very commonly expressed view that if the poor in European societies cannot out-compete the migrants from the rest of the world, then they deserve to be poor. So these societies are far less cohesive than the society you observed in Cuba.

The danger is that we see a Pendulum effect whereby people switch one extreme for another when the initial ideology fails which is all but guaranteed when ideological purity is afforded precedence over pragmatism. I don't know how things will pan out but some sort of change is desperately needed.

Again, agreed. No matter how poor and marginalised people are, they retain their votes. And as Brexit has demonstrated, they will use them to kick over the apple cart given the opportunity. The real danger (in the case of the UK at least) is when Brexit fails to solve their problems. It ought to be acknowledged that a recent YouGov poll showed that 25% of respondents would vote for an explicitly anti-muslim, anti-immigration party. And that is with the 'shy tory' effect. New Labour may have sought to rub the Tory's noses in diversity by opening up the borders in the late 1990s. But they may get something else entirely as a result.

Kermit.de.frog

Midlife wrote: »

not Islamic migration.

The Swedes would disagree with you there!

People across Europe have noted what has happened to Malmo, for example, and many people are distressed at what has happened to that city.

There is serious trouble coming and I don't see us going another 10 years in the EU without a major shock to the order of things now because people are concerned. They see their cities changing, sometimes beyond recognition, but more importantly they don't see the liberal lie, the self deceit happening that these people are all just going to eventually conform to western ideals.

It has not happened, it is not happening and on evidence so far it is not going to happen.

This is going to lead to serious trouble one way or another. Brexit is just the start.

4068ac1elhodqr

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Swedes would disagree with you there!

People across Europe have noted what has happened to Malmo, for example, and many people are distressed at what has happened to that city.

There is serious trouble coming and I don't see us going another 10 years in the EU without a major shock to the order of things now because people are concerned. They see their cities changing, sometimes beyond recognition, but more importantly they don't see the liberal lie, the self deceit happening that these people are all just going to eventually conform to western ideals.

It has not happened, it is not happening and on evidence so far it is not going to happen.

This is going to lead to serious trouble one way or another. Brexit is just the start.

Agree with this, it's mass uncontrolled (and often illegal) migration as a whole. Some cultures are much less adaptive than others, which further heightens the issue.

Brexit was caused primarily due to uncontrolled migration. Interestingly also the odds of Brexit were averaging up high at 3.6 for most of Q1/2 of 2016.

Today, the odds for Italy to leave next are 2.0 (evens) down from 3+ last year. Fully expect Italy to leave before 2025. Denmark will follow Italy, and leave soon after them in both cases (mass/illegal) migration will be a primary push factor.

It's important to re-iterate migration as a concept is fantastic, that is the 'skilled' and legal type of migration. For example, Australia had Hairdressers on their 'critical' shortage list for many years (images of mullets spring to mind).

Now it doesn't matter where you're from, if you're a great Hairdresser and satisfy all their other point requirements (health, wealth, language, qualification, regions, age, police checks etc) there's no reason why you shouldn't go there to help them, if you think you'll settle in.

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

When I look at your incorrect, uninformed posting and sigh, and focus on the core topic I am just prioritising. Do not take it as endorsement.



Yes, because its whataboutery. My position is not that Europeans quality of life is worse now than it was in some golden age in the past. My position is that Europeans quality of life right now is worsened by the policy mass migration.



You know, I'm economically quite liberal and even I find this incredibly naive. If the business world was as benevolent and far sighted as you think, trade unions must have been pushing against an open door when struggling for better wages and improved conditions. But they weren't. The new era of automation means capital is going to achieve a decisive advantage over labour. And society is going to have to determine how to account for low-mid skilled workers who cannot secure better than subsistence level wages.



I'm glad you're acknowledging you don't know what you're talking about. My position is that it is a problem, and the solution is not to import the rest of the world to have children instead. I don't claim to have the answers to what is clearly a complicated, difficult problem. So I think it ought to be investigated. That's my position. Your position is we should shrug and ignore it.



I asked you about your vision for the future of Europe. All you can offer is making Europe the best place in the world to run a corporation.



I haven't deflected. I told you that BAME kids in the UK are twice as likely to be unemployed as indigenous British kids. Twice as likely to fail in getting a job. Twice as likely to be a drain on UK workers, rather than a contributory factor. Maybe BAME kids are just as capable, but they're not demonstrating it.



Why doesn't matter. You asked if they were less capable. The statistics demonstrate they are less capable of being employed. You don't dispute that.



I find this very telling. The Politics discussion forum enforces rules, to get a better level of discussion on political topics than is found in say, After Hours or the Politics Cafe. The idea is, I presume, that people try to exchange evidence supporting their views, the evidence is discussed and the discussion moves on.

So, I've already provided you with the study showing that non-EEA migration is a net loss to the UK economy. You know this, because you reacted to it and commented on it. So we have the evidence that non-EEA migration is a cost, not a benefit. We should be able to agree on this, objectively, and move the discussion on. Or you provide contrary evidence I can review and perhaps adjust my position to account for. But instead, here you are pretending you never even heard of the study. Still pretending that to say non-EEA migration is a cost is still hugely controversial, when instead it is what the evidence tells us.

I don't think you're debating in good faith. I think you're heavily ideologically committed to mass migration. You're obviously posting strong opinions, while acknowledging you have no real knowledge of the evidence. You're asking me for links, and have none of your own. I think whatever evidence I show you, you will ignore it and just double down on your irrational views, like Weisses before you.

There is psychological studies around why people double down on incorrect views even when presented with evidence contrary to them. Apparently its to do with our primal self defence instinct kicking in. An attack on our views is confused as an attack on our lives, triggering the same rage response. So, its not your fault really. Its that irrational part of your brain kicking in, perceiving a threat and reacting primitively.

Or having read the research I provided earlier, do you accept that non-EEA migration is a net loss to the UK? If you do, lets move on. If you dont, what exactly is the point of me providing you with further evidence? You'll just ignore it. And it will make you more angry. Nobody wins.

Sand -- I will respond to this in the morning but I must insist that you retract the statement that I am not debating in good faith.

Midlife

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Swedes would disagree with you there!

People across Europe have noted what has happened to Malmo, for example, and many people are distressed at what has happened to that city.

There is serious trouble coming and I don't see us going another 10 years in the EU without a major shock to the order of things now because people are concerned. They see their cities changing, sometimes beyond recognition, but more importantly they don't see the liberal lie, the self deceit happening that these people are all just going to eventually conform to western ideals.

It has not happened, it is not happening and on evidence so far it is not going to happen.

This is going to lead to serious trouble one way or another. Brexit is just the start.

The Malmo argument? That's the level that Trump is at.

What about all the successful Islamic migration to countries, Sweden included?

Is it possible that the issue is one of unsustainable numbers and not religion.

Midlife

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Agree with this, it's mass uncontrolled (and often illegal) migration as a whole. Some cultures are much less adaptive than others, which further heightens the issue.

Brexit was caused primarily due to uncontrolled migration. Interestingly also the odds of Brexit were averaging up high at 3.6 for most of Q1/2 of 2016.

Today, the odds for Italy to leave next are 2.0 (evens) down from 3+ last year. Fully expect Italy to leave before 2025. Denmark will follow Italy, and leave soon after them in both cases (mass/illegal) migration will be a primary push factor.

It's important to re-iterate migration as a concept is fantastic, that is the 'skilled' and legal type of migration. For example, Australia had Hairdressers on their 'critical' shortage list for many years (images of mullets spring to mind).

Now it doesn't matter where you're from, if you're a great Hairdresser and satisfy all their other point requirements (health, wealth, language, qualification, regions, age, police checks etc) there's no reason why you shouldn't go there to help them, if you think you'll settle in.

I was of the opinion that a big reason for rejection of the EU was free movement of Europeans into the UK. Lots of rejection of Poles and other Eastern Europeans.

Not exactly connected to Islam. UKIP was not established as an anti-Islamic party.