Migration Megathread

Timberrrrrrrr

swarlb wrote: »

Going by the original premise of the thread, it's not only going to take over Christianity in Ireland, but 'the whole' of Europe, along with everything else we take as granted.
Expect to see women banned from driving
Pony classes for youngsters going the same way
Huge increase in the sale of veils and prayer mats
With the sheer amount of beards soon to be on view, hipsters will soon be 'the norm'
The internet sure throws up some gobbildygook from time, but this take the biscuit....(do Muslims eat biscuits ??)

Special halaal ones that isis send over in the immigrants back packs as the hords invade.

Gotta run, the call to prayer is going off and i can't afford to lose another hand.

4068ac1elhodqr

Medium projections for Europe come 2050 indicate a few countries will be approaching 20% Muslim, so e.g. in the UK:

There is a very high likelyhood mixed schools and food franchises will have to serve animals slaughtered witout stunning first, Pork might dissapear from menus.
Beards will indeed be popular, and some residents will awake to the 'joyful' sound of the call to prayer in the wee hours. Pubs will become more sparse, Jails more busy.
Many employers may well have to provide facilities or prayer rooms on site, to cater for 16.7% of their workforce, is there is demand for it.

swarlb

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Medium projections for Europe come 2050 indicate a few countries will be approaching 20% Muslim, so e.g. in the UK:

There is a very high likelyhood mixed schools and food franchises will have to serve animals slaughtered witout stunning first, Pork might dissapear from menus.
Beards will indeed be popular, and some residents will awake to the 'joyful' sound of the call to prayer in the wee hours. Pubs will become more sparse, Jails more busy.
Many employers may well have to provide facilities or prayer rooms on site, to cater for 16.7% of their workforce, is there is demand for it.

Well... will the 'UK' be in the EU by 2050 ? Or indeed will there be an EU. It might very well be the MU.
Regardless in 2050 I'll be collecting my cheque from President Mohamed McMurphy.
I thought I read somewhere that the USA had a Muslim President back in the late 2000's.... or was that 'fake news' as well.

4068ac1elhodqr

swarlb wrote: »

Well... will the 'UK' be in the EU by 2050 ? Or indeed will there be an EU. It might very well be the MU.
Regardless in 2050 I'll be collecting my cheque from President Mohamed McMurphy.
I thought I read somewhere that the USA had a Muslim President back in the late 2000's.... or was that 'fake news' as well.

Yes the uk (may, eventually) leave the customs union, but will always have the option to rejoin into an ever-expanding eu during the 2030's.

Ireland would likely be the 2nd choice destination anyway, if they do restrict the movement of people from the mainland eu, to britian. So the 4.3% Ire, might be conservative.

Yes the US did have a black(ish) President, with the name/descent 'Barack Hussein Obama', not sure what that's go to do with the eu.

swarlb

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Yes the uk (may, eventually) leave the customs union, but will always have the option to rejoin into an ever-expanding eu during the 2030's.

Ireland would likely be the 2nd choice destination anyway, if they do restrict the movement of people from the mainland eu, to britian. So the 4.3% Ire, might be conservative.

Yes the US did have a black(ish) President, with the name/descent 'Barack Hussein Obama', not sure what that's go to do with the eu.

You are correct, The Black President had nothing to do with Europe, however seeing as he had 8 years in power, and many thought him to be Muslim, he certainly didn't mange to convert the US to Muslimism.
Anyway, assuming thousands of Muslims flock to these shores, how are we going to cope ? We can barely manage the population we have at present.
Plus with all the extra women not being allowed to do anything, and all the men stroking their beards and praying.. who's going to do the actual work ?

4068ac1elhodqr

swarlb wrote: »

You are correct, The Black President had nothing to do with Europe, however seeing as he had 8 years in power, and many thought him to be Muslim, he certainly didn't mange to convert the US to Muslimism.
Anyway, assuming thousands of Muslims flock to these shores, how are we going to cope ? We can barely manage the population we have at present.
Plus with all the extra women not being allowed to do anything, and all the men stroking their beards and praying.. who's going to do the actual work ?

The US like Australia is very distant from the MEast, and has strict/sensible migration policies so that was never likely, nor even expected from Barry as 'feasable'.

Good question, poverty (and thus crime), is high among the Muslim communities in the UK (and Europe), if their good ladyfolks are encouraged to hide themselves and discouraged from independent thought and university education, it's hard to forsee great fiscal growth.

Perhaps the answer would be that richness is measured only in one's soul or somesuch. Another aspect is that most folks (or any persuasion) will be replaced by automation, so only the cream of the crop will prosper.

For everyone else, it's the scraphead - i.e. UBI payment structures. Which in turn, is soley reliant on taxing the super-rich (e.g. Bono, Lily Allen, the Facebookboy etc).

ancapailldorcha

swarlb wrote: »

Plus with all the extra women not being allowed to do anything, and all the men stroking their beards and praying.. who's going to do the actual work ?

This is a forum for serious discussion. No more lazy generalisations please.

oscarBravo

swarlb wrote: »

There was a time when there was no Irish women's international rugby team, there was a time when women wearing shorts and short sleeved vests was an affront to public decency, so possibly sometime in the future there well may be a Muslim woman's rugby team, who really knows ?

The Specialist wrote: »

Judging by Islam’s current rate of catching up with modern societies and thinking, that will only take about 6000 years.

I guess this video fell through a wormhole from the future, so.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess this video fell through a wormhole from the future, so.

Urban areas and cities in Pakistan are probably as moderate on the muslim scale as you get, Their seperation of church and state has been a lot greater than most muslim nations and sharia , religious police etc.. were never an issue like they are in Iran/Saudi etc...

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Urban areas and cities in Pakistan are probably as moderate on the muslim scale as you get, Their seperation of church and state has been a lot greater than most muslim nations and sharia , religious police etc.. were never an issue like they are in Iran/Saudi etc...

I was holding my breath waiting for the goalpost move. I didn't have to hold it for long.

"Sure, it's a Muslim women's rugby team, but it's not a fundamentalist Sharia Muslim women's rugby team, so whatever I imagined my point was still stands."

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was holding my breath waiting for the goalpost move. I didn't have to hold it for long.

"Sure, it's a Muslim women's rugby team, but it's not a fundamentalist Sharia Muslim women's rugby team, so whatever I imagined my point was still stands."

not really though, youre the one shifting the goalposts here. This thread relates to fundamentalist islams inroads into europe, it always has been, pages about burkahs, radical mosques, child marraiges, the subjugation of women.

it would be akin to me saying that fundamentalist catholacism isnt bad because a bunch of people from donnybrook who go to mass only on christmas don't hate gay people.

AllForIt

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess this video fell through a wormhole from the future, so.

That would have been a really good comeback except for the fact they are not wearing the hijab. No cigar.

Timberrrrrrrr

AllForIt wrote: »

That would have been a really good comeback except for the fact they are not wearing the hijab. No cigar.

So a muslim woman is not a muslim unless they wear a hijab?

oscarBravo

AllForIt wrote: »

That would have been a really good comeback except for the fact they are not wearing the hijab. No cigar.

I see that people are doubling down on the "no true Muslim" fallacy.

I suppose if all you've got is logical fallacies, you may as well throw all your weight behind them.

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

not really though, youre the one shifting the goalposts here. This thread relates to fundamentalist islams inroads into europe, it always has been, pages about burkahs, radical mosques, child marraiges, the subjugation of women.

Uhh no that is what you make from it (for whatever reason) from the link in the OP

Western Europe is already in the death throes of “demographic suicide” because couples are no longer having enough children. He then shows how a thriving Muslim population in Western Europe is well on its way to filling all the empty space.

Going from the premise in the OP to fundamentalists Islam, involves a huge exercise in mental gymnastics

Odhinn

creeper1 wrote: »

Any religion that didn't encourage passing on the religious message to the next generation would have perished long ago.

Again someone is on here posting about Islamic birthrates falling. The evidence from a walk around the streets in European capitals would show the opposite. whether from immigration or birthrates our European capitals are becoming unrecognizable from what they once were.

How long can the church last in Ireland or Europe? Priests ordination is at an extraordinary low levels.

You may cheer this but atheism doesn't fill the void left by that. Islam fills that void.

You mean anecdotal evidence vs statistics. I'll go with the latter, generally speaking.

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Uhh no that is what you make from it (for whatever reason) from the link in the OP



Going from the premise in the OP to fundamentalists Islam, involves a huge exercise in mental gymnastics

The point at which any religious extremism/ problematic behaviour can be started is usually the part where women are subjugated , its the same for christianity , judaism, islam etc... the example of the pakistani rugby team isnt a good one because its about as moderate as it gets, similar to old ireland locking up women in laundries would be extremism by modern standards, but doesnt mean that all followers are extreme.

Where the OP’s point makes sense and sets the tone in that regard is , visibly - head scarves / burlahs etc.. show that subjugation of women is occuring , a higher replacement rate of children compared to societal norms in a country shows subjugation of women. This is the concerning point of islam that people are concerned about.

Were it all pakistani moderate women with hair on show and having the same amount of kids as is standard in their country of residence, I doubt anyone would even notice.

What people are concerned about, and have always been concerned about , was the belief in islam and the cultural elements that go with it that make it a risk to women, children, the lgbt community etc... , the parts that make it incompatible with western culture.

If youre still forcing your wife to wear a hijab, have 4-5 kids and your daughters have to wear a hijab , its not that big a stretch to think you might harbour some beliefs that are not welcome here.

Odhinn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The point at which any religious extremism/ problematic behaviour can be started is usually the part where women are subjugated , its the same for christianity , judaism, islam etc... the example of the pakistani rugby team isnt a good one because its about as moderate as it gets, similar to old ireland locking up women in laundries would be extremism by modern standards, but doesnt mean that all followers are extreme.

Where the OP’s point makes sense and sets the tone in that regard is , visibly - head scarves / burlahs etc.. show that subjugation of women is occuring , a higher replacement rate of children compared to societal norms in a country shows subjugation of women. This is the concerning point of islam that people are concerned about.

Were it all pakistani moderate women with hair on show and having the same amount of kids as is standard in their country of residence, I doubt anyone would even notice.

What people are concerned about, and have always been concerned about , was the belief in islam and the cultural elements that go with it that make it a risk to women, children, the lgbt community etc... , the parts that make it incompatible with western culture.

If youre still forcing your wife to wear a hijab, have 4-5 kids and your daughters have to wear a hijab , its not that big a stretch to think you might harbour some beliefs that are not welcome here.

You realise that many women want to wear the hijab and have a religous/spiritual life outside that of their husbands/fathers etc?

Eric Cartman

Odhinn wrote: »

You realise that many women want to wear the hijab and have a religous/spiritual life outside that of their husbands/fathers etc?

its actually pressure mostly from mothers to conform on that one. I should have made that clear in my last post.

Odhinn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its actually pressure mostly from mothers to conform on that one. I should have made that clear in my last post.

There is of course societal pressure to conform, from all sides, however an automatic correlation between the hijab, islamic extremism and oppression is mistaken. For instance thousands of women resisted the Shah's ban on the hijab, leading to the opposite extreme we have today.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The point at which any religious extremism/ problematic behaviour can be started is usually the part where women are subjugated , its the same for christianity , judaism, islam etc... the example of the pakistani rugby team isnt a good one because its about as moderate as it gets, similar to old ireland locking up women in laundries would be extremism by modern standards, but doesnt mean that all followers are extreme.

Where the OP’s point makes sense and sets the tone in that regard is , visibly - head scarves / burlahs etc.. show that subjugation of women is occuring , a higher replacement rate of children compared to societal norms in a country shows subjugation of women. This is the concerning point of islam that people are concerned about.

Were it all pakistani moderate women with hair on show and having the same amount of kids as is standard in their country of residence, I doubt anyone would even notice.

What people are concerned about, and have always been concerned about , was the belief in islam and the cultural elements that go with it that make it a risk to women, children, the lgbt community etc... , the parts that make it incompatible with western culture.

If youre still forcing your wife to wear a hijab, have 4-5 kids and your daughters have to wear a hijab , its not that big a stretch to think you might harbour some beliefs that are not welcome here.

I remember seeing previously that 70% of German Muslim women don't cover their head.

Given that that seems to be the yardstick, are all these population stats rubbish?

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

I remember seeing previously that 70% of German Muslim women don't cover their head.

Given that that seems to be the yardstick, are all these population stats rubbish?

Maybe (if that is valid), it lends to the historical link of many generations of migration, mostly only from Turkey.

The more recent influx since 2015 (Syria, Afgan etc) seems to be mainly young men.

Turkey is hardly a typical 'yardstick' anyhow, being a large, diverse country and somewhat westernised in some regions (other regions, not so much). Perhaps the most diverse example of any state. Compare this to Pakistan, Iran, Saudi etc.

If it takes a few generations from their good lady folk to be free from covering their heads in public, guess that is progress of sorts.

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

You mean anecdotal evidence vs statistics. I'll go with the latter, generally speaking.

UK statistics show that Islamic women are vastly more likely to be economically inactive than their non-Islamic peers. Its is known that childcare is a significant factor in this. It is repeatedly cited (along with cultural factors) as a barrier to their becoming economically active. Additionally ONS Labour Force studies from 2001 recorded that women from these communities had significantly more child dependants in their homes than did English women.

Ironically English women go to work to pay for the Islamic mothers having the children those English women themselves cant afford to have.

But lets face it, you'll ignore the statistics too if you don't like what they are telling you.

Ultimately its not important if Muslim birth rates fall. So long as European birth rates are well below replacement level (which they are) and mass migration continues, the outcome is the same.

Podge_irl

Sand wrote: »

Ironically English women go to work to pay for the Islamic mothers having the children those English women themselves cant afford to have.

This doesn't make any sense. Child benefits are agnostic as to religion - it is either possible to rear children on the allowances or it isn't.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

UK statistics show that Islamic women are vastly more likely to be economically inactive than their non-Islamic peers. Its is known that childcare is a significant factor in this. It is repeatedly cited (along with cultural factors) as a barrier to their becoming economically active. Additionally ONS Labour Force studies from 2001 recorded that women from these communities had significantly more child dependants in their homes than did English women.

Ironically English women go to work to pay for the Islamic mothers having the children those English women themselves cant afford to have.

But lets face it, you'll ignore the statistics too if you don't like what they are telling you.

Ultimately its not important if Muslim birth rates fall. So long as European birth rates are well below replacement level (which they are) and mass migration continues, the outcome is the same.

Whats your issue ? ... 1 income family was the norm in the west a couple of decades ago ... where the mother actually had time to raise a larger family

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

UK statistics (...........) the same.

The first generation has higher birth rates. Second, third and so on align with "native" norms. It's a well known phenomena

https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol36/45/36-45.pdf


https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_402LHRB.pdf

4068ac1elhodqr

weisses wrote: »

Whats your issue ? ... 1 income family was the norm in the west a couple of decades ago ... where the mother actually had time to raise a larger family

'Globalisaiton' is actually the issue.

Decades ago plenty of folks could buy their own houses with just a few years wages. If a country wants to provide for all child-bearing ladies to stay at home, that country can't really compete at any global level.

By 2060 China will be as powerful as the EU & USA (combined), the West will have to pull up it's pants if it wants to remain anyway dominant.

It can't do this by becoming an easy haven for mass economic migration, over-population, stagnent growth and bending ackwards to every ancient tradition in the fear of offending them.

splashuum

Podge_irl wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

Ironically English women go to work to pay for the Islamic mothers having the children those English women themselves cant afford to have.

This doesn't make any sense. Child benefits are agnostic as to religion - it is either possible to rear children on the allowances or it isn't.

It was found that Muslim women were 71% more likely than white Christian women to be unemployed, even comparing women with similar language abilities, education, marital status, number of children. (BBC article from 2016)

Unfortunately quite a large % of Non-Native Islamic women who live in Ireland contribute zero to the economy. Many instead depend on the Irish welfare system. Having previously lived with Muslim people I have seen that some Muslim women feel it’s against their religion to work.

Midlife

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

'Globalisaiton' is actually the issue.

Decades ago plenty of folks could buy their own houses with just a few years wages. If a country wants to provide for all child-bearing ladies to stay at home, that country can't really compete at any global level.

By 2060 China will be as powerful as the EU & USA (combined), the West will have to pull up it's pants if it wants to remain anyway dominant.

It can't do this by becoming an easy haven for mass economic migration, over-population, stagnent growth and bending ackwards to every ancient tradition in the fear of offending them.

Ah OK so if I'm getting this right, we just need economic migrants to come here and fix our inverted population pymarid. Otherwise those sneaky Chinese win.

But we need the right kind of economic migrants. So from the developing world but with our developed western values.

They're not allowed learn those like everyone else, they have to just arrive with them.

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

Ah OK so if I'm getting this right, we just need economic migrants to come here and fix our inverted population pymarid. Otherwise those sneaky Chinese win.

Chinese win either way. Ireland makes no difference to them. Their 2060 GDP projections are fairly steadfast. Just last year in 2018 they put up x13 more skyscrapers than the great USA with a fairly lazy GDP 7% Chinese growth rate.

Inverted population? Ireland is currently one of the youngest workforces already in Europe, check yo' self.

Ok, so add a couple of million (low-skilled average) over the coming decades, that's a few thousand new houses per month (no sign of any building so far).

Ah, then there's job replacement thanks to automation - something {AI} China is already heavily invested in. And what do you suppose the extra 'economic-migrant millions' are going to do?

Unless they're extremely educated/talented/skilled - 'not a lot' is the answer.

Midlife wrote: »

But we need the right kind of economic migrants. So from the developing world but with our developed western values.

Nope, the only migration 'needed' is that which meets specific demands that can't be met locally. Not to satisfy someone's desire to benefit economically. The same as every other country in the world.

The EU has a catchment of 500m folks, isn't that enough already?

Midlife wrote: »

They're not allowed learn those like everyone else, they have to just arrive with them.

Or there is the Danish example, where they have to actually 'force migrants to integrate' by withholding their welfare payments.

Denmark recently introduced the Western daily standard of 'shaking of hands' as part of their citizenship process completion, the horror, such monsters!

Imagine shaking someone's hand! How can all potential new citizens be expected to shake other peoples 'unclean' ungloved hands. Understandably there is complaints about this vile new process, how unfiar it is...