Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Migration Megathread
Comments
-
Conservatory wrote: »We can’t keep our own doctors or nurses or teachers they head abroad to better conditions according to many reports. We need low wage willing staff. Dry wallers cleaners garage workers shop staff. They are all here to be seen. It drives the wages down also. Diluting the labour market. Surely you don’t think we suddenly want to save all these peoples lives. We need a cheaper labour force to pay our pensions. What’s the problem with what religion they practice in their own home. Taxi drivers bus drivers, I heard a bus driver complaining the other day his hours were too hectic and he pulling 800 quid a week driving a bus. Not for long he won’t. We need multiculturalism to get them wages down and make our services more economical.
Yes, because automation will eliminate the need for humans in 50% of all current roles by 2030 including driving buses. Add in the car powerwashers, garages, lawnmowers, minicabs, shop staff, restraunts, warehousing staff just to name a few.
Sure the niche sectors requiring very highly educated, fluent and talented will still be in demand. But in the future, natives laden with educational debt will have to compete with new cut-price arrivals, for whatever scraps the 24/7 robots can't fulfil for those 'zero-hour' gigs.
Now if the goverments don't provide high UBI (leading to hyper inflation), what in all reality, is the outlook like for the next generation(s)?0 -
Darragh123789 wrote:I think the real answer to globalism boils down to one question: "is race mixing a bad thing?"
Has fook all to do with race honestly. Is multiculturalism is good thing is a different question. It works in America as every ethnic group is able to assimilate and ultimately consider themselves Irish-American Asian-American or whatever.
By the looks of all the news stories that come out of France, Sweden and Germany etc that kind of assimilation doesn't seem to occurring which is a very worrying for the future of Europe and these countries in particular.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Yes, because automation will eliminate the need for humans in 50% of all current roles by 2030 including driving buses. Add in the car powerwashers, garages, lawnmowers, minicabs, shop staff, restraunts, warehousing staff just to name a few.
Sure the niche sectors requiring very highly educated, fluent and talented will still be in demand. But in the future, natives laden with educational debt will have to compete with new cut-price arrivals, for whatever scraps the 24/7 robots can't fulfil for those 'zero-hour' gigs.
Now if the goverments don't provide high UBI (leading to hyper inflation), what in all reality, is the outlook like for the next generation(s)?
You are thinking about the future buddy, climate change could probably kill everyone by then. We have to grab it while the going is good. If you are an employer you want multiculturalism. Loads of it. More people to sell to and more people to scrape that wage down, honestly who cares what shaped church they go to.
Have you any idea how many pensions the state are paying out these days?
Why should I care about what the fellas that fund mine look like?0 -
If your only contribution is throwing out lazy pejoratives, then I agree.
You've stated that it's an objective fact that large-scale immigration is a bad thing. That's not the basis for a rational discussion, it's a statement of prejudice. It's not quite as blatant as the chap who claimed that Muslims are a majority in the Hague - that well-known Belgian city - but it's still a blithe expression of xenophobia.
I get that it's easier to respond to being called out on it by calling it a lazy pejorative than to actually question your premises, but we're still no closer to an intelligent conversation as a result.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »My "lazy pejorative" is a response to an absurd premise. If you want to start a conversation from the premise that it's perfectly OK for white people to be angry about non-white immigration, you should do so on Stormfront.
What is your view on the Boyle Heights campaign?You've stated that it's an objective fact that large-scale immigration is a bad thing. That's not the basis for a rational discussion, it's a statement of prejudice.
Is stating immigration is good a prejudice?I get that it's easier to respond to being called out on it by calling it a lazy pejorative than to actually question your premises, but we're still no closer to an intelligent conversation as a result.
Oscar, I've asked you two questions above. You can respond to them honestly, or you can keep throwing out pejoratives and straw-manning me. If you don't want to discuss the issues honestly, you can save yourself a lot of time by recognising that.0 -
Advertisement
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »Gravelly , I do like to try give somewhat substantial responses to people I engage with on this. But comparing Muslim immigrants or refugees fleeing from war with an army coming over to forcibly/violently remove people from their land and to claim the land as their sovereign territory is just an outrageously squalid argument.
Statistically, the result will be the same.Matt Barrett wrote: »Maybe the great white west is fearful it might get a taste of it's own medicine.
It's a perfectly logical fear, isn't it? I don't want my children or grandchildren to 'get a taste of that medicine', I would rather they were doing the prescribing, thanks.0 -
Statistically, the result will be the same.
It's a perfectly logical fear, isn't it? I don't want my children or grandchildren to 'get a taste of that medicine', I would rather they were doing the prescribing, thanks.
A natives grandchild was on a bus the other day attacking a driver. I’d gladly take in ten lads who will contribute to my pension in minimum wage jobs for a fella who will probably not contribute anything but hassle.
The real problem as I see it is the growing number who still don’t even pay their bin charges. There’s a fella on my road that goes out and puts his rubbish in the corpo bin at the top of the road. Every evening. Probably spends the day then moaning about the foreigners.
Of course there will be a few years rounding up the few bad apples that get in but after that it’s a utopia of cheep labour.0 -
facehugger99 wrote:You have assumed that while population increases, the available resources remain static. These scare-theories were being peddled back in the late-60's and have been widely debunked in the intervening decades. Today less people die of starvation than did 40 years ago, despite the population more than doubling in the same period. The percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" (according to the UN) has fallen by more than half in the same period, from 33% to 16%.facehugger99 wrote:The trend is in the opposite direction of what you have predicted.facehugger99 wrote:The 'chocolate bar' is not static, in fact the chocolate bar has been getting bigger every year.
Wonder where all that extra grub comes from and the health issues it may be throwing up GM crops etc...cancer etc...0 -
Conservatory wrote: »I see it like this. We need young working age people to pay our pensions.Conservatory wrote: »A great side effect to the war on terror is loads of young families fleeing to their oppressors to pay the pensions of their oppressors.I think the U2 song bullet the blue sky touched on it in the 80s.
We are plundering the Middle East for its labour force in a way. Mad really but what are the alternatives?
Provide resources for refugees as close to their countries of origin as possible- where the resources go furthest, so you can help the most and you can help the most vulnerable at least equally ( women, children, disabled and the old).
If you want immigration for economic reasons, do so on a merit basis with a preference for people from countries which have a proven track record for assimilation ( including 2nd and 3rd generation). Ensure that the economic purposes being served are long term interests and not short term ( e.g. not propping up ailing legacy industries which will shortly collapse anyway- such as the large immigration into the northern England in support of the textile industry - leaving you instead with a large long term unemployed immigrant population).0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »By 'destroy' you might mean change? Immigration is nothing new.
All I can see here is a dislike of a certain kind of immigrant.
"Roughly 50,000 Huguenots came to Britain after 1681. This was equal to a couple of months of immigration by the turn of the 21st century. The entire Ugandan Asian immigration into Britain in the early 1970s (caused by Idi Amin's expulsion of Asians from Uganda) numbered around 30,000. This constituted six weeks' worth of immigration by the late 1990s"0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Yet, the Africans who arrived before them never assimilated into white American identity despite having more time to do so. And going by contemporary US identity politics, Africans will never assimilate into white American identity.
I think you're revealing your true position now. So when an African American woman got on a bus sixty years ago and wouldn't give up her seat for a white person, who do you think was trying to assimilate and who do you think was preventing assimilation?MayoSalmon wrote: »Has fook all to do with race honestly. Is multiculturalism is good thing is a different question. It works in America as every ethnic group is able to assimilate and ultimately consider themselves Irish-American Asian-American or whatever.
By the looks of all the news stories that come out of France, Sweden and Germany etc that kind of assimilation doesn't seem to occurring which is a very worrying for the future of Europe and these countries in particular.
Multiculturalism is one of those words that's widely misunderstood. It's not about assimilation, it's the opposite in fact, it means plural cultures existing side by side.0 -
What is your view on the Boyle Heights campaign?Is stating immigration is good a prejudice?If you don't want to discuss the issues honestly, you can save yourself a lot of time by recognising that.0
-
Baron de Charlus wrote: »I think you're revealing your true position now. So when an African American woman got on a bus sixty years ago and wouldn't give up her seat for a white person, who do you think was trying to assimilate and who do you think was preventing assimilation?
At this point I just want to read the alternative history book he has read. Why were black people sticking to their own kind and not using the same schools and libraries as the white people? For such a scholar of US laws in the mid 20th century you would think segregation might have come up at some point.
Of course when it comes to South Africa it was the black people's fault. I think I'm starting to see a pattern.0 -
Mass immigration is new. Just copying and pasting something from Douglas Murray on this point ( in reference to the UK):
"Roughly 50,000 Huguenots came to Britain after 1681. This was equal to a couple of months of immigration by the turn of the 21st century. The entire Ugandan Asian immigration into Britain in the early 1970s (caused by Idi Amin's expulsion of Asians from Uganda) numbered around 30,000. This constituted six weeks' worth of immigration by the late 1990s"
It's economic. Currently the Muslim majority regions are being sliced up by the US, Israel, Putin and other dictators. People happy with their lot tend not to leave their home.
The subtext of this thread seems to be a Muslim concerted effort to get all fellow Muslims to take over the west. It's ludicrous. We are talking about peoples with little in common. It's like immigrants from Italy and Ireland heading to the US and citing a Catholic invasion of sorts.
All this talk is designed by the 1% and their vested interested lackeys to keep the 99% fighting among itself.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
One note about comparing historic migrations is to remember that overall populations were much smaller. The population of England in 1681 was around 5.2 million. Today it's 55 million. So 50,000 Huguenots refugees arriving then is the equivalent of half a million today in terms of impact on demographics.0 -
Baron de Charlus wrote: »Multiculturalism is one of those words that's widely misunderstood. It's not about assimilation, it's the opposite in fact, it means plural cultures existing side by side.
Well put, but therein lies something we should be concerned about. In countries where the official state religion is now Muslim, what is the treatment of religious minorities and atheists\agnostics like? Poor enough looking at reports from Amnesty and other organisations. So I do wonder what life would be like in a majority Muslim European country in 75-100 yrs or whatever.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
I don't think it's anything to be concerned about, since it's extremely unlikely Europe would be majority Muslim within a century, let alone that Islam be the state religion in any European state.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,178 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 37007
Ronaldinho wrote: »Well put, but therein lies something we should be concerned about. In countries where the official state religion is now Muslim, what is the treatment of religious minorities and atheists\agnostics like? Poor enough looking at reports from Amnesty and other organisations. So I do wonder what life would be like in a majority Muslim European country in 75-100 yrs or whatever.
Most Western nations have liberal systems of government, law and human rights. Muslims living here are in a much more open and tolerant environment than they would be in mainly Muslim countries where diversity is much less tolerated. I'm not saying that there are no problems with Muslims holding views which would be seen as wrong in the West such as homophobia but I think that the idea that Europe will be turning Islamic is just scaremongering and race baiting.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Baron de Charlus wrote: »I don't think it's anything to be concerned about, since it's extremely unlikely Europe would be majority Muslim within a century, let alone that Islam be the state religion in any European state.
Yeah - the demographic projections you sometimes see need to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. I should have stated it, but my point pre-supposed this was realistically possible.0 -
Advertisement
-
facehugger99 wrote: »Simple thinking more like.
The 'chocolate bar' is not static, in fact the chocolate bar has been getting bigger every year.
You have assumed that while population increases, the available resources remain static. These scare-theories were being peddled back in the late-60's and have been widely debunked in the intervening decades. Today less people die of starvation than did 40 years ago, despite the population more than doubling in the same period. The percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" (according to the UN) has fallen by more than half in the same period, from 33% to 16%.
The trend is in the opposite direction of what you have predicted.
The amount of land in the world is static on human timescales. The amount of land in Ireland and Europe more certainly so, given the relative lack of intensely active tectonic and volcanic zones. So by extension, the higher number of people that want to live in a given region, either the more expensive the land becomes or the more it has to be sub-divided, leading to a drop in quality of life.
Hell, Varadkar himself alluded to this when he talked about people needing to give up on having houses with gardens - this wouldn't be the case if there was a population decline in Dublin, quite obviously. So as far as land and housing in a given politically defined sovereign region goes, the resource very much is finite, and that's where in my view population growth is a factor in falling quality of life through rising land and rental prices.0 -
Ronaldinho wrote: »Well put, but therein lies something we should be concerned about. In countries where the official state religion is now Muslim, what is the treatment of religious minorities and atheists\agnostics like? Poor enough looking at reports from Amnesty and other organisations. So I do wonder what life would be like in a majority Muslim European country in 75-100 yrs or whatever.
No progressive, forward looking country should have a state religion. We're still struggling with the Catholic death grip. If the majority want it, that's the way the world should work. Look at Ireland's struggle to be free from church. Another discussion I suppose.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »The amount of land in the world is static on human timescales. The amount of land in Ireland and Europe more certainly so, given the relative lack of intensely active tectonic and volcanic zones. So by extension, the higher number of people that want to live in a given region, either the more expensive the land becomes or the more it has to be sub-divided, leading to a drop in quality of life.
Hell, Varadkar himself alluded to this when he talked about people needing to give up on having houses with gardens - this wouldn't be the case if there was a population decline in Dublin, quite obviously. So as far as land and housing in a given politically defined sovereign region goes, the resource very much is finite, and that's where in my view population growth is a factor in falling quality of life through rising land and rental prices.
So land is the 'chocolate bar' now is it? :rolleyes:
Stupid analogy.
and Varadakar was talking ****e as per usual.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,178 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 37007
facehugger99 wrote: »So land is the 'chocolate bar' now is it? :rolleyes:
Stupid analogy.
and Varadakar was talking ****e as per usual.
Don't post like this again here please. This is a forum for serious political discussion.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote:The amount of land in the world is static on human timescales. The amount of land in Ireland and Europe more certainly so, given the relative lack of intensely active tectonic and volcanic zones. So by extension, the higher number of people that want to live in a given region, either the more expensive the land becomes or the more it has to be sub-divided, leading to a drop in quality of life.
Then explain how the world is far richer and better off than say 60/70 years ago. Far bigger human population but far less poverty and far more advanced technologically. It's not perfect look at Global warming but even 50 years ago we weren't aware of the concept. That population has also been concentrated in ever closer spaces as a result of urbanisation. It hasn't had a overall negative impact.
On the whole topic of race. The national geographic magazine has an article on this(don't have a link to hand). But the point was made that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. There is no one African race. One of the reasons the article put forward was that humans have lived in Africa for far longer than the rest of the world and different "races" have had more time to develop.0 -
Baron de Charlus wrote: »I think you're revealing your true position now. So when an African American woman got on a bus sixty years ago and wouldn't give up her seat for a white person, who do you think was trying to assimilate and who do you think was preventing assimilation?
Well, I'd hope given the arguments I've made and evidence I have provided I'd think my position should be clear. However, I can see you're still flailing away against a strawman, ignoring what you cant fit into your pre-conceived conclusion.
Obviously the white people who instituted the system were preventing assimilation in that scenario. When Malcolm X preached black separatism, who was preventing assimilation? Today, when people preach white privilege and cultural appropriation who is preventing assimilation? When black college professors are preaching that white people have to be killed to achieve justice, who is preventing assimilation?
You start from the bias that the racial division in America is purely a white American problem. It's not. It's not even an American problem. Its a human problem. Where you have multiple cultural groups you will have division and strife because neither group wants to lose their own identity.
My question to the people who disagree with my opinion on this is to put forward a positive argument for why Europe should continue down the path it is on when we can so clearly see the problems and troubles that are created?Multiculturalism is one of those words that's widely misunderstood. It's not about assimilation, it's the opposite in fact, it means plural cultures existing side by side.
Yes, cultures alienated from each other, sharing only the same territory, requiring immense amounts of legislation and government funded organisations to referee non-confrontational interactions. Think Northern Ireland, but everywhere.
Again, nobody can explain why this is a positive outcome.oscarBravo wrote: »I'll save us both the time, thanks.
Thanks Oscar.0 -
Baron de Charlus wrote: »I don't think it's anything to be concerned about, since it's extremely unlikely Europe would be majority Muslim within a century, let alone that Islam be the state religion in any European state.
It worth noting that when the 1965 immigration act was introduced, its backers assured people it would not change American demographics. It did, in just two generations. And when Enoch Powell was ostracised for warning about the likely outcome of the policies being pursued in the 1960s, people were again assured that it was hopelessly alarmist. And yet, the English are now a minority within their own capital.
At every point in the past 70 years, the so-called alarmist view has been more accurate than the complacent view, so your assurances hold little weight.0 -
It worth noting that when the 1965 immigration act was introduced, its backers assured people it would not change American demographics. It did, in just two generations. And when Enoch Powell was ostracised for warning about the likely outcome of the policies being pursued in the 1960s, people were again assured that it was hopelessly alarmist. And yet, the English are now a minority within their own capital.
At every point in the past 70 years, the so-called alarmist view has been more accurate than the complacent view, so your assurances hold little weight.
You've noted that christian whites may be on the decline. What is your issue and what do you propose, if anything, be done? I've asked this previously. I'm not sure what your agenda is. You go back far enough and we're all from somewhere else. The English themselves are an amalgamation of different cultures and faiths. The Queen has German roots for instance. The new princess, half black.0 -
Well, I'd hope given the arguments I've made and evidence I have provided I'd think my position should be clear. However, I can see you're still flailing away against a strawman, ignoring what you cant fit into your pre-conceived conclusion.
Obviously the white people who instituted the system were preventing assimilation in that scenario. When Malcolm X preached black separatism, who was preventing assimilation? Today, when people preach white privilege and cultural appropriation who is preventing assimilation? When black college professors are preaching that white people have to be killed to achieve justice, who is preventing assimilation?
You start from the bias that the racial division in America is purely a white American problem. It's not. It's not even an American problem. Its a human problem. Where you have multiple cultural groups you will have division and strife because neither group wants to lose their own identity.
My question to the people who disagree with my opinion on this is to put forward a positive argument for why Europe should continue down the path it is on when we can so clearly see the problems and troubles that are created?
Yes, cultures alienated from each other, sharing only the same territory, requiring immense amounts of legislation and government funded organisations to referee non-confrontational interactions. Think Northern Ireland, but everywhere.
Again, nobody can explain why this is a positive outcome.
Thanks Oscar.
You write well Sand, though I'd have to say that the thematic direction your last few posts have taken on this thread is one that should be challenged.
Saying 'racial division is a human problem' as if it were some inevitable consequence of racial mixing is simply a fallacy -- the impossibility of racial coexistence is a perceived problem by some people and the effects of interracial strife are only felt when people allow the perception of that problem to overcome their sense of rationalism. Why do I say rationalism? Because there is no rational basis for racial tension -- there is no scientifically-based compelling body of evidence which would suggest that racial mixing (whether on sociological or genetic basis) has any adverse effects in-and-of-itself. The problems arrive when people peddle this argument of 'the races can't coexist', and people buy it because its easier to just perceive that problems in your society are caused by the guys with the black skin etc. The dangerous thing about the views you are espousing here is that they form the respectable face of an argument which is simply fallacious and serves society in absolutely no way -- whether intellectually or practically.
Nobody is going to dispute that racial division is a problem which is not purely driven by whites -- but whether racially divisive language or policies emanate from a white man, a black man or an Inuit, it does not change the fact that their point has no scientific rational basis. It is instead based on prejudices against 'outsiders' not understanding 'insiders' -- and people irrationally allow skin colour to be the utterly superficial barometer of how capable someone is of interacting harmoniously with them.
As for your question -- the premise is absurd. The real question is : faced with the fact that, since our species has existed, its various sub-varieties have mixed, intermingled and interbred and that therefore this mixing is an inevitable phenomenon -- is it better to stand Canute-like against it or to embrace and make the best of it ?
History teaches us that those who take the Canute path lead us to hate and war.0 -
Advertisement
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »You write well Sand, though I'd have to say that the thematic direction your last few posts have taken on this thread is one that should be challenged.
Should be, but so far hasn't been.Saying 'racial division is a human problem' as if it were some inevitable consequence of racial mixing is simply a fallacy -- the impossibility of racial coexistence is a perceived problem by some people and the effects of interracial strife are only felt when people allow the perception of that problem to overcome their sense of rationalism.
Its not a fallacy, its an observation based on how humans react to existing scenarios created by mass immigration and rapid demographic shifts. Argumentum ad lapidem *is* a fallacy.Why do I say rationalism? Because there is no rational basis for racial tension -- there is no scientifically-based compelling body of evidence which would suggest that racial mixing (whether on sociological or genetic basis) has any adverse effects in-and-of-itself.
So your solution for all ethnic strife, from black lives matter to northern ireland to the israeli-palestinian conflict is to point out to the participants that its not rational?
I think that has been tried, and failed.The dangerous thing about the views you are espousing here is that they form the respectable face of an argument which is simply fallacious and serves society in absolutely no way -- whether intellectually or practically.
I actually think the reverse is true. People are arguing for the creation division and strife within Europe. They have no credible plan with how to address the certain problems. They have no purpose as to why Europeans should gamble that it will simply work out.
Prudence entirely serves society in this scenario.Nobody is going to dispute that racial division is a problem which is not purely driven by whites -- but whether racially divisive language or policies emanate from a white man, a black man or an Inuit, it does not change the fact that their point has no scientific rational basis. It is instead based on prejudices against 'outsiders' not understanding 'insiders' -- and people irrationally allow skin colour to be the utterly superficial barometer of how capable someone is of interacting harmoniously with them.
But its not even skin colour. That is simply a persistent example. Northern Ireland has immense division with no significant difference between the groups at all. Its entirely irrational, yet it exists, impervious to almost of a century of trying to get them to live together. The years when they arent murdering each other are considered the good times.As for your question -- the premise is absurd.
Argumentum ad lapidem again. The premise is entirely reasonable seeing as it is a policy that is being engaged in. At the very least the proponents of this policy should be able to present a convincing argument of why this policy should be pursued. But they cant, and instead focus on attacking anyone who questions the policy.The real question is : faced with the fact that, since our species has existed, its various sub-varieties have mixed, intermingled and interbred and that therefore this mixing is an inevitable phenomenon -- is it better to stand Canute-like against it or to embrace and make the best of it ?
History teaches us that those who take the Canute path lead us to hate and war.
Again, its not an inevitable phenomenon. It is deliberate policy. And like any policy it should be justified before it is begun. History actually teaches us that multi-cultural countries and empires become bitterly divided, and in the worst cases break up entirely into nation states. This was the solution Europe arrived at after two crippling world wars. And it largely worked. It is utterly inexplicable to me why people want to artificially create more social strife and division.0
Advertisement