Migration Megathread

Sand

PeadarCo wrote: »

And what happened before printing?

Writing? Printing accelerated things, that's all.

How did the Islamic world gain access to Roman knowledge and how was this information then disseminated to the rest of the world.

By conquest?

Remember all this happened pre Internet days where all literature had to be physically transported? What about migration along the Silk Road.

What about it? You are hugely, hugely overstating the the occurrence of mass migration. It simply did not happen on the scale that occurs today. The Romans conquered most of Europe and held it for centuries, but left practically no trace in the genetics of Europeans outside Italy. Romans didn't mass migrate into the empire, yet their laws, language, architecture, technology, religion all did and continue to influence Europe today. Massive cultural influence without any evidence of mass migration.

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.

Yes, that's my point. Cultural change does and has always occurred without mass migration. This false dichotomy that Europe must accept mass migration, or must be a cultural backwater cut off from the world is just wrong.

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

Migration that creates rapid demographic change in relatively short periods of time. You could alternatively define it as migration that is of such a scale that it creates large populations able to resist assimilation and sustain their own culture. Sweden for example is only track for the Swedes to become a minority in their own homeland within our lifetimes if they a) don't increase their fertility and b) don't end mass migration into Sweden. In London the English have already become a minority in their own capital, with Birmingham soon to follow. In Germany, politicians now acknowledges that Germans will also become a minority in their own cities, but that this fine. The story is the same across western Europe to varying degrees.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.

You did express a view. You described it as invasion, conquest and colonisation. And its not similar to the Plantation of Ireland. The Plantation followed a military campaign against the Ulster earls, the expulsion of Gaelic landowners and the deliberate policy of settling garrison populations in the new lands. Nothing at all like the arrival of refugees on the American coast who secured treaties, peace and trade with the local peoples.

But I know why you're uncomfortable with the scenario. You know you ought to criticise the Pilgrims for what they did, but how can you when they improved Americas prosperity and individual freedoms so much? America in 2018 is better than America in 1618 and immigration indisputably made it so under your measures. To criticise them, you'd have to acknowledge your measure of the benefits of mass migration is hopelessly insufficient.

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?

I did answer the question, but I'll repeat my answer as simply as I can for you. No.

All complaint, no answers; all opinions, no ideas --- this is all I ever seem to get from the real staunch anti-immigration crowd.

The question is does mass migration from outside Europe benefit Europeans? The answer is no. It creates low trust societies, heavy economic costs and security problems. It necessitates increasing repression of personal freedoms to maintain peace.

This is supported by the evidence. All these problems are unnecessary. So the answer is no, mass migration does not benefit Europeans. Therefore my solution is to end the policy of permitting and supporting mass migration.

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.

Okay, without non-EEA mass migration into the UK thousands of British girls would not have been enslaved, raped, tortured and abused. Hundreds and even thousands of British people would not have been murdered or maimed in 'homegrown' terrorist attacks. British teenagers would not be convicted of hate crimes for posting rap lyrics on instagram. English football fans would not have to pay the BBC to bring on a guy like Kehinde Andrews to denounce their flag, and thus their people. The UK budget would be several billion GBP better off each year, and perhaps most importantly Brexit simply would not have occurred without 20 years of mass migration in the lead up to it.

This sounds like a materially better world to me.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

Hungary and Poland are run by leaders who prioritise the interests of their people. Why would they look at Western Europe and think 'Yes, we too want foreign enclaves in our cities, allahu akbarriers in our public space, Islamic terrorism and increasing repression of individuals'?

Right now the Mayor of London is saying Westminster ought to be pedestrianised. To mitigate against the risk of car and truck attacks. Do you think anyone sensible wants that for their countries?

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Hungary and Poland are run by leaders who prioritise the interests of their people. Why would they look at Western Europe and think 'Yes, we too want foreign enclaves in our cities, allahu akbarriers in our public space, Islamic terrorism and increasing repression of individuals'?

Right now the Mayor of London is saying Westminster ought to be pedestrianised. To mitigate against the risk of car and truck attacks. Do you think anyone sensible wants that for their countries?

Hungary is probably the last country in Europe I'd want to live in. I find the undermining of civil rights and liberties to be deeply unsettling. Never mind Orban building an international-quality football stadium in his hometown of less than 2,000 people while funneling money to his friends and cronies, it's his attacks on the media and those with opposing opinions which I find troubling. One need only look at his undermining of Central European University.

If this is what you call good government, I would wonder what your values are.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

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

It was hugely beneficial for the Poles, Norwegians, Germans, Irish, Italians and their descendants. It was a cataclysm for the native Americans and whatever of their descendants survived. They lost their homelands, their institutions and essentially their future.

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

Well, the British police refuse to collect statistics on the ethnicity of sex offenders, beyond them being male. Interestingly, one of the Rotheram survivors was specifically instructed by the British police not to mention the ethnicity of her abusers.

But we already know that British Asians have monopolised Type 1 grooming gangs, and form 84% of all grooming gang convictions since 2005. That is not disputed. And we know that indigenous British are under-represented in the UK prison population, while Asian/BAME/Mixed British are all over-represented ( more twice as likely to be in prison). Muslims in particular are almost 4 times over-represented in the UK prison population. I think we can infer non-EEA migrants, particularly Muslims are more likely to be convicted of criminal offences and given their over-representation in the grooming gangs there's no reason not to believe they're over-represented in sexual crimes generally.

This aligns with research in Germany which shows migrants are hugely over-represented in violent crimes.

Of course, we'd be more certain if the police would release statistics but they refuse to do so. If it was good news, they surely would.

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?

Rotheram. Rochdale. Oxford. Bristol. Aylesbury. Keighley. Huddersfield. Derby. Peterborough. Telford. Hundreds of abusers. Thousands of victims. Maybe that is beneath your notice. But the key thing is how brazen it was. It was no secret what was being done to these girls.

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.

As above, I dont care about your anecdotal friends. I care about mass migration. And the evidence is that it is against European interests.

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

If you stopped flailing angrily at me, and think calmly about the issues at hand you might make better posts.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hungary is probably the last country in Europe I'd want to live in. I find the undermining of civil rights and liberties to be deeply unsettling. Never mind Orban building an international-quality football stadium in his hometown of less than 2,000 people while funneling money to his friends and cronies, it's his attacks on the media and those with opposing opinions which I find troubling. One need only look at his undermining of Central European University.

If this is what you call good government, I would wonder what your values are.

Well every country has problems. Hungarians don't have to dodge car attacks and suicide bombers on their commute, whereas terrorism is part and parcel of living in London these days. Hungary's problems can be relatively easily resolved. The UK is stuck with the problem of mass migration for generations. I know what set of problems I would rather have.

With all the problems you see the Hungarians having, how would non-EEA mass migration *help*? It clearly wouldn't help to have regular Islamic terrorist attacks on top of their other problems.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Well every country has problems. Hungarians don't have to dodge car attacks and suicide bombers on their commute, whereas terrorism is part and parcel of living in London these days. Hungary's problems can be relatively easily resolved. The UK is stuck with the problem of mass migration for generations. I know what set of problems I would rather have.

With all the problems you see the Hungarians having, how would non-EEA mass migration *help*? It clearly wouldn't help to have regular Islamic terrorist attacks on top of their other problems.

I can only describe this as the sort of utter nonsense you'd find on a red top. My regular commute doesn't involve suicide bombings, car attacks or any form of terrorism.

Hungary's problems might be easily solved now but once Orban and his inner circle properly entrench themselves they won't be. Odd that for such a utopia it doesn't seem to be attracting people what with the daily terrorist attacks in London.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

It was hugely beneficial for the Poles, Norwegians, Germans, Irish, Italians and their descendants. It was a cataclysm for the native Americans and whatever of their descendants survived. They lost their homelands, their institutions and essentially their future.



Well, the British police refuse to collect statistics on the ethnicity of sex offenders, beyond them being male. Interestingly, one of the Rotheram survivors was specifically instructed by the British police not to mention the ethnicity of her abusers.

But we already know that British Asians have monopolised Type 1 grooming gangs, and form 84% of all grooming gang convictions since 2005. That is not disputed. And we know that indigenous British are under-represented in the UK prison population, while Asian/BAME/Mixed British are all over-represented ( more twice as likely to be in prison). Muslims in particular are almost 4 times over-represented in the UK prison population. I think we can infer non-EEA migrants, particularly Muslims are more likely to be convicted of criminal offences and given their over-representation in the grooming gangs there's no reason not to believe they're over-represented in sexual crimes generally.

This aligns with research in Germany which shows migrants are hugely over-represented in violent crimes.

Of course, we'd be more certain if the police would release statistics but they refuse to do so. If it was good news, they surely would.



Rotheram. Rochdale. Oxford. Bristol. Aylesbury. Keighley. Huddersfield. Derby. Peterborough. Telford. Hundreds of abusers. Thousands of victims. Maybe that is beneath your notice. But the key thing is how brazen it was. It was no secret what was being done to these girls.



As above, I dont care about your anecdotal friends. I care about mass migration. And the evidence is that it is against European interests.



If you stopped flailing angrily at me, and think calmly about the issues at hand you might make better posts.

So your only evidence for your views...let me get this right.

Is a single survey which doesn't actually mean what you want it to mean, and the fact that poor people and young men are over-represented in prison.

You're not being rational or thorough in your thought process here Sand. Try actually reading the article you cited from BBC and you'll see the clear flaw in your logic ... in the article you cited.

Rather than this scaremongering, which is really going nowhere. You need to accept that there simply is no evidence that THESE people are more dangerous than others. You simply don't like immigrants and want to keep Europe 'European', whatever that means beyond simply 'white'. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but it can't be justified by logic. it's an emotional decision you're making. But you're entitled to make it.

If you want to continue this debate, could you perhaps answer the questions I posted yesterday.

Midlife wrote: »

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?

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.  

You did express a view. You described it as invasion, conquest and colonisation. And its not similar to the Plantation of Ireland. The Plantation followed a military campaign against the Ulster earls, the expulsion of Gaelic landowners and the deliberate policy of settling garrison populations in the new lands. Nothing at all like the arrival of refugees on the American coast who secured treaties, peace and trade with the local peoples.

But I know why you're uncomfortable with the scenario. You know you ought to criticise the Pilgrims for what they did, but how can you when they improved Americas prosperity and individual freedoms so much? America in 2018 is better than America in 1618 and immigration indisputably made it so under your measures. To criticise them, you'd have to acknowledge your measure of the benefits of mass migration is hopelessly insufficient.
 

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?

I did answer the question, but I'll repeat my answer as simply as I can for you. No.

All complaint, no answers; all opinions, no ideas --- this is all I ever seem to get from the real staunch anti-immigration crowd.

The question is does mass migration from outside Europe benefit Europeans? The answer is no. It creates low trust societies, heavy economic costs and security problems. It necessitates increasing repression of personal freedoms to maintain peace.

This is supported by the evidence. All these problems are unnecessary. So the answer is no, mass migration does not benefit Europeans. Therefore my solution is to end the policy of permitting and supporting mass migration.  

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.

Okay, without non-EEA mass migration into the UK thousands of British girls would not have been enslaved, raped, tortured and abused. Hundreds and even thousands of British people would not have been murdered or maimed in 'homegrown' terrorist attacks. British teenagers would not be convicted of hate crimes for posting rap lyrics on instagram. English football fans would not have to pay the BBC to bring on a guy like Kehinde Andrews to denounce their flag, and thus their people. The UK budget would be several billion GBP better off each year, and perhaps most importantly Brexit simply would not have occurred without 20 years of mass migration in the lead up to it.

This sounds like a materially better world to me.

Not uncomfortable with the scenario at all -- I openly welcome the fact that you continue to demonstrate your interpretive contortionism in comparing the paradigm of 17th century colonial America with immigration in 21st century Europe as being effectively like-for-like. I welcome it because it makes a lot of things you say a bit less mystifying to me ---- i.e. that you are either a scaremongerer or someone who is easily swayed by scaremongering.  The comparison of the scenario of a native American tribal people who were decimated by European smallpox, massacred in colonial conflict and sold into slavery with modern-day immigration holds as much weight as wet toilet paper --- and as much value.

As for the rest of your post, all I can do is bury my head in my hands at being subjected to yet another robotic diatribe about how great  things would be if bad things didn't happen.  I'm not here to try to change your mind --- the continuous babbling about 17th century America has robbed me of any hope.  But maybe for the sake of your own development -- and for the sake of variety -- can you flick off automatic mode for a moment and actually answer specific questions with at least some substance and without giving me either a one-liner or some verbose tangent about how terrible everything is.

So let me try again, I understand that in your view "mass migration" has been the harbinger of doom and our relatively comfortable, prosperous and peaceful lives in Europe are merely an illusion to hide the fact that Muslims are coming to infect us with smallpox, sell us into slavery, and drive us away from our tribal Irish farmland.  We have all duly noted your complaints.  So . . . . 

(i) What is "mass migration" and what does 'stopping it' entail?   (ii) Whether you like it or not, migration has occurred into Europe -- so how do you deal with migrants who live in Europe today?  If you view their presence as a threat to the economy and the European way of life, how do you address this?  (iii) As a follow-up to the last question, how do you deal with Muslims living in Europe today? Again -- if you view them as a threat to society -- then how do you address this ?  Suppress them?  Ship them off somewhere?  I'm not sure if calling them all terrorists, rapists and paedophiles is going to do much in terms of integrating them. (iv) What is your end game?  What does success look like?  Is it a world of independent harmonious largely homogenous states like it was in the good old migrant-free days [of fantasy]?  ---- If so can you assuredly tell us that these nation states will never experience terrorism, hardship, sex offences, civil war, recessions?   Can you promise us that eventually the 'homogenous' people won't contrive to find differences and disagreements between themselves ? 

It's vitally important that anti-migration crowd start answering these questions.  I'm tired of hearing the on-repeat arguments which always amount to little more than  "Everything has gone to sh*t so wouldn't it be great if everything was just better?"  It's time to for you to start providing some feasible way forward -- and if you can't -- then ask yourself why you can't.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can only describe this as the sort of utter nonsense you'd find on a red top. My regular commute doesn't involve suicide bombings, car attacks or any form of terrorism.

You see, you say that, but Londoners were literally dodging the latest car attack just last Tuesday. You must think Sadiq Khans proposal to pedestrianise Parliament Square in response to car attacks is utter red top nonsense as well. But its serious policy in the UK after decades of mass migration.

Hungary's problems might be easily solved now but once Orban and his inner circle properly entrench themselves they won't be. Odd that for such a utopia it doesn't seem to be attracting people what with the daily terrorist attacks in London.

We're talking about problems on entirely different scales. Corruption can be mitigated by electing a new government, passing new laws, enforcing existing ones. A capable transparent government can resolve it within a few years. But the UK has existential issues after 70 years of mass migration which are for all intents and purposes irreversible. Even if all migration ended tomorrow, the foreign enclaves which have sprung up in their cities will not be assimilated for centuries, if ever. 441 terror suspects were arrested in the UK in the year ending March 31 2018, an increase of 17% over the previous year. This guy on Tuesday was just one that slipped through, but luckily was incompetent. He was by all accounts a model citizen. No red flags at all. Whats the plan? Hope the UK stays lucky?

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Not uncomfortable with the scenario at all

You keep deflecting, so you are uncomfortable. I understand why. My view is consistent. Mass migration was bad for the native Americans. Mass migration is bad for Europeans.

Your view on the other hand is contradictory, because you only use economic prosperity and individual freedoms to judge the outcome but you reach two different results.

As for the rest of your post, all I can do is bury my head in my hands at being subjected to yet another robotic diatribe about how great  things would be if bad things didn't happen. 

I find people who are unable to support their view with evidence will do everything they can to divert, deflect and move off the evidence.

(i) What is "mass migration" and what does 'stopping it' entail?   (ii)

I just answered this in my post yesterday. You read my posts right? Or do you just jump straight into deflection? Just curious - I suppose it doesn't make a difference.

Whether you like it or not, migration has occurred into Europe -- so how do you deal with migrants who live in Europe today?  If you view their presence as a threat to the economy and the European way of life, how do you address this?

There is nothing that can be done. Illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers should be deported, far more rapidly than is done today. But legal migrants are here to stay. That's irreversible. All that can be done is to assimilate them over the next few centuries with as little strife as possible.

  (iii) As a follow-up to the last question, how do you deal with Muslims living in Europe today? Again -- if you view them as a threat to society -- then how do you address this ?  Suppress them?  Ship them off somewhere? 

As above.

I'm not sure if calling them all terrorists, rapists and paedophiles is going to do much in terms of integrating them. (iv) 

Ignoring problems and pretending they don't exist didn't work out for the girls of Rotheram.

What is your end game?  What does success look like?  Is it a world of independent harmonious largely homogenous states like it was in the good old migrant-free days [of fantasy]?

Europe has never been homogenous. That is your fantasy. You hopelessly underestimate just how difficult it is for common identity to be built.

 ---- If so can you assuredly tell us that these nation states will never experience terrorism, hardship, sex offences, civil war, recessions?   Can you promise us that eventually the 'homogenous' people won't contrive to find differences and disagreements between themselves ? 

As above. People with a common identity will clearly still have differences and disagreements. This is mitigated by that common identity - a view that your political opponent still has our best interests at heart, even if they disagree with how to achieve them.

People without a common identity will have far greater differences and disagreements. Look at the UK, look at the US. As these societies have become more diverse they have become more divided, their politics more bitter, with minor issues being blown up as hugely symbolic struggles between two different groups who resent having to share the same territory. Its Northern Irish politics.

It's vitally important that anti-migration crowd start answering these questions. 

Isnt it more important that the open border advocates be able to defend their position? Given their policy is what is being carried out? What is the end state in another 100 years for Europe? Is it going to be closer to your utopia, or closer to the Balkans circa 1990?

I'm tired of hearing the on-repeat arguments which always amount to little more than  "Everything has gone to sh*t so wouldn't it be great if everything was just better?"  It's time to for you to start providing some feasible way forward -- and if you can't -- then ask yourself why you can't.

I'm tired of your deflecting, and this "Oh I cant even begin..." nonsense. Its boring. The evidence demonstrates mass migration is bad for Europeans. I know it. You know it.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

So your only evidence for your views...let me get this right.

Is a single survey which doesn't actually mean what you want it to mean, and the fact that poor people and young men are over-represented in prison.

You're not being rational or thorough in your thought process here Sand.

You say that, but I'm not the one throwing ad hominems around. I'm arguing on the basis of the evidence. What I'm getting in return is ... well, nothing. No contradicting evidence, just "Oh this is terrible". Americans used to joke reality has a liberal bias. Reality of course doesn't have a bias - it just is.

Try actually reading the article you cited from BBC and you'll see the clear flaw in your logic ... in the article you cited.

So I have to guess what particular straw you are clutching at? Is it the reference to the male 14-30 age group being the most likely to offend?

Rather than this scaremongering, which is really going nowhere. You need to accept that there simply is no evidence that THESE people are more dangerous than others.

Yes, apart from the evidence. We can argue why, but the evidence is they are.

You simply don't like immigrants and want to keep Europe 'European', whatever that means beyond simply 'white'. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but it can't be justified by logic. it's an emotional decision you're making. But you're entitled to make it.

I think mass migration is demonstrably against the interests of Europeans. I think its entirely legitimate that European governments represent the interests of Europeans over that of non-Europeans. I don't think this is at all controversial, so the response just highlights your own extreme view that mass migration must be pursued by European governments against the interests of Europeans.

Is it any wonder "populists" are on the rise in Europe if that is the moderate, mainstream view?

If you want to continue this debate, could you perhaps answer the questions I posted yesterday.

Pretty sure I answered the main thrust of these questions already, but sure, why not.

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.

Migration is fine. Completely necessary. Mass migration is problematic. I defined my understanding of the term yesterday. Its clearly relative.

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?

I don't see Islamic mass migration as unusually problematic, and non-Islamic mass migration then being relatively fine. Its still the same negative effect on the indigenous population.

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?

What is unclear about the observation that mass migration is a negative experience for the indigenous population?

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

You see, you say that, but Londoners were literally dodging the latest car attack just last Tuesday. You must think Sadiq Khans proposal to pedestrianise Parliament Square in response to car attacks is utter red top nonsense as well. But its serious policy in the UK after decades of mass migration.

You make it sound like it's happening all over the city on a daily basis, ie something that most Londoners will experience.

Sand wrote: »

Whats the plan? Hope the UK stays lucky?

Let the security services do their job. In the meantime, the British right can await the next attack with gleeful earnest.

Palmach

Midlife wrote: »

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?

Have you been living under a stone? There were umpteen grooming gangs. All the perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims and all the victims were white. THAT is the racism in this not correctly identifying the perpetrators.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You make it sound like it's happening all over the city on a daily basis, ie something that most Londoners will experience.

Perhaps I was a little excessive in my original statement if you're going to take it that literally. I'm happy to concede you don't have to duck and cover on every trip to the local tube station. However, London City is planned and is continuing to plan to manage and mitigate ongoing domestic terrorism as a reality. That involves barriers to prevent vehicle attacks, armed soldiers and armed police patrolling the streets and constant surveillance of potential terrorists. All this is because they have an ongoing Islamic terrorist problem. This problem was entirely self inflicted by a policy of mass migration.

This is 'normal' now, in London 2018. Its not normal in societies which do not have the problems of mass migration. Why would any responsible leader sow dragons teeth by accepting mass migration? For all the criticism of Orban, he will do less harm to his successors than the likes of Blair did to his.

Let the security services do their job. In the meantime, the British right can await the next attack with gleeful earnest.

Not as much as open border advocates are awaiting even one terrorist attack in Poland or Hungary I dare say.

The security services are going to be in secure employment for the next few centuries. But there is hope. It only took 800 years for a common Irish identity to unify Gaels, Norse, Norman and English peoples despite all they shared.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Perhaps I was a little excessive in my original statement if you're going to take it that literally. I'm happy to concede you don't have to duck and cover on every trip to the local tube station. However, London City is planned and is continuing to plan to manage and mitigate ongoing domestic terrorism as a reality. That involves barriers to prevent vehicle attacks, armed soldiers and armed police patrolling the streets and constant surveillance of potential terrorists. All this is because they have an ongoing domestic terrorist problem. This problem was entirely self inflicted by a policy of mass migration.

This is 'normal' now, in London 2018. Its not normal in societies which do not have the problems of mass migration. Why would any responsible leader sow dragons teeth by accepting mass migration? For all the criticism of Orban, he will do less harm to his successors than the likes of Blair did to his.

You used that sort of language so I interpreted it that way, yes. Domestic terrorism might not be something that can be ignored but that doesn't justify blaming millions of immigrants for it either.

It is not "normal". If it were, you'd see mass protest movements happening all across London on a regular basis. It is scaremongering.

Regarding Hungary, 93,000 Hungarians live in the UK (Source). Seems that white uptopianism isn't enough to entice them to stay at home.

Sand wrote: »

Not as much as open border advocates are awaiting even one terrorist attack in Poland or Hungary I dare say.

Which open border advocates would these be?

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

You keep deflecting, so you are uncomfortable. I understand why. My view is consistent. Mass migration was bad for the native Americans. Mass migration is bad for Europeans.

Your view on the other hand is contradictory, because you only use economic prosperity and individual freedoms to judge the outcome but you reach two different results.


I find people who are unable to support their view with evidence will do everything they can to divert, deflect and move off the evidence.



I just answered this in my post yesterday. You read my posts right? Or do you just jump straight into deflection? Just curious - I suppose it doesn't make a difference.



There is nothing that can be done. Illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers should be deported, far more rapidly than is done today. But legal migrants are here to stay. That's irreversible. All that can be done is to assimilate them over the next few centuries with as little strife as possible.




As above.



Ignoring problems and pretending they don't exist didn't work out for the girls of Rotheram.



Europe has never been homogenous. That is your fantasy. You hopelessly underestimate just how difficult it is for common identity to be built.




As above. People with a common identity will clearly still have differences and disagreements. This is mitigated by that common identity - a view that your political opponent still has our best interests at heart, even if they disagree with how to achieve them.

People without a common identity will have far greater differences and disagreements. Look at the UK, look at the US. As these societies have become more diverse they have become more divided, their politics more bitter, with minor issues being blown up as hugely symbolic struggles between two different groups who resent having to share the same territory. Its Northern Irish politics.



Isnt it more important that the open border advocates be able to defend their position? Given their policy is what is being carried out? What is the end state in another 100 years for Europe? Is it going to be closer to your utopia, or closer to the Balkans circa 1990?



I'm tired of your deflecting, and this "Oh I cant even begin..." nonsense. Its boring. The evidence demonstrates mass migration is bad for Europeans. I know it. You know it.

I knew you would revert to chopping the post up like that. When offered the chance to talk in substance, you revert to your characteristic one/two line comments. I'm reading the above and it's just a disjointed series of snipes and comments. Why do you do this? Why can you not translate all your passionate contempt for migration into an at least partially developed sketch? Nobody is expecting you to formulate a detailed blueprint here, but just look at the measure of your vision for a way forward : "There is nothing that can be done. Illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers should be deported, far more rapidly than is done today. But legal migrants are here to stay. That's irreversible. All that can be done is to assimilate them over the next few centuries with as little strife as possible."

For a guy who spends so much time fretting over immigration -- this is what you muster? The vision is so limp and watery that really it raises more questions than it provides answers. Centuries? Why centuries? How will they assimilate if you think they are incapable of assimilating? How are you going to balance integrating them on one hand while also insisting they are hopelessly unskilled rapist terrorists who are a threat to society? Then once you have this assimilated nation -- what next? All the problems go away ? Terrorism disappears, sex offences reach an all-time low and nobody is a financial burden on the state?

It's just the same old classic easy answer strongman talk which people who can't be bothered to think buy into. "We will just fix everything by fixing everything" -- that is the sum of your above "vision".

As for your common identity stuff (or at least your perception of common identity) -- as I have asked you many times without response -- point out to me who is getting this right ? If migration has caused a lack of common identity in Europe, which in turn has caused whatever terrible outcome you perceive that it has . . . . then point out to me a full list of all the places in the world which have both maintained their wonderful common identity and which are much better places to live than Europe ?

p.s. I must have missed your definition of mass migration and what stopping it entails -- couldn't pick it out. Would be great if you could could just copy and paste it in. I need to actually understand what you mean by this term.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You used that sort of language so I interpreted it that way, yes.

Yeah, and I acknowledge that was a mistake because it left me open to someone taking it far more literally than it was intended. You below refer to Hungary as being a white utopia. Do you mean that literally too?

Domestic terrorism might not be something that can be ignored but that doesn't justify blaming millions of immigrants for it either.

I corrected my usage of domestic there because its not domestic in the commonly understood usage. Its entirely valid to associate what London is facing to immigration because it is immigrants and their descendants carrying out the terrorism. It simply wouldn't occur without mass migration.

It is not "normal". If it were, you'd see mass protest movements happening all across London on a regular basis. It is scaremongering.

It is normal. Otherwise the resources tied up with combating it would be a criminal waste of public funds.

Regarding Hungary, 93,000 Hungarians live in the UK (Source). Seems that white uptopianism isn't enough to entice them to stay at home.

Hungary's main problem is it is poorer than the UK. That is a temporary problem. The OECD says Hungary will see growth of 4.4% in 2018, far higher than the UK can expect even before Brexit.

Islamic terrorism is effectively a permanent problem for the UK.

Which open border advocates would these be?

Please ACD, be serious. Look at any of the regular threads in After Hours. Every vehicle, bomb or shooting attack there is a see saw back and forth between those sarcastically point scoring about the motivation of those responsible until the facts are established and one side declares victory, rubbing the 'others' nose in it.

You think if there was a terrorist atrocity in Poland or Hungary there wouldn't be point scoring? I wouldn't even blame them. That's human nature.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Please ACD, be serious. Look at any of the regular threads in After Hours. Every vehicle, bomb or shooting attack there is a see saw back and forth between those sarcastically point scoring about the motivation of those responsible until the facts are established and one side declares victory, rubbing the 'others' nose in it.

You think if there was a terrorist atrocity in Poland or Hungary there wouldn't be point scoring? I wouldn't even blame them. That's human nature.

The open borders stance is almost exclusively a strawman in my experience. Being opposed to the white nationalist faction of the modern right does not make one pro-open borders.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Why do you do this? Why can you not translate all your passionate contempt for migration into an at least partially developed sketch?

Saves me time. Its an internet forum, not my blog.

Nobody is expecting you to formulate a detailed blueprint here,

Really? You seem to be expecting an essay.

The vision is so limp and watery that really it raises more questions than it provides answers. Centuries? Why centuries? How will they assimilate if you think they are incapable of assimilating?

It's just realism. The enclaves are here now. The problems are here now. We can fairly easily stop the flow so the problem doesn't get worse. But assimilation is going to be a long, hard road that will take centuries. And it will take centuries: it took 8 centuries of absolute mayhem between Gaels, Norse, Normans and English to create a shared Irish identity. I deliberately exclude the Scots from that because that mess is still ongoing. I just find your belief that you can pick up an entire community from Pakistan (for example), drop it in Yorkshire and tell them they are British now and expect everyone to get along to be extremely naive. Humans don't work like that.

How are you going to balance integrating them on one hand while also insisting they are hopelessly unskilled rapist terrorists who are a threat to society?

Why do they need to be linked in the first place? One group are British citizens. The other group isnt. We can address issues in particular groups in any state without linking that to groups outside the state.

Then once you have this assimilated nation -- what next? All the problems go away ? Terrorism disappears, sex offences reach an all-time low and nobody is a financial burden on the state?

Haven't I already answered this? A people with a common identity still have divisions, but they are not existential. Look at the Germans: they suffered a crushing, almost existential defeat just 70 years ago. Initially the Allies planned to reduce the Germans to a subsidence existence, the only thing that saved them was fear of the Soviet Union. Two hostile superpowers drew a cold war front-line right down the middle of the German people. But the those superpowers fell, and the German common identity survived and reunified. Look at Poland: the Polish people were carved up between the Prussian, Austrian and Russian empires. All those empires fell, the Polish common identity endured and reunified. Poland is the political expression of a people with a common identity. Germany is, or at least used to be, the same.

For comparison lets look at (the former) Yugoslavia. Or more recently Iraq. People who share a common identity endure and re-emerge politically. People who only share a passport collapse into strife and bloodshed.

I'd be fairly confident that Poland will be more politically stable over the next 100 years than Germany will.

It's just the same old classic easy answer strongman talk which people who can't be bothered to think buy into. "We will just fix everything by fixing everything" -- that is the sum of your above "vision".

Oh please, this coming from a person whose 'vision' amounts to Europe being the best place in the world to run a corporation.

As for your common identity stuff (or at least your perception of common identity) -- as I have asked you many times without response -- point out to me who is getting this right ? If migration has caused a lack of common identity in Europe, which in turn has caused whatever terrible outcome you perceive that it has . . . . then point out to me a full list of all the places in the world which have both maintained their wonderful common identity and which are much better places to live than Europe ?

Please define ' getting it right'? I suspect you take this to mean a country which has no problems whatsoever and is just a utopia. Whereas I take it to mean a country which doesn't have the problems of mass migration on top of their own problems.

p.s. I must have missed your definition of mass migration and what stopping it entails -- couldn't pick it out. Would be great if you could could just copy and paste it in. I need to actually understand what you mean by this term.

See post 573.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The open borders stance is almost exclusively a strawman in my experience. Being opposed to the white nationalist faction of the modern right does not make one pro-open borders.

You'll forgive me if I'm not overly sympathetic given the strawmanning faced by anyone who points out mass migration has not benefited Europeans.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I'm not overly sympathetic given the strawmanning faced by anyone who points out mass migration has not benefited Europeans.

Likewise to that faced by people who object to all Muslims being portrayed as potential terrorists.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Likewise to that faced by people who object to all Muslims being portrayed as potential terrorists.

*Everyone* is a potential terrorist. The question is do Europeans need to take on the heightened risk of Islamic terrorism on top of the risk of more Brevik style attacks? The answer is no. There is no compensating benefit to justify the heightened risk posed by mass migration.

I don't see why this is controversial. I might go swimming and I might drown. That's a risk. That risk is not a justification for me tying a cement block to my feet before jumping in.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

*Everyone* is a potential terrorist. The question is do Europeans need to take on the heightened risk of Islamic terrorism on top of the risk of more Brevik style attacks? The answer is no. There is no compensating benefit to justify the heightened risk posed by mass migration.

I don't see why this is controversial. I might go swimming and I might drown. That's a risk. That risk is not a justification for me tying a cement block to my feet before jumping in.

Using your logic Ireland should never have been allowed to join the EU and its citizens should be barred from entering Europe/US as well. Bunch of christian terrorists.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Saves me time. Its an internet forum, not my blog.

It doesn't save you any time, in fact it is almost certainly taking up more of it than if you'd just engage. An earnest and interested counter party will want you to flesh out your position, and doing your best to not commit to having to do it in a single post (or indeed series of posts), actually leads to you spending far more time explaining these efforts instead of addressing the salient points that others actually care about.

Instead of scoring points, which nobody else is counting, perhaps it is simply better to engage in good faith and actually have a conversation?

I always thought that was the point of these boards, and especially the politics section tbh.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Using your logic Ireland should never have been allowed to join the EU and its citizens should be barred from entering Europe/US as well. Bunch of christian terrorists.

Neither should the 2million Irish people who fled the country during the famine have been allowed off the barren isle.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't save you any time, in fact it is almost certainly taking up more of it than if you'd just engage. An earnest and interested counter party will want you to flesh out your position, and doing your best to not commit to having to do it in a single post (or indeed series of posts), actually leads to you spending far more time explaining these efforts instead of addressing the salient points that others actually care about.

This post will be the 599th post in this thread. It will be my 92nd. That means I have made close to 1 in 6 post of all posts in this thread. Those 92 posts likely amount to thousands of words, perhaps tens of thousands. I have not counted. The reality is I've engaged. I put forward an argument. I've supported it with evidence. I've continued to address discussion of my posts and counter posts.

But despite that level of engagement, you criticise me for not engaging. Doesn't that highlight the pointlessness of it all?

Instead of scoring points, which nobody else is counting, perhaps it is simply better to engage in good faith and actually have a conversation?

I always thought that was the point of these boards, and especially the politics section tbh.

Yeah, I guess you missed my post where I made the same point. That discussion on Politics is supposed to be about an exchange of evidence, and the debate advancing as evidence is presented.

But that doesn't occur on topics where people are morally invested in the views they hold. People claim that mass migration is inherently an economic positive. I present evidence that EU free movement is positive, non-EEA migration is negative. People claim diversity is positive. I present evidence that diverse communities are low trust communities, with less altruism and less civic engagement.

Now, having presented contradicting evidence does anyone re-evaluate their views in light of the new evidence? No. I might as well be talking to flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, believers in chemtrails and Brexiteers. Their views are not evidence based: they are based on the conditioning that the have to accept mass migration to be good people. The hysterical denunciation of those presenting contradicting evidence does not indicate that they accept the other side is acting in good faith. So they themselves are not acting in good faith when they call for discussion as if they intend to engage in it. You pretend you want me to lay out my views, my evidence and you will engage with these in a calm, reasoned way. You haven't. You wont. You believe you are good. And I am evil. You don't think you can learn from our discussion, you think I am some evil you need to defeat or disprove.

The reality is I can provide you with evidence that contradicts your deeply held view on mass migration as being morally good and you view it not as new information, but as a personal attack. That is not your fault, that is your basic survival instinct confusing a threat to your view of yourself as a good person as being a threat to your very life. Your emotional response of rage overrides your reasoned response. I'm not immune to that, I'm not better than you. It just so happens the objective evidence supports me in this case so I don't need to ignore the evidence.

Let's face it: you cant even acknowledge that I've engaged in this discussion to the extent that 1 in every 6 posts is from myself. And they are not snappy one liners as favoured by some posters. Why should I believe you'll acknowledge any evidence I present you with?

For example, lets look at Midlife. He claims there is zero evidence that "these people" are more dangerous than others. So now I will provide a link to a Swedish report that 58% of convicted rapists in Sweden over the past 5 years are foreign born. Sweden's foreign born population is roughly 17% of Swedish population. So foreign born people are vastly more likely to be convicted rapists than Swedish born people

This even understates the impact of mass migration, as second and third generation migrants will count as Swedish born people in these statistics.

Now, as you say the point of the Politics forum is to engage in debate in good faith. We argue our views, we present evidence, and we adjust our views in light of new evidence.

Will Midlife change his view that there is zero evidence that "these people" are more dangerous? No. Absolutely not. Will you? No. Will anyone else? No. Lets be realistic. In these sort of discussions, where you enter the debate believe you are not only right, but the other side is evil, evidence is irrelevant. Evidence is just a test of faith you have to rise above.

So don't criticise me for not wasting my time any more than I already have.

A lot of posts is not evident of a lot of engagement. I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point I raised. You say you're saving time by not doing so, but actually have to spend a lot more time trying to explain away why you feel you shouldn't have to.

James Brown

There was a mass shooting at a gamer convention over the weekend. People get shot and stabbed all over the world and it doesn't make international news. We have literally millions of Muslims living all over the world. The occasional person with mental issues killing people under the name of ISIS or whomever they choose isn't an argument for anything other than fighting ISIS or whom ever and better access to mental health services for people. Any inference that it's a Muslim problem is agenda driven willful ignorance IMO.
If that's not the message being inferred here, I don't know what else it could be.
It's the same 'argument' we had about the Nigerians and the Jews before them and the Huguenots before them.

demfad

Sand wrote: »

*Everyone* is a potential terrorist. The question is do Europeans need to take on the heightened risk of Islamic terrorism on top of the risk of more Brevik style attacks?

If everyone is a potential terrorist then by your logic we should try and reduce the population of Europe as this will reduce the amount of terrorism? Perhaps people with large families could be penalised by adding to the likelihood of future terrorism?
The fact is that everyone has potential for good and ill. Society should strive to allow people to become the best version of themselves. For you to latch onto negative human potential and then somehow use this as a reason to attack migration and by extension migrants is beneath contempt. We see what you are doing.

Migration is a fact of human existance and was happening long before the first human migrants left Africa (your ancestors by the way).
Migration needs to be managed in a way where whole families can be brought in exchange for an agreement to accept the laws (and where applicable, customs) of the land. To allow them to be the best versions of themselves in a fair society.