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
Mediterranean migrants- specific questions
Options
Comments
-
Well, no, it isn't reasonable to assume that.
Had you made an assumption in 1945 that Europe would have a continuing series of continent wide wars in the decades ahead, you'd have been completely wrong. Equally assuming in 1988 that the Berlin Wall & Iron curtain would continue to be there, you'd again have been utterly wrong.
Assumptions about how Africa will perform in decades to come are about as useful as the assumptions made at the height of our property boom about our property prices continuing ever upwards are today.
Well you can deny that idea, but it will put you in the great company of all the other climate change deniers.
War and Famine aren't the exception when agriculture and food production is reduced, check out views on the deeper why the arab spring occured.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »Well you can deny that idea, but it will put you in the great company of all the other climate change deniers.
War and Famine aren't the exception when agriculture and food production is reduced, check out views on the deeper why the arab spring occured.
I am not denying any idea. I am pointing out the stupidity of making assumptions about Africa in 50 years time since comparable assumptions about our own continent are frequently wrong.0 -
Laws are far more about utility than morality. Morally, it'd be great if states went on rescue missions, practically, this is far from the case as international law is far more to do with politics than law. For example, the UN Security Council has a primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. In practice, this is far from the case as limitations due to interests, available troops and available funds take precedence.stringed theory wrote: »A purely legalistic response that ignores the fact that laws have an underlying moral purpose.
Such a system would also require a vast amount of resources involved to vet those at the border, sustain them, provide medical care and so on. Likewise, if the EU was simply bussing people in without checking where they were from, there's a much greater risk of terrorist infiltration: as it stands, why would ISIS risk someone on the perilous Mediterranean crossing.stringed theory wrote: »No. Refugees could easily be brought by bus to Europe directly from the Syrian border. And I've already suggested a ferry service from Libya.
The reason these things don't happen is because European states do not in reality want these refugees, but to maintain their moral posturing while hiding behind legalisms. It's easy for a politician to talk about accepting "unlimited numbers" when to get here, refugees have to risk drowning.
Can't you see the irrationality and moral duplicity here?
There is no such positive obligation under international law. Sure, you could argue that in theory, this would be great but this remains in theory.
The refugees who can't make the trip languish in Middle Eastern refugee camps, try to survive and do whatever they can to send their strongest family member (Usually a young male) onto Europe in the hope he can get leave for family reunification. Hence why two thirds of the arrivals are male.stringed theory wrote: »What happens to those refugees who can't afford the trip? I suspect many of the most deserving never even get to leave Syria. What I would like is a plan of action to help the maximum number by investing in camps near the border, helping those trapped, maybe even creating safe havens by military action (with UN approval of course). I think that money spent in Turkey, Jordan etc. would go much further than if used to build apartment blocks in Europe, or teach refugees German or Swedish or whatever. What we need is a way of handling refugees that is sustainable. I don't think what's happening now is sustainable.
Safe havens can be extremely useful (for example, Operation Provide Comfort in Iraqi Kurdistan) but these require a lot of factors that aren't present in Syria: a low risk of military attack, an easily protected population and the ability of the population to sustain themselves. Safe zones only work when the UN is patrolling the areas where the refugees are native to.
This isn't going to happen in Syria. The risks are too great and it'll never get Security Council clearance (guaranteed Russian veto, and probably Chinese)
Nobody does. But they have to go somewhere. And everyone thinks they're better off elsewhere. Hence, NIMBYISM.stringed theory wrote: »Not at all. I don't mind some in my back yard, I just don't want large numbers of refugees in Ireland who have zero interest in the place or it's culture, people who a year ago probably couldn't have found it on a map.
The issue of "culture" is a common one but I'm not sure why "culture" is seen as a reason for refugees to foisted on others. You talk about fairness: why is it fair for middle-income countries in the Middle East to be expected to take in refugees when richer countries are not? The refugees are not likely to go home anytime soon (look how long the war has dragged on) and frankly, it's pretty revolting to expect refugees to remain in poor conditions on the slim chance of invoking a change. They've been languishing there for years and it hasn't made a difference. As for the idea that it's unfair that richer refugees can access a better life abroad, I'm not sure what you propose as an alternative. Does this mean we should choke off immigration as it's easier for rich immigrants to get a better life than poorer ones?stringed theory wrote: »Because of their cultural similarity to Jordanians. Because they can easily go home. Because it's unfair letting a random selection go and transform their lives in France (because they can pay people smugglers) while keeping the rest in Jordan. Because keeping all of them in Jordan would focus attention on what needs to be done - in terms of serious money - in both Jordan and Syria.
Obviously, I think the culture of our European states is something that matters, and should not be indefinitely diluted.
The issue of "culture" is an especially weird one as it assumes we have a single, intransigent culture. This is a fiction. Cultures are constantly shaping, evolving and changing.stringed theory wrote: »You miss the point entirely by not taking a broader view of the problem, while ignoring my suggested time span of 50 years.
Of course the figures are not directly comparable, as statistics. But if you accept that human nature is the same everywhere, and over time, then knowledge relating to behaviour can be applied to many different situations. For example, in an earlier post I referred to the US Mexico border as a good example of mass migration without a war going on. Totally different situation, you might say, but it's not.
So talking about Syria, we are more or less agreed about what can happen over a mere four years. Looking at Africa, it is reasonable to assume a continuing series of wars and famines, as in the past 50 years. and this against a background of steeply rising population, and a much greater awareness of the possibilities of migration - basically because of what is happening now
That one person's estimation of future risk can be another person's wild exaggeration is nothing new, and depends on one's personal belief system as much as anything.
But saying I predicted that 3% of Africa's 2100 population will in fact make it to Europe is untrue. What I said was that a possibility of mass migration of this magnitude exists. (You admit you don't know, yet you say 3% is hyperbolic. On what grounds?)
And if every year is like this year from now on, and if governments continually fail to be in control, then it will cause major and unwelcome political change.
Governments need to take control by creating sustainable policies.
The idea that 3% of a continents' population will arrive in Europe over 50 years is again, pure speculative, hyperbolic fiction. There is no evidence that anything like this will occur and an argument from igorance will not change this. In this case, why not say 75% of Africans will try and arrive in Europe?0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »Very interesting thread. Just want to comment that I'm unsure about this statement. People who are arguing for all this to continue as-is are certainly not fools or uneducated, far from it (see Lockstep's cv above) so "major political" (and societal) changes must not be unwelcome for them
I think that is basically correct, and influences their treatment of whatever evidence exists.
The UNHCR and the wider "aid community" are generally indifferent to problems for the indigenous population caused by migration to Europe. The UNHCR's biggest donors are the US and Japan. Their "business" is refugees/disasters "as is" and views they may have about the long term they keep to themselves. They are supported by academics who tend to provide the only intellectual background to their activity making it very difficult for politicians to say what they probably think, judging by their actions. In practice, most politicians make it as difficult as possible for refugees to come to Europe.
Then there are parts of the business community who would welcome cheap labour and a rising population. And at a less exalted level, I have met returned aid workers who obviously miss the overpopulated buzz of the underdeveloped world and might go to Stephen's Green and bemoan the absence of hundreds of Africans milling about, selling trinkets, beating drums etc. And where have many of the extreme left wingers, Trotskyists, anarchists and revolutionaries looking for a cause found a home? And the Catholic Church would love an infusion of credulous believers.
That's quite a mixture of people supporting unregulated, and possibly mass migration. We will continue along the present path, I think, until popular movements put a break on it.0 -
argument from igorance will not change this. In this case, why not say 75% of Africans will try and arrive in Europe?
The fact is, you admit you don't know how many Africans will migrate. So a figure of 3% could just as easily be a pathetic underestimation as a wild exaggeration. I believe you have to at least try and come up with a hypothetical figure and think of how that might impact on Europe.
Your problem is that you don't LIKE the figure, and would rather ignore this risk because of your world view, your support of the aid agencies work or maybe some other reason such as I mentioned in my response to fly_agaric.0 -
Advertisement
-
stringed theory wrote: »The fact is, you admit you don't know how many Africans will migrate. So a figure of 3% could just as easily be a pathetic underestimation as a wild exaggeration. I believe you have to at least try and come up with a hypothetical figure and think of how that might impact on Europe.
Your problem is that you don't LIKE the figure, and would rather ignore this risk because of your world view, your support of the aid agencies work or maybe some other reason such as I mentioned in my response to fly_agaric.
Not quite. Given the existing numbers of refugees arriving from a region as unstable and close as the Middle East, there is no logical basis for guessing 3% of Africans will try to reach Europe. If we're going to take your logic, surely we could just say 100% of Africa's population will try to come? Is this worth debating?
I'm not going to try and guess a number of refugees as it's simply impossible to work out what this might. Plucking random numbers from the sky and treating them as worth debating isn't much use. Once again, an appeal to ignorance is no help.0 -
I am not denying any idea. I am pointing out the stupidity of making assumptions about Africa in 50 years time since comparable assumptions about our own continent are frequently wrong.
Europe has a long history of achievement in increasing social development from the renaissance through the industrial revolution to the present day. China has a more erratic, but still impressive history over the same period. In comparison, Africa has hardly anything to show.
It is reasonable to assume continued achievement (or underachievement) when it has occurred over centuries.0 -
stringed theory wrote: »I think that is basically correct, and influences their treatment of whatever evidence exists.
The UNHCR and the wider "aid community" are generally indifferent to problems for the indigenous population caused by migration to Europe. The UNHCR's biggest donors are the US and Japan. Their "business" is refugees/disasters "as is" and views they may have about the long term they keep to themselves. They are supported by academics who tend to provide the only intellectual background to their activity making it very difficult for politicians to say what they probably think, judging by their actions. In practice, most politicians make it as difficult as possible for refugees to come to Europe.
Then there are parts of the business community who would welcome cheap labour and a rising population. And at a less exalted level, I have met returned aid workers who obviously miss the overpopulated buzz of the underdeveloped world and might go to Stephen's Green and bemoan the absence of hundreds of Africans milling about, selling trinkets, beating drums etc. And where have many of the extreme left wingers, Trotskyists, anarchists and revolutionaries looking for a cause found a home? And the Catholic Church would love an infusion of credulous believers.
That's quite a mixture of people supporting unregulated, and possibly mass migration. We will continue along the present path, I think, until popular movements put a break on it.
Is there any other stereotype you'd like to add?0 -
Is there any other stereotype you'd like to add?
I have been to over a dozen African countries and can say that this is not a stereotype. Also, in southern Italy earlier this year I have seen similar scenes, though with people counted in the scores rather than hundreds.
There are wonderful places in Africa (the Jemna el Fna sticks in my mind) that I'd rather not have reproduced in Dublin.0 -
I'm not going to try and guess a number of refugees as it's simply impossible to work out what this might. Plucking random numbers from the sky and treating them as worth debating isn't much use. Once again, an appeal to ignorance is no help.
It is not an "appeaal to ignorance" as I'm tired of pointing out, because I am asserting nothing.
And how would you propose to debate these serious matters without guesswork? You are like someone who refuses to insure his house against fire because you've never seen a fire, because there are no statistics for fires in your street, and because you underestimate or ignore the seriousness of a fire.
If Europe gets this badly wrong then Europe as we know it is finished. An insurance policy is needed.0 -
Advertisement
-
stringed theory wrote: »Europe has a long history of achievement in increasing social development from the renaissance through the industrial revolution to the present day. China has a more erratic, but still impressive history over the same period. In comparison, Africa has hardly anything to show.
It is reasonable to assume continued achievement (or underachievement) when it has occurred over centuries.
No it isn't reasonable to assume either achievement or underachieviment.
Anyone, looking at Ireland's history of economic underachieviment circa 1955, would have predicted a future for us largely consisting of small scale agrarian subsistence farming, net population reduction and political violence. They would have completely missed the urbanisation & industrialisation of our society, net population increase and political violence being completely marginalised.
Equally, it is stupid to make assumptions about Africa's future.0 -
stringed theory wrote: »It is not an "appeaal to ignorance" as I'm tired of pointing out, because I am asserting nothing.
And how would you propose to debate these serious matters without guesswork? You are like someone who refuses to insure his house against fire because you've never seen a fire, because there are no statistics for fires in your street, and because you underestimate or ignore the seriousness of a fire.
If Europe gets this badly wrong then Europe as we know it is finished. An insurance policy is needed.
That's a total over reaction.
Everyone in the EU could turn up next weekend at Sligo A&E with their EHIC cards demanding emergency treatment causing our whole health system to collapse!. It isn't likely though, is it? :-)
We certainly don't decide staffing numbers at Sligo A&E lest it happen, we don't plan for it to happen and we don't have ridiculous contingency plans in place on the off the wall basis that it might happen.
We would be flat crazy to make plans for the migrant issue on the basis of an unlikely "doomsday" scenario.0 -
Actually it is. You're claiming that 3% could just as easily be an underestimation as an exaggeration. Which is simply not the case.stringed theory wrote: »It is not an "appeaal to ignorance" as I'm tired of pointing out, because I am asserting nothing.
I appreciate we're dealing in theory but at least try to provide realistic proposals.
Extremely weak argument. We'll certainly need to engage in guesswork but hopefully they'll be ones that are at least feasible. Going for hyperbole just because it is a (slim) possibility doesn't really help.stringed theory wrote: »And how would you propose to debate these serious matters without guesswork? You are like someone who refuses to insure his house against fire because you've never seen a fire, because there are no statistics for fires in your street, and because you underestimate or ignore the seriousness of a fire.
If Europe gets this badly wrong then Europe as we know it is finished. An insurance policy is needed.0 -
We would be flat crazy to make plans for the migrant issue on the basis of an unlikely "doomsday" scenario.
No people do consider "doomsday" all the time, especially engineers I think.
It's the responsible course usually rather than saying if it happens were really f-ed but lets pray and hope for the best.
Sure that sort of storm only happens every 500 years, who'd be nasty and crazy enough to hijack a passenger jet and dive bomb the pressure vessel of a nuclear reactor with it etc; you get the idea.
I wonder what odds you'd have got on the 2015 migration madness that's unfolded in Europe if you'd placed a bet this time last year?
edit: even if it's decided that its too expensive/too hard to contingency plan in a meaningful way, "doomsday" should be considered.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »No people do consider "doomsday" all the time, especially engineers I think.
I was referring to politics rather than engineering. At least here in Ireland, both are based on the assumption that disaster planning is not something we have to seriously consider.
Were we to suddenly face a real "force of nature" catastrophe, such as many countries face, we just don't have the infrastructure to either handle it or to provide emergency shelter for us as it hits.0 -
No it isn't reasonable to assume either achievement or underachieviment.
Anyone, looking at Ireland's history of economic underachieviment circa 1955, would have predicted a future for us largely consisting of small scale agrarian subsistence farming, net population reduction and political violence. They would have completely missed the urbanisation & industrialisation of our society, net population increase and political violence being completely marginalised.
Equally, it is stupid to make assumptions about Africa's future.
This is a misrepresentation of how Ireland was in 1955. We had a well educated population, urbanisation, at least in Dublin, and plenty of light industry. We also had a reasonable infrastructure in terms of ports, power network and railways. And we had a low national debt, a stable democracy and a public service with low levels of corruption. Of course we were "middle income" in European terms - better than eastern and southern, worse than our neighbours - but were far above anything in Africa. And while our relationship with Britain gave us an overvalued currency, we also the possibility of unlimited emigration reducing pressure on resources.
It really didn't take that much to launch Ireland's first industrial revolution.
Africa's situation is far far worse, with a rapidly rising population that is likely to negate any economic improvements made - the only possible solution (for them) being mass emigration. But I am assured by other Board members that this will definitely not happen.0 -
That's a total over reaction.
We would be flat crazy to make plans for the migrant issue on the basis of an unlikely "doomsday" scenario.
Why? The idea is to prevent a "doomsday scenario" developing, and while we can, and should, invest more money in camps in places like eastern Turkey all we have to do for now is have politicians go easy on the "we can take everyone" rhetoric, which in my recent personal experience in India, Pakistan and Egypt is a real pull factor in encouraging certain categories of restless people to dream of making the journey. (Angela Merkel is being pressured on this right now by her coalition partner.) We need to make clear that there is in fact a definite limit, a limit that will be enforced.
That's for starters. No money involved. What's the problem?0 -
Actually it is. You're claiming that 3% could just as easily be an underestimation as an exaggeration. Which is simply not the case.
I appreciate we're dealing in theory but at least try to provide realistic proposals.
Extremely weak argument. We'll certainly need to engage in guesswork but hopefully they'll be ones that are at least feasible. Going for hyperbole just because it is a (slim) possibility doesn't really help.
This is your opinion.0 -
stringed theory wrote: »This is your opinion.
Not quite. Once again, why not use the idea that 75% of Africans will come to Europe? Or 100%? Are these valid arguments?
Your estimations are not based in fact. You've literally plucked them out of the air.0 -
Your estimations are not based in fact. You've literally plucked them out of the air.
No I did not.
It has been widely stated in the media that one million refugees may arrive in Germany this year alone. This may be an overestimation, so let's assume that one million arrive in the whole of Europe this year. There seems no reason at the moment why this flow of refugees should stop. Once these things get going, like any pattern of human behavior there is a tendency for it to keep going - unless it is actively stopped. (I could trade statistics with you about the population of unemployed in Pakistan, and many unstable African countries, but this is a waste of time. There are more than enough people out there.)
So if this continued until the end of the century there would be 85 million refugees. That is 2.83% of 3 billion, or almost 3% of Africa's projected population of increase by 2100.
No, I didn't say they'd all come from Africa, or make any actual numerical predictions. What I said was that this is the kind of figure that ought to weigh on our minds.
And don't forget family reunification, which could greatly increase the numbers. Also, most of these refugees are likely to have children, once they are settled, probably many children, who because of their large numbers may not integrate in the host societies. So a suggestion that one hundred million non integrated Asians and Africans could be living in Europe in fifty years, and certainly by the end of the century, is well founded.
Of course you are welcome to totally discount this and say it is rubbish, and nit pick it in some way - it's easy to nit pick, you'd have to write a whole thesis to properly defend it - but I suspect that if last year I suggested that a million refugees would arrive in 2015 you'd have said it was nothing but baseless scaremongering. There are many who'd say the same, many who like to bask in the warm glow of "doing good" and simply refuse to think of the downside, and many others who will simply support the status quo.
I might add that I do not believe that 100 million will actually arrive, but that somewhere along the trajectory towards the new fragmented Europe of shanty towns and massive social discohesion there will come a political counterreaction. This I do fear, and the longer it takes the current crop of politicians to bring about sustainable policies the worse the counterreaction will be.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually it is. Your argument is not so much projections as pure fiction.stringed theory wrote: »No I did not.
It has been widely stated in the media that one million refugees may arrive in Germany this year alone. This may be an overestimation, so let's assume that one million arrive in the whole of Europe this year. There seems no reason at the moment why this flow of refugees should stop. Once these things get going, like any pattern of human behavior there is a tendency for it to keep going - unless it is actively stopped. (I could trade statistics with you about the population of unemployed in Pakistan, and many unstable African countries, but this is a waste of time. There are more than enough people out there.)
So if this continued until the end of the century there would be 85 million refugees. That is 2.83% of 3 billion, or almost 3% of Africa's projected population of increase by 2100.
No, I didn't say they'd all come from Africa, or make any actual numerical predictions. What I said was that this is the kind of figure that ought to weigh on our minds.
Your argument relies on refugee numbers remaining constant, at a rate of one million per year. Considering this has been a peak year for refugee arrivals (just 216,000 arrived in Europe last year, at a time of similar instability, while over the previous years of Middle Eastern instability and violence, arrivals were in the tens, rather than hundreds of thousands.). Can you provide the slightest shred of evidence that refugee numbers are expected to remain at this rate for a century? The OECD's high estimates for the impact on the EU's economy assumes the current rate will continue for one year.
So it's hardly feasible that this will continue for decades, let alone until 2100.
No it's not. Once again, you're assuming peak refugee rates will continue over the century. Which is extremely unlikely to be the case.stringed theory wrote: »And don't forget family reunification, which could greatly increase the numbers. Also, most of these refugees are likely to have children, once they are settled, probably many children, who because of their large numbers may not integrate in the host societies. So a suggestion that one hundred million non integrated Asians and Africans could be living in Europe in fifty years, and certainly by the end of the century, is well founded.
Indeed: it was unexpected for so many refugees to arrive. However, this was a tripling of 2014s rate. Unlikely but not unfeasible. However, to expect this continue for decades afterwards is flat out ridiculous.stringed theory wrote: »Of course you are welcome to totally discount this and say it is rubbish, and nit pick it in some way - it's easy to nit pick, you'd have to write a whole thesis to properly defend it - but I suspect that if last year I suggested that a million refugees would arrive in 2015 you'd have said it was nothing but baseless scaremongering. There are many who'd say the same, many who like to bask in the warm glow of "doing good" and simply refuse to think of the downside, and many others who will simply support the status quo.0 -
Your argument relies on refugee numbers remaining constant, at a rate of one million per year. Considering this has been a peak year for refugee arrivals (just 216,000 arrived in Europe last year, at a time of similar instability, while over the previous years of Middle Eastern instability and violence, arrivals were in the tens, rather than hundreds of thousands.). Can you provide the slightest shred of evidence that refugee numbers are expected to remain at this rate for a century?
Yes, my argument relies on the possibility that current refugee numbers will continue. And since the situation has fundamentally changed from previous years, trying to find evidence from the past is no help.
For starters, last year Italy instituted the unprecedented Mare Nostrum program and also decriminalized illegal entry. Then Greece, which previously had made some effort to repel refugees, such as by pushing back their boats, effectively opened its maritime border as well, while facilitating onward travel. Then there was Angela Merkel....
So for practical purposes Europe has abolished its external frontier. This has never happened before. Not at any time in modern history.
You don't seem to realize the effect that this has on people all over Africa and the poorer parts of Asia. There is a great deal of anecdotal "evidence." Or you could use your common sense.
Of course Africans have a harder journey than, say, Afghans and Pakistanis, but you should not underestimate their ingenuity and determination to better themselves. (As an aside, I once met a man in Nairobi who'd never been out of Kenya but who knew all about the train service from Belfast to Dublin!) And what all of them now know is that Europe's borders are open.The OECD's high estimates for the impact on the EU's economy assumes the current rate will continue for one year.
So it's hardly feasible that this will continue for decades, let alone until 2100.
Actually, the OECD article doesn't project much beyond next June (or even refer to any year after 2017) and I don't see how they could. This is what they say about next year:
In this scenario, corresponding figures for the first six
months of 2016 would be 610 000 for Europe and 370 000
for Germany. These are relatively conservative estimates,
as there is currently no sign of decline in the inflows. The
high scenario assumes that the inflow of asylum seekers
would remain constant until June 2016 at the historical
peak of about 200 000 new requests per month. Under
this scenario, 1.4 million asylum requests could be
registered in Europe for 2015, of which 900 000 in
Germany. This could then reach 1.1 million and 900 000,
respectively, for the first six months of 2016.No it's not. Once again, you're assuming peak refugee rates will continue over the century. Which is extremely unlikely to be the case.
I'm not ASSUMING anything. You do have a tendency to twist my argument as an excuse to demand "evidence."Indeed: it was unexpected for so many refugees to arrive. However, this was a tripling of 2014s rate. Unlikely but not unfeasible. However, to expect this continue for decades afterwards is flat out ridiculous.
As I have said, I expect nothing because the political landscape can evolve very fast, in Europe and elsewhere. But if things stay the way they are then I'd expect the flow to increase rather than diminish. It takes some preparation, mental as well as physical, to pack up your things and hit the road. Also, the migration infrastructure is likely to improve over time.
Nobody knows about "decades to come," and your refusal to even consider an unfavourable or "worse case" scenario" can only be because you don't like it. Of course plenty of people like to keep their cosy world view. No problem.0 -
I'm not sure if this has been posted in this thread yet but this highly respected and influential on German Government policy think tank is kite flying the need to reduce minimum wages in German to help cope with the crisis. Its almost as if having such an relaxed policy could be very damage to the working classes the left (used to) represent and protect . Who would ever have predicted that :rolleyes:
http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/presse/Pressemitteilungen/Pressemitteilungen-Archiv/2015/Q4/press_20151110_fluechtlinge.html0 -
One of the biggest critics of the Islamification of Europe - Mark Steyn has recently commented on the Paris attacks. He manages to say what nobody else dares but without being racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVfMj7Kxtk0 -
One of the biggest critics of the Islamification of Europe - Mark Steyn has recently commented on the Paris attacks. He manages to say what nobody else dares but without being racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVfMj7Kxtk
Would you care to give a summary of what he said?0 -
Briefly he said the following but it's much easier just to follow the link.
Hundreds of thousands of migrants coming into Europe provides a hiding place for the jihadists. Even if a migrant comes in as a normal person either himself or herself can be radicalised or his/her children can also be radicalised.
The muslim community easily condemns the Paris bombings but have a much tougher time codemning Charlie Hebdo. Free speech is not something Islam allows and the more Islamic Europe becomes the less free speech Europeans will have.
The attackers may be French but their allegiance is not to France or the ideals of France. Islam is bigger than a country. It is a global movement.0 -
Once again, your entire argument relies on a ridiculous argument: that refugee numbers will remain steady at the current peak rate for the next 85 years. Considering previous arrivals amounted to a fraction of the current number, it's a stretch to say the numbers will continue for the next few years, let alone the next 85. If you can produce the slightest shred of evidence to suggest the numbers will remain stable for a sustained period of time, please provide it.stringed theory wrote: »Yes, my argument relies on the possibility that current refugee numbers will continue. And since the situation has fundamentally changed from previous years, trying to find evidence from the past is no help.
For starters, last year Italy instituted the unprecedented Mare Nostrum program and also decriminalized illegal entry. Then Greece, which previously had made some effort to repel refugees, such as by pushing back their boats, effectively opened its maritime border as well, while facilitating onward travel. Then there was Angela Merkel....
So for practical purposes Europe has abolished its external frontier. This has never happened before. Not at any time in modern history.
You don't seem to realize the effect that this has on people all over Africa and the poorer parts of Asia. There is a great deal of anecdotal "evidence." Or you could use your common sense.
Of course Africans have a harder journey than, say, Afghans and Pakistanis, but you should not underestimate their ingenuity and determination to better themselves. (As an aside, I once met a man in Nairobi who'd never been out of Kenya but who knew all about the train service from Belfast to Dublin!) And what all of them now know is that Europe's borders are open.
Theoretically, it could happen. But theoretically Germany could declare war on France. It's happened before so it could happen again, for the next 85 years, right?
Also, Europe does not have open borders. Try flying from the US to France without a passport and see how you get on. Arrivals are still being processed and vetted so I dunno where you're getting such a ridiculous argument from. The only open borders are within the Schengen zone.
Right, so even in their model for next year, refugee numbers remaining the same is their high scenario. Do you honestly think this might continue for the next 20 years, let alone the next 85?stringed theory wrote: »Actually, the OECD article doesn't project much beyond next June (or even refer to any year after 2017) and I don't see how they could. This is what they say about next year:
In this scenario, corresponding figures for the first six
months of 2016 would be 610 000 for Europe and 370 000
for Germany. These are relatively conservative estimates,
as there is currently no sign of decline in the inflows. The
high scenario assumes that the inflow of asylum seekers
would remain constant until June 2016 at the historical
peak of about 200 000 new requests per month. Under
this scenario, 1.4 million asylum requests could be
registered in Europe for 2015, of which 900 000 in
Germany. This could then reach 1.1 million and 900 000,
respectively, for the first six months of 2016.
I'm demanding evidence because this isn't the conspiracy theory forum. If you want to write fiction or baseless predictions, expect to see your views challenged.stringed theory wrote: »I'm not ASSUMING anything. You do have a tendency to twist my argument as an excuse to demand "evidence."
Surely you have some evidence for your claim that refugee numbers might continue at this rate?
Oh, I'm more than willing to consider bad scenarios. That doesn't mean I'll entertain ridiculous ones. Not because I don't like it but because I don't see any point in such tinfoil hat stuff.stringed theory wrote: »As I have said, I expect nothing because the political landscape can evolve very fast, in Europe and elsewhere. But if things stay the way they are then I'd expect the flow to increase rather than diminish. It takes some preparation, mental as well as physical, to pack up your things and hit the road. Also, the migration infrastructure is likely to improve over time.
Nobody knows about "decades to come," and your refusal to even consider an unfavourable or "worse case" scenario" can only be because you don't like it. Of course plenty of people like to keep their cosy world view. No problem.
Theoretically, everyone in Ireland could turn up at Galway's hospital demanding treatment. Should UHG prepare for this situation?0 -
The attackers may be French but their allegiance is not to France or the ideals of France. Islam is bigger than a country. It is a global movement.
You sound like Nativists. "We can't allow Catholics in, they'll put their faith before the US!"
There is certainly a problem with extremists within Europe's MUslim community but this isn't a global problem.
sourceA 2007 Pew report titled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream" shows a community far more integrated than those of Europe. In the US, 47 percent think of themselves as Muslim first and American second, but that proportion increases to 81 percent in the UK and to about two-thirds in Germany and Spain.
US Muslims are economically comparable to the general population; they are just as likely to be middle class and are only 2 percent more likely to be lower class. But Western European Muslims are much more likely to be lower class. In the UK, 61 percent of Muslim families make less than ₤20,000. In Spain, 7 percent make less than €14,500.0 -
Briefly he said the following but it's much easier just to follow the link. .
It's the done thing to provide a summary.Hundreds of thousands of migrants coming into Europe provides a hiding place for the jihadists. Even if a migrant comes in as a normal person either himself or herself can be radicalised or his/her children can also be radicalised. .
If you drive a car there might be a crash, yet we do not ban all cars.The muslim community easily condemns the Paris bombings but have a much tougher time codemning Charlie Hebdo. Free speech is not something Islam allows and the more Islamic Europe becomes the less free speech Europeans will have. .
....based on the presumption of an unchangingly conservative immigrant population, the minority population influencing the majority. Up to half or more of French "muslims" are non-practicing.The attackers may be French but their allegiance is not to France or the ideals of France. Islam is bigger than a country. It is a global movement.
The attackers are a tiny minority. To presume that all muslims allegiance lies elsewhere is the kind of nonsense aimed at Jews and for a long time at Catholics in certain parts. You'll pardon me if I reject it outright as sectarian nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Once again, your entire argument relies on a ridiculous argument: that refugee numbers will remain steady at the current peak rate for the next 85 years. Considering previous arrivals amounted to a fraction of the current number, it's a stretch to say the numbers will continue for the next few years, let alone the next 85. If you can produce the slightest shred of evidence to suggest the numbers will remain stable for a sustained period of time, please provide it.
Theoretically, it could happen. But theoretically Germany could declare war on France. It's happened before so it could happen again, for the next 85 years, right?
What if the numbers double? Or quadruple? Why do you assume the numbers will only go down?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement