Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Migration Megathread
Comments
-
oscarBravo wrote: »Do you know what that leaflet said?
The leaflet and law there highlighted it was not illegal to 'arrive' with a child bride, only that it was illegal to get married in Sweden to children.
You can still get married to children elsewhere, and that marriage would be 'upheld by Sweden', if it took place elsewhere.
Hence there is rather a lot of fuss in Sweden that this loophole in the law should be closed, as illegal migrants were using it as a tool to legally enter with their child brides (de facto visas). The that fact the the leaflet was withdrawn shortly after publication, due to public outcry speaks volumes.0 -
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.
No they don't. I work in the IT sector in the US and I can say from experience you are wrong.
In fact your whole paragraph here is wrong. You are making nothing more than a sweeping generalisation about US Corporations. The majority of the workforce in my own experience has been American with the minority made up of educated immigrants who get a fair shake at the stick like their American counterparts when it comes to pay.0 -
Before I reply, you're assuming a lot about my opinion and in fairness while i appreciate the debate we're having, it's making it a bit annoying. Think it happened yesterday when you were boasting one-up on me regarding controlled migration, where i actually agree totally with it.
Anyway, could you kindly stop posting 'oh so you think', or 'oh so your answer is'. I'd appreciate it and it would keep our conversation level tbh.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »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.
And it's horrific and illegal. No disagreement.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »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.
Not true. I'm sure you can find a selective case but your statement is false or overreaching at least.
http://www.thejournal.ie/fatwa-fgm-muslim-3849097-Feb2018/
Also, the UK had 5,000 cases but we had 6,000. This would suggest that there isn't a straight relationship between FGM and Islam as there are 2.5 million muslims in the UK. Can you confirm, is it cultural, regional or religious? I get that the Irish number is looking historically but the UK numbers should still be way way higher if they have like 50 times the numbers.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »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?
This doesn't help at all. You're trying to tell me what I think/consider. As mentioned, please stop.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »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.
Yes and they should also be prosecuted. I don't disagree with this.
Can you answer straightly. Should all Muslims be prohibited from entering the country because of this practice?
My answer to what you've posted above is that whoever comes here should act according to the law of the land and also be educated according to the law of the land, particularly the women. In time these issues will subside for those living here provided that integration is successful. The most powerful weapon that we have is education.
While I don't mean to put words in your mouth, you seem to think either
a:)If we let them in, it's going to catch on?
b:)It's less wrong if it happens across a border?0 -
TOss Sweep wrote: »No they don't. I work in the IT sector in the US and I can say from experience you are wrong.
In fact your whole paragraph here is wrong. You are making nothing more than a sweeping generalisation about US Corporations. The majority of the workforce in my own experience has been American with the minority made up of educated immigrants who get a fair shake at the stick like their American counterparts when it comes to pay.
Well jeez, now I don't know what to think. On the one hand I have your unsubstantiated anecdote. On the other hand I have objective reports that up to 70% of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign born, with 40% of tech workers in Seattle being Indian immigrants.0 -
That statistic is actually that 40% of the tech workers in Seattle are foreign born, and 40% of those foreign-born workers are Indian.with 40% of tech workers in Seattle being Indian immigrants.
The headline is just wrong.
It is much clearer in the original report:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/more-than-half-of-seattles-software-developers-were-born-outside-u-s/0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
I don't understand what this link you have provided is supposed to prove. Sure, we are all well aware that there are many disgruntled people in Sweden who perceive that their country is being 'ruined' by migrants. Some of that may be sincere, and some of it may be simply perception. What cannot be denied however, as I have pointed out before, is that objectively the country enjoys a fantastic quality of life -- economically and socially.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/sweden/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-lifeYes, 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.
It has been a laughable theme of this discussion that you have dodged my question -- but one which I fully understand.
What makes it even more laughable is that you actually brought up the example of Sweden, which presumably fits into your 'countries where quality of life has been made worse by mass migration'. Yet Sweden, as evidenced by the above links and a vast amount of other sources which are freely available by simple Google search, has an excellent quality of life even versus the rest of Western Europe.
So, despite Sweden now being (in the eyes of the anti-migration crowd) a post-Islamopocalyptic wasteland, it still maintains its high quality of life. How does that fit into your world view of migration 'worsening the lives of Europeans?
Now -- you can either answer the question or concede the point. Any more dodging and I will just have to deem it a concession.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.
Sand, if you think that my point has anything to do with benevolence or far-sightedness then you simply haven't understood it. It has nothing to do with the business world being kind or anything to do with working conditions. It is a simply the basic concept that the market needs humans to survive -- because humans pay for stuff. It is as cold as that. A business must be able to get money or a business dies.
I have spoken to other contributors here about automation, mainly Accumulator. I have concerns about the threat that it may pose in hollowing out the middle class. But it is as simple as this -- I have always said that immigration policy must take account of a country's economic capacity. So let us say that it really does come to a worst case scenario where a small class of algorithm geniuses make up the high-skilled class and the rest of the entire human race has simply found absolutely no way to make themselves useful (which I doubt) -- then immigration policy will need to react to that trend.
This is pragmatism, not ideological entrenchment. You would simply have us pull the plug on immigration right away -- which tells me that automation is just another one of your smokescreens for your previously-admitted fantasies of a world where all the races and cultures live separately.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.
This is really poor stuff, but I did enjoy the irony of the structure of this paragraph : (a) claim other person doesn't know what they're talking about; (b) tell person what the solution to the problem is NOT; (c) concede that you don't have the answers but it's definitely definitely not immigration because to even suggest that it was would be wholly inconvenient to your argument.
You are very self-assured in your views . . . yet it seems odd to me that someone can concede they don't have the answers to a problem (which is entirely fair enough) but at the same time assert with full confidence and certainty that immigration is 100% not a solution.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.
As embarrassing as this would be for both of us, am I actually going to have to explain to you why prosperity is important to society?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.
Oh but you are deflecting -- and not answering my question (as per usual). Citing employability figures as an indicator of capability for ethnic minorities is a really unfair and dishonest practice. Immigrants and ethnic minorities often live in areas of greater social deprivation and the links between deprivation and career-attainment are well known. That's the first reason why the chain of argument you're following here is dishonest.
But the statistics also bear out that ethnic minorities are doing well in education in the UK, and often out-do White British kids. GCSE statistics show that Chinese, Asian and Mixed Race kids (yes, the dreaded spawn of races mixing) outperformed White kids in English state-funded schools in 2015 (see page 23 : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494073/SFR01_2016.pdf) while 52% of Black kids attained 5+ A*'s versus 57% of White kids -- hardly a world of difference.
Yet, studies and research have shown that ethnic minorities are facing other challenges which whites simply are not. The Financial Times reported on government research showing that UK employers "were far more likely to offer interview to people with white-sounding names . . . even though applications were otherwise identical" (https://www.ft.com/content/3548ef66-025b-11e6-99cb-83242733f755).
A BBC test found that when an identical CV was circulated, the only difference being that one had "Adam Henton" on it and the other "Mohamed Allam" -- Mr Henton was offered 12 interviews, and Mohamed only 4 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-38751307).
The insinuation that BAME kids are less capable than White kids is demonstrably false. They are every bit as capable. Minorities and immigrants always face a tougher task breaking into a job market where certain norms are extant. It was the Irish in America once.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.
This was an eye-rolling rant. Did I 'trigger a response' in you perhaps? . . . Or 'make the irrational part of your brain kick in, perceive a threat and react primitively'? I think it is quite clear from the above little keyboard tantrum who is getting 'into a rage'.
All I have seen you do in the course of our discussions is point some of the challenges of the immigration but fail to actually ever hit any nail on the head as to why the challenges form an insurmountable reason to just end it all. You talk about immigration worsening all of our lives -- yet despite this being the central tenet of your creed -- you have not once been able to substantiate or even answer simple questions about it.
Because that's it isn't it? If immigration has worsened all our lives, then surely there should be a demonstrable time period where can track this phenomenon. But you cannot show it . . .you toss around Islamic insurgency as if this problem, as sinister and threatening as it is, overcomes the sheer weight of the fact that -- even with all the immigration it has experienced -- Europe continues to be a leading light in economic performance, personal freedom, equality and widespread prosperity.
This is the fundamental issue which you have as of yet been either unable or unwilling to face up to.0 -
And it's horrific and illegal. No disagreement.
Ok so yes we can both fully agree (as all European countries), it's horrific and yes, illegal.
But you seem happy to object when other laws don't suit match your view.Not true. I'm sure you can find a selective case but your statement is false or overreaching at least.
Fair enough but a prominent figure (lecturer at Trinity College) and (presumably still) a member of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (Dr Ali Selim) said just days before this, that it should be made law (i.e. to allow it), which indicates internal conflict and confusion there regarding an actual unified position.
http://www.thejournal.ie/fatwa-fgm-muslim-3849097-Feb2018/Also, the UK had 5,000 cases but we had 6,000. This would suggest that there isn't a straight relationship between FGM and Islam as there are 2.5 million muslims in the UK. Can you confirm, is it cultural, regional or religious? I get that the Irish number is looking historically but the UK numbers should still be way way higher if they have like 50 times the numbers.
Note the word 'historical' for Ire.
Note also that the UK value, was specific for 2017 only.Can you answer straightly. Should all Muslims be prohibited from entering the country because of this practice?
You can't bar a person simply based on their 'potential view'. But what about a person who has carried out this mutilation in the past, and is likely do so again, in a country in which it's illegal to do so. I.e. Likely to act illegally.
Many countries also have a written tests whereby the state their views and knowledge of the country they wish to live in. If they indicate on this they support FGM 'stated, documented view', they will likely fail this test, and simply legally be allowed to migrate normally.
The other big complex issue here is 'genuine refugee' vs 'illegal migrant' from outside Europe.
e.g. Many of young men that arrived on Spanish shores last week simply said they're gay, and today receive free accommodation and vouchers for three meals per day at local cafes. Their statement is taken and validated on a basis of trust only, it's difficult to prove if it's correct or not. All others will claim persecution of various sorts, again difficult to prove or validate in any way.My answer to what you've posted above is that whoever comes here should act according to the law of the land and also be educated according to the law of the land, particularly the women. In time these issues will subside for those living here provided that integration is successful. The most powerful weapon that we have is education.
While I don't mean to put words in your mouth, you seem to think either
a:)If we let them in, it's going to catch on?
b:)It's less wrong if it happens across a border?
Agree about education, but that only works for those who choose to accept it, integration isn't a default scenario. Which is why European countries have actually had to force it, by way of various legal and financial penalties.
It's not that practices such as 'FGM' will catch on, there is already marked increases in it's occurrence, that's a simple fact, and it will likely continue.
Anyone who supports it (or openly supports other violations of law) is basically sticking their fingers up at their newly adopted land.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Ok so yes we can both fully agree (as all European countries), it's horrific and yes, illegal.
But you seem happy to object when other laws don't suit match your view.
When?Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Fair enough but a prominent figure (lecturer at Trinity College) and (presumably still) a member of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (Dr Ali Selim) said just days before this, that it should be made law (i.e. to allow it), which indicates internal conflict and confusion there regarding an actual unified position.
http://www.thejournal.ie/fatwa-fgm-muslim-3849097-Feb2018/
Yeah, and hopefully every woman heard the essential head of faith in Ireland denounce his nonsense.
BTW, it's so disingenuous to leave things like this out and imply that religious leaders are calling for FGM. I mean some of our politicians are climate change deniers but that's not the gvt position.
That idiot single-handedly ruined whatever lecturing career he had at TCD and any standing he had with the Islamic Council. After he was condemned strongly by TCD and his Islamic peers, he had to row back saying he never meant it and he was misunderstood, or rather didn't understand English enough.
I hope you appreciate that turning a case like that into 'Muslim leaders in Ireland call for FGM' is quite poor standards. People deserve more respect than that and it's an extremely dangerous line of argument. You're really dehumanising a vast number of people with one incorrect brush-stroke.
**next bit applies generally more than just to yourself**
It's a commonly done thing - 'Muslims are all child-grooming, infant-marrying, mutilators of women. And they all agree with this as these are their values and they never really integrate'
This is the type of argument I read on boards a lot and it's usually backed up by some selective comment or statistic and then applied to over a billion people.
None of it ever holds up.
It's defence league/Trump level of argument. Anyone with a desire to think critically can read around it a bit before simply posting the first headline they find that backs up their argument.
If we won't put aside or beliefs and prejudices, then analyse the information and evaluate the truth, then how can we criticise others for having beliefs and practices we view as backwards.
The truth is not hard to figure out in all of this. The problem I've found is that nearly all of the people posting in threads like this won't first divest themselves of their agenda.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Note the word 'historical' for Ire.
Note also that the UK value, was specific for 2017 only.
I did, and I mentioned that. Can you please answer the question I asked rather than repeating a point I made myself. 2.5 million Muslims in Britian, should be approx 1.25 million FGM but that would be about 200 years of those figures.
In particular I'm curious about 2nd/3rd generation Pakistani immigrants. Are they subject to this en masse too?
It seems to me to be a practice that's closely linked to particular countries but dropped when people move away from older traditions.
It's on the rise because immigration is on the rise but with proper integration and education, the daughters and granddaughters of these people will hopefully not be subjected to the same treatment.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »You can't bar a person simply based on their 'potential view'. But what about a person who has carried out this mutilation in the past, and is likely do so again, in a country in which it's illegal to do so. I.e. Likely to act illegally.
Many countries also have a written tests whereby the state their views and knowledge of the country they wish to live in. If they indicate on this they support FGM 'stated, documented view', they will likely fail this test, and simply legally be allowed to migrate normally.
I'm not sure you explain this right. Anyway, it seems a bit silly.
'Remember to not mention child brides or FGM on the written exam'.
'Crap, I also ticked the 'kill the great white satan' box'
Surely in cases like this, some kind of social work follow-up or checking in would be better. But I'd argue this should happen for every immigrant to a degree.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »The other big complex issue here is 'genuine refugee' vs 'illegal migrant' from outside Europe.
e.g. Many of young men that arrived on Spanish shores last week simply said they're gay, and today receive free accommodation and vouchers for three meals per day at local cafes. Their statement is taken and validated on a basis of trust only, it's difficult to prove if it's correct or not. All others will claim persecution of various sorts, again difficult to prove or validate in any way.
No it's not. And that's my point about this thread. People want to turn it into a 'mass-migration' question.
With respect, leave the racist sounding title out and open a new thread for that.
Still, no-one can tell me a good reason for leaving Muslims specifically out.
If you want to build a wall around Europe and only allow in high value immigration, that's fine but that's not what this thread is about.
I'd request at this point to all that this thread has gone off topic and that it be closed and reopened without the Muslim reference. or at least just edit the title and change the first word for immigrant.
This is a thread where everyone wants to debate mass-migration, from less well off countries.
The OP cited an article from a Christian, anti-LGBT, anti-abortion website. It included the word Muslim before every mention of immigrant as a scare tactic and because it was a pro-Christian site. It also mentioned no problems of Muslims, just problems perceived with having less Christians and then said we should all listen to Trump.
Please just close this thread and open one about immigration.Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Agree about education, but that only works for those who choose to accept it, integration isn't a default scenario. Which is why European countries have actually had to force it, by way of various legal and financial penalties.
It's not that practices such as 'FGM' will catch on, there is already marked increases in it's occurrence, that's a simple fact, and it will likely continue.
Anyone who supports it (or openly supports other violations of law) is basically sticking their fingers up at their newly adopted land.
The increases are pretty much in-line with immigration. As you say, it won't catch on. IMO, that's why it's beneficial to take these women in and apply our legal schooling till age 16.
Education is the solution to religious and backward nonsense.
Agree with everything else here.0 -
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.
Thing is outside EU immigration remains a competence of each member state. If it really is a problem in, say, Sweden, then Swedish citizens can vote more anti-immigration parties.
I'm tired of the EU getting blamed for the "mass immigration of Muslims" when it is each Member State setting their own immigration policy.0 -
Thing is outside EU immigration remains a competence of each member state. If it really is a problem in, say, Sweden, then Swedish citizens can vote more anti-immigration parties.
I'm tired of the EU getting blamed for the "mass immigration of Muslims" when it is each Member State setting their own immigration policy.
Which is exactly what happened in Italy this year.
Which is why the Brexit happened in 2016.
Also the Swedish Social Democrats could be toppled as Sweden’s biggest political for the first time in more than a century when voters take to the polls for the general election on September 9. They need 24%, but polls have them from 22-28%.
The freedom of movement of any EU citizen throughout the EU is the cornerstone of the single market. If 500,000,000c people in the EU want to move to the Ibiza tomorrow, there is very little to stop them doing so. Germany offering an open door policy, isn't a German issue, it's a European issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
When?
Did you (might have been another poster) not object to the case in Denmark?
whereby a lady broke the law by refusing to remove an item of head clothing when asked to by authorities.
Anyone that does so, is cherry picking to reject state laws of individual countries.
Anyone that does this, is indicating a direct desire to act illegally and not integrate.Yeah, and hopefully every woman heard the essential head of faith in Ireland denounce his nonsense.
BTW, it's so disingenuous to leave things like this out and imply that religious leaders are calling for FGM. I mean some of our politicians are climate change deniers but that's not the gvt position.
That idiot single-handedly ruined whatever lecturing career he had at TCD and any standing he had with the Islamic Council. After he was condemned strongly by TCD and his Islamic peers, he had to row back saying he never meant it and he was misunderstood, or rather didn't understand English enough.
It seems to me to be a practice that's closely linked to particular countries but dropped when people move away from older traditions.
It's on the rise because immigration is on the rise but with proper integration and education, the daughters and granddaughters of these people will hopefully not be subjected to the same treatment.
Ok the leader objected to it days afterwards, but still, a very prominent member, a spokesperson (likely of significant influence, lecturing students), publicly supported this barbaric act, according to the TV appearance and press reports. Can agree it's difficult to assess what percentage of Muslims support illegal practices such as child marriage, FGM, and practices of forced clothing etc.
If we take the 5,000 2017 UK (known) figure of FGM for example...
Doesn’t sound a lot does it? Or not.
This figure is likely only for females of a certain age group. It only occurs once in lifetime, so 1yr's figures can’t be compared to total population.
...But if you do and 2017’s figure doesn’t increase it would equate to 50,000 cases for the 2020’s. And thus 350,000 (average lifetime 75yr), assuming constants. So of the 1.25m females group, 350,000k is 28%.
Do you not think this 28% is significant, and assume this practice is now being dropped in 2017?
It’s difficult to assess what level of integration is occurring when many EU states are now introducing various penalties citizens that appear to be rejecting efforts to integrate. This might indicate there is some serious issues, which likely haven’t happened before in modern times.
Yes can assume the 28% will be stopped from having this done to them, via education. But by doing so you’ll be directly challenging and changing strongly held belief systems.
Migration entry written exams are there for a purpose, if you choose to move somewhere you should have basic knowledge of basic laws and traditions of the land. To offer people who fail, free counselling, is unheard of. It would be attempting to challenge opposing belief systems at the very final stage of entry.
Yes education and science is the key to challenging (any) religious belief system, but it’s only useful for those who choose to accept it.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »The freedom of movement of any EU citizen throughout the EU is the cornerstone of the single market. If 500,000,000c people in the EU want to move to the Ibiza tomorrow, there is very little to stop them doing so.
And if everyone in Dublin decided to move to Limerick tomorrow, there would also be little you could do to stop that.Germany offering an open door policy, isn't a German issue, it's a European issue.
Until these people actually get German citizenship (if they ever do) they're a German issue and not a European issue.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Did you (might have been another poster) not object to the case in Denmark?
whereby a lady broke the law by refusing to remove an item of head clothing when asked to by authorities.
Anyone that does so, is cherry picking to reject state laws of individual countries.
Anyone that does this, is indicating a direct desire to act illegally and not integrate.
Ok the leader objected to it days afterwards, but still, a very prominent member, a spokesperson (likely of significant influence, lecturing students), publicly supported this barbaric act, according to the TV appearance and press reports. Can agree it's difficult to assess what percentage of Muslims support illegal practices such as child marriage, FGM, and practices of forced clothing etc.
If we take the 5,000 2017 UK (known) figure of FGM for example...
Doesn’t sound a lot does it? Or not.
This figure is likely only for females of a certain age group. It only occurs once in lifetime, so 1yr's figures can’t be compared to total population.
...But if you do and 2017’s figure doesn’t increase it would equate to 50,000 cases for the 2020’s. And thus 350,000 (average lifetime 75yr), assuming constants. So of the 1.25m females group, 350,000k is 28%.
Do you not think this 28% is significant, and assume this practice is now being dropped in 2017?
It’s difficult to assess what level of integration is occurring when many EU states are now introducing various penalties citizens that appear to be rejecting efforts to integrate. This might indicate there is some serious issues, which likely haven’t happened before in modern times.
Yes can assume the 28% will be stopped from having this done to them, via education. But by doing so you’ll be directly challenging and changing strongly held belief systems.
Migration entry written exams are there for a purpose, if you choose to move somewhere you should have basic knowledge of basic laws and traditions of the land. To offer people who fail, free counselling, is unheard of. It would be attempting to challenge opposing belief systems at the very final stage of entry.
Yes education and science is the key to challenging (any) religious belief system, but it’s only useful for those who choose to accept it.
Ever smoked a joint? Gone over the speed limit? Crossed a road (jaywalked)? Got a sneaky pont after closing time or had a lock in?0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Ever smoked a joint?
Gone over the speed limit?
Crossed a road (jaywalked)?
Got a sneaky pont after closing time or had a lock in?
a) Certainly not publicly in front of authorities after being requested to stop. Is this something you're fond of doing, have you been cautioned for this already?
b) Jaywalking isn't probably a well known, or even an actual offence in Europe, it's unlikely to carry any financial penalty, aside from a quick caution (unless it was a continuous and repetitive disregard).
c) That would be an offence by the bar, not the customer. Everyone surely knows of bars that have received (without managerial dispute) very heavy fines, and even licence revokes (closure) when proven to have done so.
Generally any 'right-thinking, law-abiding, citizen' would very highly likely stop an 'active offence', when caught (publicly) doing so, by (official) authorities (with the legislative power to ask them to stop).
They would also be facing increased charges, levees and financial penalties for displaying an outright refusal to comply.
e.g. Would you refuse to move your car when issued with a parking penalty, paying an ever escalating fine - because you believe you have the god-given right to park where ever you want?
I.e. 'Lawless behaviour', you endorse this?0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »a) Certainly not publicly in front of authorities after being requested to stop. Is this something you're fond of doing, have you been cautioned for this already?
Have never done illegal drugs, never appealed to me. Are you saying smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home is ok?b) Jaywalking isn't probably a well known, or even an actual offence in Europe, it's unlikely to carry any financial penalty, aside from a quick caution (unless it was a continuous and repetitive disregard).
Its still illegal, are you cherry picking laws?c) That would be an offence by the bar, not the customer. Everyone surely knows of bars that have received (without managerial dispute) very heavy fines, and even licence revokes (closure) when proven to have done so.
Its still illegal for you to be there, again... are you cherry picking laws?Generally any 'right-thinking, law-abiding, citizen' would very highly likely stop an 'active offence', when caught (publicly) doing so, by (official) authorities (with the legislative power to ask them to stop).
They would also be facing increased charges, levees and financial penalties for displaying an outright refusal to comply.
And yet we have how many repeat offenders in the courts every week?e.g. Would you refuse to move your car when issued with a parking penalty, paying an ever escalating fine - because you believe you have the god-given right to park where ever you want?
I.e. 'Lawless behaviour', you endorse this?
No i would move it because i wouldnt want the extra expense.
You seemed to miss my question on speeding? Do you religiously stickmto the speed limit or do you choose to break it on a quiet road when there is no one around?
Ever had a few pints and gone up a side street for a quick piss when caught short?0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Have never done illegal drugs, never appealed to me. Are you saying smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home is ok?
Not for me, are you implying smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home is ok? I condone such suggestions, any illegal drugs are still illegal to possess and to use.
You trying to misrepresent the issue regarding Denmark, their new law refers to 'public spaces' only.Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Its still illegal, are you cherry picking laws?
If it's illegal, then yes you should stop after being requested, sure why wouldn't you, it's not clever, and it's not right to continue such types of repeat defiance of the law.Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Its still illegal for you to be there, again... are you cherry picking laws?
You referenced lock-ins, if you're locked in a bar that's serving beer, how do you get out? Are you blaming the customer (who may not even be wearing a watch, or even drinking) for the bar managers actions? That's not fair, to cherry pick the customer as the offender, and not the establishment.Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »And yet we have how many repeat offenders in the courts every week?
That's the right place for them, would you rather they have no penalty for their actions, maybe tear up all legislation?
If not, what can you suggest for law-breakers?Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »No i would move it because i wouldnt want the extra expense.
But would you seem to support the lady in Denmark, who might receive extra fines for disregarding their laws if it occurred again?
That sounds like a conflicting view.Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »You seemed to miss my question on speeding? Do you religiously stickmto the speed limit or do you choose to break it on a quiet road when there is no one around?
Have never knowingly have driven with excess speed or care.
Again, that's not the point and you well know this.
The point was if you were i) pulled over, ii) cautioned iii) fined for speeding - would you 'instantly continue to speed again in full view of authorities', because you want to or believed you have a right, beyond any law, to speed.Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Ever had a few pints and gone up a side street for a quick piss when caught short?
Irrelevant the point again, your question should actually be 'have you ever continued to enjoy you piss when authorities have directly fined you and requested you not to continue pissing up a wall'? Surely that's not the right thing to do, is it now...0 -
The banning of burqas is a typical political solution: ban the symptoms and pretend the problem had gone away. It is a crude and ineffective measure and does not form part of the solution. The only good thing about it (and it seems that people are in general agreement on this issue) is that some people from an Islamic background may have trouble integrating into western society and integration to a certain extent at least is required and that "something should be done about it".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.
It would be better achieved however by banning extremist preachers, and supporting moderates, ex-Muslims and minorites within the Islamic community (gays, Ahmadis, Alevis etc).0 -
The banning of burqas is a typical political solution: ban the symptoms and pretend the problem had gone away. It is a crude and ineffective measure and does not form part of the solution. The only good thing about it (and it seems that people are in general agreement on this issue) is that some people from an Islamic background may have trouble integrating into western society and integration to a certain extent at least is required and that "something should be done about it".
It would be better achieved however by banning extremist preachers, and supporting moderates, ex-Muslims and minorites within the Islamic community (gays, Ahmadis, Alevis etc).
As you rightly point out, there is something to be said for banning the burqa. Ultimately it forms part of a religious suppression of female sexuality and individualism which to us seems anachronistic and repressive. Banning it might give young Muslim women a 'way out' of feeling religiously or culturally obliged to cover up.
But I cannot help but feel, as you allude to, that outrightly banning the burqa is a ham-fisted approach which targets and alienates the wrong people. After all, we still do believe in religious freedom here and the freedom for women to choose what they want to wear. If a Muslim woman decides to cover up out of a personal religious choice, or indeed if she just likes wearing it, then the ban is pretty much suppressing that choice --- if this is liberalism, then it's a highly distorted variation.
Ultimately, I would love to see a world where Muslim women don't feel the need to cover up -- but at the same time if any white Irish woman told me she liked to dress extremely modestly out of a religious choice or personal taste -- I wouldn't be shouting for her to dress like everyone else out of a fear she might "infect" others with what I might perceive to be backwardness.
As you say, we need to fight Islamic extremism in the right arenas -- with a careful balance of ferocity and caution. I'm not sure if targeting the garments of ordinary Muslim women achieves much except help the extremists convince young Muslims that the West is actively trying to destroy Islam . . .0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,192 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37020
One-liner deleted.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »So, despite Sweden now being (in the eyes of the anti-migration crowd) a post-Islamopocalyptic wasteland, it still maintains its high quality of life. How does that fit into your world view of migration 'worsening the lives of Europeans?
Now -- you can either answer the question or concede the point. Any more dodging and I will just have to deem it a concession.automation is just another one of your smokescreens for your previously-admitted fantasies of a world where all the races and cultures live separately.As embarrassing as this would be for both of us, am I actually going to have to explain to you why prosperity is important to society?This is really poor stuff, but I did enjoy the irony of the structure of this paragraph : (a) claim other person doesn't know what they're talking about; (b) tell person what the solution to the problem is NOT; (c) concede that you don't have the answers but it's definitely definitely not immigration because to even suggest that it was would be wholly inconvenient to your argument.All I have seen you do in the course of our discussions is point some of the challenges of the immigration but fail to actually ever hit any nail on the head as to why the challenges form an insurmountable reason to just end it all. You talk about immigration worsening all of our lives -- yet despite this being the central tenet of your creed -- you have not once been able to substantiate or even answer simple questions about it.
Because that's it isn't it? If immigration has worsened all our lives, then surely there should be a demonstrable time period where can track this phenomenon. But you cannot show it . . .you toss around Islamic insurgency as if this problem, as sinister and threatening as it is, overcomes the sheer weight of the fact that -- even with all the immigration it has experienced -- Europe continues to be a leading light in economic performance, personal freedom, equality and widespread prosperity.
This is the fundamental issue which you have as of yet been either unable or unwilling to face up to.
I'm going to try address all of the above together, as its essentially the one point. You're arguing in bad faith. I've been a significant contributor to this thread. I've discussed my view with several people. Because it is a long thread, and I fully acknowledge no one has time to read all of it, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and clarified my position. But you persist in straw-manning me despite that clarification. Plus the ad hominems. Its all evidence of bad faith.
My view is that mass migration is a bad policy for Europeans as it inflicts unnecessary costs and harm to Europeans. I've described what I consider those costs to be, and I've provided evidence to support that view. I believe Europeans can legitimately expect their government to represent their interests first. Therefore a policy which is harmful to them should not be pursued by their government in the same way Europeans ought to be able to expect the government would not put lead in the drinking water.
You're arguing in bad faith because either consciously or unconsciously you're misrepresenting my position to instead be that the lives of Europeans in 2018 is worse than the lives of Europeans in 1948 (for example). You're doing so because its comforting to you to engage in whataboutery (for example in 1948 rationing in Europe was still widespread) and disprove an argument no one made, rather than deal with my actual view.
What I'd ask though: If you are as right as you undoubtedly believe you are, then why not engage with my actual views?I have spoken to other contributors here about automation, mainly Accumulator. I have concerns about the threat that it may pose in hollowing out the middle class. But it is as simple as this -- I have always said that immigration policy must take account of a country's economic capacity. So let us say that it really does come to a worst case scenario where a small class of algorithm geniuses make up the high-skilled class and the rest of the entire human race has simply found absolutely no way to make themselves useful (which I doubt) -- then immigration policy will need to react to that trend.
And by the time you realise that European society has devolved into a variation of Bladerunner with worse aesthetics, do you think immigration policy will still be up for democratic debate?
People fell for this nonsense in the 1950s and 1960s. They were told the immigrants were guest workers, and would leave. They were told that immigration reform would not change their countries. Now you say that what's done is done and is irreversible. So its bad faith to pretend that immigration policy will need to react after society has a mass of unemployable low skilled workers on its hands.This is pragmatism, not ideological entrenchment. You would simply have us pull the plug on immigration right away
I would have European government employ some foresight, taking into account already observable trends.You are very self-assured in your views . . . yet it seems odd to me that someone can concede they don't have the answers to a problem (which is entirely fair enough) but at the same time assert with full confidence and certainty that immigration is 100% not a solution.
I don't claim to be very self-assured. You just perceive me as such. As you acknowledge, I point out I don't have all the answers. What you identify as self assurance is taking a position that is based on the evidence.
And immigration is not a solution for Europeans. Non-Europeans having children does not address any of the reasons Europeans are unable to have the families they want. That is self evident.Oh but you are deflecting -- and not answering my question (as per usual). Citing employability figures as an indicator of capability for ethnic minorities is a really unfair and dishonest practice.
It's objective. You might as well claim exam results are unfair means of indicating the best educated students. Fair is subjective. Facts are objective. The claim is mass migration is an economic benefit. We've already demonstrated that non-EEA migrants to the UK are an economic loss to the UK. And unemployment figures for BAME infer that second and third generations continue to be a cost to the UK economy.Immigrants and ethnic minorities often live in areas of greater social deprivation and the links between deprivation and career-attainment are well known. That's the first reason why the chain of argument you're following here is dishonest.Yet, studies and research have shown that ethnic minorities are facing other challenges which whites simply are not.
I'm dishonest? You've been clearly indicating that immigrants and ethnic minorities are going to fuel Europe's economic growth for the next century, as Europeans grow greyer and older. All the doctors, scientists and engineers washing up on Europe's shores, eager to pay our pensions. All we have to do is let them in and set them to work.
Now you admit that after arriving in Europe, they instead live in social deprivation which is an indicator of economic failure. So they require additional investment to become economic contributors. An additional cost, not a benefit. The cognitive dissonance required to hold both views simultaneously is again evidence of how you are arguing in bad faith. I'm honest - I accept all the challenges poorly educated immigrants from the third world who cant speak the vernacular face. That is why I don't agree with your view that their immigration will benefit Europeans. It clearly doesn't.The insinuation that BAME kids are less capable than White kids is demonstrably false. They are every bit as capable.
Unemployment statistics indicate differently. You might argue the causes, but it doesn't change the result.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm going to try address all of the above together, as its essentially the one point. You're arguing in bad faith. I've been a significant contributor to this thread. I've discussed my view with several people. Because it is a long thread, and I fully acknowledge no one has time to read all of it, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and clarified my position. But you persist in straw-manning me despite that clarification. Plus the ad hominems. Its all evidence of bad faith.
I really don't see the value of this paragraph . . .My view is that mass migration is a bad policy for Europeans as it inflicts unnecessary costs and harm to Europeans. I've described what I consider those costs to be, and I've provided evidence to support that view. I believe Europeans can legitimately expect their government to represent their interests first. Therefore a policy which is harmful to them should not be pursued by their government in the same way Europeans ought to be able to expect the government would not put lead in the drinking water.
You're arguing in bad faith because either consciously or unconsciously you're misrepresenting my position to instead be that the lives of Europeans in 2018 is worse than the lives of Europeans in 1948 (for example). You're doing so because its comforting to you to engage in whataboutery (for example in 1948 rationing in Europe was still widespread) and disprove an argument no one made, rather than deal with my actual view.
What I'd ask though: If you are as right as you undoubtedly believe you are, then why not engage with my actual views?
But again, eloquent and verbose, but no hammer blow. You talk about something inflicting unnecessary costs and harm to Europeans -- great -- I can comfortably agree with the submission that there is a cost to immigration and that the challenges inherent in immigration can indeed often be harmful. But downsides must outweigh positives. You identify the downsides but consistently fail to actually point how those downsides are so overwhelmingly insurmountable that they justify dramatic reversal.
That's why I find it a crucial point of this discussion to press you for comparators. Because on one hand life in Western Europe is pretty damn good -- not only in terms of prosperity but also in terms of the rule of law, tolerance, individual liberty etc. These have improved over the years - not regressed. Not only that -- but you still have not managed to point out to me where in the world we can look for inspiration --- just what country out there is getting right what we are getting so wrong ?! It is therefore extremely difficult to reconcile your views of the overwhelming harmfulness of immigration with the generally great health of life in Western Europe. So then -- one asks oneself -- if civil liberties and general prosperity have improved in Europe . . . and all the while we have been experiencing this 'mass migration' you speak of . . .then could it possibly be that our immigration policy has been part of this?
Your insistence, and I dare say now a bit of a whine, that I am arguing in bad faith is merely a reflection of your inability to face up to this giant multiracial elephant in the classroom of the Sand School of Thought.And by the time you realise that European society has devolved into a variation of Bladerunner with worse aesthetics, do you think immigration policy will still be up for democratic debate?
I dare say that appears to be solid step-up on your part from plain old ordinary Declinism to full-on Tinfoil Hat Declinism.People fell for this nonsense in the 1950s and 1960s. They were told the immigrants were guest workers, and would leave. They were told that immigration reform would not change their countries. Now you say that what's done is done and is irreversible. So its bad faith to pretend that immigration policy will need to react after society has a mass of unemployable low skilled workers on its hands.
You are contradicting your own point really. As you say, people in the 1950s had no desire to mix with migrants and they had no desire to integrate them. They brought them over en masse (from the colonies which the European powers had of course willfully defecated over for years) and when many of them quite naturally wanted to remain in the countries which had grown so prosperous on the theft of colonial resources -- they were just left to fester, and society had no desire to integrate them. So comparing immigration in the 1950s with now just does not work. The problems caused by mid-20th century migration were a direct result of an unwillingness to treat migrants as prospective compatriots.And immigration is not a solution for Europeans. Non-Europeans having children does not address any of the reasons Europeans are unable to have the families they want. That is self evident.
All I can say to that is that we must know very different girls. I'm in my late 20s myself and personally I don't know too many girls who want to put the brakes on enjoying their 20s and pop out 4 or 5 children. Happy to let you rummage away and find out other reasons but my life experience has been that young women simply want have a bit of independence up to around 30 and have a couple of kids between then and 33-35 or so.
It seems to me the only way to address that is to either incentivise young women in their mid-20s to start having babies . . . . or somehow manage to find a way to allow women to have babies at a later age without the increased risk of complications. The latter will take time while the former will require (a) that you manage to convince the average 25 year old girl to forego the enjoyment, adventure and career-building of her 20s in favour of sitting around popping out kids and (b) dealing with the economic consequences of businesses losing the valuable services of young women while they have kids.It's objective. You might as well claim exam results are unfair means of indicating the best educated students. Fair is subjective. Facts are objective. The claim is mass migration is an economic benefit. We've already demonstrated that non-EEA migrants to the UK are an economic loss to the UK. And unemployment figures for BAME infer that second and third generations continue to be a cost to the UK economy.
Yes it is objective --- ethnic minorities are performing just as well and often even better than white kids in education yet this is not reflecting in employment statistics. Ethnic minorities are facing greater challenges in even getting interviews based on not having 'native-sounding' names. That's a problem in society at large -- not a problem caused by immigrants themselves.I'm dishonest? You've been clearly indicating that immigrants and ethnic minorities are going to fuel Europe's economic growth for the next century, as Europeans grow greyer and older. All the doctors, scientists and engineers washing up on Europe's shores, eager to pay our pensions. All we have to do is let them in and set them to work.
Now you admit that after arriving in Europe, they instead live in social deprivation which is an indicator of economic failure. So they require additional investment to become economic contributors. An additional cost, not a benefit. The cognitive dissonance required to hold both views simultaneously is again evidence of how your are arguing in bad faith. I'm honest - I accept all the challenges poorly educated immigrants from the third world who cant speak the vernacular face. That is why I don't agree with your view that their immigration will benefit Europeans. It clearly doesn't.
The fact that you see it as cognitive dissonance I think speaks more of your own narrow grasp that it does anything else. There are plenty of skilled migrants who ahve come and are coming to the UK, so much so that the skilled migrants cap set by the Home Office has been hit several times (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/18/uk-hits-skilled-worker-visa-cap-third-month-home-office-refuses-applications). I have never claimed that there are not many less skilled migrants who will naturally find it more difficult to get employment.
That said, looking at studies regarding the fiscal contributions of migrants, a UCL study does cite that the fiscal contribution of recent non-European immigrants (i.e. arriving in 2000 onwards) was positive to the tune of £5 billion. The figure was negative for native UK born by £617 billion (http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf). Maybe that's the same study you've been quoting -- but the comparison of the figures from 1995-2011 and 2000-2011 shows a reasonable improvement in the fiscal contribution of non-European migrants from 2000 onwards.
So again -- if non-European migration presents a particular problem versus immigration from the wealthy developed states of the EU -- it does not look like it is an inherently insurmountable issue. The more recent upswing in fiscal contribution might suggest that perhaps the drive towards better economic integration of newer younger migrants is yielding a dividend.
Perhaps that has something to do with the apparent outcome of the Brexit referendum that younger people are less bothered by immigration than the generation before . . . . and that as a result it is becoming easier for migrants integrate.0 -
The banning of burqas is a typical political solution: ban the symptoms and pretend the problem had gone away. It is a crude and ineffective measure and does not form part of the solution. The only good thing about it (and it seems that people are in general agreement on this issue) is that some people from an Islamic background may have trouble integrating into western society and integration to a certain extent at least is required and that "something should be done about it".
It would be better achieved however by banning extremist preachers, and supporting moderates, ex-Muslims and minorites within the Islamic community (gays, Ahmadis, Alevis etc).
Personally I'd prefer to make intentionally raising children with sexually repressed personalities or gender inferiority complexes a form of child abuse in the criminal sense. This would ensure that no little girl was brought up by Muslim parents to think that she had to cover her face in public when boys of the same age did not. It would also mean that no little boy brought up by Catholic parents could be told that he was committing a moral wrong by touching his own genitals or by coming out as gay, and that no little girl could be brought up thinking that sex before marriage would mean she would burn in hell, or whatever other bullsh!t parents of sexually repressed individuals rammed down their throats when they hit puberty.
I agree with all the criticisms of ultraconservative Islam's incompatibility with Western liberal values, I just find it laughable that many of the right wing folk who talk about this want Christianity to get a free pass. Telling a child that they'll go blind if they touch themselves in private or spend eternity in excruciating pain for having sex outside marriage is every bit as evil and barbaric as telling a girl that she has to cover her face in public and that she's second class to every male human. They're on exactly the same level and yes, they should be outlawed as a form of inherently evil psychological child abuse, with documentable and measurable harm to a young person's self-esteem.0 -
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.
Then we dont differ all that much. I think Brexit is the wrong solution to an imagined problem. And Trump makes my skin crawl. His very voice sounds like nails on blackboard to me.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.
I'd agree. I think both are a result of massive demographic pressures being placed on American and British peoples by mass migration. The establishment studiously ignored all polite objections to the policy of mass migration. So they got the impolite objections. Mass migration encourages racial politics as the new and indigenous populations identify their interests in opposition to each other. Trump won every major white voting group, including white women. Non-whites in turn voted Democrat, and the Democrats have continued down the path of representing non-white resentment. In the UK people openly wonder why areas which experienced no immigration voted for Brexit whilst complaining about immigration: its because these areas are indigenous British and they voted for their interests to continue being indigenous British as opposed to following London, Birmingham and other formerly British areas. This is racial/identity politics which is now mainstream politics in the US and the UK, and ever increasingly in Europe. Salvini in Italy was not propelled to power on the back of his economic policies.
The arrogance and ignorance on the part of the establishment is that they think they can continue with the Blair-Barack-Clinton style of 1990s politics. They cant. They sowed dragons teeth for 20 years, now they have a dragon on their hands.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.
The political left in the US/UK is increasingly being subverted by the immigrants, who are obviously representing their own interests, like the Irish in the US did before them. Suddenly the UK Labour party has an antisemitism problem. Suddenly the Democrats in the US tolerate, and indeed encourage, anti-white rhetoric. This is not a signal of a shift in the mindset of the voters. It is a signal of the shift in voter demographics. People change, politics change. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a primary recently against an Irish-American incumbent in a district that is 50% Latino and 75% non-white, let alone Irish American. This is heralded as shocking. Its just shocking an Irish-American was incumbent at all.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.
Centre left parties have lost support in Europe - the SPD in Germany for example has fallen behind the AfD which was only started a decade ago. The reasons are simple. The AfD, rightly or wrongly, prioritises the interests of Europeans. The SPD prioritises the interests of immigrants.
Up until now the centre-left (and the centre-right) has believed they could represent both simultaneously. But in an era of mass-migration, these interests are opposed. And the indigenous Europeans still have more votes for now at least.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »But downsides must outweigh positives. You identify the downsides but consistently fail to actually point how those downsides are so overwhelmingly insurmountable that they justify dramatic reversal.
I identify the objectively measured downsides. You claim upsides, whilst not providing any measure of them. Least of all that they outweigh the negatives. Reality>Dreams.That's why I find it a crucial point of this discussion to press you for comparators. Because on one hand life in Western Europe is pretty damn good -- not only in terms of prosperity but also in terms of the rule of law, tolerance, individual liberty etc. These have improved over the years - not regressed.
A teenager in the UK was convicted for hate crimes because she posted the lyrics of a rap song by Snap Dogg on her instagram. That is the extent of personal freedoms in the multicultural UK.
Law, tolerance, individual liberty? These are secondary to the repression that seems increasingly necessary to maintain life in multicultural Europe.Not only that -- but you still have not managed to point out to me where in the world we can look for inspiration --- just what country out there is getting right what we are getting so wrong ?!
Where in my views is it necessary to point to a country that is getting mass migration right? Is it not clear I believe mass migration is inherently harmful to the indigenous population?It is therefore extremely difficult to reconcile your views of the overwhelming harmfulness of immigration with the generally great health of life in Western Europe. So then -- one asks oneself -- if civil liberties and general prosperity have improved in Europe
And they haven't.. . . and all the while we have been experiencing this 'mass migration' you speak of . . .then could it possibly be that our immigration policy has been part of this?
This is just more bad faith argument. Complete denial of any downside to mass migration despite 'homegrown' Islamic terrorism, economic drains and teenagers being convicted of hate crimes for posting on Instagram. All completely unnecessary costs without mass migration.Your insistence, and I dare say now a bit of a whine, that I am arguing in bad faith is merely a reflection of your inability to face up to this giant multiracial elephant in the classroom of the Sand School of Thought.
I saw your other post in the Brexit thread. What stood out to me was your repetition of this declinist theory. You believe that Europe is actually fine. That people are just talking Europe down. It reminds me of the green jersey brigade back in 2007-2008 who believed everything was fine in Ireland then too. You projected this view onto me when you pretended I subscribed to this declinist school of thought. Now you're inventing this 'Sand School of Thought'. You are man with a hammer for a world view, and all you see are nails.
I just find the ad hominems boring. You've no argument. All you have is trying to personalise attacks.I dare say that appears to be solid step-up on your part from plain old ordinary Declinism to full-on Tinfoil Hat Declinism.
And more boring.All I can say to that is that we must know very different girls. I'm in my late 20s myself and personally I don't know too many girls who want to put the brakes on enjoying their 20s and pop out 4 or 5 children. Happy to let you rummage away and find out other reasons but my life experience has been that young women simply want have a bit of independence up to around 30 and have a couple of kids between then and 33-35 or so.
More bad faith arguments. You actually got it right the first time. When women are surveyed, they say they want to have 2-3 kids. In reality, women in the EU have 1.6 children on average. So they are having less children than they want to have. If women were having the number of children they wanted, Europe would not being growing older and greyer.Yes it is objective --- ethnic minorities are performing just as well and often even better than white kids in education yet this is not reflecting in employment statistics.
So what? They might as well be champions at the school egg and spoon race. The claim is that they are an economic benefit over and beyond indigenous British. They are not. That is the evidence. Deal with it.Maybe that's the same study you've been quoting -- but the comparison of the figures from 1995-2011 and 2000-2011 shows a reasonable improvement in the fiscal contribution of non-European migrants from 2000 onwards.
So again -- if non-European migration presents a particular problem versus immigration from the wealthy developed states of the EU -- it does not look like it is an inherently insurmountable issue. The more recent upswing in fiscal contribution might suggest that perhaps the drive towards better economic integration of newer younger migrants is yielding a dividend.
I actually gave you some credit previously that you understood that report better than Weisses did. That credit is now withdrawn. Review the report again, particularly what the 1995-2011 and 2000-2011 datasets are.Perhaps that has something to do with the apparent outcome of the Brexit referendum that younger people are less bothered by immigration than the generation before . . . . and that as a result it is becoming easier for migrants integrate.
More cognitive dissonance. We already know they aren't integrating well enough to get jobs at the same rate as indigenous British, and you have a long list of excuses why they aren't integrated well enough to do so and need special assistance to do so.0 -
I identify the objectively measured downsides. You claim upsides, whilst not providing any measure of them. Least of all that they outweigh the negatives. Reality>Dreams.
You say this despite the fact that EU migrants contribute clearly positively to the UK economy and despite the fact that I have just provided you evidence that suggests in the input of non-European immigrants since 2000 has also been positive. It is also a fact which needs no measure that, funnily enough, on a continent which once was in an almost constant state of conflict -- it just so happens that since the relaxation of borders and the embracing of migration, peace and prosperity have been lasting.
Those of us who don't live in paranoid fear at the thought of a street full of people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds might be inclined to say that a lot of Europe's success comes from the fact that diversity has made our differences seem smaller. -- and encouraged our ability to look beyond difference and find human commonality.A teenager in the UK was convicted for hate crimes because she posted the lyrics of a rap song by Snap Dogg on her instagram. That is the extent of personal freedoms in the multicultural UK.
Law, tolerance, individual liberty? These are secondary to the repression that seems increasingly necessary to maintain life in multicultural Europe.
This is absurd. The Snap Dogg ruling was wrong in my view -- but to say that it is indicative of the nature of personal freedom in the UK is just wrong. Here is a link to the Human Freedom Index (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index) which measures countries on things like rule of law; safety / security ; religion ; association ; expression ; identity etc. The UK features highly, along with (take a look at the map) . . . Europe generally, the USA, Canada etc -- you know -- all those places which apparently have gone to the dogs because of the darned migrants right??
Once again -- I fear your perception has overcome the objective reality.Where in my views is it necessary to point to a country that is getting mass migration right? Is it not clear I believe mass migration is inherently harmful to the indigenous population?
Oh it's very clear -- your entrenchment is perfectly blatant. But fortunately that's not the ask; I simply ask that you point out which countries that haven't experienced mass migration are demonstrably much better places to live out one's days?And they haven't.
In your opinion. An opinion which, regardless of what is put forward, will forever remain entrenched because you fear multiculturalism full stop. The Canute stance is a hard one to break free from.This is just more bad faith argument. Complete denial of any downside to mass migration despite 'homegrown' Islamic terrorism, economic drains and teenagers being convicted of hate crimes for posting on Instagram. All completely unnecessary costs without mass migration.
Ah yes, there's that 'bad faith' again -- a term which at first I just took as an irritating whine but which now seems to mean: "how dare you not share my opinions and aspire towards an unobtainable world of monocultural bliss?"
I explicitly said in my last post that there are downsides. I have spoken about Islamic terror, I have spoken about the economic challenges, and I have certainly demolished the nonsense about personal freedom in the UK (which is not an achievement on my part because claiming that the UK is not a very, very free country with very high levels of personal freedom is manifestly ridiculous).
Do not be so quick to look for 'bad faith' that you forget to actually read my posts.I saw your other post in the Brexit thread. What stood out to me was your repetition of this declinist theory. You believe that Europe is actually fine. That people are just talking Europe down. It reminds me of the green jersey brigade back in 2007-2008 who believed everything was fine in Ireland then too. You projected this view onto me when you pretended I subscribed to this declinist school of thought. Now you're inventing this 'Sand School of Thought'. You are man with a hammer for a world view, and all you see are nails.
I just find the ad hominems boring. You've no argument. All you have is trying to personalise attacks.
You have not grasped the point of the post. I did not suggest that Europe is some invulnerable juggernaut that will just carry on as it has done (well, as it has done in recent decades which funnily enough coincides with the arrival of our migrant friends). My point was that it was not declining. The levels of peace, freedom, tolerance and prosperity we have in Europe are an amazing and hard-won platform from which we can push on to continue addressing bigger issues. We should be grateful for them -- as indeed anyone stepping into a rusty boat and risking death to cross the Med can tell you.
Many of us, seemingly more-so the younger generation, want to march on from this platform and build it even higher : continue the drive for further individual freedom; progress international diplomacy; encourage technological innovation; develop greater links with poorer countries so that we might actually address the imbalances which lead so many to risk their lives to come here illegally.
Yet sadly, as Brexit indicated, we are unfortunately handcuffed to those who still want to roll around in the mud bickering about culture / race / religion / nationality --- those who simply fear difference and ironically only serve to reinforce some of the negative effects of that difference.More bad faith arguments. You actually got it right the first time. When women are surveyed, they say they want to have 2-3 kids. In reality, women in the EU have 1.6 children on average. So they are having less children than they want to have. If women were having the number of children they wanted, Europe would not being growing older and greyer.
See . . . this is what I don't get about you; you cry/whinge bad faith but you don't actually seem to read what I say. I'm not saying how many kids women necessarily would like to have. . . I'm simply saying that the pregnancy window for the modern working European woman is tightening -- the average EU age for a first pregnancy is 29 and after that it's a race against biological risk as one progresses into the 30s. I really don't see how you are going to incentivise more, say, 27 year olds to start having kids when many of them are still focusing on career and enjoyment . . . so the question becomes one of incentivising women to be quite reproductively productive from 29 onwards. Not impossible - - - but it still ain't happening as it stands.So what? They might as well be champions at the school egg and spoon race. The claim is that they are an economic benefit over and beyond indigenous British. They are not. That is the evidence. Deal with it.
This is such a squalid argument and it is disturbing that you cannot see that.I actually gave you some credit previously that you understood that report better than Weisses did. That credit is now withdrawn. Review the report again, particularly what the 1995-2011 and 2000-2011 datasets are.
"Between 2001 and 2011 recent EEA immigrants contributed to the fiscal system 34% more than they took out, with a net fiscal contribution of about 22.1 billion GBP. In contrast, over the same period, natives’ fiscal payments amounted to 89% of the amount of transfers they received, or an overall negative fiscal contribution of 624.1 billion GBP. At the same time recent immigrants from non-EEA countries made a net fiscal contribution of 2.9 billion GBP, thus paying in the system about 2% more than they took out."More cognitive dissonance. We already know they aren't integrating well enough to get jobs at the same rate as indigenous British, and you have a long list of excuses why they aren't integrated well enough to do so and need special assistance to do so.
You have a very interesting interpretation of cognitive dissonance. It is not dissonant to say that immigrants are contributing positively but that there are still societal barriers preventing them from possibly contributing even more.0 -
I identify the objectively measured downsides. You claim upsides, whilst not providing any measure of them. Least of all that they outweigh the negatives. Reality>Dreams.
A teenager in the UK was convicted for hate crimes because she posted the lyrics of a rap song by Snap Dogg on her instagram. That is the extent of personal freedoms in the multicultural UK.
Law, tolerance, individual liberty? These are secondary to the repression that seems increasingly necessary to maintain life in multicultural Europe.
Where in my views is it necessary to point to a country that is getting mass migration right? Is it not clear I believe mass migration is inherently harmful to the indigenous population?
And they haven't.
This is just more bad faith argument. Complete denial of any downside to mass migration despite 'homegrown' Islamic terrorism, economic drains and teenagers being convicted of hate crimes for posting on Instagram. All completely unnecessary costs without mass migration.
I saw your other post in the Brexit thread. What stood out to me was your repetition of this declinist theory. You believe that Europe is actually fine. That people are just talking Europe down. It reminds me of the green jersey brigade back in 2007-2008 who believed everything was fine in Ireland then too. You projected this view onto me when you pretended I subscribed to this declinist school of thought. Now you're inventing this 'Sand School of Thought'. You are man with a hammer for a world view, and all you see are nails.
I just find the ad hominems boring. You've no argument. All you have is trying to personalise attacks.
And more boring.
More bad faith arguments. You actually got it right the first time. When women are surveyed, they say they want to have 2-3 kids. In reality, women in the EU have 1.6 children on average. So they are having less children than they want to have. If women were having the number of children they wanted, Europe would not being growing older and greyer.
So what? They might as well be champions at the school egg and spoon race. The claim is that they are an economic benefit over and beyond indigenous British. They are not. That is the evidence. Deal with it.
I actually gave you some credit previously that you understood that report better than Weisses did. That credit is now withdrawn. Review the report again, particularly what the 1995-2011 and 2000-2011 datasets are.
More cognitive dissonance. We already know they aren't integrating well enough to get jobs at the same rate as indigenous British, and you have a long list of excuses why they aren't integrated well enough to do so and need special assistance to do so.
Can you tell me the harmful effects on the indigenous populatuon mass migration of irish people to the UK/US was when over a million people hit their shores ? Is the harm still ongoing?0 -
A teenager in the UK was convicted for hate crimes because she posted the lyrics of a rap song by Snap Dogg on her instagram. That is the extent of personal freedoms in the multicultural UK.
Law, tolerance, individual liberty? These are secondary to the repression that seems increasingly necessary to maintain life in multicultural Europe.ArthurDayne wrote: »This is absurd. The Snap Dogg ruling was wrong in my view -- but to say that it is indicative of the nature of personal freedom in the UK is just wrong. Here is a link to the Human Freedom Index (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index) which measures countries on things like rule of law; safety / security ; religion ; association ; expression ; identity etc. The UK features highly, along with (take a look at the map) . . . Europe generally, the USA, Canada etc -- you know -- all those places which apparently have gone to the dogs because of the darned migrants right??
Once again -- I fear your perception has overcome the objective reality.
To be fair, the UK has utterly gone to sh!t with regard to personal freedom, but that's because of homegrown right wing politics, not immigration. Their slide towards policing the internet and monitoring peoples' social media activity began long before the migrant crisis became a "thing" - I remember as far back as 2010 the UK was bringing in internet policing laws under the guise of stopping piracy, which quickly escalated to "all ISPs must block porn by default unless customers phone them and request the filter be turned off" etc. People being criminally prosecuted for using bad language on Twitter began shortly after this.
It's no coincidence that this all began happening immediately after the Tories got into power in 2010. You elect right wing, authoritarian, social conservative tyrants and this is the inevitable result. Blaming migrants is totally unreasonable.0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Can you tell me the harmful effects on the indigenous populatuon mass migration of irish people to the UK/US was when over a million people hit their shores ? Is the harm still ongoing?
Non-relative question.
i) The US over a century ago was largely void, with plenty of space available for anyone to claim and build upon, low-skilled manual work (farming to construction) was the default and aplenty. Not to mention those arriving at ellis island were welcomed and feed by those seeking their immediate conscription to fight their internal civil war for them.
ii) The UK (aside from some periods on the 70/80's) was generally at zero unemployment and the Irish (fully fluent and often better educated) quickly filled any vacant positions from building sites, schools, hospitals and later more professional/technical/managerial.
Interestingly the recent arrivals from the EU2 (Romania & Bulgaria) have quickly overtook the many decades of steady Irish migration, and just since they were allowed to work in the UK (A2, 2014).
Many from the Islamic community may have non-fluency, and prefer their lady folk not to work, to stay at home and tend to offspring. Whereas most Irish women refuse to not have a strong career path, and delay childbirth as a result.
Today the UK faces the growing automation of low-skileld human tasks, 17,000 staff are at immediate risk of redundancy as (a single) retail chain faces closure. Directly thanks to the likes of low-tax, low-staffed Amazon and their autonomous mega warehouses.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »I have just provided you evidence that suggests in the input of non-European immigrants since 2000 has also been positive....At the same time recent immigrants from non-EEA countries made a net fiscal contribution of 2.9 billion GBP, thus paying in the system about 2% more than they took out."
This is what I mean about you arguing in bad faith. You repeat claims that are already refuted. Non-EEA migrants did not suddenly become profitable since 2000. Go back and re-read the report until you understand the two data sets.You have not grasped the point of the post..My point was that it was not declining.
Then we agree. I'm not arguing that Europe is declining either. You are straw-manning me. Ironically enough, you still seem unable or unwilling to address my actual views.Yet sadly, as Brexit indicated, we are unfortunately handcuffed to those who still want to roll around in the mud bickering about culture / race / religion / nationality --- those who simply fear difference and ironically only serve to reinforce some of the negative effects of that difference.
So you might as well make your plans within the realms of what is possible. The more diverse countries become, the more people 'roll around in the mud bickering about culture/race/religion/nationality' as you put it. People do not want mass migration. They flee 'diverse' communities. And as Brexit, Trump and Salvini have shown, they still have the right to vote and will use it in their own interests.0 -
Advertisement
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »Those of us who don't live in paranoid fear at the thought of a street full of people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds might be inclined to say that a lot of Europe's success comes from the fact that diversity has made our differences seem smaller. -- and encouraged our ability to look beyond difference and find human commonality.
...
Yet sadly, as Brexit indicated, we are unfortunately handcuffed to those who still want to roll around in the mud bickering about culture / race / religion / nationality --- those who simply fear difference and ironically only serve to reinforce some of the negative effects of that difference.
Do you at least acknowledge that the raising of children with ultraconservative, repressed, gender-based inferiority complexes should be recognised as child abuse in the criminal sense? Would you be ok with a Saudi family moving to Ireland and putting their daughter through Irish public school, while educating her to believe that she has to be subservient to all boys her age, cover her face, never date or kiss anyone, etc? Honestly, would you be ok with that happening in our country? Because I sure as f*ck wouldn't. I'm not ok with it when it happens with ultraconservative Catholic families, and nobody's going to get a free pass for child abuse from me just because they're from a different cultural background.
I am not anti-immigration, but the pro-immigration left needs to start actually addressing these legitimate concerns and spelling out how they can be addressed policy-wise, rather than just sidestepping them and accusing those who oppose immigration for cultural protectionist reasons of being racist, bigoted, backwards, or whatever other slur people like to use to shut down debate without answering valid points.
I have no shame in stating myself to be a cultural protectionist. I believe that the society in which we now live, in which young people are by and large free from the kind of horrendous sexual and personal repression which went on in the dark days of criminalised homosexuality, criminalised contraception, and magdalene laundries as being better, superior, morally more righteous than the society of a country like Saudi Arabia in which women are by and large second class citizens. And I believe that this culture should be protected by law, while welcoming immigrants from all corners of the globe. But it has to be, in the cultural sense of Western liberal values, "assimilate or f*ck off".
Let's start with my previous example: If an ultraconservative family from, say, Saudi Arabia, was raising a daughter here in Ireland and demanded that she wear a burka or be punished or grounded in some way at home for not doing so, would you regard this as ok? Would you regard this as an acceptable feature of multiculturalism? And if not, while continuing to be pro-immigration (as, again, am I) would you support laws of the kind I've mentioned in my post, to classify parenting which intentionally results in emotionally, sexually, or psychologically repressed individuals as a form of child neglect, dealt with by law under the same mechanisms with which we deal with other forms of child abuse or neglect?
Yes or no?0
Advertisement