Migration Megathread

Sand

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?

In the US? It helped fuel the mass migration into the lands of Native Americans. The loss suffered by those people continues to this day: twice as likely to be killed by the police and 3-4 times as likely to be incarcerated. Their communities are marked by crippling poverty and unemployment. 40% live in substandard housing, of which less than 16% has indoor plumbing. Only half their children graduate high school. They suffer from high rates of diabetes, obesity, substance abuse and HIV and other STDs. Their women are 3-4 times more likely to be raped, and more than 1 in 5 of their children suffer from PTSD. Their young men (15-24) are two and half times more likely to kill themselves, with suicide being the second highest cause of death for that age group.

We see similar effects on other peoples who were overwhelmed by mass migration, such as the Aboriginals in Australia.

In the UK, the Irish were a Christian English speaking European people and they assimilated into another Christian English speaking European people. Indeed up until 1922, they were part of the same country so weren't crossing a border at all. The ease of the assimilation is best demonstrated by the infamous Englishman Tommy Robinson.

ArthurDayne

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

Am I OK with a Saudi family educating their daughter to believe that she has to be subservient to boys, cover up and not kiss anyone? --- No. Do I agree that it should be recognised as a form of child abuse in the criminal sense ? --- This is more difficult. Criminalising something requires law, and good fair law must always be clear and consistent. There are many Christian, even agnostic or atheist parents, who dictate to their children what to wear -- who will still tell their daughters that they look like sluts for the utterly harmless act of wearing a miniskirt or whatever. There are still many people out there who hold views that women should cover up more if they wish to avoid sexual assault (i.e. the 'asking for it' brigade) and I'm sure many advise their daughters along those lines. The Abrahamic religions, like many others, do seem particularly obsessed with sex -- and all of them impose a certain level of deluded sexual repression -- which is then passed down by parents to varying levels of strictness.

Do I find all of this repressive? Absolutely -- though I do think progress has been made via evolution of attitudes towards sexuality over the years. But if the law wished to interject in the raising of children -- to dictate to parents under pain of criminal prosecution the way to raise their kids versus the freedom of religion. What happens when you criminalise them? Does a parent who otherwise loves their child and imposes religious beliefs upon them in full sincerity for the desired salvation of their soul (even if it is delusional) suddenly become a convicted abuser of children? Do they go to prison? What then becomes of the children? Do we deprive them of their parents? Because really -- unless you impose this law with full severity -- then the law is weak, and where you have weak law you risk clumsy application and injustice.

Maybe you think I am obfuscating the point, but I work in law and as such I do tend to weigh up the merits of imposing criminal legislation by weighing up both the moral point and whether law would give effect to that moral point in a way which is fair and effective. To me -- obviously without having the wording of the hypothetical law in front of me -- I don't think it would in this instance. The other thing I would say as well is that this is a matter which does seem to have improved -- i.e. that European society is having a good deal of success in driving forward things like freedom of sexual orientation despite the religious proclivities of the generations who came before us. So perhaps now is not the time for your hypothesised law.

What might be a better way forward though, rather than seek to pierce the family unit with law, is to push towards greater secularisation of society -- particularly in education. It may be a workable compromise that society moves towards a stance where, for example, families retain the right to teach children religious views but schools will no longer be permitted to be faith-based or to teach religion. The idea being then that kids can study together in equality and perhaps this will help to provide the counter-balance. I would lean in favour of school uniforms or at least dress code --- whether this would entail the banning of all religious garb and symbolism I'm not fully comfortable with yet (though I am not favour of a total public ban). One might say though that at the very least a Muslim girl who is wearing a headscarf going to school would at least get to interact and be classmates with other girls who do not -- thus again providing a counter-balance to a religious upbringing that (maybe) tells her these girls are harlots. That's the thing about diversity though -- it makes you look inwards at the way you were brought up and life experience often tends to defy a lot of the things you were told to believe as a child . . .

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

In the US? It helped fuel the mass migration into the lands of Native Americans. The loss suffered by those people continues to this day: twice as likely to be killed by the police and 3-4 times as likely to be incarcerated. Their communities are marked by crippling poverty and unemployment. 40% live in substandard housing, of which less than 16% has indoor plumbing. Only half their children graduate high school. They suffer from high rates of diabetes, obesity, substance abuse and HIV and other STDs. Their women are 3-4 times more likely to be raped, and more than 1 in 5 of their children suffer from PTSD. Their young men (15-24) are two and half times more likely to kill themselves, with suicide being the second highest cause of death for that age group.

We see similar effects on other peoples who were overwhelmed by mass migration, such as the Aboriginals in Australia.

In the UK, the Irish were a Christian English speaking European people and they assimilated into another Christian English speaking European people. Indeed up until 1922, they were part of the same country so weren't crossing a border at all. The ease of the assimilation is best demonstrated by the infamous Englishman Tommy Robinson.

Just to ensure that I am understanding the point --- you are comparing modern-day immigration with the invasion/conquest/colonisation of the lands of the Aborigines and Native Americans?

Please confirm.

Midlife

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

To be honest I think the laws of the land are whatever they are and they should protect all. Provided the law is there to protect people and is applied equally to all, surely it only makes sense.

As someone said, legally requiring 40 hours a week in a non-religious co-ed school is a good start.

I do wonder about cultural choices however. There's the common thing about women and headscarves, particularly in Denmark now, but I haven't seen any calls for Sikh men to take off their turbans and there are probably more Sikh men in Denmark (circa 500) than women wearing affected by the current ban (est 250 I think). Obviously, it's a nuanced case but you get my point. As long as we're applying our liberal expectations to everyone equally and not just targeting particular practices/people that we deem backwards.

Personally I find anyone covering their face a bit mental, and making a child cover their face pretty inhumane. However, if an 18 year old makes a choice to wear a shawl over her head, I find it hard to argue that this should be criminalised.

Yes, our liberal values are probably the best thing about this part of the world. I wouldn't necessarily solely relate this to culture though, as other cultures can contribute without values coming into it.

Imreoir2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

The certainty that there is only one form of acceptable behaviour, and that conformaty should be imposed on those with different views is, in my opinion, the force that sustains the abuses you perceive in other cultures. Lets not forget that those who enforce the values you disagree with in other groups are also convinced that their values are the morally superior ones and their desire to impose their "superior" values justifies forcing conformaty on people who do not agree with them.

In your opinion "western liberal values" are the morally superior way of living and everyone else must conform, or else. Had you been brought up in this country 50 years ago, or in Saudi Arabia today, you may well be equally certain that the purity of our womanhood is what makes us a superior culture and that pusing liberal values like decriminalising homosexuality or contraception is corrupting or abusing young people. Had you been born 100 years ago, you might be just as convinced that the light of Christianity must be spread among the "savages" to save their souls.

The adherence to the beliefe that there is only one acceptable way of life, only one "superior" set of values that must be put above all others, has many times in the past been the driving force of a great many abuses and those perpetrating those abuses felt they were entirely justified and did not listen to any criticism. You are entitled that your own beleifes, but just stop to consider how happy a coincedence it is that you in your certainty have it right when so many others in their certainty, had it so very wrong.

It is easy to point out the failings of other cultures and pat yourself on the back for your perceived superiority. Personally, however, I don't think it makes for a better society to run it on a "my way or the highway basis". We have had plenty of experience of that when the shoe was on the other foot, no reason to think it will work better this time.

Tolerence is an important value in itself. Don't forget that you don't have to tolerate that which you like and agree with.

Not holding out much hope that you will agree that tolerating a diverse range of cultural practices and viewpoints is a good thing, people who are certain they hold the moral trump card seldom do.

breatheme

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The certainty that there is only one form of acceptable behaviour, and that conformaty should be imposed on those with different views is, in my opinion, the force that sustains the abuses you perceive in other cultures. Lets not forget that those who enforce the values you disagree with in other groups are also convinced that their values are the morally superior ones and their desire to impose their "superior" values justifies forcing conformaty on people who do not agree with them.

True, but... there are societies that are more accomodating of those values.

In your opinion "western liberal values" are the morally superior way of living and everyone else must conform, or else. Had you been brought up in this country 50 years ago, or in Saudi Arabia today, you may well be equally certain that the purity of our womanhood is what makes us a superior culture and that pusing liberal values like decriminalising homosexuality or contraception is corrupting or abusing young people. Had you been born 100 years ago, you might be just as convinced that the light of Christianity must be spread among the "savages" to save their souls.

I can't speak for the poster you're quoting, but I agreed a lot with his post. So I'll chime in with my two cents. Western Liberal Values™ may not be better or worse than oppressive Christianity or Islam. I agree that is subjective. However, Europe is a western liberal continent. I like living here. True, that is how Ireland was, and... 100 years ago, the Catholic church was NOT super tolerant of these things that today are non-issues. Whether in Ireland or Spain or Italy (etc.) but we moved past that. Maybe if I were living 100 years in the past I'd be defending those values, but they would be the values of my community. But they've changed.

The adherence to the beliefe that there is only one acceptable way of life, only one "superior" set of values that must be put above all others, has many times in the past been the driving force of a great many abuses and those perpetrating those abuses felt they were entirely justified and did not listen to any criticism. You are entitled that your own beleifes, but just stop to consider how happy a coincedence it is that you in your certainty have it right when so many others in their certainty, had it so very wrong.

Hey, we're not stoning homosexuals here, there is some merit to that over those beliefs... in my opinion. I agree that people have a right to disagree. People have a right to be bigoted. But you won't see me holding hands with a man in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

It is easy to point out the failings of other cultures and pat yourself on the back for your perceived superiority. Personally, however, I don't think it makes for a better society to run it on a "my way or the highway basis". We have had plenty of experience of that when the shoe was on the other foot, no reason to think it will work better this time.

So, if a father beats his daughter for talking to a boy in school, we should do nothing in order to not invoke "my way or the highway"?

Tolerence is an important value in itself. Don't forget that you don't have to tolerate that which you like and agree with.

Not holding out much hope that you will agree that tolerating a diverse range of cultural practices and viewpoints is a good thing, people who are certain they hold the moral trump card seldom do.

I refuse to be tolerant of intolerance.

Imreoir2

breatheme wrote: »

So, if a father beats his daughter for talking to a boy in school, we should do nothing in order to not invoke "my way or the highway"?

If a father beats his child then the beating is child abuse and that is the justification for intervention regardless of the reason for the beating. If a father grounds his child for talking to a boy in class, that is distastful to someone with our cultural background, but I don't see any grounds for intervention by the state in that crcumstance that would not be a gross overstepping of the states role in the family.

I refuse to be tolerant of intolerance.

I don't disagree with the values the poster thinks are great, it would be odd if any of us did have a significantly different value system given our cultural background. There is a difference between agreeing with a set of values and agreeing that conformaty with those values should be enforced by the state.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Just to ensure that I am understanding the point --- you are comparing modern-day immigration with the invasion/conquest/colonisation of the lands of the Aborigines and Native Americans?

Please confirm.

I'm answering a question asked about the historic impact of the mass migration of Irish people on the US and the UK. In a wider sense there are of course parallels.

When the Wampanoag encountered the Pilgrims, they were encountering refugees fleeing persecution and repression. Not everyone welcomed these refugees. They were subject to attacks by heartless natives who coldly refused to share their lands with the refugees. Why couldn't they see the benefits of the diversity and skills the new arrivals would bring? These refugees were no threat - there was just 50 of them, and there was 6,000 Wampanoag. The native people had just suffered a terrible plague and these new arrivals would help sustain and grow their population and prosperity. If more came, so much the better. They would take on Wampanoag values and be just as Wampanoag as anyone else. The world was changing, and everybody just had to accept it.

Almost half the refugees died in just the first winter alone. The wise and tolerant Wampanoag NGOs swung into action. They proclaimed that refugees were welcome. They brought charity and medical aid to the refugees, teaching them the new skills they would need to thrive in America. They acted as intermediaries for them with the confusing and sometimes hostile local governments, integrating the new arrivals into local political structures. The refugees set up a mutually beneficial trading enterprise with the Wampanoag and other peoples, proving how well diverse communities could work for the benefit of all. All the fears of those hostile to the refugees were clearly unfounded. Sure, there would be some challenges, but nothing insurmountable.

So how did it work out for the Wampanoag? Well, 50 years later they suddenly found they had a 'homegrown' European terrorism problem, with European enclaves which were alienated from the rest of Wampanoag society. The refugees had not taken on Wampanoag values as hoped. King Phillips War broke out between the Wampanoag and the refugees. The Wampanoag were crushed as a people, the survivors were enslaved by the colonials and scattered to plantations. They went from aiding the refugees to being deposed by the refugees in just 50-60 years.

America wasn't "invaded", nor was its expansion a series of military conquests. The whole concept of England launching a mass invasion of the Americas in the early 17th century is laughable. It was settled by mass migration - often with the agreement or blessing of local indigenous authorities. The armies followed the migrants west from the coast. The migrants always came first.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

I'm answering a question asked about the historic impact of the mass migration of Irish people on the US and the UK. In a wider sense there are of course parallels.

When the Wampanoag encountered the Pilgrims, they were encountering refugees fleeing persecution and repression. Not everyone welcomed these refugees. They were subject to attacks by heartless natives who coldly refused to share their lands with the refugees. Why couldn't they see the benefits of the diversity and skills the new arrivals would bring? These refugees were no threat - there was just 50 of them, and there was 6,000 Wampanoag. The native people had just suffered a terrible plague and these new arrivals would help sustain and grow their population and prosperity. If more came, so much the better. They would take on Wampanoag values and be just as Wampanoag as anyone else. The world was changing, and everybody just had to accept it.

Almost half the refugees died in just the first winter alone. The wise and tolerant Wampanoag NGOs swung into action. They proclaimed that refugees were welcome. They brought charity and medical aid to the refugees, teaching them the new skills they would need to thrive in America. They acted as intermediaries for them with the confusing and sometimes hostile local governments, integrating the new arrivals into local political structures. The refugees set up a mutually beneficial trading enterprise with the Wampanoag and other peoples, proving how well diverse communities could work for the benefit of all. All the fears of those hostile to the refugees were clearly unfounded. Sure, there would be some challenges, but nothing insurmountable.

So how did it work out for the Wampanoag? Well, 50 years later they suddenly found they had a 'homegrown' European terrorism problem, with European enclaves which were alienated from the rest of Wampanoag society. The refugees had not taken on Wampanoag values as hoped. King Phillips War broke out between the Wampanoag and the refugees. The Wampanoag were crushed as a people, the survivors were enslaved by the colonials and scattered to plantations. They went from aiding the refugees to being deposed by the refugees in just 50-60 years.

America wasn't "invaded", nor was its expansion a series of military conquests. The whole concept of England launching a mass invasion of the Americas in the early 17th century is laughable. It was settled by mass migration - often with the agreement or blessing of local indigenous authorities. The armies followed the migrants west from the coast. The migrants always came first.

Pretty sure your bad guys in the story above were banging on about their judeo-christian cultural values the whole time.

Really silly comparison though. Pretty poor argument.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Pretty sure your bad guys in the story above were banging on about their judeo-christian cultural values the whole time.

Really silly comparison though. Pretty poor argument.

There were no bad guys in the story above. Just people. the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims were actually great friends for decades. But mass migration and diversity was not a strength for the Wampanoag. It's a uncomfortable narrative for you, because you'd be pushing for the Wampanoag to pursue the course of action that doomed them.

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

I'm answering a question asked about the historic impact of the mass migration of Irish people on the US and the UK. In a wider sense there are of course parallels.

When the Wampanoag encountered the Pilgrims, they were encountering refugees fleeing persecution and repression. Not everyone welcomed these refugees. They were subject to attacks by heartless natives who coldly refused to share their lands with the refugees. Why couldn't they see the benefits of the diversity and skills the new arrivals would bring? These refugees were no threat - there was just 50 of them, and there was 6,000 Wampanoag. The native people had just suffered a terrible plague and these new arrivals would help sustain and grow their population and prosperity. If more came, so much the better. They would take on Wampanoag values and be just as Wampanoag as anyone else. The world was changing, and everybody just had to accept it.

Almost half the refugees died in just the first winter alone. The wise and tolerant Wampanoag NGOs swung into action. They proclaimed that refugees were welcome. They brought charity and medical aid to the refugees, teaching them the new skills they would need to thrive in America. They acted as intermediaries for them with the confusing and sometimes hostile local governments, integrating the new arrivals into local political structures. The refugees set up a mutually beneficial trading enterprise with the Wampanoag and other peoples, proving how well diverse communities could work for the benefit of all. All the fears of those hostile to the refugees were clearly unfounded. Sure, there would be some challenges, but nothing insurmountable.

So how did it work out for the Wampanoag? Well, 50 years later they suddenly found they had a 'homegrown' European terrorism problem, with European enclaves which were alienated from the rest of Wampanoag society. The refugees had not taken on Wampanoag values as hoped. King Phillips War broke out between the Wampanoag and the refugees. The Wampanoag were crushed as a people, the survivors were enslaved by the colonials and scattered to plantations. They went from aiding the refugees to being deposed by the refugees in just 50-60 years.

America wasn't "invaded", nor was its expansion a series of military conquests. The whole concept of England launching a mass invasion of the Americas in the early 17th century is laughable. It was settled by mass migration - often with the agreement or blessing of local indigenous authorities. The armies followed the migrants west from the coast. The migrants always came first.

Well Sand, if I can glean any positive from this, it's that it truly is a very illustrative glimpse into your world view.

The comparison of the 17th century colonisation of America with modern day immigration is really rock-bottom stuff.

You often claim that I straw-man you, so in this case -- I will let your post speak for itself.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

There were no bad guys in the story above. Just people. the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims were actually great friends for decades. But mass migration and diversity was not a strength for the Wampanoag. It's a uncomfortable narrative for you, because you'd be pushing for the Wampanoag to pursue the course of action that doomed them.

It's a fine story.

Trying to draw a parallel is the silly part.

I really think you're seeing something that isn't there. There's no comparison between the situations. Pure scaremongering.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Well Sand, if I can glean any positive from this, it's that it truly is a very illustrative glimpse into your world view.

The comparison of the 17th century colonisation of America with modern day immigration is really rock-bottom stuff.

You often claim that I straw-man you, so in this case -- I will let your post speak for itself.

Thanks, it saves me time correcting you. Truth be told I'm disturbed by your use of inflammatory language like "invasion", "conquest" and "colonisation" to describe refugees fleeing persecution to make a new home. Don't you have any sympathy for these desperate human beings, just like any one of us?

Midlife wrote: »

It's a fine story.

Trying to draw a parallel is the silly part.

I really think you're seeing something that isn't there. There's no comparison between the situations. Pure scaremongering.

I can see the parallels between mass migration in the 17th century and mass migration in the 21st. You cant. People can have different perceptions of a problem. Some Brexiteers unthinkingly denounced the people highlighting the downsides of Brexit as 'Project Fear', just like you are doing about mass migration. But it was Project Reality.Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

But lets face it, the fate of the generous Wampanoag is just an example. We could talk about other examples of mass migration but its not important. The important topic is the challenges faced by Europe today. The first duty of any government is prudence. Mass migration creates divided, low trust societies. Studies show this. We know that non-EEA migration in particular is an economic cost to European societies, not a gain. Studies show this. We know that Europe now faces a completely unnecessary Islamic terrorist insurgency. We know that the UK in particular faces completely unnecessary social problems created by mass migration - not least of which is widespread grooming and abuse of their children. Good governments ought to heed the evidence and end the policy of mass migration which has created such problems. Europeans ought to be able to expect good, evidence based policies from their governments.

You as an individual can have a utopian dream of some sort of border less world, but its criminal recklessness for a government to bet the wellbeing of a society on the same.

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

Thanks, it saves me time correcting you. Truth be told I'm disturbed by your use of inflammatory language like "invasion", "conquest" and "colonisation" to describe refugees fleeing persecution to make a new home. Don't you have any sympathy for these desperate human beings, just like any one of us?

I'm sorry but I genuinely feel that it would be an affront to the intelligence of everyone on this site (including yourself) to even engage on this point -- not least of all to have to explain to an adult the differences between the social and political framework of the 17th century colonial era versus that of 21st century immigration.

It's an argument so wallowed in the gutter that my more benevolent side desperately tried to conclude it was a bit of flippant leg-pulling on your part to get a reaction. The fact that you're serious would be comical only that it genuinely concerns me that people could be ever be swayed by such supremely ill-conceived arguments.

So, in the hope of getting the conversation back into the realms of reason, perhaps I might press you further for your aspirations. I grow tired of the straw-manning accusations so ---- out of interest Sand, if a political party was to run on a ticket of starting a programme to enforce racial, religious, cultural and ethnic segregation -- the extent of this segregation being the physical displacement of people to go live in separate communes among "their own kind" -- would you vote for that party? If you feel I am over-simplifying your view (and to be honest, I really hope this is oversimplifying it), then you need only elaborate further.

I have long suspected that you're a guy with lots of opinions but few ideas. I think, if we are all getting it so wrong, it's only fair to let you paint for us your aspirations. How do we fix the abomination of all that cultural, religious, ethnic, racial, linguistic mixing which has been going on for tens of thousands of years ??

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

But lets face it, the fate of the generous Wampanoag is just an example. We could talk about other examples of mass migration but its not important.

Then why are you devoting multiple paragraphs to it? Pure scaremongering. Total ignorance of anthropology too while you're at it.

Sand wrote: »

not least of which is widespread grooming and abuse of their children

Oh yes, this one study of 260 odd cases people like the national front love quoting because it links Muslims to child abuse. It's a slam dunk for the prejudiced.

Read it closer though and you find that 85% of child abuse cases in the UK are committed by white people who make up 85% of the population.

BUT BUT BUT THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN!!!

The very definition of prejudice. 'THESE people will lead to widespread grooming.'

If you are ever in Dublin, and have the balls, please PM me. I'll bring you to a football game I play with a few middle eastern guys and you can explain to them how us letting them into Ireland will increase the number of grooming cases in the country. It wouldn't be nasty or anything, they're not rough guys, two of them doing PHD's at the moment. I'm sure they'd love to debate it with you though.

Like i said, the very definition of prejudice.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm sorry but I genuinely feel that it would be an affront to the intelligence of everyone on this site (including yourself) to even engage on this point -- not least of all to have to explain to an adult the differences between the social and political framework of the 17th century colonial era versus that of 21st century immigration.

It's an argument so wallowed in the gutter that my more benevolent side desperately tried to conclude it was a bit of flippant leg-pulling on your part to get a reaction. The fact that you're serious would be comical only that it genuinely concerns me that people could be ever be swayed by such supremely ill-conceived arguments.

Do you understand why you use terms like "invasion" and "conquest" to describe the mass migration into 17th century America, which you would never use to describe mass migration into 21st century Europe? Truly? Or are you unsure? I get the impression just you are conditioned to praise one and denounce the other.

17th century America received genuine refugees and economic migrants seeking a better life. They settled with the agreement of the local people. With only 50 of them facing 6000, they could only survive with the local's agreement. They were refugees and migrants, not soldiers and not an army. Why do you view the impact of these migrants on America so negatively? Is not America in 2018 far better off than America in 1618? Aren't Americans far more prosperous than they were? Don't they have far greater individual rights than they did 400 years ago? These are your metrics for judging mass migration into Europe, and on every level mass migration into America was hugely successful under those terms.

So, in the hope of getting the conversation back into the realms of reason, perhaps I might press you further for your aspirations. I grow tired of the straw-manning accusations so ---- out of interest Sand, if a political party was to run on a ticket of starting a programme to enforce racial, religious, cultural and ethnic segregation -- the extent of this segregation being the physical displacement of people to go live in separate communes among "their own kind" -- would you vote for that party?

Doesn't it say alot for your own extreme view that you see this as the choice? Either accept mass migration as the default, or it has to be some apartheid, monocultural Orwellian state.

No nuance, no recognition any range of views between your extreme and the opposing extreme. Fanatics think like that.

I have long suspected that you're a guy with lots of opinions but few ideas.

I suspect your the victim of extensive conditioning. You know what you're supposed to think but you cant explain why. You see only the extremes, you reject nuance. When I say I see an issue needs to be investigated and I don't have a simple answer, you see that as something to criticise.

How do we fix the abomination of all that cultural, religious, ethnic, racial, linguistic mixing which has been going on for tens of thousands of years ??

Why should we want to fix it? How did European cultures grow and develop before 1948?

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Then why are you devoting multiple paragraphs to it? Pure scaremongering. Total ignorance of anthropology too while you're at it.

Because you and Arthur keep asking me about it? If either of you could manage to propose how mass migration into Europe benefits Europeans, I'd be happy to talk about that instead.

Oh yes, this one study of 260 odd cases people like the national front love quoting because it links Muslims to child abuse. It's a slam dunk for the prejudiced.

Read it closer though and you find that 85% of child abuse cases in the UK are committed by white people who make up 85% of the population.

Yep, and unfortunately the UK will always have an indigenous population it is stuck with. So that level of crime and abuse is unavoidable. But the crime and abuse which is caused by mass migration is very avoidable. Just don't pursue a policy of mass migration. All the victims of the gang in this court case would never have been made vulnerable to their abusers without mass migration. . That's a cost you might be comfortable for them to pay, but I am not.

Poland isnt crime free, probably not even terrorism free. But it is free of Islamic terrorism and 'Asian' grooming gangs. Because they don't permit mass migration.

If you are ever in Dublin, and have the balls,

What are you, 12?

please PM me. I'll bring you to a football game I play with a few middle eastern guys and you can explain to them how us letting them into Ireland will increase the number of grooming cases in the country. It wouldn't be nasty or anything, they're not rough guys, two of them doing PHD's at the moment. I'm sure they'd love to debate it with you though.

If only there was some other more convenient alternative. Like an online political discussion forum. Someone really ought to get around to inventing that someday.

Like i said, the very definition of prejudice.

Reality is prejudiced.

PeadarCo

Sand wrote:

Why should we want to fix it? How did European cultures grow and develop before 1948?

Through immigration and emigration of both people and ideas. Take European countries and their colonial conquests. There was a large movement of people especially emigration from Europe for a whole variety of reasons. One of the things that led to that was the Renaissance. But to understand that you have to understand the impact of scientific developments in the Islamic world that proceeded it. And to understand that you have to understand that you have to understand the legacy of the Romans and Greeks and so forth. Ideas are and especially in the past are spread by people.


Even in Ireland for example. For all the complaints of 800 years of occupation I say it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't have some sort of ancestral link to the Norman invasion.

This idea that any population is unchanging is rubbish. Its looking at the past in Rose tinted glasses. I read an article on "race" in the national Geographic that from a scientific point of view there are more "races" in Africa than in the rest of the world combined.

Sand

PeadarCo wrote: »

Through immigration and emigration of both people and ideas. Take European countries and their colonial conquests. There was a large movement of people especially emigration from Europe for a whole variety of reasons. One of the things that led to that was the Renaissance. But to understand that you have to understand the impact of scientific developments in the Islamic world that proceeded it. And to understand that you have to understand that you have to understand the legacy of the Romans and Greeks and so forth. Ideas are and especially in the past are spread by people.

Ideas are spread by writing, and especially printing. The Renaissance was not sparked by a mass migration into Italy. It was begun by Italians re-discovering and re-examining classical texts and ideas. Martin Luther spread his incredibly important ideas to France, England and Italy without ever leaving Germany.

Cultures can and did change for thousands of years without mass migration. It is not the case that the choices are either a) mass migration or b) cultural atrophy.

Even in Ireland for example. For all the complaints of 800 years of occupation I say it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't have some sort of ancestral link to the Norman invasion.

Maybe in Kilkenny, but studies show the Irish are fairly non-diverse.. The idea Ireland was some sort of melting pot just isnt there. Indeed, the evidence is people didn't even mix much outside their province until relatively recently. Stand back far enough and most Irish peoples family tree probably looks like the Habsburg's.

This isnt entirely unusual. Genetic testing on remains 8000 years old in East Asia has shown the contemporary population is very similar. 8000 years, but the people remain largely the same as they always were. Even in Europe the 'melting pot' is down to two massive waves of migration thousands of years ago. In the intervening period, very few Europeans left the village they were born in, let alone married a foreigner.

This idea that any population is unchanging is rubbish.

As above, the evidence is that for Ireland at least the population was not fluid and ever changing.

PeadarCo

Sand wrote:

Ideas are spread by writing, and especially printing. The Renaissance was not sparked by a mass migration into Italy. It was begun by Italians re-discovering and re-examining classical texts and ideas. Martin Luther spread his incredibly important ideas to France, England and Italy without ever leaving Germany.

And what happened before printing? How did the Islamic world gain access to Roman knowledge and how was this information then disseminated to the rest of the world. Remember all this happened pre Internet days where all literature had to be physically transported? What about migration along the Silk Road.

Another example is disease one of the reason. One of the reasons the people in the americas where heavily impacted by disease was the lack of resistance to diseases normally present in the rest of the world. A good example was the spread of the black death and its spread from Asia to Europe. All diseases need some sort of living host to spread.

This was all caused by people moving forward and back. You don't even need a large level of migration to make big cultural changes. Look at Christianity and the impact of St Patrick and other Christian missionaries. Based on the information you provided yourself a horde of Christians didn't invade and eliminate pagans. Yet the culture changed. Those missionaries while probably small in number radically changed Ireland.


A question what do you define as "mass" migration since its mass immigration I presume you have a problem with.

boardise

But PeadarCo the dissemination of ideas doesn't require MASS migration...fairly small numbers of 'wandering scholar' types can do the job. Also in Europe there was the practice of pilgrimages -which were temporary movements of people but which would also be a possible source for the transfer and borrowing of ideas .

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

Do you understand why you use terms like "invasion" and "conquest" to describe the mass migration into 17th century America, which you would never use to describe mass migration into 21st century Europe? Truly? Or are you unsure? I get the impression just you are conditioned to praise one and denounce the other.

17th century America received genuine refugees and economic migrants seeking a better life. They settled with the agreement of the local people. With only 50 of them facing 6000, they could only survive with the local's agreement. They were refugees and migrants, not soldiers and not an army. Why do you view the impact of these migrants on America so negatively? Is not America in 2018 far better off than America in 1618? Aren't Americans far more prosperous than they were? Don't they have far greater individual rights than they did 400 years ago? These are your metrics for judging mass migration into Europe, and on every level mass migration into America was hugely successful under those terms.

I haven't really expressed any view on the people involved in this event. I had a little read about it yesterday -- it's just a woeful comparison. It's like comparing foreign people moving to Ireland right now with the Plantation of Ireland -- it's just so manifestly daft and contextually distant. You are doing yourself a profound disservice on this one I'm afraid.

Sand wrote: »

Doesn't it say alot for your own extreme view that you see this as the choice? Either accept mass migration as the default, or it has to be some apartheid, monocultural Orwellian state.

No nuance, no recognition any range of views between your extreme and the opposing extreme. Fanatics think like that.

I note that you did not answer the question. I specifically stated that if I am oversimplifying your view, then you should elaborate -- you have failed to do so. Therefore -- what am I supposed to conclude? It's either your vision really is that horrifyingly simplistic or you simply don't have a vision at all. All complaint, no answers; all opinions, no ideas --- this is all I ever seem to get from the real staunch anti-immigration crowd. They're great at telling us how wrong everyone else is getting it -- but they aren't so great at actually telling us how to get things right. Instead, they seek out the easiest target; the person on whom they know they can pin the blame and that people will swallow it up; the person who just seems out of place and therefore provides the perfect scapegoat: the immigrant.

If you would have us believe that there is a materially better world out there to which we can aspire, then paint the image for us. If you can't even so much as give us a sketch -- then ask yourself why not.

Sand wrote: »

I suspect your the victim of extensive conditioning. You know what you're supposed to think but you cant explain why. You see only the extremes, you reject nuance. When I say I see an issue needs to be investigated and I don't have a simple answer, you see that as something to criticise.

I'm interested in hearing more about these suspicions.

PeadarCo

boardise wrote:

But PeadarCo the dissemination of ideas doesn't require MASS migration...fairly small numbers of 'wandering scholar' types can do the job. Also in Europe there was the practice of pilgrimages -which were temporary movements of people but which would also be a possible source for the transfer and borrowing of ideas .

I agree but it requires migration. My response was to how did countries and cultures change before 1948(don't understand why this particular year was chosen) Migration obviously was a big factor. Even in Ireland though population remained genetically stable you have Norman names such as Fitz. In England from memory it wasn't until the 100 years war that the nobility in England stopped speaking French. An impact you can see in modern English vocabulary. The Norman invasion was prompted by a debate over who was the rightful holder of the English throne between 3 candidates one of whom was Norwegian. The Norman's themselves were originally Vikings who settled in France. You can go on and on.

The problem is no one defines how many people "mass migration" amounts to? and over what time period? in these debates. I think that is important because obviously there is a point at which the amount of people over a certain period of immigration and emigration becomes unsustainable. An extreme example being if every person in the world decided to relocate to Ireland tomorrow. That would obviously be very bad.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Because you and Arthur keep asking me about it? If either of you could manage to propose how mass migration into Europe benefits Europeans, I'd be happy to talk about that instead.

It was hugely beneficial when countless numbers of Poles, Norwegians, Germans, irishm, Italians etc migrated to America, no?

Sand wrote: »

Yep, and unfortunately the UK will always have an indigenous population it is stuck with. So that level of crime and abuse is unavoidable. But the crime and abuse which is caused by mass migration is very avoidable. Just don't pursue a policy of mass migration. All the victims of the gang in this court case would never have been made vulnerable to their abusers without mass migration. . That's a cost you might be comfortable for them to pay, but I am not.

But you can't show that any particular race/culture is more likely to abuse children so is your solution no migration?

I mean I was just responding to your silly fear mongering, I think 'WIDESPREAD GROOMING' was the particular racist falsification you were using.

Can you back that up? Widespread grooming in the UK?

Sand wrote: »

Poland isn't crime free, probably not even terrorism free. But it is free of Islamic terrorism and 'Asian' grooming gangs. Because they don't permit mass migration.

What about Ireland?

Sand wrote: »

If only there was some other more convenient alternative. Like an online political discussion forum. Someone really ought to get around to inventing that someday.

Yes. Very convenient that you probably have to never meet, know or deal with any of these people, or justify your opinion that these people are a danger to our country to the actual people you claim are dangerous.

Sand wrote: »

Reality is prejudiced.

Wow. How profound are you. I mean who can contend with such wisdom.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

You see only the extremes, you reject nuance.

You complain about others rejecting nuance but are happy to compare migration to Europe today to the impact that farmers had 400 years ago on a continent populated by hunter gatherers with no unified rule of law.

Midlife

ArthurDayne wrote: »

They're great at telling us how wrong everyone else is getting it -- but they aren't so great at actually telling us how to get things right. Instead, they seek out the easiest target; the person on whom they know they can pin the blame and that people will swallow it up; the person who just seems out of place and therefore provides the perfect scapegoat: the immigrant.

If you would have us believe that there is a materially better world out there to which we can aspire, then paint the image for us. If you can't even so much as give us a sketch -- then ask yourself why not.

This is very true. I've been reading these kind of threads now for a few weeks on boards and it's nearly all just fear-mongering and scare tactics.

Here it's Muslims. How different they are, how they're going to destroy OUR culture and so on.

But if you go to the middle east suddenly, it becomes about what type of Muslim you are, cause there has to be someone to abuse, right? But then in the US this conversation would be about Central Americans (I mean imagine what bull**** arguments are being peddled about the murder rates in central America). 30 years ago in England, it would have been the Irish. Before that all over Europe it was the Jews. In Australia, they pretty much seem to have gone from Natives to Chinese to Greek to Indian to Islamic or something like that, while all the time benefiting from a mass migration policy. I read somewhere recently that in 2013/2014 25% of Australia's population were not citizens.

Obviously they're having problems in Australia now but that's what happens. People at the coal face of integrating with these migrants look around and see new faces and new colours and when they find it harder to get work or rent goes up, they know who to blame. They're support by people who are just plain ractist and not actually threatened economically by the arrival of newcomers. So you get some psuedo-smart people who will theorise about it and argue that it's not good or highlight somewhere that something bad happened and extrapolate that this is the case everywhere with THESE people but it's the same stuff that's been happening everywhere for ever. Now it's just done by posting stories about 'rape gangs' or videos about dodgy foreigners. There's never any real fear, common thread or rational argument made.

They don't have any answers. All the have is irrational fear and questions.

ancapailldorcha

Came across this today:

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1029733196655546368?s=19

It's not dissimilar to the trend of remain voters being proportional to the level of immigration.

ArthurDayne

Midlife wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

They're great at telling us how wrong everyone else is getting it -- but they aren't so great at actually telling us how to get things right.  Instead, they seek out the easiest target; the person on whom they know they can pin the blame and that people will swallow it up; the person who just seems out of place and therefore provides the perfect scapegoat: the immigrant.    

If you would have us believe that there is a materially better world out there to which we can aspire, then paint the image for us.  If you can't even so much as give us a sketch -- then ask yourself why not.

This is very true. I've been reading these kind of threads now for a few weeks on boards and it's nearly all just fear-mongering and scare tactics.

Here it's Muslims. How different they are, how they're going to destroy OUR culture and so on.

But if you go to the middle east suddenly, it becomes about what type of Muslim you are, cause there has to be someone to abuse, right? But then in the US this conversation would be about Central Americans (I mean imagine what bull**** arguments are being peddled about the murder rates in central America). 30 years ago in England, it would have been the Irish. Before that all over Europe it was the Jews. In Australia, they pretty much seem to have gone from Natives to Chinese to Greek to Indian to Islamic or something like that, while all the time benefiting from a mass migration policy. I read somewhere recently that in 2013/2014 25% of Australia's population were not citizens.

Obviously they're having problems in Australia now but that's what happens. People at the coal face of integrating with these migrants look around and see new faces and new colours and when they find it harder to get work or rent goes up, they know who to blame. They're support by people who are just plain ractist and not actually threatened economically by the arrival of newcomers. So you get some psuedo-smart people who will theorise about it and argue that it's not good or highlight somewhere that something bad happened and extrapolate that this is the case everywhere with THESE people but it's the same stuff that's been happening everywhere for ever. Now it's just done by posting stories about 'rape gangs' or videos about dodgy foreigners. There's never any real fear, common thread or rational argument made.

They don't have any answers. All the have is irrational fear and questions.

It's interesting though how the perceptions unfold.  People do seem to have a bias for finding the fault in foreigners before finding the positives or the commonalities  -- and Western "white" society is rather more forgiving on fellow Westerners.  Drama and sensationalism sell articles and generate clicks -- so the only stories you're ever really going to hear are bad ones.  After all, nobody wants to read a news article about quiet peaceful Muslims, or watch a YouTube video called "Ordinary Muslims go about their daily lives".  This is coupled with the fact that seemingly every bad act done by Muslims, whether it's a man who abuses his wife or a guy who drives a car into some people, is attributed to being part of some collective Muslim mind-set which is intent on destroying us all. It's never really brought down to the individual level with Muslims -- it's always the collective.  Muslims seem to have to bear the collective blame for every nefarious act carried out by any of the 1.8 billion Muslims on the planet in a way which non-Muslims don't.  

Yet society seems to be much more nuanced in its view toward violence perpetrated by non-Muslims.  If Stephen Paddock had been a Muslim -- the Las Vegas shooting would have been roundly considered a terror attack.  It would not have been the story of an unstable lunatic, it would have been the debate about Muslims just being a bad bunch.  If Muslim kids walked into a high school and gunned down fellow students, it wouldn't be a debate about gun control, adolescent mental health, violent video games -- it would be a debate about the place of Muslims in society. 

I thoroughly dislike the religion of Islam, in the same way I thoroughly dislike the other repressive religions, and it would be untrue to say that there is not a dangerous radicalisation problem in certain Muslim communities.  But so many people seem to be in a very big hurry to generalise Muslims as 'bad eggs' even if the vast majority of them just get on with their lives peacefully and quietly. In continuing to vilify ordinary Muslim people with ham-fisted generalisations, people are unwittingly surrendering to the tyranny of groups like ISIS -- they are doing the very thing which these maniacs want: unnecessarily driving a wedge between Muslims and the rest of society, creating suspicion, and perpetuating an environment where hatred can fester..

Midlife

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Came across this today:

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1029733196655546368?s=19

It's not dissimilar to the trend of remain voters being proportional to the level of immigration.

One anomaly is that Sweden, France, Germany, UK, Netherlands all have a higher proportion of Muslim residents than the other countries.

How does one explain that? Surely if the premise of this thread about Muslims is true, then these countries would be more aware of the threat they pose?

A couple of other questions while I'm here.

Those against mass migration. Are you against all migration or just 'mass migration'. If so, can we please define mass migration in terms of where it begins.

Additionally, back to the initial thread title that maintains it's the Islamic in Islamic migration that's problem. Again, is this against all Islamic people coming to a country or just some? If it's some, how many exactly? and why Islamic people exactly? If it's because of a threat, then surely the logical conclusion is that we let none in?

It seems to me that all people have established in here is that bringing in too many people to a country can be bad. Is there anything beyond that assertion?

ancapailldorcha

Midlife wrote: »

How does one explain that? Surely if the premise of this thread about Muslims is true, then these countries would be more aware of the threat they pose?

I think that the problem is that during the refugee crisis, Sweden, Greece and Italy bore the heaviest burden of refugees. The UK barely took any though it has a sizeable Muslim population as is. Germany has over a million IIRC.

Hungary and Poland are run by populist Kelptocrats who are happy to use Islamophobia as a tool to distract the masses and get elected while their young people flee in droves. Spain has been taking in quite a few refugees recently.