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
-
Should be, but so far hasn't been.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is somewhat frustrating that you use the term 'argumentum ad lapidem'. I could just as easily say that anything stated without evidence can be doubted without evidence. But it's not even necessary -- there is absolutely no scientific evidence which suggests that racial mixing presents any natural occurring harm. It is, purely, a perception. If you do not wish for your argument to be called a fallacy -- I'm afraid that I am going to have to ask you to cite scientific evidence which demonstrates that racial mixing in-and-of-itself causes problems.
As for solutions to ethnic strife -- I don't really get your point. If we are talking about Israelis and Palestinians, it is not a case that Israelis and Palestinians are born with an inherent instinct to hate eachother. If you were to raise a Palestinian baby and an Israeli baby effectively as brothers in an environment isolated from the Middle East conflict, are you seriously suggesting that they are biologically pre-determined to hate one another? The problems in the Middle East are political, religious and territorial --- I am not going to delve into the rational justifications for each side of those disputes here --- but if an Israeli hates a Palestinian (or vice versa) for no other reason than their ethnic difference, then yes, it is entirely irrational.
The same premise as above applies to both Northern Ireland and Black Lives Matter.
To say that racial mixing is a policy that's being engaged in is absurd. Racial mixing is a reality. How many people on this planet are purely and entirely the descendants of an entire lineage of homo sapiens sapiens who at no time have 'interbred' with any other sub-variety of homo sapiens sapiens? Nobody. We are all already of mixed racial background (See: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/theres-no-such-thing-pure-european-or-anyone-else).
So, if there ever was a fight to save the human race from the perils of racial and ethnic mixing, then I'm sorry to inform you that this fight was lost long ago. Future racial division will only ever be driven by those, like your good self, who tell their racial lookalikes that they have to fear the big bad 'outsiders'. Well no, we don't have to fear them. We only have to fear the people who teach them to follow daft perception over reason.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »To say that racial mixing is a policy that's being engaged in is absurd. Racial mixing is a reality.
Racial mixing that occurs over millennia is not the same as large-scale population replacement that occurs over one or two generations. The latter is unprecedented outside of war or colonisation. If you don't think it's policy, were you not listening when Merkel said "we can do it"?.ArthurDayne wrote: »We only have to fear the people who teach them to follow daft perception over reason.
:rolleyes: 'Daft'? Quite a euphemism for the people who run us over in trucks in our own cities. We are indeed right to fear them, so how about not allowing them in?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »It is somewhat frustrating that you use the term 'argumentum ad lapidem'. I could just as easily say that anything stated without evidence can be doubted without evidence.
I have presented evidence for my view. You have addressed none of it. You simply asserted your own view, without any evidence. I stress my view, because you seem to be assigning me another view. Lets examine your own fixation.But it's not even necessary -- there is absolutely no scientific evidence which suggests that racial mixing presents any natural occurring harm. It is, purely, a perception. If you do not wish for your argument to be called a fallacy -- I'm afraid that I am going to have to ask you to cite scientific evidence which demonstrates that racial mixing in-and-of-itself causes problems.To say that racial mixing is a policy that's being engaged in is absurd. Racial mixing is a reality. How many people on this planet are purely and entirely the descendants of an entire lineage of homo sapiens sapiens who at no time have 'interbred' with any other sub-variety of homo sapiens sapiens? Nobody. We are all already of mixed racial background (See: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/theres-no-such-thing-pure-european-or-anyone-else).
Okay, you seem to be obsessed with "racial mixing". This is a term you introduced, seemingly to strawman me. It has nothing to do with my views. If there was actually racial mixing, then the group identity would collapse or merge in 2-3 generations and there would be no multi-culturalism, and no attendant issues. The problem is group identities have remained distinct. Stop straw-manning.As for solutions to ethnic strife -- I don't really get your point.
Yes, its fairly obvious you don't.If we are talking about Israelis and Palestinians, it is not a case that Israelis and Palestinians are born with an inherent instinct to hate eachother. If you were to raise a Palestinian baby and an Israeli baby effectively as brothers in an environment isolated from the Middle East conflict, are you seriously suggesting that they are biologically pre-determined to hate one another?
No. I'm suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians are two distinct groups attempting to share the same territory. And like pretty much every location where there are two distinct groups there is division and strife. There is nothing unique about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are divided by their differences, other groups are divided by theirs.The problems in the Middle East are political, religious and territorial
Yes, two distinct religious groups struggling over territory. That's the point. Why you would want to artificially create similar strife in Europe is the question. Can you explain?Future racial division will only ever be driven by those, like your good self, who tell their racial lookalikes that they have to fear the big bad 'outsiders'. Well no, we don't have to fear them. We only have to fear the people who teach them to follow daft perception over reason.
Actually future racial division is going to be driven by identity politics, which occurs only in multi-cultural societies. It has little or nothing to do with me. Division in the USA is driven by white, black, hispanic, asian and other advocates of group identity and it will continue for centuries to come as those identities persist as they have for the past centuries.
Why you want to artificially replicate this division and strife in Europe is inexplicable.0 -
I have presented evidence for my view. You have addressed none of it. You simply asserted your own view, without any evidence. I stress my view, because you seem to be assigning me another view. Lets examine your own fixation.
Okay, you seem to be obsessed with "racial mixing". This is a term you introduced, seemingly to strawman me. It has nothing to do with my views. If there was actually racial mixing, then the group identity would collapse or merge in 2-3 generations and there would be no multi-culturalism, and no attendant issues. The problem is group identities have remained distinct. Stop straw-manning.
Yes, its fairly obvious you don't.
No. I'm suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians are two distinct groups attempting to share the same territory. And like pretty much every location where there are two distinct groups there is division and strife. There is nothing unique about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are divided by their differences, other groups are divided by theirs.
Yes, two distinct religious groups struggling over territory. That's the point. Why you would want to artificially create similar strife in Europe is the question. Can you explain?
Actually future racial division is going to be driven by identity politics, which occurs only in multi-cultural societies. It has little or nothing to do with me. Division in the USA is driven by white, black, hispanic, asian and other advocates of group identity and it will continue for centuries to come as those identities persist as they have for the past centuries.
Why you want to artificially replicate this division and strife in Europe is inexplicable.
Sand, I am not sure if it's a case that your argument is suffering from cognitive dissonance or that you are skillfully trying to avoid saying what you really mean -- or of course perhaps I simply lack the intellectual capacity to make sense of your reasoning -- but I find the above comment confusingly inconsistent.
it's very confusing to me that you claim not to be saying that racial mixing (I stress again that this is both sociological and genetic) is inherently bad but in the very same comment you talk about the presence of the different inherent 'identities' of whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians invariably leading to strife and division -- and that we should avoid this in Europe. So no, you did not use the term 'racial mixing', but it's precisely what you have just written about. You're saying that each racial group has an inherent group identity which is insurmountable and the inevitable conclusion is division and strife. So if you aren't saying that racial mixing is some negative phenomenon to be avoided -- then whatever point you are trying to make is being made in a very roundabout way.
Again, your reference to the Israeli-Palestine conflict for the purpose of this argument is simply not analogous. The conflict was not caused, as you seem to claim it is, by the mere presence of two distinct groups in close vicinity. The conflict finds its roots in territorial expansion, forced expulsion and all the chain of violence which flowed from that. The Northern Ireland (where I grew up) example is fairly similar. Comparing either of these conflicts to modern European immigration is manifestly foolish -- and to say that both these conflicts are purely the result of different groups just being inherently incapable of getting along is false.
From what I can see, your argument can be summarised as "we have to stop allowing other races, cultures and religions in to mix with us because the inevitable consequence is strife and division". Well no it isn't. Of the hundreds of millions of people living in multicultural/multiracial/multi-religious societies, the vast majority of people simply go about their lives in reasonable happiness. But as long as people of your persuasion (whether they be white, black, Muslim, Jewish, Hispanic etc etc etc) keep drilling it into peoples' heads that different races and cultures can't live side by side peacefully -- you are ironically feeding the very division you claim to fear!0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be encouraged and incentivised to have fewer children. Many of the problems we face as a species, from property prices all the way up to some of the wars, can be traced back to the fact that there are more and more people competing for the same limited amount of resources and space to live in.
While this is absolutely true - it's not a problem for Europe. Non-migrant people in Europe have less than 2 children on average, which means declining population on average.
If every country had the birth rate of Niger (which sees its population double every 20 years) then the planet would be doomed in less than a hundred years.
Sociologists say that all countries have a period of rapid increase in population followed by slow decline. Hopefully they are right, because otherwise the consequences are dire.0 -
Advertisement
-
RandomName2 wrote: »While this is absolutely true - it's not a problem for Europe. Non-migrant people in Europe have less than 2 children on average, which means declining population on average.
If every country had the birth rate of Niger (which sees its population double every 20 years) then the planet would be doomed in less than a hundred years.
Sociologists say that all countries have a period of rapid increase in population followed by slow decline. Hopefully they are right, because otherwise the consequences are dire.
Agreed, Japanese birth rates just dropped to lowest levels ever recorded.
The shrinking population has driven economic stagnation for the best part of two decades now.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »The Israeli-Palestine conflict for the purpose of this argument is simply not analogous. The conflict was not caused, as you seem to claim it is, by the mere presence of two distinct groups in close vicinity. The conflict finds its roots in territorial expansion, forced expulsion and all the chain of violence which flowed from that. The Northern Ireland (where I grew up) example is fairly similar. Comparing either of these conflicts to modern European immigration is manifestly foolish -- and to say that both these conflicts are purely the result of different groups just being inherently incapable of getting along is false.
When significantly large enough in number, ethnic-cultural peoples tend to coalesce, and invariably seek to create their own nationhood, devolved or otherwise. This has been true of every country within Europe for the last hundred years. It does not take much effort to find more examples than can be counted.
While this has always been true, throughout modern history, it is particularly important within democracies, as the majority vote always wins out, by definition.
The problems of Northern Ireland and Palestine is that the geographic boundaries of such groupings were muddy. Essentially you had two distinct peoples claiming the same area, which cannot work. In the case of Northern Ireland the immigrant (planted) population was from Scotland and England, while in Palestine/Israel, a significant amount of the population are Jews from post-war Europe. The fact that these events led to problems is a fact of human nature.
The big difference with modern immigration in Europe is that there generally isn't a single distinct ethnic-cultural identity among immigrants. They tend to be from a plurality of countries, which means that this same idea of coalescing around a single identity, distinct from the 'native' does not apply. Typically0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »From what I can see, your argument can be summarised as "we have to stop allowing other races, cultures and religions in to mix with us because the inevitable consequence is strife and division". Well no it isn't. Of the hundreds of millions of people living in multicultural/multiracial/multi-religious societies, the vast majority of people simply go about their lives in reasonable happiness. But as long as people of your persuasion (whether they be white, black, Muslim, Jewish, Hispanic etc etc etc) keep drilling it into peoples' heads that different races and cultures can't live side by side peacefully -- you are ironically feeding the very division you claim to fear!
I think its not as simple as you describe it ... Using the Netherlands as an example ....There are many predominantly Muslim neighborhoods in all the big cities ... I lived there and saw the problems And no there isn't much integration coming from there ... Many Turkish and Moroccan people who came over in the seventies and eighties still cannot speak dutch ... their children and grand children also have trouble integrating ... These neighborhoods are a breeding ground for extremism ... Dutch politics is aware of this for decades but to this date failed to properly address this .... Resulting in the indigenous people moving to more right wing parties .. (not that they come up with any solutions) creating a divide, us vs them
I welcome migration but there is plenty of evidence multiculturalism is not working as was/is intended0 -
...
Yes, two distinct religious groups struggling over territory. That's the point. Why you would want to artificially create similar strife in Europe is the question. Can you explain?
I believe if the Israeli were Muslim and acted in the same manner we would see the same issues. Religion comes into the reasoning for Israel's actions, but their religion doesn't tell them to keep expanding and murder protesters. That's Israeli state policy. Israel does not speak for all Jews. Hamas do not speak for all Muslims, not even all Palestinians.
In Northern Ireland it's very similar if not more drawn out.
No immigrant is arriving in any western country and staking land claims on religious or any other grounds so there would be absolutely no comparisons to be made regarding differences causing frictions in that manner.Actually future racial division is going to be driven by identity politics, which occurs only in multi-cultural societies. It has little or nothing to do with me. Division in the USA is driven by white, black, hispanic, asian and other advocates of group identity and it will continue for centuries to come as those identities persist as they have for the past centuries.
Why you want to artificially replicate this division and strife in Europe is inexplicable.
If you walk into any McDonalds in the U.S., the entire staff are generally African American or Hispanic. The very thing you seem concerned about losing is the very thing breeds any contempt felt by minorities. It's socioeconomic and privileged protectionism. It exists everywhere, within every ethnic group. The Indians have a caste system, the British their monarchy. In more developed countries it's what family do you belong to, where did you go to school, politicians being tribal and 'looking after our own'.
There was similar scaremongering in the days of 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish'. The point is it's easy to look at somebody with more differences, especially those newly arrived, who would have the least in common with their adopted country and it's people. But aside from arguments on volume, I don't see anything new. The Muslims are simply the new blacks, Jews and Irish. I'd take a down to earth decent Muslim person as Taoiseach any day.
It's when you start making exceptions and specifying rules just for people based on their colour, ethnicity or religion that you start to chip away at common decency and a point will come when you realise you lost what you thought you were protecting. Case in point, Trump's America, Netanyahu's Israel.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Sand, I am not sure if it's a case that your argument is suffering from cognitive dissonance or that you are skillfully trying to avoid saying what you really mean -- or of course perhaps I simply lack the intellectual capacity to make sense of your reasoning -- but I find the above comment confusingly inconsistent.
You've struggled to even hear what I have stated.it's very confusing to me that you claim not to be saying that racial mixing (I stress again that this is both sociological and genetic) is inherently bad but in the very same comment you talk about the presence of the different inherent 'identities' of whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians invariably leading to strife and division -- and that we should avoid this in Europe. So no, you did not use the term 'racial mixing', but it's precisely what you have just written about. You're saying that each racial group has an inherent group identity which is insurmountable and the inevitable conclusion is division and strife. So if you aren't saying that racial mixing is some negative phenomenon to be avoided -- then whatever point you are trying to make is being made in a very roundabout way.
From what I can see, your argument can be summarised as "we have to stop allowing other races, cultures and religions in to mix with us because the inevitable consequence is strife and division". Well no it isn't. Of the hundreds of millions of people living in multicultural/multiracial/multi-religious societies, the vast majority of people simply go about their lives in reasonable happiness. But as long as people of your persuasion (whether they be white, black, Muslim, Jewish, Hispanic etc etc etc) keep drilling it into peoples' heads that different races and cultures can't live side by side peacefully -- you are ironically feeding the very division you claim to fear!
There is an old saying that when you have a hammer, all you see are nails. You cant see my argument because you're obsessed with racial mixing. You're fixated on race, whereas to my argument is only an example of the basis on which humans form groups: race, religion, nationality, culture, language, etc. That's why I cite the US experience alongside Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine. They are not all racial conflicts. They are all group conflicts. They are all examples of the inevitable conflicts that occur between different groups. I'm not responsible for humanity's tribalism, I am observing it. You are in denial of it.
I'll make my point as simple as I can. If you can actually engage with it, great. If you cant and you are forced to strawman me again, then perhaps you should acknowledge that to yourself if no one else:
For the past 70 years European countries have permitted and encouraged mass immigration into Europe. Rightly or wrongly, they have pursued this policy without debate or approval. The immigration has been in such numbers that the new arrivals have been able to sustain group identities separate and distinct from the indigenous Europeans. Research shows that in another 30 years, if the policy is not stopped significant demographic changes will occur in European countries.
European governments have not wasted the past 70 years. There has been legislation, reform of institutions and funding of various community groups to try forge common identity and purpose between indigenous Europeans and the new groups emerging as a result of this policy. They have tried.
After 70 years of this policy and this effort to make it work we can see significant evidence that it has not benefited Europeans. That soldiers must now patrol city streets to combat Europe's "homegrown" Islamic insurgency is only the most obvious example.
It is even arguable if it is benefiting non-Europeans. Libya has re-emerged as the centre of a new African slave trade.
So, considering that evidence when we consider the *next* 70 years I do not think this policy of mass immigration and hope for the best should be continued.
That's my argument. Everything else is details.
Now clearly you disagree, you believe this policy should continue and terrorism and modern slavery are a price you're happy for other people to pay. But I think people who support a policy should be able to present an argument *for* it. And so far, nobody on this thread has presented an argument for a continuation of the past 70 years. Presumably nobody can.0 -
Advertisement
-
You've struggled to even hear what I have stated.
There is an old saying that when you have a hammer, all you are nails. You cant see my argument because you're obsessed with racial mixing. You're fixated on race, whereas to my argument is only an example of the basis on which humans form groups: race, religion, nationality, culture, language, etc. That's why I cite the US experience alongside Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine. They are not all racial conflicts. They are all group conflicts. They are all examples of the inevitable conflicts that occur between different groups. I'm not responsible for humanity's tribalism, I am observing it. You are in denial of it.
I'll make my point as simple as I can. If you can actually engage with it, great. If you cant and you are forced to strawman me again, then perhaps you should acknowledge that to yourself if no one else.
For the past 70 years European countries have permitted and encouraged mass immigration into Europe. Rightly or wrongly, they have pursued this policy without debate or approval. The immigration has been in such numbers that the new arrivals have been able to sustain group identities separate and distinct from the indigenous Europeans. Research shows that in another 30 years, if the policy is not stopped significant demographic changes will occur in European countries.
European governments have not wasted the past 70 years. There has been legislation, reform of institutions and funding of various community groups to try forge common identity and purpose between indigenous Europeans and the new communities emerging as a result of this policy. They have tried.
After 70 years of this policy and this effort to make it work we can see significant evidence that it has not benefited Europeans. That soldiers must now patrol city streets to combat Europe's "homegrown" Islamic insurgency is only the most obvious example.
It is even arguable if it is benefiting non-Europeans. Libya has re-emerged as the centre of a new African slave trade.
So, considering that evidence when we consider the *next* 70 years I do not think this policy of mass immigration and hope for the best should be continued.
Now clearly you disagree, you believe this policy should continue and terrorism and modern slavery are a price you're happy for other people to pay. But I think people who support a policy should be able to present an argument *for* it. And so far, nobody on this thread has presented an argument for a continuation of the past 70 years. Presumably nobody can.
But Sand, whether it was merely an example of a wider point or not, you still used it. You can't just go around and say "Oh well I actually think different groups can't get along, sure just look at the different races in America for example" -- and then when someone points out the problems with this, deflect by saying "you're just obsessed with the racial mixing point and it's only one example anyway!" It does seem rather unfair to accuse me of obsession when I am merely addressing the example which you have made!
Even at that, I addressed your other examples of Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland and I have pointed out that neither of these scenarios is analogous to immigration. I am struggling to understand how you cannot see how an invading army coming and forcing people off land sows a very different seed for future strife than a group of immigrants applying for a visa to come live/work here!
As for saying I am in denial of humanity's tribalism -- well no, I'm not. I think it's simply a case that you have a somewhat limited and naive understanding of tribalism, which has led you think that somehow by ceasing the interaction of different nationalities/languages/cultures/religions you will remove the risk of strife and preserve peace (which won't happen because, like another poster said earlier, sooner or later divisions emerge on other matters like politics and class). Exacerbating that is the fact that, in your drive to achieve this, you would deprive us of all the benefits we have derived from immigration. So, with both these points in mind, I might ask you the following questions: If we in the multicultural world have gotten it so wrong, where are the great paradises in the world that have gotten it so right? Where are the homogenous countries that have been at the forefront of learning, science, business and social progress? Or perhaps, can you point to us a Golden Age in history when there weren't as many migrants in Europe and life was so much better than it is now?
Nobody is in denial about man's propensities towards tribalism -- but this will always apply and even racially/linguistically/culturally homogenous societies will eventually divide along any number of lines for any number of reasons. At least multiculturalism has taught us that the irrational superficial differences can be overcome -- except of course by those who just cannot let it go and make their prophecy of interracial / intercultural strife a self-fulfilling one by harping on about how we need to be terrified of demographic changes!0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »But Sand, whether it was merely an example of a wider point or not, you still used it. You can't just go around and say "Oh well I actually think different groups can't get along, sure just look at the different races in America for example" -- and then when someone points out the problems with this, deflect by saying "you're just obsessed with the racial mixing point and it's only one example anyway!" It does seem rather unfair to accuse me of obsession when I am merely addressing the example which you have made!
You've already acknowledged that race mixing is a topic you introduced. Repeatedly.Even at that, I addressed your other examples of Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland and I have pointed out that neither of these scenarios is analogous to immigration. I am struggling to understand how you cannot see how an invading army coming and forcing people off land sows a very different seed for future strife than a group of immigrants applying for a visa to come live/work here!
Again, these are all different examples of group identities. You seem unwilling to recognise that basic point.As for saying I am in denial of humanity's tribalism -- well no, I'm not......Nobody is in denial about man's propensities towards tribalism
You say you are not, but you are denying it. To the point where you presume that the existence of tribalism only occurs if it is observed.
I do note you are still unable to present an argument for the continuation of the past 70s years of mass immigration into Europe. I know that you cant. Nobody can. It is a bad policy. Just acknowledge it.0 -
It's important to recognise the quality of the future immigrants, and where there is great need for particular niche skills, they should be encouraged, from anywhere.
However those with little education, skills or fluency will most likely end up on the benefits system in future decades, eating into our pension pots.
Again, it's already acknowledged by industrialists that 50% of current roles will 'disappear' due to the new 4th Industrial Revolution by 2030. (that's just 12yrs away).
Robotics, automation, ai - call it what you want, is coming. Even highly skilled/educated natives will have serious competition to hold down a regular job, nevermind the typical unskilled economic migrant. Regardless of motivation to work, they won't match the price-point of the Autobot 2030.
This today, reiterates the point:
President Michael D Higgins has strongly criticised the rise of precarious work and bogus self-employment and said the battle for decent work will be one of the defining struggles of the coming decades.
There is mention in this article, of the 'gig economy' - leading to exploitation and insecurity. Get used to that term 'gig'. In essence a job for life only existed up until the 20th century. Over the next decade(s) 'gig' contracts for <12mths will become the standard. Zero hours contracts (part-time in reality), little rights or privedges, and agency-type umberella contract agreements. This will include the public sector too.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »It's important to recognise the quality of the future immigrants, and where there is great need for particular niche skills, they should be encouraged, from anywhere.
However those with little education, skills or fluency will most likely end up on the benefits system in future decades, eating into our pension pots.
Again, it's already acknowledged by industrialists that 50% of current roles will 'disappear' due to the new 4th Industrial Revolution by 2030. (that's just 12yrs away).
Robotics, automation, ai - call it what you want, is coming. Even highly skilled/educated natives will have serious competition to hold down a regular job, nevermind the typical unskilled economic migrant. Regardless of motivation to work, they won't match the price-point of the Autobot 2030.
This today, reiterates the point:
President Michael D Higgins has strongly criticised the rise of precarious work and bogus self-employment and said the battle for decent work will be one of the defining struggles of the coming decades.
There is mention in this article, of the 'gig economy' - leading to exploitation and insecurity. Get used to that term 'gig'. In essence a job for life only existed up until the 20th century. Over the next decade(s) 'gig' contracts for <12mths will become the standard. Zero hours contracts (part-time in reality), little rights or privedges, and agency-type umberella contract agreements. This will include the public sector too.
Anytime things are tough people have had to pick up nixers where they can, especially when a good paying secure job can't be found. We need keep an eye on what passes as 'employed'. The days of that meaning self sufficiency are in the past. Higgins is on the money.
We should welcome people from anywhere if they meet an economic need. That's what many countries do already.
As regards refugees, there should be room for limited numbers. I don't want to live in a world where we look after our own to the detriment of others. We need find a reasonable middle ground. Our economies, for good or bad, depend on slave labour. Apple and the like exist so successfully by availing of sweat shops. I think it's only decent to assist these same people if we can.0 -
You've already acknowledged that race mixing is a topic you introduced. Repeatedly.
Again, these are all different examples of group identities. You seem unwilling to recognise that basic point.
You say you are not, but you are denying it. To the point where you presume that the existence of tribalism only occurs if it is observed.
I do note you are still unable to present an argument for the continuation of the past 70s years of mass immigration into Europe. I know that you cant. Nobody can. It is a bad policy. Just acknowledge it.
And I note that you did not answer my questions : "If we in the multicultural world have gotten it so wrong, where are the great paradises in the world that have gotten it so right? Where are the homogenous countries that have been at the forefront of learning, science, business and social progress? Or perhaps, can you point to us a Golden Age in history when there weren't as many migrants in Europe and life was so much better than it is now? "
I re-ask because your argument that 'mass immigration into Europe' has been 'bad policy' is predicated on your belief that demographic change alone is to be feared for no other reason than it is change. You are therefore implacable on the immigration question. It does not matter to you that standards of living in Europe remain excellent; that Europe remains one of the best places on Earth to live; that migrant workers have contributed to internationalising our economies and civic life; that migrant workers have contributed to helping us maintain a critical mass in our ageing population; or that they have both helped fill our lower-skilled jobs as education standards in Europe rise and have also contributed to our high-skilled sectors in business, technology etc. It does not matter to you that the intermingling of races, cultures, languages etc has made Europe less prone to hatred by teaching us that beneath all our various differences lies a general common desire to live in peace. It does not matter to you that immigration has furthered the liberalisation of Europe. None of this matters to you because you think change is scary and diversity breeds contempt.
But of course, like all the so-called 'straight-talkers' who tell us how terrible the world is and how wrong everyone else is getting it, I would imagine that you will struggle to direct us to examples of monocultural Utopias anywhere in the world. You claim that multiculturalism causes problems, and then expect us to believe that monoculturalism does not eventually give rise to problems of its own!
I also note two very distinct elements to your question are totally different from this point you have been peddling about diversity itself breeding conflict and thus we must retreat from diversity. You have tightened the scope to both 'mass' immigration and immigration 'into Europe'. I suspect that you have worded the question in this way because you are already well aware of how the intermingling of people in Europe has been beneficial. Europe was a continent in an almost constant state of war, and indeed was the cradle for two of the most destructive wars ever inflicted on the human race. Intermingling of the European peoples, mainly with the EU framework which has eased movement between the countries, has undeniably had an immensely positive effect on Europe -- economically and socially. So, even in a previously warring continent full of different languages, cultures, nationalities, races, political ideologies -- these differences are not invariably the death of peace and prosperity -- and intermingling of all these can actually help to balance perspectives rather than entrench them. It all stands in demonstrable defiance of your argument that different groups are invariably pre-determined to conflict.0 -
Now you are dismissing this as alarmist, but lets cast our mind back some years. In 1960 the USA was 88.6% white. In 1965, the US passed a new immigration act which opened migration from the world. Americans were assured nothing significant would occur as a result. 51 years later, perhaps two generations to white Americans who increasingly have children later white American children are a minority in the USA. . That is massive, massive demographic change in just two generations. [/url]
Well you first of all have to define what is "white" and what is "non white". Are Mexicans white? What about Mexicans of predominantly European heritage (of whom there are many) as opposed to Mexicans with some Aztec, Mayan or other long-term indigenous ancestry?
And what about those who intermarry with pasty-faced red-haired Europeans of predominantly Irish heritage? How would you classify those?
Typically it takes about three generations for ethnic groups who have migrated to foreign countries to diffuse into the broader population. New arrivals tend to stick together, in the social groups they know and are comfortable with. Then they gradually broaden out to merge in with other ethnic groups, typically those with whom they have a lot in common.
It was very common for the Irish in America only to marry within the Irish community for a generation or two. Then they would branch out into other, typically Catholic, communities such as Italians or Poles. But there was always a minority who would take the plunge into exotica such as getting it on with Jews, Blacks and (gasp!) Protestants!!!!
That's how melting pots work.
I have third generation relatives in America. Most of them come from almost exclusively Irish lineage, but some have married into Puerto Rican, Chinese, Italian and German families.
Something similar is bound to happen to the Muslim immigrant communities. They will diffuse and become "more Irish than the Irish themselves". It's all happened before, remember0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Well you first of all have to define what is "white" and what is "non white". Are Mexicans white? What about Mexicans of predominantly European heritage (of whom there are many) as opposed to Mexicans with some Aztec, Mayan or other long-term indigenous ancestry?
And what about those who intermarry with pasty-faced red-haired Europeans of predominantly Irish heritage? How would you classify those?
Typically it takes about three generations for ethnic groups who have migrated to foreign countries to diffuse into the broader population. New arrivals tend to stick together, in the social groups they know and are comfortable with. Then they gradually broaden out to merge in with other ethnic groups, typically those with whom they have a lot in common.
It was very common for the Irish in America only to marry within the Irish community for a generation or two. Then they would branch out into other, typically Catholic, communities such as Italians or Poles. But there was always a minority who would take the plunge into exotica such as getting it on with Jews, Blacks and (gasp!) Protestants!!!!
That's how melting pots work.
I have third generation relatives in America. Most of them come from almost exclusively Irish lineage, but some have married into Puerto Rican, Chinese, Italian and German families.
Something similar is bound to happen to the Muslim immigrant communities. They will diffuse and become "more Irish than the Irish themselves". It's all happened before, remember
I still don't know what his goal or hope is. We've all religions and colours in practically every country already. Every person should be taken on their own merits.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Anytime things are tough people have had to pick up nixers where they can, especially when a good paying secure job can't be found. We need keep an eye on what passes as 'employed'. The days of that meaning self sufficiency are in the past. Higgins is on the money.
We should welcome people from anywhere if they meet an economic need. That's what many countries do already.
As regards refugees, there should be room for limited numbers. I don't want to live in a world where we look after our own to the detriment of others. We need find a reasonable middle ground. Our economies, for good or bad, depend on slave labour. Apple and the like exist so successfully by availing of sweat shops. I think it's only decent to assist these same people if we can.
Mostly agree, but 'meet an ecoonomic need' is a bit too loose, in Australia they'll only accept people on skills matching, including age, qualfication, experience, health and detailed checks showing no previous convictions.
Sure (genuine) refugees should be catered for, but you only have to look at the 'children' accepted from Calais to see the uk being played, by mid-twenty single males, with no background checks.
Light assebly work such as the Apple example will all be dumped well before 2030, not to mention most of the warehousing, catering, retail, transport etc The unskilled will simply be of little use to many industries in future years.
Bear in mind in 2016, uncontrolled mass migration ended what was known as 'the expanding EU' (as one of the early forming primary members voted to leave). Oddly this was predicted by Vanga many years previous.
Today Italy's new eurosceptic coalition has gone short across the books to dump the Euro, and to leave next the odds are just @2.5, and likely this will now happen before 2025. Wonder why that is...0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Mostly agree, but 'meet an ecoonomic need' is a bit too loose, in Australia they'll only accept people on skills matching, including age, qualfication, experience, health and detailed checks showing no previous convictions.
Sure (genuine) refugees should be catered for, but you only have to look at the 'children' accepted from Calais to see the uk being played, by mid-twenty single males, with no background checks.
Light assebly work such as the Apple example will all be dumped well before 2030, not to mention most of the warehousing, catering, retail, transport etc The unskilled will simply be of little use to many industries in future years.
Bear in mind in 2016, uncontrolled mass migration ended what was known as 'the expanding EU' (as one of the early forming primary members voted to leave). Oddly this was predicted by Vanga many years previous.
Today Italy's new eurosceptic coalition has gone short across the books to dump the Euro, and to leave next the odds are just @2.5, and likely this will now happen before 2025. Wonder why that is...
Skill matching is what I meant by economic need.
I'm not an advocate for helping 'children'. I think adults need a safe port too. Of course people play the system, but that's something needs fixing not a reason to cast doubt on the whole venture. We may not be conquering lands only to have it's inhabitants become fellow citizens by default, but we have an economic hand in the faiths of these people so it's only right, that aside from human compassion, we should help out where we can. Either way one rule for Muslims and one rule for everyone else is the very definition of racism. And before anyone wheels out 'religion isn't a race', let's say people who are from a particular ethnicity, geographic region has all the hallmarks.0 -
.0
-
Advertisement
-
Ireland and the UK probably already pledge more % to charity and international aid funding than most.
China has even recently stated that it 'no longer needs' the uk's £47m yearly aid, and the uk themselves said they would stop sending it, 8yrs ago. Meanwhile India, who also receives aid, is spending $37m on it's 'Mars mission' while 40% of it's children remain malnourished.
It's unlikely anyway that policy makers or politicans have to brush past the 3,000 or so, camped out in central Paris. Many of these have arrived from far flung places such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Nigeria, Afganistan. About 80 new arrivals are expected to the lawless tent camps every day.
The Red Cross today said the migrant crisis in Paris risks spiralling out of control unless the French state intervenes. This days after two refugees drowned in canals and a third was stabbed. Meanwhile Macron and the City Major argue over who's fault it is, as they pass by these tents in their chauffeur driven cars.0 -
Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »Ireland and the UK probably already pledge more % to charity and international aid funding than most.
China has even recently stated that it 'no longer needs' the uk's £47m yearly aid, and the uk themselves said they would stop sending it, 8yrs ago. Meanwhile India, who also receives aid, is spending $37m on it's 'Mars mission' while 40% of it's children remain malnourished.
It's unlikely anyway that policy makers or politicans have to brush past the 3,000 or so, camped out in central Paris. Many of these have arrived from far flung places such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Nigeria, Afganistan. About 80 new arrivals are expected to the lawless tent camps every day.
The Red Cross today said the migrant crisis in Paris risks spiralling out of control unless the French state intervenes. This days after two refugees drowned in canals and a third was stabbed. Meanwhile Macron and the City Major argue over who's fault it is, as they pass by these tents in their chauffeur driven cars.
I agree we need stringent checks and balances, however the premise of this thread seems to be one rule for Muslims, another rule for everyone else, because whites are becoming a minority, which will alone cause problems regarding the likes of Cat Stevens, and other white Muslims.0 -
A lot of us know and witness it every day, expressing an opinion is becoming a crime so trying to debate the issue is a waste of time, like everything else in our country it will be to late when the problem is acknowledged.0
-
Snickers Man wrote: »Well you first of all have to define what is "white" and what is "non white".
I don't. The US government defines them when collecting its census data. US groups use them when they denounce white privilege, meet as the congressional black caucus and form ethnic advocacy groups such as La Raza or black lives matter.
These are not my categories. I'm not imposing them on anyone. Groups in the US are using them to form their distinct, separate identities. I am just observing them as examples of how group identities are formed and persist.Typically it takes about three generations for ethnic groups who have migrated to foreign countries to diffuse into the broader population...That's how melting pots work.
Well, "melting pot" is not what is happening.
Only about 4% of white British marry/cohabit with someone who is not also white. The British stack the inter-ethnic marriage rates because British White, Irish White and Other White are all considered distinct ethnic groups in their census. A marriage between an Irish person and British person is considered to be an inter-ethnic marriage when calculating the stats.
In the US, interracial marriages form just 4% of all marriages (See Table 60). The most common form of "interracial" marriage according to Pew Research is non-Hispanic white and Hispanic white.
So if you are hoping for group identities to be dissolved over 2-3 generations, that's very optimistic. It has not happened over the past 70 years, there is no reason to think it will happen in the next 70.Something similar is bound to happen to the Muslim immigrant communities. They will diffuse and become "more Irish than the Irish themselves". It's all happened before, remember
It really isnt bound to happen. If you want an example of what is happening you can look at the UK Pakistani group where the number of marriages between first cousins has led to significantly higher inbreeding and birth defects in children from that group. Not really the melting pot you are hoping for.0 -
It really isnt bound to happen. If you want an example of what is happening you can look at the UK Pakistani group where the number of marriages between first cousins has led to significantly higher inbreeding and birth defects in children from that group. Not really the melting pot you are hoping for.0
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »I re-ask because your argument that 'mass immigration into Europe' has been 'bad policy' is predicated on your belief that demographic change alone is to be feared for no other reason than it is change.
No, its not predicated on that alone. Its predicated on it having been harmful for Europeans to the extent that they have to fight a homegrown Islamic insurgency.You are therefore implacable on the immigration question.
I am taking a view on the mass immigration question. You're still unable to present a single argument in response.It does not matter to you that standards of living in Europe remain excellent; that Europe remains one of the best places on Earth to live;
If Europe is a paradise, why aren't Europeans having children?that migrant workers have contributed to internationalising our economies and civic life;
Non-European migrants are a net cost to the UK economy. They don't contribute. They are funded by the indigenous British. Even this article in the Guardian was careful to qualify its statement that *eastern European* migrants were economically beneficial to the UK.
And indigenous Europeans don't seem to want to stick around to enjoy the civic life in diverse communities. They leave.that migrant workers have contributed to helping us maintain a critical mass in our ageing population;
And who is going to pay the pensions of the migrant workers? It will be the ageing European workers as they have their pensions cut and their retirement age raised to keep funding the new Europeans.or that they have both helped fill our lower-skilled jobs as education standards in Europe rise and have also contributed to our high-skilled sectors in business, technology etc.
Europe doesn't need lower skilled workers who do not speak the vernacular. It never did. Post world war two up to the 1970s, over a million migrants from the UK and Ireland were subsidised to migrate to Australia and New Zealand. If an economy needs labour, it hardly encourages shipping it out of the economy. Even today, youth unemployment in Europe remains significant and high. Europe is not an economy short of indigenous labour.It does not matter to you that the intermingling of races, cultures, languages etc has made Europe less prone to hatred by teaching us that beneath all our various differences lies a general common desire to live in peace.
There is at least 87 distinct indigenous peoples of Europe. 33 have a majority in at least one European state, the other 54 are ethnic minorities. There is an even higher number of languages and dialects spoken in Europe. Europe is an intensely diverse region of the world. So often, that diversity was a cause for war: the multi-cultural Austro-Hungarian empire led to WWI, and indirectly WW2. Not peace.
The EU was a deliberate project to seek to find common purpose between the peoples of Europe. The founding fathers of the EU recognised that peace amongst diversity took work, and the solution was finding a common shared identity. They were serious about it.
You on the other hand are hopelessly complacent.It does not matter to you that immigration has furthered the liberalisation of Europe. None of this matters to you because you think change is scary and diversity breeds contempt.
Diversity breeds strife. It always has done, it always will do. Northern Ireland cant even keep a regional government running such is the division, hatred and spite.You claim that multiculturalism causes problems, and then expect us to believe that monoculturalism does not eventually give rise to problems of its own!
Poland doesn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. Germany does have an Islamic terrorist threat. Hungary doesn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. France does have an Islamic terrorist threat. The UK didn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. Now the UK has an Islamic terrorist threat.
I'm not proposing monculturalism. As noted already, Europe is intensely diverse. What I am proposing is that a policy which has demonstrably worsened the lives of Europeans should not be continued.Europe was a continent in an almost constant state of war, and indeed was the cradle for two of the most destructive wars ever inflicted on the human race. Intermingling of the European peoples, mainly with the EU framework which has eased movement between the countries, has undeniably had an immensely positive effect on Europe -- economically and socially. So, even in a previously warring continent full of different languages, cultures, nationalities, races, political ideologies -- these differences are not invariably the death of peace and prosperity -- and intermingling of all these can actually help to balance perspectives rather than entrench them. It all stands in demonstrable defiance of your argument that different groups are invariably pre-determined to conflict.
Post world war I, most of the multi-cultural empires of central and eastern Europe were broken up into nation states. Post world war 2, ethnic German communities which were scattered across central and eastern Europe were forcibly deported to Germany.
Since that was done, Europe has been largely at peace for 73 years. The main exception being Yugoslavia, which was another multi-ethnic state. Which then dissolved into bloodshed and horror, until it was broken up into less diverse nation states.
You are condemning me for observing reality, whilst you edify yourself for dreaming.
And you still cannot present a single argument for continuing this failed policy for another 70 years.0 -
In a nutshell, the very near future will show that any uninvited mass migration, (from anywhere) will not just be undesired and costly, but simply unneeded.
What chance will those 3,000 from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Nigeria, Afganistan camped out in central Paris tonight have in finding work?
They're up against a fluent, educated, skilled, workforce who have to work every available day for housing and healthcare they can't easily afford.
Then as the rise of the autobots take hold, this prime workforce will upskill further just to stay 1 step ahead, scrabbling for their next 4hr slot in the new 'gig economy'.
After Italy leave the EU, UK becomes a tax haven, Denmark and Sweden consider a way out, the un/low-skilled masses will line up on streets for their UBI payments.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,178 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 37007
No, its not predicated on that alone. Its predicated on it having been harmful for Europeans to the extent that they have to fight a homegrown Islamic insurgency.
How many of the millions of Muslims living in Europe are likely to join this insurgency?If Europe is a paradise, why aren't Europeans having children?
Economics. It costs too much with the burden posed by an ageing population, the cost of living, stagnant wages, etc...Non-European migrants are a net cost to the UK economy. They don't contribute. They are funded by the indigenous British. Even this article in the Guardian was careful to qualify its statement that *eastern European* migrants were economically beneficial to the UK.
Immigration which was completely under the control of Her Majesty's government I might add.And indigenous Europeans don't seem to want to stick around to enjoy the civic life in diverse communities. They leave.
Do they? These populist right and white utopias don't seem to be attracting too many Europeans. They seem more likely to relocate to smaller towns in their home countries but that seems as much financial as ethnographic.Diversity breeds strife. It always has done, it always will do. Northern Ireland cant even keep a regional government running such is the division, hatred and spite.
Depends on your interpretation of strife. Northern Ireland is hardly tearing itself apart in riots either.
Poland doesn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. Germany does have an Islamic terrorist threat. Hungary doesn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. France does have an Islamic terrorist threat. The UK didn't have an Islamic terrorist threat. Now the UK has an Islamic terrorist threat.
Does Italy have an Islamic terrorist threat? Greece? These two countries bore much of the refugee burden. Eastern European nations with far right governments might not have an Islamic terrorist threat to worry about but they don't seem to be tempting too many Europeans over as far as I can tell. Viktor Orban also seems to be quite happy to accept EU handouts as it seems his country is not prosperous enough to actually contribute to the EU.
London is one of the most diverse cities in the world. You've mentioned that white British people are now technically minority there (though they remain by far the largest single ethnic group) but as far as I can tell, this hasn't caused problems to the everyday lives of most Londoners both native and foreign-born, myself included. I live in a white-minority borough and it's not caused me any problems.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 -
And who is going to pay the pensions of the migrant workers? It will be the ageing European workers as they have their pensions cut and their retirement age raised to keep funding the new Europeans.
Can you point out where in that article the pension cuts and raising the pension age to 68 has anything to do with the funding of "new europeans" ? .... Im intrigued0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't know who that guy is but I'd say maths wasn't his strongest subject in school!
Mark Steyn is a Canadian/American shock jock and journalist who likes to peddle xenophobic, islamophobic neoconservative drivel to an echo chamber of fearful white westerners, mainly Americans but also some Brits and their wannabes in this country. He used to write a syndicated column for the Irish Times but that was at least 10 years ago. Maybe more.
Ironically, he is half Irish. His father came from a well known Jewish family which, like most Irish Jews, came here from the former Russian Empire in the last quarter of the 19th century. One of his great aunts was the artist Stella Steyn; another was married to the famous lawyer Michael Noyk, who acted for many of the "founding fathers" at the time of the War of Independence and was also instrumental in setting up the Sinn Fein courts which ran in parallel to the abstentionist Sinn Fein provisional government of the time.
Noyk got a state military funeral when he died. He was one of many Irish Jews who participated in the independence efforts in the 1920s.
I like to think he spins in his grave every time his buffoon great nephew puts lips to microphone, or fingers to word processor.0
Advertisement