Migration Megathread

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When a whole demographic of millions of people are getting blamed for it, yes I rather think that it does matter

Why does 'blame' come into it? It wouldn't matter if it was their fault or the fault of the host society. What is important is asking if permitting mass migration and rapid demographic change, to create and sustain group identities divided from European societies, a policy that is in the interests of Europeans?

The answer is clearly no.

Fair enough though there seem to be several European countries which haven't suffered any terrorist attacks.

Yes, so far the best defence against terrorist attacks seems to be not to have a significant population group to sustain them.

The mere existence of Islamic populations are not in-and-of themselves a bad outcome. Terrorism is of course but there are other factors at play there such as the foreign policy of various Western powers.

The mere existence of opposed, non-assimilated group identities within the same territory *is* in and of itself a bad outcome, particularly for the host society. Social cohesion is critical. "Diversity" breaks social cohesion.

Quite easily. I am more likely to live longer than my parents' generation, be more likely to have enjoyed the benefits of a University education, enjoy better healthcare and have much more choice in how I live my life in general. For many people, living standards are excellent if they live within their means. The problem arises when it comes to starting a family or purchasing a home which is getting ever more difficult.

I could point out that a university education is significantly devalued. That Europeans need better healthcare because obesity and all its attendant health impacts is a growing crisis. And that Europeans must increasingly put off the markers and indication of success and maturity their parents took for granted: employment that amounts to a career, a home they can raise a family in, a pension that will provide for them. I could point out that Europeans are facing into an era where the welfare states will be gradually undone as they stagger under the weight of the ageing boomers *and* a growing economic underclass of 3rd world immigrants who must be provided for.

But all I really need do is point you your parents generation could start a family, so relatively they were much better off than contemporary Europeans who live in a society where they increasingly cant or wont.

Many people just don't want children and would rather focus on themselves, their careers, travelling, etc... By contrast, the idea of spending all of one's time at home looking after a child which is a highly demanding and stressful endeavour seems unattractive.

Yes, that's part of the problem too. A society so focused on individualism as a positive. It is in many ways a classic tragedy of the commons. People want a welfare paradise, but they are increasingly leaving it to someone else to have the children necessary to fund it in the long term.

Knowing that, is it a good strategy for European societies?

There's a well established link between poverty and having children. A lack of options, a need to ensure care in later life, a need for more breadwinners for the house, etc....

So we should be seeing a baby boom in Europe as people are increasingly unable to purchase a home and must accept worse and worse contracts.

And Europeans do need children to ensure care in later life. Pensions are a ponzi scheme. That cant be escaped.

Nobody is arguing for mass migration any more. It's only gotten more and more toxic with the passing of time.

I think people still are arguing for mass migration. Otherwise my questioning of mass migration into Europe wouldn't draw such over-reaction.

Ultimately, if migration were tightly controlled there would still be this problem and I don't see how less foreigners is going to help fix it.

Well, there would be significant savings in social welfare, law enforcement and the hidden costs of diversity. Non-European migrants are a net loss to the UK economy, not a gain. Preventing that loss wouldn't solve the larger issue entirely, but it would help fix it.

A few quotes in a documentary? That's it? The phenomenon of people moving out of the city in favour of literal greener pastures is well established.

Well, its more than a personal anecdote which you volunteered earlier.

But as you asked, I can point you to a study on the benefits of diversity by Robert Putnam a US scholar largely dealing with the topics of social capital, cohesion and civic society. Putnam began the study in the belief that diversity is an absolute good, and he wanted to find evidence to sustain that. He was shocked to instead be forced to report that "in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer."

I.E. diversity breaks social cohesion which good civic society and good government depends on. Putnam is reduced to hoping that in the long run diversity will be removed and social cohesion restored. That just underlines the point: diversity is our weakness, not our strength.

And these are all over Northern Ireland? Newry? Derry? Portadown? Omagh?

Mainly Belfast, but also Derry, Portadown and Lurgan.

Northern Ireland has a unique history in Europe, so much so that it is being afforded special status in the Brexit negotiations. I'd also add that the residents of London seem capable of not dismembering each other in the absence of peace walls.

Northern Ireland's history is not that unique. It is just an unresolved example of group conflict. For example the Ottomans left similar garrison populations across the Balkans. This diversity since been a source of near unending bitterness and bloodshed, making the Balkans a byword for division. Anywhere there has been opposed, non-assimilated groups in Europe there has been conflict. Northern Ireland is just trapped in the conflict because neither could win it decisively enough to end it.

It took hundreds of years of bloodshed and mayhem for Gaelic, Norman, English and Viking ethnic groups to meld into what we refer to as "Irish" today. Most other European states gradually achieved the same through wars, pogroms, deportations and political and religious repression. Having achieved that level of cohesion with such difficulty and at such horrific cost, its amazing people want to foster the conditions for *more* group conflicts and *less* cohesion within Europe.

I hardly think it's about group identity. Poverty and social deprivation seem to be much more likely causes with the postcode thing being a gimmick.

If so these lads from poor and socially deprived areas would be unified against other economic classes, seeing each other as having a common cause. This is the great hope of Labour and other social democratic parties in Europe. But instead they are identifying with post codes and stabbing each other to death over it. Economic factors don't seem to the primary factor in their sense of who they are.

I think someone pointed out that group identities weren't rational. That's arguable (a strong group identity is rational overall). But either way, people have been willing to go out and die for flags, lines on maps, the validity of incredibly petty religious differences and ultimately so people who are not them can benefit. None of that is rational, but people do it anyway because they hugely value their group identities. Over and beyond their own personal interests in many cases - they die, they don't benefit.

That is how human beings work and how they have always worked. People encouraging mass migration into Europe hoping for diversity to bring benefits against all of human experience to the contrary are sowing dragons teeth.

scorching hemorrhoids

Name one country in the world where Muslims have integrated and live in harmonious peace with other religions?

Muslims vs Christians
Muslims vs Buddhists
Muslims vs Jews
Muslims vs Hindus
Muslims vs Sikhs
Muslims vs Taoists
Muslims vs Muslims

Can you see a pattern, whats the common problem in all of these conflicts?
Halfwits want to import more of the problem into Europe and Ireland, does anyone honestly believe it will end well?

weisses

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

Name one country in the world where Muslims have integrated and live in harmonious peace with other religions?

Name one country in Europe that was recently taken over by Islam ?

Just ignoring the rest of the hyperbole

scorching hemorrhoids

weisses wrote: »

Name one country in Europe that was recently taken over by Islam ?

Just ignoring the rest of the hyperbole

The taking over is currently under way
several police confirmed no go zones in European countries, do you or anyone else deny this?
Rapes up
acid attacks up
all because of the muslim increase, do you or anyone else deny this?

weisses

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

The taking over is currently under way
several police confirmed no go zones in European countries, do you or anyone else deny this?
Rapes up
acid attacks up
all because of the muslim increase, do you or anyone else deny this?

Yeah ... acid attacks are nasty stuff

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/man-jailed-for-16-years-for-acid-attack-on-womans-21st-birthday

scorching hemorrhoids

weisses wrote: »

Yeah ... acid attacks are nasty stuff

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/man-jailed-for-16-years-for-acid-attack-on-womans-21st-birthday

Resham Khan and Jameel Muhktar
muslim
birds of a feather flock together

weisses

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

Resham Khan and Jameel Muhktar
muslim
birds of a feather flock together

As in victims of this attack .... :rolleyes:

Sonics2k

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

Resham Khan and Jameel Muhktar
muslim
birds of a feather flock together

They were the victims for crying out loud.

wes

Sonics2k wrote: »

They were the victims for crying out loud.

We can hardly expect much quality posting from the far right. It seems basic reading and comprehension is beyond most of them, that or there irrational hatred disables all there cognitive abilities.

Snickers Man

Sand wrote: »

I don't. The US government defines them when collecting its census data. US groups use them when they denounce white privilege,.....

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.

All the more reason why you should be precise on exactly what you mean. If you want to take your cues from people with an axe to grind, and who like to massage the figures and/or be completely disingenuous about the true picture then you will only accentuate their bigotry and repeat or even amplify their lies.

For example.....

Sand wrote: »

Well, "melting pot" is not what is happening.
Only about 4% of white British marry/cohabit with someone who is not also white.

Let's assume that we have clearly defined distinctions between who is black and who is white. Which at the margins is actually quite difficult to do. Meghan Markle, for example, could easily pass as white although her mother is clearly African American. Many people are of very indeterminate racial background. Even Apartheid South Africa struggled to "classify" everybody accurately according to their racial separation laws. People could often appeal rulings that had characterized them as "black" and say they were really "coloured" or that they were not "coloured" at all, they were in fact "white".

But let's say you can do what the Afrikaners couldn't and classify everybody irrefutably.
Let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that all interracial marriages/cohabitation in the UK is between British born people.
According to the 2011 census, 87.1% of people in Britain are white (broken down into Irish, Scottish, English, Polish etc etc)
That means that out of every hundred people between three and four of the whites are married/cohabiting with an equal number of non-whites. So between three and four out of the thirteen non-whites are in a multiracial relationship.

Do the maths: you could say that between 23 and 30% of non-white people in the UK are in a multiracial relationship. That's the equivalent statement to your claim that only 4% of white British are in a multiracial relationship. But it makes the melting pot theory so much more plausible, doesn't it?

duckofdeath

These kinds of nazi threads are the reason I rarely ever read posts on places like boards.ie.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is pure evil and assholes with undemocratic opinions like this should be cut off from the internet in democratic countries.

Snickers Man

fash wrote: »

(how is mixing between Arab Muslims/Christians and Jews in Israel going? How have things in Northern Ireland historically been?

Even in such polarised societies like N Ireland and Israel/Palestine there are inter-community marriages. You're saying you never met somebody in or who is a product of a marriage between an Ulster Prod and Taig? You need to get out more.

In Israel it's slightly different because it's impossible legally for people of different faiths to marry in that country unless one or other of them converts. There is no civil marriage in Israel; you have to get married by a religious minister (Christian, Jew or Muslim according to circumstance)
Handy that, eh?
And they'll tell you it's not an apartheid-like state.

wes

Snickers Man wrote: »

Even in such polarised societies like N Ireland and Israel/Palestine there are inter-community marriages. You're saying you never met somebody in or who is a product of a marriage between an Ulster Prod and Taig? You need to get out more.

I knew an Iraqi Woman, whose had one Sunni and one Shia parent for example.

James Brown

scorching hemorrhoids wrote: »

Name one country in the world where Muslims have integrated and live in harmonious peace with other religions?

Muslims vs Christians
Muslims vs Buddhists
Muslims vs Jews
Muslims vs Hindus
Muslims vs Sikhs
Muslims vs Taoists
Muslims vs Muslims

Can you see a pattern, whats the common problem in all of these conflicts?
Halfwits want to import more of the problem into Europe and Ireland, does anyone honestly believe it will end well?

Ireland, The United States, Canada, France, the U.K.......

Gravelly

duckofdeath wrote: »

These kinds of nazi threads are the reason I rarely ever read posts on places like boards.ie.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is pure evil and assholes with undemocratic opinions like this should be cut off from the internet in democratic countries.

I'm not sure you fully understand the whole "democracy" concept.

fash

Snickers Man wrote: »

fash wrote: »

(how is mixing between Arab Muslims/Christians and Jews in Israel going? How have things in Northern Ireland historically been?

Even in such polarised societies like N Ireland and Israel/Palestine there are inter-community marriages. You're saying you never met somebody in or who is a product of a marriage between an Ulster Prod and Taig? You need to get out more.

Actually I know a number of "Prod"- "Taig" relationships- in modern times they are reasonably common especially as people become less religious ( hence you are my reference to " historically" in the text above)- I'm not sure you whether you are deliberately missing the point I was making or not. To repeat, group identities based on religions are more durable and hard to break down and integrate than other group identities. Nothing you have said (including the injunction to get out more) addresses that point

fash

wes wrote: »

Snickers Man wrote: »

Even in such polarised societies like N Ireland and Israel/Palestine there are inter-community marriages. You're saying you never met somebody in or who is a product of a marriage between an Ulster Prod and Taig? You need to get out more.

I knew an Iraqi Woman, whose had one Sunni and one Shia parent for example.

That was reasonably common in Iraq back before Islamism became a major force in the 1980's/1990's and before the place fell into sectarianism following the American invasion. I suspect she'll tell you it's less common nowadays.

Ozymandius2011

I am concerned that we might end up with governments akin to those in the Middle East or North Africa if we allow our demographics to become skewed by continued large scale mass immigration from those countries. The form a government takes to some extent depends on a critical mass of support from the local population. Opinion polls of Muslims in some European countries (notably the UK) have shown strong support for suppression of homosexuality. In 2016 The Guardian (hardly a bastion of the Far Right) reported a poll showing half of "British Muslims" wanted homosexuality outlawed.

weisses

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I am concerned that we might end up with governments akin to those in the Middle East or North Africa if we allow our demographics to become skewed by continued large scale mass immigration from those countries. The form a government takes to some extent depends on a critical mass of support from the local population. Opinion polls of Muslims in some European countries (notably the UK) have shown strong support for suppression of homosexuality. In 2016 The Guardian (hardly a bastion of the Far Right) reported a poll showing half of "British Muslims" wanted homosexuality outlawed.

If you are so concerned about how people think about gays why not read up on the VP of the united states and his views in regards to LGBT

You don't have to be Muslim to have a backwards view in relation to gay people

Gravelly

weisses wrote: »

If you are so concerned about how people think about gays why not read up on the VP of the united states and his views in regards to LGBT

Does he advocate throwing them off the top of high buildings?

Ozymandius2011

weisses wrote: »

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I am concerned that we might end up with governments akin to those in the Middle East or North Africa if we allow our demographics to become skewed by continued large scale mass immigration from those countries. The form a government takes to some extent depends on a critical mass of support from the local population. Opinion polls of Muslims in some European countries (notably the UK) have shown strong support for suppression of homosexuality. In 2016 The Guardian (hardly a bastion of the Far Right) reported a poll showing half of "British Muslims" wanted homosexuality outlawed.

If you are so concerned about how people think about gays why not read up on the VP of the united states and his views in regards to LGBT

You don't have to be Muslim to have a backwards view in relation to gay people

I'm well aware of his views but that's on a whole different level from how they are treated in the Middle East and North Africa. He's not advocating capital punishment.

weisses

Gravelly wrote: »

Does he advocate throwing them off the top of high buildings?

Where in that Guardian article is that mentioned ? ...

weisses

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm well aware of his views but that's on a whole different level from how they are treated in the Middle East and North Africa. He's not advocating capital punishment.

At least try to stay on topic in regards to your own submission

Whataboutery isn't helping

Hostile views towards LGBT people are not exclusive to the Muslim faith .. Its closer to home then you think

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Serious discussion only please. Post deleted.

wes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm well aware of his views but that's on a whole different level from how they are treated in the Middle East and North Africa. He's not advocating capital punishment.

For the life of me, I do not know how extremist American Christians get a free pass from some people.

For example does anyone remember the Uganda anti-gay law. It was extremist American Christians who stirred that up:

How Uganda was seduced by anti-gay conservative evangelicals


Trump also "joked" about how Pence would hang gay people if he could. I don't think he was joking btw.

In the US for example Muslims are more accepting of the LGBT community than evangelical Christians, and yet no call for American evangelicals to be banned from Europe:

Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies

Also, we had Americans coming over and interfering with our most recent referendum:
The young Americans trying to stop Ireland from voting Yes to abortion


Not to mention all the money they poured in over the years:
Why American Pro-Life Dollars Are Pouring Into Ireland


Wouldn't surprise me if money was also poured in during the referendum. I saw plenty of pro-life adverts online during the period from groups I couldn't identify as being from Ireland.

So why no call for a ban on foreign extremist Christians, who have most recently actively interfered with our democracy?

Gravelly

weisses wrote: »

Where in that Guardian article is that mentioned ? ...

Whataboutery upon whataboutery.

I didn't mention or reference the Guardian article. You compared the attitude of the VP towards gay people with islamic attitudes towards gay people, I asked you the obvious question leading from that comparison, which you haven't answered.

Trying to deflect from islamic attitudes to the LGBT community by citing Pence's attitudes is the equivalent of trying to deflect from Nazi Party attitudes to Jews by citing British Labour Party attitudes to Jews.

Ozymandius2011

wes wrote: »

For the life of me, I do not know how extremist American Christians get a free pass from some people.

For example does anyone remember the Uganda anti-gay law. It was extremist American Christians who stirred that up:

How Uganda was seduced by anti-gay conservative evangelicals


Trump also "joked" about how Pence would hang gay people if he could. I don't think he was joking btw.

In the US for example Muslims are more accepting of the LGBT community than evangelical Christians, and yet no call for American evangelicals to be banned from Europe:

Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies

Also, we had Americans coming over and interfering with our most recent referendum:
The young Americans trying to stop Ireland from voting Yes to abortion


Not to mention all the money they poured in over the years:
Why American Pro-Life Dollars Are Pouring Into Ireland


Wouldn't surprise me if money was also poured in during the referendum. I saw plenty of pro-life adverts online during the period from groups I couldn't identify as being from Ireland.

So why no call for a ban on foreign extremist Christians, who have most recently actively interfered with our democracy?

Well I referred to North Africa and the Middle East. But I would acknowledge there are some parts of the world where Islam is more moderate. But if you're going to talk about American Islam, I would point out that in the Malcolm X era when Nation of Islam began, it was fashionable for a while for African Americans to convert to Islam and adopt Muslim names (which is why names like "Jamal" are popular in that community even among Christians). But they tend to be moderate because they have grown up in a liberal democracy with constitutional protections, no doubt in part influenced by the support of the Democratic party for LGBT and womens' rights. Also important is that while America is a very religious society, the 1st Amendment prevents the establishment of an official religion, which perhaps has a secularising influence of Muslims that grow up over there without recent ties to countries with Sharia law. I wouldnt say the same about Islam coming from say Iran or Saudi Arabia (even now). Reports today about the womens rights activists arrested over there.

wes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Reports today about the womens rights activists arrested over there.

Yeah, ordered by a King that all our governments are best pals with. The guy who ordered them can come and go as he pleases, but we should ban some random Saudi person, because of something his King (whom he has no choice but to be ruled) has done?

Surely, we should treat people like individuals and judge them on that basis, as opposed to demonizing them.

Again, I find it bizarre that we have literally just days ago had American interfering in our democracy, and no one who wants to ban Muslims are calling for bans on Americans. Very odd, I can't imagine why that could be the case.

Ozymandius2011

wes wrote: »

Yeah, ordered by a King that all our governments are best pals with. The guy who ordered them can come and go as he pleases, but we should ban some random Saudi person, because of something his King (whom he has no choice but to be ruled) has done?

Surely, we should treat people like individuals and judge them on that basis, as opposed to demonizing them.

Again, I find it bizarre that we have literally just days ago had American interfering in our democracy, and no one who wants to ban Muslims are calling for bans on Americans. Very odd, I can't imagine why that could be the case.

I dont support a blanket ban on Muslim entry. I do support caution however when it comes to state sponsors of anti western terrorism because theres a danger those kinds of governments would misuse the process.

weisses

Gravelly wrote: »

Whataboutery upon whataboutery.

I didn't mention or reference the Guardian article. You compared the attitude of the VP towards gay people with islamic attitudes towards gay people, I asked you the obvious question leading from that comparison, which you haven't answered.

No you did not .... you went into extremes to make your whataboutery point

Gravelly wrote: »

Trying to deflect from islamic attitudes to the LGBT community by citing Pence's attitudes is the equivalent of trying to deflect from Nazi Party attitudes to Jews by citing British Labour Party attitudes to Jews.

Bringing in the throwing people of building remark is deflection, as it was not even mentioned in the article the poster was referring to, He talked about suppression of homosexuality which falls into line with the Pence "gay conversion" therapy, including the use of electroshock therapy

Like I said ... Its closer to home then you think ...