Migration Megathread

Gravelly

weisses wrote: »

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



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 ...

So, again, you won't answer the simple question?

James Brown

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

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.

What about state sanctioned 'legal' Western terrorism? Those people leaving those regions are doing so for a reason. A government carpet bombing your home is no different than a small cabal of zealots bombing your local cafe, yet we look to an entire people for blame on one and wonder why others might be doing the same.
There wasn't much of a 'muslim' problem until the west start bringing 'democracy' to the region, (Iran/Iraq/Syria etc.) and set up the apartheid state of Israel.

wes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, confused you with some one else.

Again, most Western governments are friendly with Saudi Arabia and even arm them.

Also, in the case of Iran, the US for example are the ones who are hostile to them for no good reason that I can see.

Look at all the violence happening in the Middle East, and you will find plenty of Western weaponry and support for various groups.

The hostility isn't a one way street.

Ozymandius2011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What about state sanctioned 'legal' Western terrorism? Those people leaving those regions are doing so for a reason. A government carpet bombing your home is no different than a small cabal of zealots bombing your local cafe, yet we look to an entire people for blame on one and wonder why others might be doing the same.
There wasn't much of a 'muslim' problem until the west start bringing 'democracy' to the region, (Iran/Iraq/Syria etc.) and set up the apartheid state of Israel.

I agree with all of that but the first responsibility of a government is to protect the people living here. Western governments arent a threat to the safety of Irish citizens. And as I said before I dont blame "an entire people" but that part of the world is full of terrorism to a much greater extent than the West. Pakistan isnt at war but there is a lot of Sunni vs Shia violence there, and also violence against non Muslim groups such as Hindus.

weisses

Gravelly wrote: »

So, again, you won't answer the simple question?

of course not ... I don't do silly questions in this forum ... maybe in after hours where the rhetoric resonates more

Gravelly

weisses wrote: »

of course not ... I don't do silly questions in this forum ... maybe in after hours where the rhetoric resonates more

Yet you have no hesitation in making silly comparisons, and then refusing to back them when pulled up on it.

weisses

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I agree with all of that but the first responsibility of a government is to protect the people living here. Western governments arent a threat to the safety of Irish citizens. And as I said before I dont blame "an entire people" but that part of the world is full of terrorism to a much greater extent than the West. Pakistan isnt at war but there is a lot of Sunni vs Shia violence there, and also violence against non Muslim groups such as Hindus.

But how do you see it happening that our governments will be a threat to its people here in western Europe ? What is your fear ? You mentioned the treatment of gay people, I showed you that you dont need to be Muslim to have skewered views on that subject.

weisses

Gravelly wrote: »

Yet you have no hesitation in making silly comparisons, and then refusing to back them when pulled up on it.

Me making silly comparisons? ... you brought in the "throwing gay people of building" comparison mentioned ....nowhere in the discussion regarding fear of the Irish government becoming a muslim government is this mentioned

Or do you really think Irish gay people will be tossed of Blarney castle in the future ?

wes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Pakistan isnt at war but there is a lot of Sunni vs Shia violence there, and also violence against non Muslim groups such as Hindus.

India has a lot of the same problems as Pakistan btw. They have violence against Dalits and other castes from upper caste Hindu's, as well as violence against Christians and Muslims.

Plenty of example the world over that i can pick out. Myanmar, violence against Christians and Muslims carried out by extremist Buddhists. I could keep going all day.

Ozymandius2011

wes wrote: »

India has a lot of the same problems as Pakistan btw. They have violence against Dalits and other castes from upper caste Hindu's, as well as violence against Christians and Muslims.

Plenty of example the world over that i can pick out. Myanmar, violence against Christians and Muslims carried out by extremist Buddhists. I could keep going all day.

If you look at Western European history it is a long road from religious fanaticism to secularism, with the French Revolution playing the most important role in it. The road is not yet complete in Ireland - but we dont have religious violence on any major scale. We havent seen something like that in the Arab world or North Africa yet. Now I am not disputing its not just Muslim countries where there are religious tensions. But if you at the Myanmar situation even, that is a conflict between Buddhists, Muslims and even to some extent Hindus. Western human rights groups confirmed a mass grave recently containing 99 Hindu victims of ARSA, the Rohingya militant group.

The fact that the West is not perfect does not mean we should import the radical ideologies that are responsible for most of the religious violence in the world by non-state actors. The Western model of individual freedom (compared to those countries) is worth preserving.

wes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Now I am not disputing its not just Muslim countries where there are religious tensions. But if you at the Myanmar situation even, that is a conflict between Buddhists, Muslims and even to some extent Hindus. Western human rights groups confirmed a mass grave recently containing 99 Hindu victims of ARSA, the Rohingya militant group.

There is also a Christian militant group active in Myanmar btw. They get left out for some reason.

The fact remains the vast majority of those killed were carried out by the Buddhist extremists.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The fact that the West is not perfect does not mean we should import the radical ideologies that are responsible for most of the religious violence in the world by non-state actors. The Western model of individual freedom (compared to those countries) is worth preserving.

You seem to only concern yourself with one group. Why? Also, the West has direct involvement in a lot of the messes in the Middle East for example. Iraq was destabilized in an illegal war of aggression. The West bombed Libya to help remove the leadership, and its is now unstable as well.

We also have weapons being sold to Saudi Arabia (US/UK), while they butcher the people of Yemen. US preventing an UN investigation into murder of protesters in Gaza. US unilaterally ending the nuclear agreement in Iran. Plenty of other western involvement in all these unstable regions.

doolox

When Napoleon was crowned Emperor of the French in 1804. He took the crown from the pope and crowned himself.He was demonstrating the he got the office from merit and that it owed little or nothing to God, religion or the Pope.

This was the start of European secularism and the start of the erosion of church state connections which had plagued European and American history until then.

laoch na mona

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The fact that the West is not perfect does not mean we should import the radical ideologies that are responsible for most of the religious violence in the world by non-state actors. The Western model of individual freedom (compared to those countries) is worth preserving.

Tell that to the Spanish government their crack down on freedom of expression is a real issue

the imagined Muslim 'problem' isn't

Gravelly

laoch na mona wrote: »

the imagined Muslim 'problem'

Imagined eh?

List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks.

Ozymandius2011

wes wrote: »

There is also a Christian militant group active in Myanmar btw. They get left out for some reason.

The fact remains the vast majority of those killed were carried out by the Buddhist extremists.



You seem to only concern yourself with one group. Why? Also, the West has direct involvement in a lot of the messes in the Middle East for example. Iraq was destabilized in an illegal war of aggression. The West bombed Libya to help remove the leadership, and its is now unstable as well.

We also have weapons being sold to Saudi Arabia (US/UK), while they butcher the people of Yemen. US preventing an UN investigation into murder of protesters in Gaza. US unilaterally ending the nuclear agreement in Iran. Plenty of other western involvement in all these unstable regions.

I agree that the West has played an important role in messing up these regions. But I dont think the punishment for this role should be allowing in persons who may have terror ties or radical ideologies. I would compare it to the Cold War, where the US banned Communist immigration - something that likewise was not targetting an entire religion or population of the USSR but just the dangerous ones.

wes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I agree that the West has played an important role in messing up these regions. But I dont think the punishment for this role should be allowing in persons who may have terror ties or radical ideologies. I would compare it to the Cold War, where the US banned Communist immigration - something that likewise was not targetting an entire religion or population of the USSR but just the dangerous ones.

Sure people links to terrorist groups shouldn't be allowed in. I don't think anyone wants that. What I disagree is assuming people have such ties without evidence.

If there is evidence that someone has a criminal past, a link with a group like ISIS, then of course they should sent on there way.

Sand

Snickers Man wrote: »

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.

The US census bureau? Really?

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.

Yes, of course, but no one believe Rachel Dolezal when she claims to be a black woman. No one accepts Martina Adam is a black woman. Black people reject their claim to be one of them, and indeed find it offensive they would try. There does seem to be very clear distinctions that Rachel and Martina cannot cross.

However blurred the edges are (and they definitely are), groups still are formed by humans based on their ancestry and visible markers of that ancestry, however superficial. These categories are broad, they clearly don't capture all the individuality of humanity but they remain far more useful and practical than Facebooks 71 options for gender. The US government still considers it useful to gather data of how its citizens identify with these groups however blurry the edges because its citizens do identify with them, and their group identity predicts much about their lives.

But let's say you can do what the Afrikaners couldn't and classify everybody irrefutably.

Again, I am not doing it. The US census bureau and the US people are doing it proactively, without any encouragement or direction from me. The categories are based on self-identification (I presume Rachel Dolezal self identifies as black). I am much less influential than you give me credit for.

I honestly don't care about the categorisation. The real issue is it exists. It has endured for hundreds of years, despite decades of effort to eliminate it. And it will endure for hundreds more years. And we are seeing the result with the division and breakdown of civic trust in the US. Diversity is bad for people.

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.

Can you do the maths for me please? Really, you throw in a lot of assumptions and then jump to claiming 23-30% of non whites in the UK are in a multiracial relationship.

Because that does not actually align with the reality that in the 2011 census only 2% of people identify as having a mixed ethnic background. So this melting pot is not having children.

The biggest non-white group in the UK is Asian, comprised primarily of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshi who enjoy mixed ethnic marriage rates of 12%, 9% and 7% respectively. Again, this includes marriages to another Asian ethnicity so the actual marriage rates with White British (the group to merge with) is even lower.

And your figure simply does not square away to the UK Pakistanis propensity for in-group marriage to the extent that they are spiking up birth complications due to inbreeding. We simply would not be seeing this if your claim was valid.

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?

You see, for me its not actually a claim. Its an observation based on data taken from a report on UK census data.

What you have is a claim, completely unsubstantiated and at odds with UK census data.

Look, you're missing the point. Say you are right (you're clearly not, but for the sake of argument). Then in 2-3 generations, everyone in the UK will be the same ethnicity, follow the same religion, share the same identity and history. No division, no problem. But at best, no real difference to Europe of say 70 years ago. A new homogeneity would simply have been secured. Diversity would have been removed in the melting pot.

No say you are wrong (and all the data indicates you are) you will instead have a UK (and a Europe) divided, civic trust in tatters and domestic politics which are essentially a re-run of the 30 Years War.

Why should any European, concerned with the best outcomes for Europeans, be willing to take the losing bet you propose and cultivate the growth of non-assimilated groups in Europe? The best outcome possible is no gain, and the very likely outcome is a terrible loss.

laoch na mona

Gravelly wrote: »

Imagined eh?

List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks.

los like a terrorist problem not a muslim one

James Brown

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I agree with all of that but the first responsibility of a government is to protect the people living here. Western governments arent a threat to the safety of Irish citizens. And as I said before I dont blame "an entire people" but that part of the world is full of terrorism to a much greater extent than the West. Pakistan isnt at war but there is a lot of Sunni vs Shia violence there, and also violence against non Muslim groups such as Hindus.

They may not be dropping bombs but they are responsible for the marked rise in terror attacks perpetrated upon westerners. Not to mention the manipulation by the western led world financial cartels and their effect on the quality of life for everyone. Our own Irish government put private profit above the well being of it's own people. Western business drives alot of the discontentment within that region.
If effects on the west is your concern, why worry about the Sunni and Shia in Pakistan, (a region left splintered after the British occupation)?

I'm reminded of the uproar in England at all the immigrants coming over from the four corners of the empire to claim their citizenship. We can't destabilise and destroy these areas for our greed and complain when people wish to leave.

Snickers Man

fash wrote: »

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

Intermarriage isn't the whole answer but it is part of it. There have ALWAYS been interfaith marriages in Ireland. You can tell by the comingling of surnames in the North where so many Provos had good Presbyterian planter names (Morrison, Adams, Donaldson--well he started off as a provo), Sands) and then you had quite a few really nasty Loyalist killers with good Taig names, most notoriously Lenny Murphy the Master Butcher.

And there was quite a history of miscegenation in the US too. So much so that they had to make laws against it.

You're right to an extent in that religious identities are often more durable than ethnic ones but even then hostility between certain groups can peter out over time. Everything the likes of Mark Steyn and other pants-wetting right wingers like Douglas Murray say about Muslims today is a parrot-like rehash of what Americans were saying about Catholics, especially Irish Catholics in the 19th century.

Look at Fox News in recent times. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Kelly, O'Donnell and others. Full of Irish.

In about 100 years in America whatever will be the successor medium to cable TV will be full of American Muslims yapping on about foreigners coming in here with alien religions and archaic belief systems, who hate freedom, undermine American society and culture and cannot possibly be tolerated in our land of the free and home of the brave and didn't our Founding Fathers warn us about all this etc etc etc

fash

Snickers Man wrote: »

You're right to an extent in that religious identities are often more durable than ethnic ones but even then hostility between certain groups can peter out over time. Everything the likes of Mark Steyn and other pants-wetting right wingers like Douglas Murray say about Muslims today is a parrot-like rehash of what Americans were saying about Catholics, especially Irish Catholics in the 19th century.

Look at Fox News in recent times. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Kelly, O'Donnell and others. Full of Irish.

In about 100 years in America whatever will be the successor medium to cable TV will be full of American Muslims yapping on about foreigners coming in here with alien religions and archaic belief systems, who hate freedom, undermine American society and culture and cannot possibly be tolerated in our land of the free and home of the brave and didn't our Founding Fathers warn us about all this etc etc etc

That remains to be seen:
Religious identity is far stickier where apostates are killed or shunned to such a degree (from memory, the loss rate of adherents for Sunni Islam being around 3%, while for something like Mormonism it is 30%);
There was a history of secularism in European and Catholic countries, thought and philosophy going back to the early middle ages- allowing more organic gradations of identity;
Modern communication technologies were not available in earlier times- which prevents people from being cut off from their ancestral/home community the way they would have previously; and
In some instances (but not all), the flows of migration are unprecedented and far larger than earlier flows.

For me that is one of the main lessons from the plantations of Ireland for example.

So while I would also like to think of an optimistic future, for me it is not a certainty and that outcome is made less likely where large flows of people occur - i.e. society has the capacity to absorb and process a certain of migrants, its ability to do so can depend on the size of the migrant group. One of factors determining the particular size of given group of people is the cohesiveness of the group identity of particular migrant groups.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Might do us a lot better than we think.

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God. The Abrahamhic faiths.


When the poor Jews might be out of the equation us Christians actually have a lot in common with the the Muslims , we're brothers of the book. Christ is also a prophet in Islam.


In the coming decades it would be lovely to see Christians and Muslims unite on this island and try and restore some of our lost values.


Stronger together than apart.

weisses

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Might do us a lot better than we think.

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God. The Abrahamhic faiths.


When the poor Jews might be out of the equation us Christians actually have a lot in common with the the Muslims , we're brothers of the book. Christ is also a prophet in Islam.


In the coming decades it would be lovely to see Christians and Muslims unite on this island and try and restore some of our lost values.


Stronger together than apart.

I think we would be better of without god worshiping in any form

Religion and violence go hand in hand

Wanderer78

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

In the coming decades it would be lovely to see Christians and Muslims unite on this island and try and restore some of our lost values.

Is it true, the most recent census showed the largest increase in people having no association with any religious faith, what should be done about this, how can we make sure these individuals are also included in our society, because if the trend continues, the majority eventually could in fact be none religious?

skooterblue2

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Might do us a lot better than we think.

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God. The Abrahamhic faiths.


When the poor Jews might be out of the equation us Christians actually have a lot in common with the the Muslims , we're brothers of the book. Christ is also a prophet in Islam.


In the coming decades it would be lovely to see Christians and Muslims unite on this island and try and restore some of our lost values.


Stronger together than apart.

Name one country where Islam is the majority faith where there is there is tolerance for other religions?
Islam is nothing like Christianity. Christians have nothing in common with Islam. Christ is not a prophet in Islam, there is a Jesus but he is someone different.

Ah get back to back to "lost values"? Arranged marriages, Sharia law, beheadings, Corporal punishment, FGM, Halal and the sort?you probably dont know the meaning of the word Taqqiya?

skooterblue2

weisses wrote: »

I think we would be better of without god worshiping in any form

Religion and violence go hand in hand

No there tends to be just one one religion that stirs up all the violence..... I am fairly sure its not the buddhists, Christians, Hindus or Zooastrians as they can usually live side by side peacefully. There is just that one religion.

weisses

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No there tends to be just one one religion that stirs up all the violence..... I am fairly sure its not the buddhists, Christians, Hindus or Zooastrians as they can usually live side by side peacefully. There is just that one religion.

Yeah those peace loving Christians ..... Tell that BS to the US when they head for another war

http://www.newsweek.com/christian-fundamentalists-us-armed-forces-national-security-threat-613428

All in the name of god

Annasopra

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.

It's simple maths. A chocolate bar divided between three people gives each individual more chocolate than the same bar divided between four. The world has reached a point in which exponential population growth is guarantee to cause falling and eventually plummeting quality of life due to this. If we went future generations to actually enjoy living on this planet, we need to seriously reign in population growth so that they have enough space and resources to go around without seeing their quality of life evaporate.

On the other hand if we dont keep reproducing there wont be enough workers to pay pensions because of our increasing ageing population.

4068ac1elhodqr

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

On the other hand if we dont keep reproducing there wont be enough workers to pay pensions because of our increasing ageing population.

This is a very weak, and indeed uninformed argument. 50% of all current roles today won't exist by 2030. Welcome to the 4thIR.

If anything there will be a scramble for the scraps (which President Higgins even warned of recently) i.e. the 'gig economy'. So welcome to little rights, zero-hours contracts, short notice to fulfil variable peak work shift reqests etc.

Naturally there will be some demand for extremely high-level ai based software developers who specalise in machine learning and such.

Naturally the lads with very poor language who wash dishes, powerwash cars and the like - may not have the education, skills, ability or natural aptitude to fill such new highly specialised roles.

Odhinn

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No there tends to be just one one religion that stirs up all the violence..... I am fairly sure its not the buddhists, Christians, Hindus or Zooastrians as they can usually live side by side peacefully. There is just that one religion.

I suggest that you research anti-christian and anti muslim violence in India, myanamar & anti-hindu violence in sri lanka eg

https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/myanmar/

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-india-experience-most-traumatic-persecution-in-10-years-219239/

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/a-long-history-of-tamil-persecution/