Migration Megathread

ancapailldorcha

Midlife wrote: »

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.

Farage was always careful to maintain a carefully worded stance on immigration. Since Brexit, the party has declined. However, it is now enjoying something of a resurgance and is very much marketing itself as an anti-Islamic party.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

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.

I'm not denying your claim. I am merely stating that the comparison is unfair.

Sand wrote: »

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.

H1B visas tie you to a single job and require navigating a bureaucratic process to switch jobs or at least they did when I was looking into it.

Sand wrote: »

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 other thing is that many modern Europeans simply do not want to do certain jobs. In the UK, fruit has been rotting in some fields because workers are now rightly eschewing the UK.

I'm old enough to remember when the red tops had the poor and the working classes in their sights. Then, the Eastern Europeans acceded to the EU and it became easier to sell Xenophobia to the working classes than it was to sell classism to the middle classes. Thatcherism was a complete disaster for working class people outside the Southeast and New Labour and Blairism were little better.

Sand wrote: »

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.

Part of the fuel behind modern grievance politics is the fact that many people do not feel that they own a stake in society and therefore see no problem gambling with it. Traditionally, this stake would have been property ownership. However, in the UK the Conservatives sold off the social housing stock and built none to replace it resulting in a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to private landlords. For me, owning my own place here is practically pure fantasy and I say that as someone with a Masters.

In the UK, FPTP prevents anyone who doesn't fall within the Labour/Conservative blanket to basically have no expression in Westminster from Green socialists to UKIP nationalists. UKIP got, what 4.4 million votes in 2015 and one MP, Douglas Carswell for Clacton-on-Sea who retired from being an MP after the referendum. So while we now see UKIP now enjoying a resurgance as an anti-Islam party, FPTP will prevent it from voicing its voters concerns, legitimate or not in Parliament.

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

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.

Nope, 72.2% of the entire UK population (33,614,074) voted with the majority opting for an Exit, primarily due to concerns with 'uncontrolled' migration. Nothing to do with a 'dislike of foreigners', simply self-determination, and protection of borders and that's all. And it's very lazy to assume this judgement upon a democratic majority.

(As is the case here), the vast majority of the 33million would have very, very favourable opinions about the hard-working and friendly Polish in particular. So too the vast majority of all other Europeans.

Maybe slightly less about the more recent EU2, but none the less still very positive overall.

The key word is 'uncontrolled' and 'illegal' types of migration. (Usually from Asia or North Africa, and often of Islamic traditions).

The UK themselves admitted they didn't know exactly how many 'illegals' there was in the UK only that it was significant, some* suggest 1,000,000. *David Wood, a former director-general of immigration enforcement.

27,109 have been reportedly arrested by the 28 police forces (FOI'Requst), and an understaffed Border Force, just within the last 4yrs. The remainder of the 43 forces didn't reply to the request for figures, so can assume it's much higher overall. Even then, it's very difficult to 'remove someone once they're in.

The UK's Home Office said illegal immigration: “impacts the whole of society, putting pressure on taxpayer-funded public services, leaving vulnerable people at the mercy of exploitative employers or landlords and, at worst, fuelling the abhorrent crimes of modern slavery and human trafficking”

The daily scenes, during 2016 of illegals (non-europeans obviously) jumping on lorries at Calais was likely the final straw for the UK leaving the EU.

The daily images of illegal migrants being dropped at Italy was the final straw for them to democratically elect parties that rejected further participation. Italy is now the next favourite to leave the EU.

Das Reich

Midlife wrote: »

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

Could you be more specific, what country you talking about? France? Belgium? England? Never read anything like "successful islamic imigration" to these countries or any other country in the world. In EVERY country that they are a minority the country have problems like in China, Russia, Myanmar, Philippines, Nigeria, former Yugoslavia, basically every country.

Midlife

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Nope, 72.2% of the entire UK population (33,614,074) voted with the majority opting for an Exit, primarily due to concerns with 'uncontrolled' migration. Nothing to do with a 'dislike of foreigners', simply self-determination, and protection of borders and that's all. And it's very lazy to assume this judgement upon a democratic majority.

(As is the case here), the vast majority of the 33million would have very, very favourable opinions about the hard-working and friendly Polish in particular. So too the vast majority of all other Europeans.

Maybe slightly less about the more recent EU2, but none the less still very positive overall.

The key word is 'uncontrolled' and 'illegal' types of migration. (Usually from Asia or North Africa, and often of Islamic traditions).

The UK themselves admitted they didn't know exactly how many 'illegals' there was in the UK only that it was significant, some* suggest 1,000,000. *David Wood, a former director-general of immigration enforcement.

27,109 have been reportedly arrested by the 28 police forces (FOI'Requst), and an understaffed Border Force, just within the last 4yrs. The remainder of the 43 forces didn't reply to the request for figures, so can assume it's much higher overall. Even then, it's very difficult to 'remove someone once they're in.

The UK's Home Office said illegal immigration: “impacts the whole of society, putting pressure on taxpayer-funded public services, leaving vulnerable people at the mercy of exploitative employers or landlords and, at worst, fuelling the abhorrent crimes of modern slavery and human trafficking”

The daily scenes, during 2016 of illegals (non-europeans obviously) jumping on lorries at Calais was likely the final straw for the UK leaving the EU.

The daily images of illegal migrants being dropped at Italy was the final straw for them to democratically elect parties that rejected further participation. Italy is now the next favourite to leave the EU.

I think you're assuming a lot here.

You cited the word 'uncontrolled' and kind of took off from there.

Any reference for all of this - positive opinions, final straw etc.

Midlife

Das Reich wrote: »

Could you be more specific, what country you talking about? France? Belgium? England? Never read anything like "successful islamic imigration" to these countries or any other country in the world. In EVERY country that they are a minority the country have problems like in China, Russia, Myanmar, Philippines, Nigeria, former Yugoslavia, basically every country.

No you don't read about successful Islamic migration. It's no sensationalist enough to get written about. Also can you point to anything that explains that Islamic people are a problem in EVERY country in the world than they're in.

I mentioned Sweden before they took in unsustainable levels. My argument is that it's numbers that is the problem, not religion.

I'd also also you about Islamic migration to Ireland, why their religion makes them so much worse than Poles, Romanians, Nigerians and what evidence their is for this?

Same with migration to UK from windrush on.

Just to confirm, you are saying that religion is the problem and not simply mass migration? I mean Islamic migration is way worse than say, sub-Saharan or carribian? Right?

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

I think you're assuming a lot here.
You cited the word 'uncontrolled' and kind of took off from there.
Any reference for all of this - positive opinions, final straw etc.

Those stats above, are all correct.

The UK's former director-general of immigration enforcement, reckons there is circa 1million illegal migrants already currently in the UK.

Does that sound like 'controlled migration' to you? Is it normal (outside of Co.Laois or Kent/Dover areas anyway) to find 'unknown lads' from 'who knows where' leaping out of the back of trailers for 'a new life not in the sun'?

Do you honestly think the Brexiters would have chosen to slam the door on themselves, empty their wallets, loose their free EHIC, industry-partnerships, financial centres and leave the largest single market in the world - if (illegal/uncontrolled) migration wasn't such an issue?

Do you realise Italy are no longer accepting people trafficking ships? It was on the news and everything!

It all sounds you're stuck in a state of denial, and assuming otherwise.

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

No you don't read about successful Islamic migration. It's no sensationalist enough to get written about. Also can you point to anything that explains that Islamic people are a problem in EVERY country in the world than they're in.

I mentioned Sweden before they took in unsustainable levels. My argument is that it's numbers that is the problem, not religion.

So you'd like to 'controls' on the numbers, ok that's understandable. Sounds a lot like 'controlled migration'.

How's things going across from Sweden in liberal Denmark?

Let's see.. the government has began fining ladies for covering their faces, and ghetto kids must learn to speak Danish, learn about Christmas and national traditions - if they don't want to loose their welfare payments. Sounds like all is well.

Das Reich

Midlife wrote: »

No you don't read about successful Islamic migration. It's no sensationalist enough to get written about.

That's I asked you gor examples.

Also can you point to anything that explains that Islamic people are a problem in EVERY country in the world than they're in.

Yes, in Russia they make problem in Daguestan, Chechenia, Inguchetia, terrorism.

In Nigeria thwy do on the north of the country where the muslims are majority.

In Philippines they also do problem in Mindanao island.

In China it is on the Yughur region.

I can go on all the countries that have a muslim population have problem related to terrorism. No single country excluded, if you know any example just show here.

I'd also also you about Islamic migration to Ireland, why their religion makes them so much worse than Poles, Romanians, Nigerians and what evidence their is for this?

I don't think Romanians are good people, but the other two grops you said, Poles and Nigerians (christians), no doubt they are better. The poles are very hard working people and honest, despite having some problem with drinking.

I mean Islamic migration is way worse than say, sub-Saharan or carribian? Right?

Yes.

Das Reich

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

if they don't want to loose their welfare payments. Sounds like all is well.

And why Denmark or any country have to waste money on welfare with people that didn't contribute nothing to make it a developted country, they arrived when the country was already rich. This money would be much better if spent on their poor country, on vasectomy and sterilization to reduce the growth rate. My country Brazil was the fastest growing country in the world some decades ago, because the fertility was very high and the mortality very low as almost the entire population was young. We are still paying the price for that, despite now the fertility is only about 1,7 children per woman, we need some decades to see the results. Those first world countries should do something to reduce now the fertility on poor countries.

4068ac1elhodqr

Das Reich wrote: »

And why Denmark or any country have to waste money on welfare with people that didn't contribute nothing to make it a developted country, they arrived when the country was already rich. This money would be much better if spent on their poor country, on vasectomy and sterilization to reduce the growth rate. My country Brazil was the fastest growing country in the world some decades ago, because the fertility was very high and the mortality very low as almost the entire population was young. We are still paying the price for that, despite now the fertility is only about 1,7 children per woman, we need some decades to see the results. Those first world countries should do something to reduce now the fertility on poor countries.

Exactly, the Chinese have the right idea, building new roads and infrastructure across Africa, and the developing world. Likely somewhat for their own future gain.

Angola's biggest trading partner is China ($60bn of loans over 35yrs).

Europe & the US should also be investing heavily in more in more projects (education, health, industry) there, e.g. Algeria is huge with a very low density, so too Libya (only 9.2 persons per square mile), having the 2nd lowest population density of all Africa's nations.

Timberrrrrrrr

Das Reich wrote: »

That's I asked you gor examples.



Yes, in Russia they make problem in Daguestan, Chechenia, Inguchetia, terrorism.

In Nigeria thwy do on the north of the country where the muslims are majority.

In Philippines they also do problem in Mindanao island.

In China it is on the Yughur region.

I can go on all the countries that have a muslim population have problem related to terrorism. No single country excluded, if you know any example just show here.




I don't think Romanians are good people, but the other two grops you said, Poles and Nigerians (christians), no doubt they are better. The poles are very hard working people and honest, despite having some problem with drinking.



Yes.

What exactly is it about Romanian people that makes you think they are not good people?

Also, may i ask where you are from?

Midlife

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

So you'd like to 'controls' on the numbers, ok that's understandable. Sounds a lot like 'controlled migration'.

How's things going across from Sweden in liberal Denmark?

Let's see.. the government has began fining ladies for covering their faces, and ghetto kids must learn to speak Danish, learn about Christmas and national traditions - if they don't want to loose their welfare payments. Sounds like all is well.

I've never said I don't agree with controlled migration.

I am simply saying that blaming issues related to unplanned/poorly executed migration on a religion is incorrect and borderline racist.

Midlife

Das Reich wrote: »

That's I asked you gor examples.



Yes, in Russia they make problem in Daguestan, Chechenia, Inguchetia, terrorism.

In Nigeria thwy do on the north of the country where the muslims are majority.

In Philippines they also do problem in Mindanao island.

In China it is on the Yughur region.

I can go on all the countries that have a muslim population have problem related to terrorism. No single country excluded, if you know any example just show here.




I don't think Romanians are good people, but the other two grops you said, Poles and Nigerians (christians), no doubt they are better. The poles are very hard working people and honest, despite having some problem with drinking.



Yes.

At least you're honest about being racist.

oscarBravo

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

How's things going across from Sweden in liberal Denmark?

Let's see.. the government has began fining ladies for covering their faces...

The argument for which law seems to have been "it will help Muslim women to integrate into society".

In the first example of action being taken under the law, a Muslim woman had her veil torn off by another woman who also called the police. When the police arrived, she had replaced her veil; the police gave her the choice of removing it or going home. She chose to go home.

So, let's recap: a law allegedly intended to help women integrate into society has resulted in a woman being effectively confined to her home, and has apparently allowed randomers to rip women's clothes off in public without repercussion.

I get that these outcomes are positives for people whose primary mission in life is the oppression of Muslims, but other than those people, I'm finding it hard to see how this law has made Denmark - a country I'm just back from spending a week in - a better place.

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

The argument for which law seems to have been "it will help Muslim women to integrate into society".

In the first example of action being taken under the law, a Muslim woman had her veil torn off by another woman who also called the police. When the police arrived, she had replaced her veil; the police gave her the choice of removing it or going home. She chose to go home.

So, let's recap: a law allegedly intended to help women integrate into society has resulted in a woman being effectively confined to her home, and has apparently allowed randomers to rip women's clothes off in public without repercussion.

I get that these outcomes are positives for people whose primary mission in life is the oppression of Muslims, but other than those people, I'm finding it hard to see how this law has made Denmark - a country I'm just back from spending a week in - a better place.

You're citing one single incident, whereby someone (wrongly) took the law into their own hands. The other lady was however clearly breaking their law, and clearly still refused to comply, when the authorities arrived.

Would you prefer people arriving in Denmark dismiss their laws? That they stick to their own laws, language, traditions (e.g. FGM) and no make no effort to integrate even when faced with financial penalties and criminal records as a direct consequence?

The reason 'lefty' Denmark introduced this law (and others), such as forcing 'ghetto kids' to learn Danish and to learn about their national Danish customs or values is not just for 'banter'.

It's for the interest of everyone living in Denmark going forward, as a single harmonious multi-ethnic (Danish) nation. i.e. for the greater good.
This offends you?

Das Reich

Midlife wrote: »

At least you're honest about being racist.

I am a mixed race. You seem to be the racist here. And still waiting for you to answer about the so called successful islamic imigration as you wrote.

oscarBravo

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

You're citing one single incident, whereby someone (wrongly) took the law into their own hands. The other lady was however clearly breaking their law, and clearly still refused to comply, when the authorities arrived.

I cited the very first, and to my knowledge so far the only, incident under the new law.

And, yes: the Muslim woman was breaking the law. She was given a choice: abandon your religious principles, or stay at home. She chose to stay at home.

This demonstrates that the stated purpose of the law isn't working. She is now less integrated into Danish society; not more.

But, thanks for proving my point: as long as the law pisses Muslims off, that's all some people want.

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

And, yes: the Muslim woman was breaking the law. She was given a choice: abandon your religious principles, or stay at home. She chose to stay at home.

This demonstrates that the stated purpose of the law isn't working. She is now less integrated into Danish society; not more.

She was given a choice, live by the law of the land, or integrate into her chosen new society. She choose to both i) break the law and ii) she choose not to attempt to integrate. This demonstrates the issues Denmark and Europe has to deal with.

Do you also happily support other 'religious principles' such as the illegal (across the EU), and widely condemned (by the UN/WHO) tradition of female genital mutilation (FGM*)?

* A procedure where the female genitals are deliberately cut, injured or changed, where there's no medical reason for this to be done.

There was 5,000 cases of this in the UK last year, even in the North, a single health trust in Belfast had to deal with 17 occurrences in recent months.

Ireland has an estimate of 6,000 total historical cases (often via travel abroad).

200m worldwide have to live with the consequence of this action. It is not allowed in Ireland, despite this some still choose to promote it.

Das Reich

oscarBravo wrote: »

I cited the very first, and to my knowledge so far the only, incident under the new law.

And, yes: the Muslim woman was breaking the law. She was given a choice: abandon your religious principles, or stay at home. She chose to stay at home.

This demonstrates that the stated purpose of the law isn't working. She is now less integrated into Danish society; not more.

But, thanks for proving my point: as long as the law pisses Muslims off, that's all some people want.

And why a person leaves a shyt country for one of the best in the world, and doesn't want to integrate? I mean, if I go to a country is because I admire the country, I want to learn the language and integrate leaving my third world culture behind. When I left Brazil first thing I did was leaving or trying to leave the "brazilian culture" (trying always to take advantage of others). If they not like Denmark, its history, language, culture, they could go back home I am sure Denmark will lose nothing.

Thomas_IV

Sand wrote: »

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.

There's surely some common ground between you and me. I just differ in regards on Brexit and Trump. I am against Brexit and I detest Trump. Both are just the result of populism and that is of course also the result of the ignorance and sometimes also arrogance by the estalbishment. Just to add that Brexiteers and Trumpists are on an equal level with the others when it comes to that.

There is a big lack of rationality and reasonability among many people and politicians. It is the result of the growing polarisation in society and politics developing over the past couple of years. The political Left is losing on voters because the Left appears to care more about the immigrants than to care about the domestic socially deprived. This brings more of them to the side of the Right and the centre parties seem to have no clue how to answer that or even how to exploit that for themselves and that is probably because the seem to don't care much about it either. On the other hand, the polarisiation has come that far that the centre is also losing to the extremists.

As for the other posters, I know that kind of posters and how they lead their argumentation. I have bothered last Friday to write a lenghty post to Demfad explaining my view on Immigration based on my own experiences with immigrants to him. No reply to that so far. I am not surprised that there was no response because the realities which I was talking about and which I have witnessed and experienced myself are not suitable for the pro-immigration agenda. But they are still out there nonetheless and will remain there because you can't force anybody to integrate when the person has not the slightest interest to do so. Such mentality or attitude can be and is handed down to other generations, already born in the country, but still see themselves as different from the whole society and in not less cases, they have experienced that from their childhood onwards themselves. There is a strong feeling accompanying them that they are not wanted and being rejected by the 'natives'. Such feelings harden in the flow of time and leads to isolationism, joining the likeminded who experieced the same. Such people are often lost for any attempt to integration and seek to build up their own sense of superiority and rejecting the society of their host / native country. This is what happened over the past decades in Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, the UK and the Scandinavian countries.

When you look at the Eastern European EU Member States, they don't have such problems and that because there was no such Immigration in the former Eastern Bloc States during the cold war. Those foreign nationals from socialist brother countries when they were sent to some of these countries were kept separated and there was little interchange with the local population. It comes from these times that the people of these countries are rejecting the imposing of Immigration quotas to their countries in their majority. That is what the Western EU member states refuse to understand and every attempt to succeed with this imposing quotas based on what Merkel, Junker and Schulz have worked out in 2015/2016 has failed to this day and it will never work. Therefore the EU is more or less forced to work on closing its borders and curb the influx of Immigration to a very minimum. With more right-wing parties coming to power in the EU member states because the people there vote them in as they are fed up with the left-liberal pro-immigration agenda which forgets to look after their own people.  

The talk about this so called 'Fortress Europe' as a measure to stop illegal immigration to the EU is going on for a couple of decades by now. It is a fantasy no longer and becomes more real shape year after year but it is still in process. The development also makes progress since Italy has got a right-wing/far-right govt and started to close her harbours for NGO rescue ships.

I can only say that being myself of centre-left political creed, I have to cease voting for such parties because for me, the numbers of immigrants who came to Europe in the past three to four years are more than enough. But the centre-left parties don't see it that way and think that we can take in even more which is impossible as those who are already here are not the ones Merkel and the Industry were anticipating to get. The majority of them are unskilled workers, a certain amount of them even analphabeticals. But you won't find many on the centre-left to the far-left side who would even consider that fact but just brush it away. Such facts are disturbing and against their cause which is that according to their mindset the EU can rescue half of the world. But that is not working. It is an illusion of them and the do gooders.

DeadHand

oscarBravo wrote: »

But, thanks for proving my point: as long as the law pisses Muslims off, that's all some people want.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Firstly, no one should be have any item of clothing ripped from them. Not condoning personal violence and action should have been taken against the offender.

To the issue at hand, no one is forcing this woman or any Muslim to live in Denmark, if they wish to live in a more Islamic manner there are manifold countries for them to move to more conducive to their living habits.

European girls landing jobs in Dubai know better than to wander about in bikinis, it’s a shame this woman in Denmark will not show similar respect to the surrounding culture (if indeed she wears the veil by choice, which is not at all guaranteed).

Ideally, people wouldn’t be backward and ignorant enough to purposefully reject and separate themselves from a host society kind enough to give them opportunities far above those which could be provided by that which they/their parents left.

In a sane world, proper and gracious behavior would not need to be guaranteed through rule of law.

We don’t live in a sane Europe: the issue of Islamic non-integration and subversion is reaching cataclysmic proportions which demand the all but full time deployment of European armies to the streets of European cities as part of a mammoth security effort combatting a burgeoning Islamic insurgency.

Under ordinary circumstances, I’d be against Denmark’s law. In these extraordinary conditions, I believe any measures slowing down the Islamification of European societies should be lauded and imitated. The law is regretful but necessary as part of a broader strategy to stave off far greater evils for future generations of Danes.

Well done, Denmark. I hope to see more of the same and the propagation of such self-preservational measures throughout Europe.

oscarBravo

I won't bother replying to individual posts: I see the bizarre attitude of "if you want to be a Muslim, go and live in a Muslim country" is alive and well among posters who presumably consider themselves reasonable people.

All I'll say is that I subscribe to the feminist philosophy of "stop f*cking telling women what to wear". It's utterly laughable that the same people who mutter darkly about women not wearing a veil by choice are gleefully proud of laws denying women a choice over whether or not to wear a veil.

If you can't see that "you must not wear a veil" is just as demeaning to women as "you must wear a veil", there's not much more to be said.

ancapailldorcha

No more of the sniping about who's a racist please.

Podge_irl

oscarBravo wrote: »

I won't bother replying to individual posts: I see the bizarre attitude of "if you want to be a Muslim, go and live in a Muslim country" is alive and well among posters who presumably consider themselves reasonable people.

All I'll say is that I subscribe to the feminist philosophy of "stop f*cking telling women what to wear". It's utterly laughable that the same people who mutter darkly about women not wearing a veil by choice are gleefully proud of laws denying women a choice over whether or not to wear a veil.

If you can't see that "you must not wear a veil" is just as demeaning to women as "you must wear a veil", there's not much more to be said.

Considering the number of people who wear it is estimated to be in the low hundreds, it is also a "solution" in utterly desperate search of a problem.

There was no need to pass it and it reflects far more on the motives of those who put it forward than it provides evidence of an integration problem.

Midlife

Podge_irl wrote: »

Considering the number of people who wear it is estimated to be in the low hundreds, it is also a "solution" in utterly desperate search of a problem.

There was no need to pass it and it reflects far more on the motives of those who put it forward than it provides evidence of an integration problem.

Yes, truly the forefront of this pan-European cultural war. Stopping 150 odd women from covering their faces.

While we're at it, can anyone point out how Islam has been a negative force in Denmark, or Ireland?

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

While we're at it, can anyone point out how Islam has been a negative force in Denmark, or Ireland?

Did you miss the bit above, about FGM?

That's right - FGM 'mutilating the genitals' of young females, for no medical purpose.

Ireland has an estimate of 6,000 total historical cases (carried out abroad, since it's illegal here, obviously). Although some are campaigning for this 'positive aspect' to be legalised here, against the wishes of the state, not to mention the WHO, UN etc etc.

Is this the positive 'mutilation' force you speak of?

Or what about 14yr old girls marrying their 21yr old male cousins?

- Is this in the interests of evolved European states? Another positive force? Again it's breaking laws and creating tension across Europe. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37518289

The practice of child brides was highlighted recently in Sweden, whereby illegal migrants used this loophole to gain entry and benefits of a new life in Sweden.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/939408/Sweden-leaflet-child-marriage-immigrants-National-Board-of-Health-and-Welfare

The Swedish in their state of lefty confusion actually prepared brochures to aid information on 'child marriage' but withdrew them shortly after after realising their mistake.

Midlife

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Did you miss the bit above, about FGM?

That's right - FGM 'mutilating the genitals' of young females, for no medical purpose.

Ireland has an estimate of 6,000 total historical cases (carried out abroad, since it's illegal here, obviously). Although some are campaigning for this 'positive aspect' to be legalised here, against the wishes of the state, not to mention the WHO, UN etc etc.

Is this the positive 'mutilation' force you speak of?

Or what about 14yr old girls marrying their 21yr old male cousins?

- Is this in the interests of evolved European states? Another positive force? Again it's breaking laws and creating tension across Europe. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37518289

The practice of child brides was highlighted recently in Sweden, whereby illegal migrants used this loophole to gain entry and benefits of a new life in Sweden.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/939408/Sweden-leaflet-child-marriage-immigrants-National-Board-of-Health-and-Welfare

The Swedish in their state of lefty confusion actually prepared brochures to aid information on 'child marriage' but withdrew them shortly after after realising their mistake.

But that's not here.

It's not becoming the norm here.

It's not seeping into our culture here.

It has had an impact on the people involved but I don't really see how you can say Ireland or Denmark have been damaged by practices like that. The individuals affected, surely, but your answer is to not let them into our country?

We may as well say we shouldn't allow Russians in as the country has very lax laws on domestic violence. Makes no sense.

Are there parts of Islam, and particular practices to some I disagree with - absolutely.

Also can you please read your own articles...

Analysts say early marriage is often carried out in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey by families trying to protect girls from poverty or sexual exploitation. Elsewhere, poor families might marry off their young daughters in exchange for dowries.

Doesn't exactly say it's run of the mill Islam really.

oscarBravo

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

The Swedish in their state of lefty confusion actually prepared brochures to aid information on 'child marriage' but withdrew them shortly after after realising their mistake.

Do you know what that leaflet said?

Child marriage is illegal in Sweden

In Sweden it is illegal to marry anyone under the age of 18. There are many reasons for this.

Children have a right to be children and to not have the responsibilities that come with a marriage. Children should go to school, educate themselves, develop as their own person, develop their own interests. Early marriage often lead to early parenthood, which leads to increased risks for the child, both in the short term and in the long term. Getting married early can also lead to both physical and psychological ill-health, an increased risk of living in poverty, or to be subject to oppression and violence.

This applies in Sweden:

• All children, girls and boys, have the same rights.
• Anyone who has entered marriage has the right to get a divorce, even if the other partner does not want to get a divorce.
• Sex is voluntary, also within marriage.
• Everyone shall have access to information about sexual and reproductive health and rights.
• A girl/woman has the right to an abortion if she wishes to end a pregnancy.
• When a person has reached the age of 18 that person has the right to self-determination.

Legal guardian, trustee, or specially appointed legal guardian has responsibility for the child

Children who come to Sweden without a legal guardian are treated as unaccompanied refugee children. If the parents of the child are here in Sweden, they are the legal guardians of the child. Unaccompanied refugee children are appointed a trustee who helps the child with issues that parents otherwise help with.

If you are married to a child you can never assume the parents' or a trustee's responsibilities. You as the husband/wife of a child also cannot speak on behalf of the child.

Illegal to have sex with children under the age of 15

In Sweden it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 15. This applies even if you are married and even if you have children together. Children under 15 have an absolute right to be protected from sexual activities. Someone who has sexual intercourse or engages in another type of sexual activity with a child is committing a sexual crime.

The purpose of these rules is to protect the child.

If the one you are married to is an unaccompanied refugee child

Social services have the de facto responsibility for all unaccompanied refugee children. This includes arranging accommodation for the child. It is the responsibility of the Swedish Migration Agency to arrange accommodation for adult asylum seekers. Social services investigate the child's need for protection and support and suggests an accommodation for the child.

Social services can suggest that you do not live together for a shorter or longer period. The purpose is to ensure that the child receives the protection and support it is entitled to.

Since children under the age of 15 have an absolute right to protection from sexual activity, it is inappropriate that you live together if the child is under the age of 15. This applies even if you have children together.

Both social services and the Swedish Migration Agency will work to give the child the opportunity to express its opinion regarding where to live and under what circumstances. It is with the child and the trustee that the social services will cooperate and that together with social services may decide for the child.

If you want more information about what applies to Sweden, you can turn to the public servants at the Swedish Migration Agency or to social services.

On the website New in Sweden you will find out more about the Swedish society in several languages.

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

But that's not here. It's not becoming the norm here.

6,000 historical cases in Ireland, many appearing in a single health trust in the North, all within in recent months, Consultants have little prior experience this type of Mutilation.

Midlife wrote: »

It's not seeping into our culture here.

Islamic leaders in Ireland calling for it to be legalised in Ireland, a marked increase? The UK (fairly similar, culturally) had 5,000 cases in 2017.

Midlife wrote: »

It has had an impact on the people involved but I don't really see how you can say Ireland or Denmark have been damaged by practices like that.

So you prefer a nation state that allows it's people to be traumatised? Often treated by medical professionals (not to mention psychiatric professionals) by this tradition. So a state should turn a blind eye, and allow an illegal and medieval practice of mutilation upon it's citizens?

Midlife wrote: »

Are there parts of Islam, and particular practices to some I disagree with - absolutely.

So cherry pick what suits you and ignore other actions, even if illegal.

Again any action that disregards the law of the land, whether it's using mobile phones when driving (common by the Irish), to children marrying cousins, after being mutilated, and later beaten for not covering faces (common in some other sub-cultures/religions) should all be called out, irrespectively.
[/QUOTE]