Migration Megathread

Sand

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Any inference that it's a Muslim problem is agenda driven willful ignorance IMO.

I'm not inferring its a Muslim problem. I've already stated the focus on Muslim mass migration misses the point that all mass migration is inherently bad for the native population.

Why non-European groups are over-represented in rape convictions in Sweden is only of academic interest. The practical concern is to stop mass migration in Sweden which is exposing the Swedish people to a heightened risk of being raped.

If that's not the message being inferred here, I don't know what else it could be.

Yes, that is your conditioning kicking in. It is impressively strong.

Sand

demfad wrote: »

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?

Well, that is the stupidest thing I'll read on here today.

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.

Yes, I'm observing reality. 58% of recent rape convictions were not born in Sweden. More were 2nd or 3rd generation migrants born in Sweden. So we can clearly observe a heightened risk. So the only question is do you ignore it, and hope some other family pays the price for your high horse nonsense?

We can see you've made your choice.

Migration is a fact of human existance and was happening long before the first human migrants left Africa (your ancestors by the way).

Even if you weren't making a wholly dishonest comparison, my response is so what? Why does that matter at all to anyone in the here and now? Terra nullius is an argument that fell out of fashion by the 15th century and here you are repacking it as just and right.

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.

Migration needs to be managed in a way that is of benefit to Europeans.

Europeans are under absolutely no obligation to sacrifice their own interests to improve the lot of the rest of the world. This reality is lost on you, and lost on European governments but the voters are clear on it.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

This reality is lost on you, and lost on European governments but the voters are clear on it.

Why do they keep voting for the same parties in Western Europe then? AfD, FN, UKIP, PVV, etc. None of these are in government while Italy's far right is tied up in a mess with the M5S.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Well, it would be a waste Emmet. I've given you evidence and data and here is your irrelevant response. Your view has not shifted an inch. The evidence has no effect on you. You cant even produce evidence to support your own view.

As I said, its like discussing issues with creationists or Brexiteers.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do they keep voting for the same parties in Western Europe then? AfD, FN, UKIP, PVV, etc. None of these are in government while Italy's far right is tied up in a mess with the M5S.

ACD, be serious. Even 20 years ago the idea of any of those parties having more than negligible support would have been unthinkable. But now the UK is out of the EU. Salvini is in government and the most popular politician in Italy. Trump is leading the US. Hungary and Poland are opposing the EU. The entire media is furiously campaigning against these 'far-right' groups, and yet they get more and more popular with every election. And to stay relevant, center-right and center left parties are having to tack to the right on their immigration policies. Look at Merkel in 2018. She is not the "We can do it" leader of 2015.

The trend is only going one way. More mass migration means more 'far-right' parties and policies. Europeans do not want mass migration.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

ACD, be serious. Even 20 years ago the idea of any of those parties having more than negligible support would have been unthinkable. But now the UK is out of the EU. Salvini is in government and the most popular politician in Italy. Trump is leading the US. Hungary and Poland are opposing the EU. The entire media is furiously campaigning against these 'far-right' groups, and yet they get more and more popular with every election. And to stay relevant, center-right and center left parties are having to tack to the right on their immigration policies. Look at Merkel in 2018. She is not the "We can do it" leader of 2015.

The trend is only going one way. More mass migration means more 'far-right' parties and policies. Europeans do not want mass migration.

And? Most of them still aren't in power. Hungary and Poland are on the way to being kleptocracies and have barely taken in any refugees. Their leaders might oppose the EU but they're happy to be the European equivalent of benefit scroungers at the same time. If they leave, that's fine by me. They're net drains on the EU which seems to be all that matters.

US voters didn't vote for Trump, they voted for Clinton by a majority of nearly 3 million votes. Trump only got in by way of the electoral college.

My point still stands. Day by day, the far right is exposed as a putrid alliance of odious billionaires, foreign oligarchs, professional Russian trolls and vapid figureheads. It isn't a movement capable of governing sensibly and has to resort to absurd levels of scaremongering to attain power in the few countries where it has been elected.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Day by day, the far right is exposed as a putrid alliance of odious billionaires, foreign oligarchs, professional Russian trolls and vapid figureheads. It isn't a movement capable of governing sensibly and has to resort to absurd levels of scaremongering to attain power in the few countries where it has been elected.

The 'far right' is essentially any party which prioritises the interests of Europeans over non-Europeans. You might think that would be a given for a European politician, but its almost a unique selling point these days.

I share your view of a lot of the parties you are referencing but they are increasingly dictating the response to the trauma of mass migration. Even if they are not elected they force the mainstream to adopt 'far right' positions. These are the only sensible positions: its completely ludicrous to pretend that all the world can come live in Europe.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

The 'far right' is essentially any party which prioritises the interests of Europeans over non-Europeans. You might think that would be a given for a European politician, but its almost a unique selling point these days.

I share your view of a lot of the parties you are referencing but they are increasingly dictating the response to the trauma of mass migration. Even if they are not elected they force the mainstream to adopt 'far right' positions. These are the only sensible positions: its completely ludicrous to pretend that all the world can come live in Europe.

Depends on how one defines "far right". I prefer to use the term to describe extremists who support a form of US identity politics based on white nationalism and, in some cases outright racism. They don't care one whit about Europeans, white or otherwise. They simply can't stand those who they deem to be inferior to themselves. If they were to achieve their goal of expelling these undesirables, the talk of spending money on "our homeless, police and hospitals" would be replaced with yesterdays cant about single mothers, welfare scroungers and said homeless. Nothing would change. You never see these people protest against disastrous austerity cuts for example without which the UK would be arguably safer.

The current far right position in Europe is to leave the EU. Jaroslaw Kaczynski and Viktor Orban know that this would turn their countries into third world nations over night so they draw the line just short of this. Europeans need only to look at the UK, one of the world's richest and most powerful nations grapple with itself over Brexit to see where that road might lead.

In the US, once the opposition gets its act together (a tall order I admit) the current incumbent will be turfed out. The thing is, the circumstances which caused Trump and Brexit remain. I don't think this is immigration. I think this is the economic problem I described earlier. Until this is at least approached in a realistic manner, the status quo will continue leading to a seismic demographic shift in Europe leaving a void in low skilled labour.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

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?



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.

Oh hi! Hadn't read this thread for a while. Nice that you missed me.

To be honest Sand, I stopped bothering when you started talking about the parallels between what happened to the Wampanoag and other native Americans, and what is happening modern day Europe.

Anyone who can honestly examine interpret the history of native americans as a parallel situation to ours (because both cases involve immmigration) is, in my mind, predisposed to see whatever evidence will back up their argument.

All I can achieve here is point out the obvious logical flaws in your arguments, the clear issues of what the statistics miss, or the crucial unanswered questions. They're obvious if you criticallly analyse your argument. you just wish not to.

Good luck.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Depends on how one defines "far right". I prefer to use the term to describe extremists who support a form of US identity politics based on white nationalism and, in some cases outright racism. They don't care one whit about Europeans, white or otherwise. They simply can't stand those who they deem to be inferior to themselves.

Who do you think is described by 'far right' then? You mentioned AfD, FN, UKIP, PVV and Salvini previously. Do you think these are white nationalists supporting a form of US identity politics?

Given your other definition of far right, I think it reasonable to assume you just use it as a pejorative and probably don't put much more thought into than that.

In the US, once the opposition gets its act together (a tall order I admit) the current incumbent will be turfed out. The thing is, the circumstances which caused Trump and Brexit remain. I don't think this is immigration.

I think this is mistaken. I think as societies become *more* diverse, they become more divided and less trusting. The studies and evidence supports this. No matter if Trump is defeated or wins in 2020, he is a product of trends in the US. He is not the cause of those trends, and those trends wont end with him.

I think this is the economic problem I described earlier. Until this is at least approached in a realistic manner, the status quo will continue leading to a seismic demographic shift in Europe leaving a void in low skilled labour.

The seismic demographic shift in Europe will occur because of mass migration. Not economics. There is no void of low skilled labour in Europe, less with ever increasing automation. Even if there was, what is the end state with your vision? Indigenous Europeans dominating high paying, highly qualified jobs with an underclass of low skilled non-European migrants waiting on tables, mowing lawns, collecting bins and doing other jobs too dirty or too demeaning for Europeans? That is not desirable.

Mass migration is a solution to an imagined problem. It has and will continue to create extremely real problems.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Embarrassing stuff

I guessed you were about 12 earlier. I may have overestimated you.

prawnsambo

Sand wrote: »

I think this is mistaken. I think as societies become *more* diverse, they become more divided and less trusting. The studies and evidence supports this. No matter if Trump is defeated or wins in 2020, he is a product of trends in the US. He is not the cause of those trends, and those trends wont end with him.

I have heard the opposite to that quite recently. That fear of the 'other' is strongest in areas where there is least exposure to that 'other'. Examples given were cities like London and New York that have very cosmopolitan populations. And have done for decades.

4068ac1elhodqr

Sand wrote: »

Who do you think is described by 'far right' then? You mentioned AfD, FN, UKIP, PVV and Salvini previously. Do you think these are white nationalists supporting a form of US identity politics?

Given your other definition of far right, I think it reasonable to assume you just use it as a pejorative and probably don't put much more thought into than that.

I think this is mistaken. I think as societies become *more* diverse, they become more divided and less trusting. The studies and evidence supports this. No matter if Trump is defeated or wins in 2020, he is a product of trends in the US. He is not the cause of those trends, and those trends wont end with him.

The seismic demographic shift in Europe will occur because of mass migration. Not economics. There is no void of low skilled labour in Europe.

These are imagined problems, with "solutions" that have and will create extremely real problems.

Wouldn't agree with some of your points, but these few points seems fair.

The far-right emmergence probably exists as more of a 'protest vote' than anything else from moderate folks, it's not all black boots, skinheads or suchlike.

Yes Trump-exit are both simply 'manifestations of situations' rather than 'the causation'. People are easily confused or have short memories about this.

I'll try not to dwell on the low-skilled thing, (aside from seasonal agriculture demand) can agree the low-skilled - will become more redundant going forward.

Yes migration was a major factor in Brexit or the 'European situation' (Italy, Austria etc), and all it took was a couple of percent to arrive at brexit, it's fair to assume migration worries (unfounded or not) was a primary factor for a sizeable chunk of voters.

From a large poll in 2006, it seems the expression of concerns from Sweden might manifest this weekend. 46% viewed it as an upmost concern. Denmark 35% actually acted to 'force integration' earlier this year, Germany will manage, it's essentally the nearest thing to a superpower in the EU so can cope, and Merkel likely continue but not as strong as before. Although protests and conflict have risen lately.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Who do you think is described by 'far right' then? You mentioned AfD, FN, UKIP, PVV and Salvini previously. Do you think these are white nationalists supporting a form of US identity politics?

Given your other definition of far right, I think it reasonable to assume you just use it as a pejorative and probably don't put much more thought into than that.

When the solution extends no further than ending mass migration, whatever that is in terms of numbers then yes, I think the identity politics tag suits.

Sand wrote: »

I think this is mistaken. I think as societies become *more* diverse, they become more divided and less trusting. The studies and evidence supports this. No matter if Trump is defeated or wins in 2020, he is a product of trends in the US. He is not the cause of those trends, and those trends wont end with him.

This looks like correlation as opposed to causation to me. You're ignoring things like the Iraq War, tuition fees, expense scandals, Catholic church abuses, various scandals of corruption, etc... The institutions that people once trusted blindly have revealed themselves to fall far from the ideals they were supposed to represent.

Sand wrote: »

The seismic demographic shift in Europe will occur because of mass migration. Not economics. There is no void of low skilled labour in Europe, less with ever increasing automation.

Mostly because of mass migration but not exclusively. As societies evolve and progress, people tend to have fewer children. Immigration will obviously change demographics but it's crucial if a society wishes to address the stresses an aging population will cause to understand why people are having fewer children and what can be done about it. Automation is happening, no question but it's not going to be reality for a while yet. Meanwhile, people will live longer and die in ever more complex and expensive ways.

Sand wrote: »

Even if there was, what is the end state with your vision? Indigenous Europeans dominating high paying, highly qualified jobs with an underclass of low skilled non-European migrants waiting on tables, mowing lawns, collecting bins and doing other jobs too dirty or too demeaning for Europeans? That is not desirable.

Mass migration is a solution to an imagined problem. It has and will continue to create extremely real problems.

Can you quote me where I presented such a vision please?

Pussyhands

Cultures are so strange. Was on another forum and a guy said he was sad because the girl he asked to marry him said no.

Queue posts and posts saying **** her etc.

So I found out that the guy wasn't in a relationship with her, he didn't even go on a date. He was just a girl he knew from class for a few years and asked to marry him. She even said she'd think about it so it must be fairly common. I assume it's somewhere like India.

You'd wonder how these types of cultures can integrate over here.

Back to the muslims then, it must concern people that most of them dislike gays, treat women 2nd class, in favour of punishments like death and torture. Just because muslims aren't shouting it from the rooftops that they hate gays doesn't mean they don't believe it.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When the solution extends no further than ending mass migration, whatever that is in terms of numbers then yes, I think the identity politics tag suits.

But you defined 'far right' as white nationalists, which is a specific form of identity politics. This is moving the goal posts. Black Lives Matter are playing US identity politics, but they are not white nationalists. These terms are not interchangeable. Right?

This looks like correlation as opposed to causation to me. You're ignoring things like the Iraq War, tuition fees, expense scandals, Catholic church abuses, various scandals of corruption, etc... The institutions that people once trusted blindly have revealed themselves to fall far from the ideals they were supposed to represent.

To you perhaps it is a matter of opinion. To the studies I've already cited demonstrating less civic trust and engagement in more diverse neighbourhoods its a matter of evidence.

To progress this conversation beyond me being right and you ignoring the evidence, you need to actually engage with the evidence as opposed to ignore it.

Mostly because of mass migration but not exclusively. As societies evolve and progress, people tend to have fewer children.

Again, I think that's an interesting framing of the issue. Are cultures who have more children less evolved and less advanced than cultures who have less children? If so (and I disagree - correlation and causation is an issue here), the less evolved and less advanced cultures are going to define humanity's future. Because is a culture evolved and advanced if it ever dwindles to zero? That is the future humanity is advancing towards and which the 'new Europeans' will integrate with? Less and less children? Its a failed culture, just like Easter Island.

Immigration will obviously change demographics

Is that obvious though? Has any mainstream party won an election on the basis that the mainstream policies for immigration will'obviously' mean than native Europeans will be a minority within their own homelands in our lifetime?

To my recollection, no. But maybe there is a party manifesto which spelled this out to voters that I missed. Apart from the 'far right' parties of course.

but it's crucial if a society wishes to address the stresses an aging population will cause to understand why people are having fewer children and what can be done about it.

Sure, but mass migration is not the solution to why Europeans are having fewer and fewer children.

Automation is happening, no question but it's not going to be reality for a while yet. Meanwhile, people will live longer and die in ever more complex and expensive ways.

ACD - It will happen in our lifetimes. Even in white collar jobs, automation is going to remove jobs. Let alone blue collar jobs.

Can you quote me where I presented such a vision please?

You just did. Apparently there is a low skill labour shortage in Europe (Is there? Where is the evidence?). Mass migration from the 3rd world is the solution. The benefit is the 3rd world will solve Europe's low skill shortage. Unless you want to admit that under current trends the 3rd world will also solve Europe's mid and high "skill shortage" also?

1 in 5 greeks are unemployed. 1 in 6 Spaniards are unemployed. 1 in 10 French are unemployed. And so on and so forth. Tens of millions of people with free movement to meet demand for labour. There is no shortage of labour in Europe. There is a mis-allocation of labour. European corporations thrive behind EU trade barriers, whereas low skilled European workers must fight tooth and nail for jobs against the lowest common denominator of North Africans, Afghans and Iraqis fresh off the EU naval ships (paid for with European workers taxes) delivering them to those same European corporations. And 'the left' supports this delivery of scab labour. It is almost Kafkaesque.

What happy end-state do you see for this scenario?

Sand

prawnsambo wrote: »

I have heard the opposite to that quite recently. That fear of the 'other' is strongest in areas where there is least exposure to that 'other'. Examples given were cities like London and New York that have very cosmopolitan populations. And have done for decades.

Yeah, I have your wholly unevidenced claims on the one hand. Then I have peer reviewed papers on the other. Now I don't know what to think.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

But you defined 'far right' as white nationalists, which is a specific form of identity politics. This is moving the goal posts. Black Lives Matter are playing US identity politics, but they are not white nationalists. These terms are not interchangeable. Right?

No, it isn't. Modern far right, or even right wing thought is to use immigrants as scapegoats. US identity politics has different forms from BLM to overzealous students to the alt-right.

Sand wrote: »

To you perhaps it is a matter of opinion. To the studies I've already cited demonstrating less civic trust and engagement in more diverse neighbourhoods its a matter of evidence.

Can you direct me to these? It is a long thread and they may have gotten lost in the ether.

Sand wrote: »

gain, I think that's an interesting framing of the issue. Are cultures who have more children less evolved and less advanced than cultures who have less children? If so (and I disagree - correlation and causation is an issue here), the less evolved and less advanced cultures are going to define humanity's future. Because is a culture evolved and advanced if it ever dwindles to zero? That is the future humanity is advancing towards and which the 'new Europeans' will integrate with? Less and less children? Its a failed culture, just like Easter Island.

Depends on which one you look at. If it weren't for China's one child policy then they might have a brighter future ahead. Not sure how desirable China is culturally. Then there's Africa which is still growing in terms of population.

Your point is predicated on immigrants not integrating at all. When they do, they can assist in maintaining the population though this doesn't address the problem of aging populations.

Sand wrote: »

Is that obvious though? Has any mainstream party won an election on the basis that the mainstream policies for immigration will'obviously' mean than native Europeans will be a minority within their own homelands in our lifetime?

To my recollection, no. But maybe there is a party manifesto which spelled this out to voters that I missed. Apart from the 'far right' parties of course.

Do you not think that it's worth asking why people aren't voting for such parties if immigration is apparently going to bring about a dystopian society?

Sand wrote: »

Sure, but mass migration is not the solution to why Europeans are having fewer and fewer children.

Did I say it was? Quote please?

Sand wrote: »

ACD - It will happen in our lifetimes. Even in white collar jobs, automation is going to remove jobs. Let alone blue collar jobs.

I didn't say that it wouldn't but it's still a fair few years off.

Sand wrote: »

1 in 5 greeks are unemployed. 1 in 6 Spaniards are unemployed. 1 in 10 French are unemployed. And so on and so forth. Tens of millions of people with free movement to meet demand for labour. There is no shortage of labour in Europe. There is a mis-allocation of labour. European corporations thrive behind EU trade barriers, whereas low skilled European workers must fight tooth and nail for jobs against the lowest common denominator of North Africans, Afghans and Iraqis fresh off the EU naval ships (paid for with European workers taxes) delivering them to those same European corporations. And 'the left' supports this delivery of scab labour. It is almost Kafkaesque.

What happy end-state do you see for this scenario?

Where did I argue in favour of this scenario? Quote please. Which European corporations are these?

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, it isn't. Modern far right, or even right wing thought is to use immigrants as scapegoats. US identity politics has different forms from BLM to overzealous students to the alt-right.

As noted before, the only thing that unifies these 'far right' groups is that they prioritise the interests of Europeans over non-Europeans. This is not - or should not be - controversial. The Dalai Lama recently stated that 'Europe belongs to Europeans' and that refugees should be returned to their own countries to rebuild them. I doubt you would describe him as 'far right'. Or would you?

Trying to demonise fairly reasonable positions only highlights the extremism that is 'mainstream': such that hundreds of thousands or millions of people can enter Europe illegally, and that's a good thing. And to oppose such an occurrence is a 'far right' position. It isnt. It is sanity.

Can you direct me to these? It is a long thread and they may have gotten lost in the ether.

Post #599.

Depends on which one you look at. If it weren't for China's one child policy then they might have a brighter future ahead. Not sure how desirable China is culturally. Then there's Africa which is still growing in terms of population.

Your point is predicated on immigrants not integrating at all. When they do, they can assist in maintaining the population though this doesn't address the problem of aging populations.

Sorry, the problem is not maintaining the population as an absolute number. The problem is that Europeans are not having enough children to sustain their own population. Bringing in non-Europeans to have children instead is not the solution to that problem.

If your policy is to simply maintain population numbers, and mass migration is the policy tool to do so then you are going to end up with a Europe with increasingly less and less Europeans in it, both in absolute and relative terms. What exactly would the migrants be integrating with when they are the majority population in western European countries? Assuming that these people must integrate with European culture is a little naive or even arrogant. To my point, the 'less evolved' cultures that are actually having children will define the politics, freedoms and culture in Europe that others (including Europeans) will have to integrate with. Not the other way around.

Do you not think that it's worth asking why people aren't voting for such parties if immigration is apparently going to bring about a dystopian society?

Why aren't the Greens winning every election outright in every country across the world if people are rational and far sighted? Climate change and mass migration are both far off problems that can be ignored in the short term.

Did I say it was? Quote please?

I read back your point (repeated below) which I responded to see if I misread you.

"Immigration will obviously change demographics but it's crucial if a society wishes to address the stresses an aging population will cause to understand why people are having fewer children and what can be done about it."

I willing to admit when I read it back it makes no sense at all, bar packing immigration, demographics, ageing populations and children into a single sentence.

If you're agreeing with me that mass migration is absolutely no solution for the low fertility and greying population faced by European societies, then I'll acknowledge that.

I didn't say that it wouldn't but it's still a fair few years off.

Well, lets consider the trend when we consider the necessity for mass migration to solve an imagined low skills shortage. Planning for mass migration means more than responding to current conditions. You cant reverse mass migration once it has happened. Northern Ireland is a case in point.

Where did I argue in favour of this scenario? Quote please. Which European corporations are these?

You said Europe is going to be left with a 'void in low skilled labour'. You presented no evidence for this claim, and have since back tracked a little to acknowledge the impact of automation.

If you're linking mass migration to a 'void in low skilled labour', you're repeating a common trope that migrants will do the dirty and menial jobs that the natives don't want to do. I'm open to hearing alternatives as to how that scenario can turn out while high skilled Europeans continue to have fewer and fewer childen. When you consider that President Macron claims it takes 180 years for an underprivileged family to rise to middle class status in France, the idea that low or no-skilled migrants and their families are going to fuel Europe's economic future does not paint that future in a rosy light.

And please, don't pretend to be ignorant of EU trade barriers against third countries. You're active enough in the Brexit thread to know that the Single Market is heavily protected by intensive trade barriers in the interests of European corporations. Which is correct and proper, but sits bizarrely beside European workers having to compete with third-world labour which can seemingly cross EU borders at will.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, it isn't. Modern far right, or even right wing thought is to use immigrants as scapegoats. US identity politics has different forms from BLM to overzealous students to the alt-right.

I understand that the 'they took our jobs' concept is real and exists, but the modern far right seems to have managed to completely avoid this cliche. Everything I'm seeing about the immigrants is usually to do with culture differences, increased likelihood of committing crimes, terrorism and lack of integration.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

As noted before, the only thing that unifies these 'far right' groups is that they prioritise the interests of Europeans over non-Europeans. This is not - or should not be - controversial. The Dalai Lama recently stated that 'Europe belongs to Europeans' and that refugees should be returned to their own countries to rebuild them. I doubt you would describe him as 'far right'. Or would you?

Trying to demonise fairly reasonable positions only highlights the extremism that is 'mainstream': such that hundreds of thousands or millions of people can enter Europe illegally, and that's a good thing. And to oppose such an occurrence is a 'far right' position. It isnt. It is sanity.

To quote yourself, "Be serious". Far right groups see an easy route to being elected and exercising their prejudices.

Dropping the Dalai Lama in such a context is a bit silly, no? As is the strawman that people supporting millions of people illegally entering Europe.

Sand wrote: »

Sorry, the problem is not maintaining the population as an absolute number. The problem is that Europeans are not having enough children to sustain their own population. Bringing in non-Europeans to have children instead is not the solution to that problem.

If your policy is to simply maintain population numbers, and mass migration is the policy tool to do so then you are going to end up with a Europe with increasingly less and less Europeans in it, both in absolute and relative terms. What exactly would the migrants be integrating with when they are the majority population in western European countries? Assuming that these people must integrate with European culture is a little naive or even arrogant. To my point, the 'less evolved' cultures that are actually having children will define the politics, freedoms and culture in Europe that others (including Europeans) will have to integrate with. Not the other way around.

I never mentioned absolute numbers. The point is that we're not at the stage where everything can be automated yet. In the meantime, elderly people will continue to die in ever more protracted and expensive manners while drawing their gold-plated pensions.

People who enter the UK will run into the same problems as those already here in the form of expensive houses and a high cost of living in the wealthier parts of the country.

Sand wrote: »

If you're agreeing with me that mass migration is absolutely no solution for the low fertility and greying population faced by European societies, then I'll acknowledge that.

It's certainly not a long term solution. Today's immigrants are tomorrow's pensioners.

Sand wrote: »

You said Europe is going to be left with a 'void in low skilled labour'. You presented no evidence for this claim, and have since back tracked a little to acknowledge the impact of automation.

If you're linking mass migration to a 'void in low skilled labour', you're repeating a common trope that migrants will do the dirty and menial jobs that the natives don't want to do. I'm open to hearing alternatives as to how that scenario can turn out while high skilled Europeans continue to have fewer and fewer childen. When you consider that President Macron claims it takes 180 years for an underprivileged family to rise to middle class status in France, the idea that low or no-skilled migrants and their families are going to fuel Europe's economic future does not paint that future in a rosy light.

I would have thought the idea of immigrants taking jobs many native people simply don't want was fairly well established.

Sand wrote: »

And please, don't pretend to be ignorant of EU trade barriers against third countries. You're active enough in the Brexit thread to know that the Single Market is heavily protected by intensive trade barriers in the interests of European corporations. Which is correct and proper, but sits bizarrely beside European workers having to compete with third-world labour which can seemingly cross EU borders at will.

Can you prove that the single market is designed to protect the interests of European corporations?

splashuum

https://www.facebook.com/CouncillorJoleneBunting/videos/2207955396160444/

Islamic demonstration in Dublin on Saturday. What are peoples thoughts on this?

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To quote yourself, "Be serious". Far right groups see an easy route to being elected and exercising their prejudices.

Dropping the Dalai Lama in such a context is a bit silly, no? As is the strawman that people supporting millions of people illegally entering Europe.

No, the Dalai Lama expressed a viewpoint that if it was stated by Orban, or Salvini, or similar politicians you would no doubt consider to be far right, evidence of their prejudice. I think its quite timely to highlight how the mainstream is extremist, whereas the view of the Dalai Lama is not evidence of 'far right' prejudice but basic sanity.

As I've already noted, you don't seem to have put much if any thought into your use of 'far right'. Its just a pejorative.

I never mentioned absolute numbers. The point is that we're not at the stage where everything can be automated yet. In the meantime, elderly people will continue to die in ever more protracted and expensive manners while drawing their gold-plated pensions.

People who enter the UK will run into the same problems as those already here in the form of expensive houses and a high cost of living in the wealthier parts of the country.

It's certainly not a long term solution. Today's immigrants are tomorrow's pensioners.

Yes, so we agree mass migration is no solution to the problems Europe faces and will face over the next 50-100 years. Okay, so the only question is should European governments facilitate mass migration, or take measures to prevent it. If we agree that mass migration is no solution, then I presume at the very least you agree it should not be facilitated.

I would have thought the idea of immigrants taking jobs many native people simply don't want was fairly well established.

It's a fairly well established trope alright. I believe its best expressed in the immigration policies and culture of incredibly diverse places like the UAE. Honestly, this trope and its obvious implications are far more offensive than anything Orban comes out with.

You say this isnt your desired end goal. I believe you, but what positive outcome in such a scenario can occur?

Can you prove that the single market is designed to protect the interests of European corporations?

Is this seriously in question? Really?

How are you coming along with proving Europe is facing a 'void in low skilled labour'?

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

No, the Dalai Lama expressed a viewpoint that if it was stated by Orban, or Salvini, or similar politicians you would no doubt consider to be far right, evidence of their prejudice. I think its quite timely to highlight how the mainstream is extremist, whereas the view of the Dalai Lama is not evidence of 'far right' prejudice but basic sanity.

As I've already noted, you don't seem to have put much if any thought into your use of 'far right'. Its just a pejorative.

Afraid not. Did you read the whole thing?

Speaking at a conference in Sweden's third-largest city of Malmo, home to a large immigrant population, the Dalai Lama -- who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 -- said Europe was "morally responsible" for helping "a refugee really facing danger against their life".

"Receive them, help them, educate them... but ultimately they should develop their own country," said the 83-year-old Tibetan who fled the capital Lhasa in fear of his life after China poured troops into the region to crush an uprising.

"I think Europe belongs to the Europeans," he said, adding they should make clear to refugees that "they ultimately should rebuild their own country".

This isn't what I see from Trump, Farage, LePen, Orban et al. Not even close.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, so we agree mass migration is no solution to the problems Europe faces and will face over the next 50-100 years. Okay, so the only question is should European governments facilitate mass migration, or take measures to prevent it. If we agree that mass migration is no solution, then I presume at the very least you agree it should not be facilitated.

What threshold would you use to define "mass migration"?

Sand wrote: »

Is this seriously in question? Really?

How are you coming along with proving Europe is facing a 'void in low skilled labour'?

Yes.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my point about a void in low skilled labour well. Let's put it in the bin alongside Londoners being attacked on a daily basis.

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/CouncillorJoleneBunting/videos/2207955396160444/

Islamic demonstration in Dublin on Saturday. What are peoples thoughts on this?

Thats from 6 years ago

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Afraid not. Did you read the whole thing?

This isn't what I see from Trump, Farage, LePen, Orban et al. Not even close.

Oh it's very close.

The United States is a compassionate nation and has spent billions and billions of dollars in helping to support this effort. We seek an approach to refugee resettlement that is designed to help these horribly treated people and which enables their eventual return to their home countries to be part of the rebuilding process...we support recent agreements of the G20 nations that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible. This is the safe, responsible, and humanitarian approach.
- President Donald J. Trump, address to the UN, Sept 19th 2017

It also follows on the heels of Dalai Lama in 2016 saying that Germany cannot become an Arab country. That Germany is Germany.

Now either the Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is a 'far right' figure or the term 'far right' doesn't mean anything useful at all beyond being a pejorative.

The kindest way I can interpret your view is that its valid to oppose mass migration if done in a non-prejudicial way. But at the same time every contemporary European politician or political party who opposes mass migration so is only doing so due to prejudice.

What threshold would you use to define "mass migration"?

Post 573.

Yes.

You can do better than this but, okay

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said the bloc has "no other choice" but to introduce measures to protect the domestic steel industries of its member states, already suffering due to global overcapacity.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my point about a void in low skilled labour well. Let's put it in the bin alongside Londoners being attacked on a daily basis.

Sure, lets do that but can you return to explain how mass migration can lead to any positive outcome for Europeans? You keep dodging that.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

Oh it's very close.



It also follows on the heels of Dalai Lama in 2016 saying that Germany cannot become an Arab country. That Germany is Germany.

Now either the Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is a 'far right' figure or the term 'far right' doesn't mean anything useful at all beyond being a pejorative.

The kindest way I can interpret your view is that its valid to oppose mass migration if done in a non-prejudicial way. But at the same time every contemporary European politician or political party who opposes mass migration so is only doing so due to prejudice.



Post 573.



You can do better than this but, okay





Sure, lets do that but can you return to explain how mass migration can lead to any positive outcome for Europeans? You keep dodging that.

Would you consider Obama (Nobel peace prize winner) to be "far right"?

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Oh it's very close.

It also follows on the heels of Dalai Lama in 2016 saying that Germany cannot become an Arab country. That Germany is Germany.

Now either the Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is a 'far right' figure or the term 'far right' doesn't mean anything useful at all beyond being a pejorative.

I disagree. What comes out of Trump's mouth is as valid as what comes out his other end unfortunately.

Sand wrote: »

The kindest way I can interpret your view is that its valid to oppose mass migration if done in a non-prejudicial way. But at the same time every contemporary European politician or political party who opposes mass migration so is only doing so due to prejudice.

Well, how views are expressed is important. If someone spends a lot of time talking very harshly about a certain demographic then it becomes hard to take their opinion seriously.

Sand wrote: »

Post 573.

Fair enough though I think there needs to be some sort of objective definition otherwise the term becomes meaningless.

Sand wrote: »

You can do better than this but, okay

Sure, lets do that but can you return to explain how mass migration can lead to any positive outcome for Europeans? You keep dodging that.

You're moving the goalposts. Domestic industry does not equal corporations. You critcise Brexit fairly regularly here but if domestic farmers find themselves decimated by cheaper imports from abroad then they'll likely vote to leave. Ditto fishermen etc. The whole EU project becomes a whole lot less viable.

Odhinn

splashuum wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/CouncillorJoleneBunting/videos/2207955396160444/

Islamic demonstration in Dublin on Saturday. What are peoples thoughts on this?

It's a video made some time ago, posted inexplicably recently by a notrorious right wing loyalist councillor with a history of sectarian anti-catholic remarks and links with "Britain first".

rossie1977

Odhinn wrote: »

It's a video made some time ago, posted inexplicably recently by a notrorious right wing loyalist councillor with a history of sectarian anti-catholic remarks and links with "Britain first".

Six years ago in fact.

She seems like a lovely person given she posted this on Twitter back in May..