Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

fly_agaric

oscarBravo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that people who get in cars every day of their lives cower in terror at the prospect of Islamic extremists. Neither is particularly likely to kill you, and if fear motivates you to the extent it apparently does, I'd worry a hell of a lot more about the cars.

true, I never understood why people go so very very worked up about "the troubles" in NI. I mean the numbers killed were not that large, the individual attacks not that devastating, the chances of being a victim infinitesimal especially over the span of a generation. Silly people eh!

Good thing we're all much smarter than that and we can summon up the iron laws of statistics to wipe away fears of ideologically motivated violence!

Sure you're at more risk of dying in a housefire or a car wreck. Don't you all feel much better now - there there.
We can open up the borders to all seeking refuge, get rid of all the spooks and police apparatus watching over us, and all will be well I'm sure!

oscarBravo

fly_agaric wrote: »

true, I never understood why people go so very very worked up about "the troubles" in NI. I mean the numbers killed were not that large, the individual attacks not that devastating, the chances of being a victim infinitesimal especially over the span of a generation. Silly people eh!

Good thing we're all much smarter than that and we can summon up the iron laws of statistics to wipe away fears of ideologically motivated violence!

Sure you're at more risk of dying in a housefire or a car wreck. Don't you all feel much better now - there there.
We can open up the borders to all seeking refuge, get rid of all the spooks and police apparatus watching over us, and all will be well I'm sure!

Woo, sarcasm. That showed me, eh?

What are your odds of being killed by an Islamic terrorist today? What would your odds of being killed by an Islamic terrorist be if we introduced draconian restrictions on immigrants and refugees? Is the difference enough to justify the downsides?

Sure, you could answer that as long as the risk is lower, whatever measures are introduced would be justified. To which I'll respond: we could almost eliminate road deaths by introducing a blanket 10km/h speed limit. Would you be in favour of such a measure? If not, why not?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Woo, sarcasm. That showed me, eh?

What are your odds of being killed by an Islamic terrorist today? What would your odds of being killed by an Islamic terrorist be if we introduced draconian restrictions on immigrants and refugees? Is the difference enough to justify the downsides?

Sure, you could answer that as long as the risk is lower, whatever measures are introduced would be justified. To which I'll respond: we could almost eliminate road deaths by introducing a blanket 10km/h speed limit. Would you be in favour of such a measure? If not, why not?

How many Europeans would have to be raped/killed before you would say restrictions are appropriate? What about demographic changes, what percentage of population change by introducing non europeans would you tolerate? 20% 30%? Would a European population shrinking to a minority(over the course of fifty sixty years) in their own country be too much?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Woo, sarcasm. That showed me, eh?

What are your odds of being killed by an Islamic terrorist today? What would your odds of being killed by an Islamic terrorist be if we introduced draconian restrictions on immigrants and refugees? Is the difference enough to justify the downsides?

Sure, you could answer that as long as the risk is lower, whatever measures are introduced would be justified. To which I'll respond: we could almost eliminate road deaths by introducing a blanket 10km/h speed limit. Would you be in favour of such a measure? If not, why not?

A European travelling to Syria today are odds on to get killed by an Islamic terrorist. Europeans that includes Irish, British and many others if travelling to America are likely to be the target of Islamic extremism. Go on a nice holiday to Thailand, Bali, India or Russia an Islamic terrorist could pick on you.

Frank Grimes

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How many Europeans would have to be raped/killed before you would say restrictions are appropriate? What about demographic changes, what percentage of population change by introducing non europeans would you tolerate? 20% 30%? Would a European population shrinking to a minority(over the course of fifty sixty years) in their own country be too much?

I've seen you post this style of attack on the Politics Cafe thread too; it's quite obvious from this, and your posts, that any refugees are too many so why even bother phrasing it as questions?

Frank Grimes

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A European travelling to Syria today are odds on to get killed by an Islamic terrorist. Europeans that includes Irish, British and many others if travelling to America are likely to be the target of Islamic extremism. Go on a nice holiday to Thailand, Bali, India or Russia an Islamic terrorist could pick on you.

What is your point? None of your posts appear to have one.

KingBrian2

Frank Grimes wrote: »

What is your point? None of your posts appear to have one.

I don't go in for point scoring. It is very clear Europeans are in danger from Islamic extremism which is apparent. The overarching point is refugees from these countries should not be granted automatic citizenship.

JPNelsforearm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I've seen you post this style of attack on the Politics Cafe thread too; it's quite obvious from this, and your posts, that any refugees are too many so why even bother phrasing it as questions?

Because I want people to think about their position and the end result, which is going to be increased crime, terrorism, demographic change, (I can cite if needs be) for their and their childrens lifetimes. Its not going to end in a year or two. The IMF, World Bank, the EU, sutherland et all are saying its a permanent reality

What is the end point? Population growth being what it is means the "refugees" will never stop coming, one hundred years from now the flow of people will still be trying to enter Europe. what percentage of demographic change is acceptable? You cant just frame this in terms of Syrian migrants, its the third world moving to the first world.

For me its in the sub 1%, strictly regulated and only filling positions of dire need that we cannot fill ourselves, eg Nuclear engineer etc etc. I dont think mild gdp growth is worth it.

Frank Grimes

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Because I want people to think about their position and the end result, which is going to be increased crime, terrorism, demographic change, (I can cite if needs be) for their and their childrens lifetimes. Its not going to end in a year or two. The IMF, World Bank, the EU, sutherland et all are saying its a permanent reality

What is the end point? Population growth being what it is means the "refugees" will never stop coming, one hundred years from now the flow of people will still be trying to enter Europe. what percentage of demographic change is acceptable? You cant just frame this in terms of Syrian migrants, its the third world moving to the first world.

For me its in the sub 1%, strictly regulated and only filling positions of dire need that we cannot fill ourselves, eg Nuclear engineer etc etc. I dont think mild gdp growth is worth it.

The fact that you have put refugees in quotation marks, and refer to "Syrian migrants", underlines why it is pointless engaging with you.

Frank Grimes

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't go in for point scoring. It is very clear Europeans are in danger from Islamic extremism which is apparent. The overarching point is refugees from these countries should not be granted automatic citizenship.

Refugees, regardless of where they are from, are not entitled to automatic citizenship in Ireland.

KingBrian2

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Refugees, regardless of where they are from, are not entitled to automatic citizenship in Ireland.

AH! But what about Europe. Say other countries grant citizenship rights than they travel over to Dublin and become treated like all other EU citizens.

Frank Grimes

KingBrian2 wrote: »

AH! But what about Europe. Say other countries grant citizenship rights than they travel over to Dublin and become treated like all other EU citizens.

Before I answer; which EU countries give automatic citizenship to refugees, with sources that are not pure speculation/conspiracy theories? I'm not saying none do as I am unfamiliar with citizenship entitlements in other EU member states, I just want to be sure you're actually serious about discussing this.

KingBrian2

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Before I answer; which EU countries give automatic citizenship to refugees, with sources that are not pure speculation/conspiracy theories? I'm not saying none do as I am unfamiliar with citizenship entitlements in other EU member states, I just want to be sure you're actually serious about discussing this.

I could traverse through some media source but I won't bother. I am not aware of any EU country that does grant citizenship to refugees however they may sometime in the near future and should that happen their will be a large lobby of people advocating for unrestricted access to the EU. Russians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks and Syrians all entitled to vote in European & local elections.

Frank Grimes

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I could traverse through some media source but I won't bother. I am not aware of any EU country that does grant citizenship to refugees however they may sometime in the near future and should that happen their will be a large lobby of people advocating for unrestricted access to the EU. Russians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks and Syrians all entitled to vote in European & local elections.

Ok, so just the usual uninformed and hypothetical doomsday scenarios that are pointless engaging with. You should look up who is entitled to vote in local elections here btw.

K-9

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Ok, so just the usual uninformed and hypothetical doomsday scenarios that are pointless engaging with. You should look up who is entitled to vote in local elections here btw.

Mod:

That's enough, you've had a series of posts way below the standard expected and far too personal.

Frank Grimes

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

That's enough, you've had a series of posts way below the standard expected and far too personal.

Right, and on reflection, fair enough - apologies to all affected. (that's genuine, not some passive-aggressive crap either).

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How many Europeans would have to be raped/killed before you would say restrictions are appropriate? What about demographic changes, what percentage of population change by introducing non europeans would you tolerate? 20% 30%? Would a European population shrinking to a minority(over the course of fifty sixty years) in their own country be too much?

....all of which would seem to enter the area of wild speculation and move away from the topic at hand.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

....all of which would seem to enter the area of wild speculation and move away from the topic at hand.

How so, the current consenus, and thus policy, is that mass immigration is a permanent reality("It seems time to put in place the physical infrastructure needed to cope with a more or less permanent flow of immigrants.").

As we have seen from all available evidence(unless you think Ireland is exempt from what happens in other European countries) posted here, the more immigrants the more crime, unemployment, terrorism we have to contend with(offset by moderate gdp growth). Obviously the figures and seriousness(depending on your view) varies, but its inevitable these negative trends in society increase. Do you accept that as a "permanent reality"? What is acceptable to you?

"But EU Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn suggested resistance against all-EU refugee quotas is wearing down.

"We're going to have a quota settlement approach, and in light of recent developments, I believe all 28 member states are now ready to accept and approve that," he told reporters.

He suggested the influx could get worse.

"There are 20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe," he said. "Ten to 12 million in Syria, 5 million Palestinians, 2 million Ukrainians and about 1 million in the southern Caucasus," he said.

Kurz said there was no choice but to find "a European solution to this crisis."

What you are talking about is a wholesale massive change in the make up of European society. Germany is no longer Germany if the ethnic Germans are only 50% of the population in 100 years time.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How so, the current consenus, and thus policy, is that mass immigration is a permanent reality("It seems time to put in place the physical infrastructure needed to cope with a more or less permanent flow of immigrants.")..................

But there isn't mass immigration, it's a refugee crisis.


What has the ethnicity of Germans to do with anything?

kettlehead

Frank Grimes wrote: »

The fact that you have put refugees in quotation marks, and refer to "Syrian migrants", underlines why it is pointless engaging with you.

I would consider a lot of them to be economic migrants and not refugees. This article is from the HuffPo. I'm shocked that they published it. All interviewed are economic migrants. You may disagree.

STOCKHOLM -- Sweden’s government announced in November that the country needed “respite” from the influx of refugees, and would be toughening measures to deter asylum seekers. While 80,000 people had arrived in Sweden in the two months prior to the government’s announcement, there are migrants who are now deciding to turn around and settle in the Middle East instead.

While the stricter asylum laws concern them, some refugees and migrants interviewed by HuffPost Arabi believe that language barriers and cultural differences also represent serious impediments to their assimilation into Swedish society.

Hamadi, who holds a B.A. in engineering from Syria's Damascus University, recently decided to leave Sweden and head back to the Middle East. “I might go back to Turkey, or to Lebanon," he told HuffPost Arabi. "I don’t know exactly. But I will go back to a society that’s a better fit for me."

Saying that “starting from nothing here is something I couldn’t bear,” Hamadi explained that there are still “long years of waiting ahead.” It would take a year for him to be granted residency, and another year for family reunification. He left his wife and 3-month-old daughter in Turkey.

“And then there will be many years until I learn the language, evaluate my degree, and find a job," he said. “Practically speaking, I need seven or eight years to start my life here, and that’s an amount of time I am not willing to waste."

Hamadi said that he has requested to revoke his application for asylum, but he must wait for the request to be approved before he can leave.

This Nael Hamadi character doesn't sound like he is the brightest bulb in the Christmas tree. Who in their right mind would subject himself to a notoriously dangerous and life-threatening human trafficking service to actually succeed in reaching his target destination, and then proceed to go back where he first left because he failed to inform himself about what he was doing and now complains about petty bureaucracy and being in a foreign land?

In fact, isn't he supposed to be escaping a civil war?

Additionally, the article mentions Nael Hamadi has a B.A. in engineering, but I seriously doubt that such an idiot, who has such a profound lack of planning skills or even critical thinking, has anything to do with engineering at all. In fact, perhaps that's why he whines about the "seven or eight years" he estimates it would take for him to "start his life there", because it takes anyone just 5 years to get through a full-blown masters degree in engineering.

Samar, 32, who hails from Aleppo, Syria, has not yet put in a request to revoke her asylum application, but she says she will soon. “My decision came in reaction to the latest governmental decision," she said. "My chances of bringing my children here have been diminished -- almost disappeared.”

According to the Swedish government's announcement, most asylum seekers will only receive temporary residency permits starting in April. Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said that the right to bring families to Sweden would be severely restricted.

This woman is the only one with a legitimate gripe if what she is saying is true. If she's given status then of course she should be allowed bring her children over. I doubt that the Swedes, of all people, would block this. 

Hamza Agaan, 22, also feels that he's unsuited to Western lifestyles. “I cannot live like this," he said. "People are very different in this country.”

He described the people he has met as “antisocial, introverted and lacking in communication skills.” He says that in the seven months he has spent in Sweden, he hasn’t been able to sustain a relationship with anyone. It’s difficult to learn the language.

Can't speak Swedish. Claims that the Swedes have poor communication skills. Good man.

Abu-Adel, 48, has also made the decision to take his family back to Turkey. Sweden is not right for them, he tells HuffPost Arabi. He is a father to three teenage girls and a younger son.

“I cannot raise them here. The great margin of freedom, which borders on chaos, has turned into a ghost that haunts me everywhere I go,” he said. “The independence that children get, and their freedom to do as they please, and the constant threat of losing my children if I force them to follow our customs and traditions, has become a nightmare that keeps me up at night.”

Abu-Adel said he is used to the “conservative society” he was raised in, and that “sexual freedom is [his] biggest fear.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-refugees-sweden_568192b2e4b06fa68880d1f5

His daughters have my sympathy. As does his wife (if he has one), as I suspect his attitudes towards women are likely in the same vein.

The real problem will be dealing with the ones who feel like this, but decide to stay in Sweden anyway because it is materially better.

These people "fled" to Sweden, found it not to be to their liking or what they expected and now plan to return home. They are not refugees. They are economic migrants.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

But there isn't mass immigration, it's a refugee crisis.


What has the ethnicity of Germans to do with anything?

It is mass migration when they say its a permanent reality, how can it be a "refugee crisis", if its permanent? A crisis has an end, the conflict ends and they go home, that is not the plan, therefore its permanent mass migration.

The IMF, World Bank, all the EUrocrats, Soros, Sutherland, refugee groups etc etc all say its a a permanent influx of about one million a year(the figure varies by organisation and target audience, Im going with the lowest to avoid accusations of scaremongering, even though its a 1.5 million in Germany alone).

Ive been banned for talking about ethnicity/bio diversity in relation to nationality so I'll have to tread lightly. In short, in one hundred years time when "ethnic Germans"(biologically and culturally) are a minority, Germany will no longer be Germany, in the same way indigenous countries in South America are no longer indigenous, the native inhabitants die off and their language, culture and biodiversity becomes extinct. Its simple arithmetic.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

One demographer, who didn't want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: 'It's a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Euro peans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.'

Lee Jasper, race relations adviser to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, predicted a similar future, telling The Observer : 'Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=487wMXiRARU

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

I would consider a lot of them to be economic migrants and not refugees. (......................) are not refugees. They are economic migrants.

It's a bit co-incidental they fled a country that has an on-going civil war that's seen a quarter of a million killed so far then so.

kettlehead

Nodin wrote: »

It's a bit co-incidental they fled a country that has an on-going civil war that's seen a quarter of a million killed so far then so.

They want to return to the region and to cancel their asylum applications in Sweden. Some "refugees".

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

It is mass migration when they say its a permanent reality, how can it be a "refugee crisis", if its permanent? A crisis has an end, the conflict ends and they go home, that is not the plan, therefore its permanent mass migration.

The IMF, World Bank, all the EUrocrats, Soros, Sutherland, refugee groups etc etc all say its a a permanent influx of about one million a year(the figure varies by organisation and target audience, Im going with the lowest to avoid accusations of scaremongering).

Semantics and cherry picking. It's a viscous war near Europe causing the problem.


What has the ethnicity of Germans to do with anything?

kettlehead wrote:

They want to return to the region and to cancel their asylum applications in Sweden. Some "refugees".

You stated

"As for them being Belgian or French citizens - some indeed where. Of recent immigrant stock. Which further shows the utter failure of Europe's immigration policies over the last few decades."

You might be as good as to explain how this is the case.

Nodin

JPNelsonforearm wrote:

Ive been banned for talking about ethnicity/bio diversity in relation to
nationality so I'll have to tread lightly. In short, in one hundred years time
when "ethnic Germans"(biologically and culturally) are a minority, Germany will
no longer be Germany, in the same way indigenous countries in South America are
no longer indigenous, the native inhabitants die off and their language, culture
and biodiversity becomes extinct. Its simple arithmetic.

So your concerns are essentially classic racism. Thanks.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

Semantics and cherry picking. It's a viscous war near Europe causing the problem.


What has the ethnicity of Germans to do with anything?

How is it semantics and cherry picking, Im not quoting some off the cuff remarks, these are from scripted speeches. Literally everyone who is anyone is saying its permanent, they could just as easily lie and say its a "refugee crisis", and that would be the end of it. Utterly weak refutation, you are just sticking your head in the sand.

Ive answered above on the German question, I edited it in, glanced over it initially, apologies, wasnt avoiding it.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How is it (............)avoiding it.

Not really.


Your reply to the question on Germany is noted.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

So your concerns are essentially classic racism. Thanks.

"Classic racism"

I think indigenous American culture, language and bio diversity should be preserved. I think Fijian culture, language, bio diversity and way of life should be preserved... I think all of the different variations of elephants, tigers, birds, etc should have their habitats preserved and their biodiversity left intact... I think the Amazon rainforest and all the biodiversity it holds should be preserved.... yeah racism.
One type of all crop, tree, fish, mammal is all we need, Soy beans for everyone, cover the globe in soybeans, who cares about biodiversity, race to the bottom I say.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How many Europeans would have to be raped/killed before you would say restrictions are appropriate?

I am vastly more likely to be raped or killed by an Irish person than I am by a refugee. Where's the hysterical panicking and hand-wringing about that?

What about demographic changes, what percentage of population change by introducing non europeans would you tolerate? 20% 30%? Would a European population shrinking to a minority(over the course of fifty sixty years) in their own country be too much?

I don't care. I don't subscribe to the view that Europeans are inherently more deserving people than non-Europeans.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A European travelling to Syria today are odds on to get killed by an Islamic terrorist. Europeans that includes Irish, British and many others if travelling to America are likely to be the target of Islamic extremism. Go on a nice holiday to Thailand, Bali, India or Russia an Islamic terrorist could pick on you.

I remain at a loss as to what your point is, in the context of this discussion. I have no plans to travel to Syria.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am vastly more likely to be raped or killed by an Irish person than I am by a refugee. Where's the hysterical panicking and hand-wringing about that?

Currently you are, absolutely, but if you look across the water to countries in Europe with substantial immigrant populations, that is not the case.

. It found that between 1985 and 1989 individuals with a foreign background made up 61% of all rape convictions while only representing 6.3% of the population. Ethnic groups with particularly high rates of rape included individuals born in Iraq, North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), and Africa (excluding Uganda and the North African countries) who were convicted of rape at rates 20, 23, and 17 greater than individuals born in Sweden respectively

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/br-1996-2-invandrares-och-invandrares-barns-brottslighet-1/br-1996-2-invandrares-och-invandrares-barns-brottslighet-1.pdf


As for the hand wringing, it exists, read about "rape culture" etc...

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't care. I don't subscribe to the view that Europeans are inherently more deserving people than non-Europeans.

No one is talking about Europeans being "inherently more deserving", natural selection and evolution dont "inherently" make you more "deserving". We are talking about an ethnic homeland, do you not believe a people, any and all people(s), have a "right" to a homeland and to exist as a homogeneous population, culturally and biologically? The entire concept of anti colonialism/imperialism is built upon this idea.