Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

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

Your source is a scanned PDF of a twenty-year-old book in Swedish referencing a time period nearly thirty years ago?

Talk about a clear and present danger.

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

So whose rights do you suggest we curtail in order to do something about it?

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?

No. I think that's the very archetype of xenophobia.

kettlehead

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. I think that's the very archetype of xenophobia.

Wanting a homeland of your own is xenophobia? Do you believe any form of border control to be an "archtype of xenophobia?" Hell, do you even believe in any form of border controls?

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

Wanting a homeland of your own is xenophobia? Do you believe any form of border control to be an "archtype of xenophobia?" Hell, do you even believe in any form of border controls?

It might be easier to get an answer if you explained what constituted a "homeland of your own".

Earlier in the thread 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. I've asked a number of times now but you seem to have missed the question.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your source is a scanned PDF of a twenty-year-old book in Swedish referencing a time period nearly thirty years ago?

Talk about a clear and present danger. So whose rights do you suggest we curtail in order to do something about it? No. I think that's the very archetype of xenophobia.

The stats are still relevant, here are newer ones..

http://www.thelocal.dk/20151028/denmark-to-teach-foreigners-about-sexual-morals

Between 2013 and 2014, 34.5 percent of all individuals convicted of rape were immigrants or their descendants despite those groups only accounting for roughly 12 percent of Denmark’s total population

http://www.helsinki.fi/kriminologian-ja-oikeuspolitiikan-instituutti/

27.0% of rapes have been committed by foreigners in Finland. Foreigners comprise 2.2% of the population

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-radio-and-tv-19269891

Official statistics show that immigrants are responsible for about half of the criminal activity in Greece, they make up ten% of the population Greece

Page five paragraph 2
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16374/Leun%20van%20der.pdf?sequence=2

37.5 percent of all recorded suspects of a crime living in the Netherlands are of foreign origin (including those of the second generation), immigrants make up 11% of the population

The report shows that, of 131 individuals charged with the 152 rapes in which the perpetrator could be identified, 45.8% were of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin while 54.2% were of Norwegian, other European or American origin, foreigners make up around 13% of the Norwegian population

https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/oslo/Vedlegg_1309.pdf


I could go on and break it down into each individual crime catagory and ethnic composition, but you get the picture

oscarBravo

kettlehead wrote: »

Wanting a homeland of your own is xenophobia?

I have a homeland of my own. Not wanting to share it with people of other nationalities or ethnicities is xenophobia.

kettlehead

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a homeland of my own. Not wanting to share it with people of other nationalities or ethnicities is xenophobia.

Are border controls xenophobic?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

All well for you not the case for French citizens who so happen to be Islamic.

shedweller

kettlehead wrote: »

Are border controls xenophobic?

I too would like to know this.

K-9

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, even though its a 1.5 million in Germany alone).

Ive been banned for talking about ethnicity/bio diversity in relation to nationality

In your last pm you said you didn't understand why you were banned.

I replied but you never answered.

Do not discuss bans in thread, especially when you don't understand why you got banned, and don't reply when mods spend time explaining exactly why you were banned, but you ignore it.

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

Are border controls xenophobic?

Are you going to explain what constitutes a "homeland of your own"?

Earlier in the thread 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. You seem to be avoiding the question for some reason.

Lockstep

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Happy Christmas Lockstep.:) Hope you had a good few couple of days.

An excellent few days, thank you! Hope yours were good as well!

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Anyway back to the topic at hand you keep saying the public is ignorant of refugee and immigration numbers. If you look at the elections in Britain, France & the Germany incredible time and effort has been put into stating the refugee case. The far right is actually polling 3rd place or below in France behind the Conservatives and the Socialists. Pegida has very little support in Germany neither does Ukip the Tories have wiped out the liberals and the SNP have wiped out Labour. The UN, Red Cross, and the British observatory taking note of the Syrian crisis publish tonnes of data that the public are free to read so public ignorance is not a factor perhaps you may refer to the treatment of immigrants when they get to Europe as opposed to the actual numbers that are well documented and for all to see.

Well, I've already linked to polls showing an ignorance on immigration in the EU and on refugees within the UK. The polling of populist right wing parties does not detract from this. Immigration is certainly a factor in how people vote but it it is not the deciding one.

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

Not my fault the article was removed . You did however see it .

No, I didn't see the graph. It's not your fault if the article is removed but neither can you expect to be taken seriously if relying on an article that was mysteriously removed right after you linked to it.

rgossip30 wrote: »

But here is another link and a better graph from Eurostat that deals with figures not fiction or speculation . Note Sweden has the highest rate a country all open border advocates aspire .
This article also states that the siuation is different from the past.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/refugee-crisis-what-europe-can-learn-past

Oh yes, the unemployment of non-EU nationals is a worry but they're not a drain on the member states, given they're less reliant on social welfare sources across the EU. See here

To this aim, the remaining columns of Table2report the probability of receiving unemployment benefits conditional on unemployment status and on socio-demographic characteristics (see Bruckeret al.,2002).13After controlling for these characteristics, there is no longer evidence that immigrants take-up benefits more than natives; if anything, immigrants (particularly those from non-EU origins) exhibit lower rates of unemployment benefit recipiency. This evidence is inline with Barrett and Maıtre(forthcoming), who find that after conditioning for unemployment status, immigrants are less likely than natives to receive unemployment benefits

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

Are border controls xenophobic?

Of course not. We need to keep out security threats and have the right to deny access to economic migrants (Kosovars, Albanians etc) This doesn't mean we should deny asylum to those legitimately fleeing persecution (Syrians, Iraqis, Eritreans, Afghanis).

The security benefits of border controls are a lot less clear-cut than seems to be assumed here though. Terrorist attacks can easily be conducted by domestic citizens (the Paris attacks) or those on legitimate visas (the 9/11 attacks). The Cato Institute (hardly a bastion of bleeding heart liberalism), estimates that if the US eliminated travel visas, it would generate additional revenue of $90-123 billion

fly_agaric

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?

Wasn't trying to show you anything. I was just amazed by what you wrote. The fact that you (supposedly) believe that there's no difference whatsoever between deaths from terrorism and deaths from car accidents and house fires, and treating them differently is illogical. because statistics! means that we have no common points of reference.

Nodin

fly_agaric wrote: »

Wasn't trying to show you anything. I was just amazed by what you wrote. The fact that you (supposedly) believe that there's no difference whatsoever between deaths from terrorism and deaths from car accidents and house fires, and treating them differently is illogical. because statistics! means that we have no common points of reference.

The point is that the risk does not match the fear and hyperbole generated, I'd imagine.

KingBrian2

Lockstep wrote: »

Of course not. We need to keep out security threats and have the right to deny access to economic migrants (Kosovars, Albanians etc) This doesn't mean we should deny asylum to those legitimately fleeing persecution (Syrians, Iraqis, Eritreans, Afghanis).

The security benefits of border controls are a lot less clear-cut than seems to be assumed here though. Terrorist attacks can easily be conducted by domestic citizens (the Paris attacks) or those on legitimate visas (the 9/11 attacks). The Cato Institute (hardly a bastion of bleeding heart liberalism), estimates that if the US eliminated travel visas, it would generate additional revenue of $90-123 billion

Finally you admit that not only Syrians are fleeing but Iraqis and Afghanis.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

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.

I couldn't answer that because it sounds very vague and undefined to me.

What exact is biologically homogeneous?
What is culturally homogeneous?

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a homeland of my own. Not wanting to share it with people of other nationalities or ethnicities is xenophobia.

Genuine Immigrants and refugees but bogus asylum seekers,welfare shoppers, criminals and rapists is another matter .

The New Immigration bill was passed into law with only 1 objecter out of 20 .

http://www.thejournal.ie/council-of-state-president-michael-d-higgins-2524581-Dec2015/

rgossip30

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.

Baffling how a debate goes around in circles .Whatever this is a trend that will continue for years as a precident has been estlabished.

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

No, I didn't see the graph. It's not your fault if the article is removed but neither can you expect to be taken seriously if relying on an article that was mysteriously removed right after you linked to it.


Oh yes, the unemployment of non-EU nationals is a worry but they're not a drain on the member states, given they're less reliant on social welfare sources across the EU. See here

The article is rather outdated and vague . The logical reason unemployed non eu would not obtain benefits is they have become undocumented and living illegally or working for cash . Can you explain how equations are more accurate than statistics ?

I am not trying to take over the thread I cannot multiquote

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

The article is rather outdated and vague . The logical reason unemployed non eu would not obtain benefits is they have become undocumented and living illegally or working for cash . Can you explain how equations are more accurate than statistics ?

I am not trying to take over the thread I cannot multiquote

Vague? It's an Institute for the Study of Labour research paper from 2011 which shows non-EU nationals are less reliant on social welfare, even with higher unemployment rates . Don't dismiss it as vague or outdated because it doesn't fit in with your preconceptions.
Likewise "This evidence rebuts the widespread belief that immigrants are generally more likely to live on welfare [...]To the extent that higher rates of receipt are present,they appear to be restricted to unemployment supports but even in this case, this applies in a restricted number of countries. "
If you've any data to dismiss these, please provide it.

Lockstep

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Finally you admit that not only Syrians are fleeing but Iraqis and Afghanis.

Here
Here
here
here

kettlehead

Lockstep wrote: »

The Cato Institute (hardly a bastion of bleeding heart liberalism), estimates that if the US eliminated travel visas, it would generate additional revenue of $90-123 billion

Immigration into America is a mess. A Polish lad needs to queue up and go for an interview just to get a tourist visa. I think the way they work it is if X amount overstay,then all that nationality become visa required nationals.

The American visa process is already extremely harsh when compared to getting a Blue Card for the EU - we don't accept Blue Card holders btw. Which I think silly, but there we go. The American H1b ties you to a particular employer - I broke that myself. The worse thing that could happen was that I was sent home to Ireland/Europe. I didn't give a damn. Now, highly skilled lads from developing countries who have paid everything to try and make the move work.

A lot of employers do take advantage.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

I couldn't answer that because it sounds very vague and undefined to me.

What exact is biologically homogeneous?
What is culturally homogeneous?

Take any individual mammal population and the various adjunct sub species, I'll use tigers so as not to stray into accusations of "racism"(not that I'd agree with the popular race classification, it's too crude) by using humans.
Within the Tiger species there are various sub species which are biologically homogenous. I dont really want to go into the entire taxonomy of each species, and I'll try to keep my answer succinct.
Here are the subspecies of Tiger(with the three extinct(through human destructiveness) ones at the end).


No biologist/taxonomist would suggest destroying or hybridizing those unique populations, (that arose on account of geographic isolation and continuing evolution), so we(nominally) have preservation programs in place to preserve each population in biologically homogeneous populations, whilst alos trying to avoid population bottleneck etc etc. If you destroy the genetic make up of those individual groups, you'll end up with one species of tiger. There is loads of research on this, look up Red wolves, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/effort-prevent-coywolf-hybrid-wiping-out-critically-endangered-red-wolves-working-1532930 news article for brevity
You enhance population diversity by maintaining diverse yet homogeneous sub species, this is the case in the animal kingdom, of which we are members(unless you are a creationist), that is what I mean by biologically homogeneous. That is what borders are for they define habitat range for individual populations.

Cultural homogeneity, is the same as biological homogeneity in that is goes along hand in hand with cultural diversity when looked at in a global context. Cultural homogeneity(in the case of a national/ethnic context) means there is a wide variety of indigenous cultures across the globe. The globalists/communists/Islam/EU etc, seek to break down those individual cultures in favour of *insert whatever totalitarian dogma of your choosing*.
I'll give you examples of what happens when a homogeneous culture is broken down and/or in the process of being broken down.

Tibet: The Han Chinese government is currently in the process of destroying everything that makes Tibetan life unique, and replacing the native Tibetans by settling Han Chinese all through Tibet, birth rates and demographics being what they are, good bye Tibet.
http://www.thetibetpost.com/en/outlook/reviews/2640-chinas-hidden-cultural-genocide-in-tibet-crimes-against-humanity

Fiji: Imported Indian plantation workers now make up nearly 50% of the population of Fiji, they have changed the legal/tribal framework and are breaking down the indigenous culture and land ownership concept of the native fijians, on the usual grounds "racism/discrimination/land reform". The Indian subcontinent is full of Indians, there is only one Fiji, do the Fijjians not have a right to live according to their own culture and evolve at their own rate?
This example is particularly pertinent as it relates to the breakdown of legal concepts of the individual population as they segue into the minority.
If Germany continues on its current path, demographic trends dictate they will not be in the majority in over a hundred years, why would the former minority not implement aspects of their own culture/religion into the law of their new home, eg Sharia?

Then there are the obvious examples of the South American indigenous languages and cultures all wiped out by Spanish colonialism..... Which I can go into, but its a well worn tale(and isnt recent though its ongoing, eg the indigenous populations that inhabit the Amazon being assimilated into "Brazil")..

ethnocide involves the destruction of a group's culture without actually (or necessarily) killing the bearers of that culture

https://www.culturalsurvival.org

Those examples are what the EU is doing by importing foreign cultures and religions, whilst at the same time undermining those concepts in indigenous EU populations, see this thread and others on boards for examples of that sentiment, "anyone is Irish", "no one has a right to a homeland" etc etc..
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395

"we do ourselves(have cultural and ethnic homogeneity), who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.
"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."
Peter Sutherland

The "white French called "de souche" [of stock, or indigenous] do not constitute a "group of persons" in the sense of French law, confirmed the court of appeal in Paris, in a case in which an association confronted a rapper and a sociologist.
The Alliance générale contre le racisme et pour le respect de l'identité française et chrétienne (Agrif) [General Alliance for the respect of French and Christian Identity] had filed suit against a rapper and a sociologist who have jointly published a book and a CD in 2010 both called "Nique la France" [**** France], for racial insult and incitement to hatred.
The Correctional Tribunal in Paris had acquitted the two accused on 19 March 2015, but the association appealed, an appeal that related only to the civil provisions of the judgement.
The Correctional Tribunal considered that the idea of Français de souche [indigenous French] "does not correspond to any legal, historical, biological or sociological reality," that "whiteness or the white race" is not "in anyway way a legal component of the quality of French people" and that "white French people called 'de souche' do not constitute a 'group of persons' in the sense of the law of 1881 on the freedom of the press.

If the EU imports people who have a strong cultural and ethnic bond eg Islam or any other clannish culture, whilst at the same time working to break down indigenous culture and solidarity, what is the end result? There will be one dominant culture, it wont be "multiculturalism". One only has to look to Israel where a stong clannish ethno religion has succeeded in founding a state to the detriment of the original inhabitants to see how these things go.

johnnyskeleton

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Finally you admit that not only Syrians are fleeing but Iraqis and Afghanis.

Mod note:

A friendly reminder to stay on topic and post constructively rather than point scoring.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Take any individual (.............) to see how these things go.

Pseudo scientific nonsense that confuses and conflates immigration with colonisation, using terminology to cloak its base nature.

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

Vague? It's an Institute for the Study of Labour research paper from 2011 which shows non-EU nationals are less reliant on social welfare, even with higher unemployment rates . Don't dismiss it as vague or outdated because it doesn't fit in with your preconceptions.
Likewise "This evidence rebuts the widespread belief that immigrants are generally more likely to live on welfare [...]To the extent that higher rates of receipt are present,they appear to be restricted to unemployment supports but even in this case, this applies in a restricted number of countries. "
If you've any data to dismiss these, please provide it.

The article is outdated as it does not take into account the changed circumstances that exist now with large numbers just coming to claim asylum.''They appear to be restricted to unemployment supports '' The reason being they are not entitled as illegals or are wotking for cash. I mean who is going refuse unemployment benefit if they are entitled. Thare are no figures for those who got refugee status or leave to remain that work in Ireland . I suspect this is to avoid any racial tension.The links below show very much higher rates of unemployment among Africans however.http://emn.ie/index.jsp?p=100&n=105&a=269https://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301.341/4977/-/ There is no distinction made between those non EU that come to work and those that seek asylum and can work . I want to make it clear that non EU that came to work are of benefit its not in dispute .

rgossip30

Nodin wrote: »

Pseudo scientific nonsense that confuses and conflates immigration with colonisation, using terminology to cloak its base nature.

A great way with words whatever it means ?

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

The article is outdated as it does not take into account the changed circumstances that exist now with large numbers just coming to claim asylum.''They appear to be restricted to unemployment supports '' The reason being they are not entitled as illegals or are wotking for cash. I mean who is going refuse unemployment benefit if they are entitled. Thare are no figures for those who got refugee status or leave to remain that work in Ireland . I suspect this is to avoid any racial tension.The links below show very much higher rates of unemployment among Africans however.http://emn.ie/index.jsp?p=100&n=105&a=269https://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301.341/4977/-/ There is no distinction made between those non EU that come to work and those that seek asylum and can work . I want to make it clear that non EU that came to work are of benefit its not in dispute .

No, it's not outdated: both articles are a few years old. It's not like they're from the 1980s. There are certainly large numbers arriving to the EU to claim asylum and this is exactly due to the fact that they're refugees and not economic migrants: they're coming here out of fear rather than to claim the dole.
If you can show that there are sufficient numbers of illegal migrants within the EU to skew the statistics, please show this.
Once again, I've already shown that non-EU nationals are not a major drain on the public purse, even with their higher unemployment rate in two separate articles. If you can provide any evidence to discount this, I'm all ears.

There are certainly problems with refugees accessing employment in Ireland but this is not due to laziness on the refugees part.

At European level, the [SPIRASI] study found that the potential of refugees was at present under-utilised by employers.

"Many hold academic or professional qualifications and have considerable experience. They are highly-motivated and employers who recruited refugees report being very satisfied with their work performance," it said.

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

Immigration into America is a mess. A Polish lad needs to queue up and go for an interview just to get a tourist visa. I think the way they work it is if X amount overstay,then all that nationality become visa required nationals.

The American visa process is already extremely harsh when compared to getting a Blue Card for the EU - we don't accept Blue Card holders btw. Which I think silly, but there we go. The American H1b ties you to a particular employer - I broke that myself. The worse thing that could happen was that I was sent home to Ireland/Europe. I didn't give a damn. Now, highly skilled lads from developing countries who have paid everything to try and make the move work.

A lot of employers do take advantage.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you expand on this?