Migration Megathread

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Are they correct to consider that, or if it not just natural that they'd consider their own identity more valuable regardless of whether it actuallly has an value or not.

Does any identity have value? How is it measured in your opinion? What do you mean by correct or incorrect in this context?

Do you think an English identity is more valuable than a British Identity? Or it's somehow evidence of belonging to a place.

Is an identity open to anyone less valuable than one which is not open to everyone? Is it worthwhile to identity as being a biological human or can that simply be taken for granted?

Is it based on anything more than race?

What do you mean by race?

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Does any identity have value? How is it measured in your opinion? What do you mean by correct or incorrect in this context?



Is an identity open to anyone less valuable than one which is not open to everyone? Is it worthwhile to identity as being a biological human or can that simply be taken for granted?



What do you mean by race?

I'm not sure how much value identity has to be honest. Your comment that British identity is somehow not as valuable as English identity, in that it's not a sign of integration has me confused.

If someone identifies as say a Londoner or British, it's not the same or as key as identifying as English. That's the bit I don't really get.

I wouldn't say identity is open to anyone. For example, I living in ireland can't identify as British. But if I move there pay taxes, educate my children there and see my future there, surely that's integration.

I'm not sure why not identifying as 'English' but rather British makes a difference.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

I'm not sure how much value identity has to be honest. Your comment that British identity is somehow not as valuable as English identity, in that it's not a sign of integration has me confused.

If someone identifies as say a Londoner or British, it's not the same or as key as identifying as English. That's the bit I don't really get.

I wouldn't say identity is open to anyone. For example, I living in ireland can't identify as British. But if I move there pay taxes, educate my children there and see my future there, surely that's integration.

I'm not sure why not identifying as 'English' but rather British makes a difference.

Why can you not identify as British while living in Ireland?

If you moved to the UK, paid your taxes there, educated your children there and see your future there are you no longer Irish? If an unforseen event like Brexit causes you to re-assess your future and you return to Ireland, are you then no longer British?

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Why can you not identify as British while living in Ireland?

If you moved to the UK, paid your taxes there, educated your children there and see your future there are you no longer Irish? If an unforseen event like Brexit causes you to re-assess your future and you return to Ireland, are you then no longer British?

I'm at a loss to understand where this is going.

The key point is moved to the UK. I think that's obvious.

I'm unsure why you're incapable of doing anything other than answering questions with questions.

You've made a distinction bwteen British values and indigenous values. You seem to feel that 'English' values are more worthy from your posting. I'm just asking why that is?

What defines English values that makes them more worthy?

It's a straightforward question.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

I'm at a loss to understand where this is going.

The key point is moved to the UK. I think that's obvious.

I'm unsure why you're incapable of doing anything other than answering questions with questions.

I'm struggling to follow your position. You mention concepts, thoughts and ideas. Then you drop them with no continuation or further reference. If you look back at your recent posts, its just a stream of consciousness with no purpose. So I must ask questions to help you organise your thoughts. I'm trying to help you.

But I get the sense you haven't really thought about these issues at all so it may take far more time than we have to get something useful.

You've made a distinction bwteen British values and indigenous values. You seem to feel that 'English' values are more worthy from your posting. I'm just asking why that is?

What defines English values that makes them more worthy?

Incorrect. I've noted British is reduced to a vague, indistinct 'values' identity which must be taught in schools like maths or geography. English is not a values based identity. It doesn't need to be taught. It is a nationality or ethnicity and this makes it more robust. National groups tend to endure while claimed "values" vary with the times.

The above is my opinion as to why there is a preference. But what is not a matter of opinion is that indigenous people in the UK prefer to identify as English instead of British, and that non-indigenous people prefer to identify as British, not English. For the indigenous people, their English identity is more valuable to them than a British identity.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

I've noted British is reduced to a vague, indistinct 'values' identity which must be taught in schools like maths or geography. English is not a values based identity. It doesn't need to be taught. It is a nationality or ethnicity and this makes it more robust. National groups tend to endure while claimed "values" vary with the times.

The above is my opinion as to why there is a preference..

Thanks for clarifying.

I was wondering what you meant by 'English' identity but you seem to be saying it's essentially race/ethnicity.

You're saying that ethnicity/nationality is more robust than an identity based on shared values.

Firstly, can I ask you what alternate values the English identity has that makes it more robust or is it simply that race enduring? Like the article suggests, is the English identity just about 'whiteness'?

If it is, does this have a use or is it just a sign of entrenchment?

Secondly, your point was that identifying as British is not a sign of integration. But if English is based on ethnicity, then surely no-one can ever integrate. Do you view it as a generational thing, like maybe it takes a couple of generations or is nationality like 'English' fixed and never something a group of people can adopt.

This is worrying, because it means that religion, skillled labour, etc don't matter at all.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Firstly, can I ask you what alternate values the English identity has that makes it more robust or is it simply that race enduring?

Ethnicity don't have values. They're more robust because values are ever shifting. Do you think the British values established by Ofsted in 2014 were equally British values in 1914, 1814, 1714, 1614 or 1514?

Like the article suggests, is the English identity just about 'whiteness'?

Clearly not. Polish people are not English. But its inescapable that the English are a European people. Equally, the Zulus are an African people. You cant simply live in South Africa for a few years and claim to be just as much a Zulu as anyone else. No one would consider it credible. And equally a Nigerian would be unable to make the same claim.

If it is, does this have a use or is it just a sign of entrenchment?

Why does identity have to have a use? Think of it this way. Does your family have to have a use?

Secondly, your point was that identifying as British is not a sign of integration. But if English is based on ethnicity, then surely no-one can ever integrate. Do you view it as a generational thing, like maybe it takes a couple of generations or is nationality like 'English' fixed and never something a group of people can adopt.

Generational. Clearly other peoples have assimilated into the English over time. Look at English nationalist Tommy Robinson! However in Robinson's case, his parents hailed from another European people, spoke English and practised Christianity. His mother later remarried an Englishman. Even with all those advantages its not a sure thing: Northern Ireland is evidence of people with great similarities still hopelessly divided. Nigerians face significant discrimination in South Africa.

Its even harder for people who hail from entirely different continents, don't speak English and practise an entirely alien religion and largely do not marry outside their own ethnic groups, let alone English people.

This is worrying, because it means that religion, skillled labour, etc don't matter at all.

They largely don't. The English are an ethnicity, not a football team. There is no particular need to recruit the best people from around the world for your nation. In fact, there is some extremely worrying implications for those in the indigenous population who cant keep up with the competition from the rest of the world. What happens to them in this new meritocratic identity? Just retired to council estates and sedated with dole payments?

That approach, as pursued by the British, creates all sort of political alienation and upheaval as we've seen with Brexit.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Why does identity have to have a use? Think of it this way. Does your family have to have a use?

Yes. I would definitly hope that my family are beneficial to society and go about their lives with a particular set of values and bring some decency to their dealings with others. I would say there are families that are sadly, of no use but I wouldn't want my children to grow up like that.

If as you suggest, that the 'English' identity, is just barrier to integration that has no real use, then who cares if it's diluted? There'll be tension surely but if anything then we should focus on the 30 odd percent who identify as British and look to increase that. Values, as you say, may shift but what's the point of working to protect a national identity if it doesn't bring anything good.

It's a long game clearly, generational as you say, but one worth playing I feel.

Additionally, if as we agree, Religion and skilled labour etc largely don't matter when it comes to integration, then what is this thread actually about?

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Yes. I would definitly hope that my family are beneficial to society and go about their lives with a particular set of values and bring some decency to their dealings with others. I would say there are families that are sadly, of no use but I wouldn't want my children to grow up like that.

And what do you propose is done with those who you judge are of no use?

If as you suggest, that the 'English' identity, is just barrier to integration that has no real use, then who cares if it's diluted? There'll be tension surely but if anything then we should focus on the 30 odd percent who identify as British and look to increase that. Values, as you say, may shift but what's the point of working to protect a national identity if it doesn't bring anything good.

It's a long game clearly, generational as you say, but one worth playing I feel.

I'll admit I admire your momentary lapse into honesty about your extremist views. We'll get further in the conversation when you're honest. You're advocating that for mass migration and multiculturalism to work in the UK, the indigenous peoples must abandon their own identity.

I wont say you're wrong, but can you explain why the indigenous people should would ever want to pursue the end of themselves? What is the advantage to Europeans? Why should European politicians support policies to bring this about? What good does it bring Europeans?

Additionally, if as we agree, Religion and skilled labour etc largely don't matter when it comes to integration, then what is this thread actually about?

Its about the obvious outcomes of mass migration into Europe. The OP focused on muslim migration, but that is just a subset of the wider issue.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

I'll admit I admire your momentary lapse into honesty about your extremist views. We'll get further in the conversation when you're honest.

Haha. Nice try.

Sand wrote: »

You're advocating that for mass migration and multiculturalism to work in the UK, the indigenous peoples must abandon their own identity.

Not at all. I really don't want you to think that. I'm Irish but have no problem with someone who considers themselves Nigerian Irish or Pakistani Irish. I'm not abandoning my identity, I'm just accepting that mine is not the only valid one in this nation. I'm accepting that in generations Irish identity will have evolved.

Sand wrote: »

I wont say you're wrong, but can you explain why the indigenous people should would ever want to pursue the end of themselves?

You can't tell me a single thing that identity is good for but abandoning it is the end of oneself? That makes no sense.

You also say that identity can and does change over generations but we must be steadfast in this one not changing? Why?

Everything you've said so far is that identity is just a 'thing', that it doesn't really matter, it's of no use. But suddenly changing or diluting it is a serious issue. Why?

Sand wrote: »

What is the advantage to Europeans? Why should European politicians support policies to bring this about? What good does it bring Europeans?

Whether or not you believe that people should move to a new country is up to you.

However, given that you say English identity is of no use in of itself and seems to just be a barrier to integration, I don't think that perserving identity should be the argument you use to keep foreigners away from your country. Pick an economic one if you want, that would at least be rational.

I find it hard take anything other than 'we like things the way they are and don't like foreigners around here' from your arguments.

Perhaps if you explained what good English identity or rather identity itself is, that would help.

I mean if you explain that tolerance is a valuable part of the Irish identity and you don't want intolerant people coming to the country. That makes sense.

Thanks

splashuum

https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1101193370259648513?s=21

18% of babies born in France are now given Islamic names.

Midlife

splashuum wrote: »

https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1101193370259648513?s=21

18% of babies born in France are now given Islamic names.

Erm, is that a guy with a joint hanging out of his mouth just stating that on twitter with no source?

Edit: He's also retweeting reports from Alex Jones about the alien base in San Fransisco where astronauts are made to take loads of drugs.

Timberrrrrrrr

splashuum wrote: »

https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1101193370259648513?s=21

18% of babies born in France are now given Islamic names.

Quite a few posters asking questions if you in this thread that you started, any chance you might revisit it and answer them?

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057956999/1/#post109449454

Das Reich

Most "british" don't even know what that term means. Asked this frequently everytime I heard someone calling themselves, some said is to refer to someone born in uk, others to someome born in Great Britain, others to someone born on British Islands. I think is used only to replace the more politically incorrect "English" so they get away with all their bad colonialism history.

James Brown

Das Reich wrote: »

Most "british" don't even know what that term means. Asked this frequently everytime I heard someone calling themselves, some said is to refer to someone born in uk, others to someome born in Great Britain, others to someone born on British Islands. I think is used only to replace the more politically incorrect "English" so they get away with all their bad colonialism history.

I go abroad a fair bit and people tend to think it's all the UK/Britain. Or they think the entire island of Ireland is one country that use to have violence but it's grand now. I've yet to meet anyone who knows the actual situation. On that note I've met some English who wouldn't pretend to know or care.

creeper1

https://youtu.be/uUI9yn8zwX0

In the above video you can see migrants just recently making a crossing from Calais to Dover on a dinghy.

I heard about these crossing at Christmas. Does the fact that they are still happening mean that British authorities are actually granting asylum to people arriving in this manner?

Also note in the video the blatant disregard the migrants have for the French coast guard.

oscarBravo

creeper1 wrote: »

Does the fact that they are still happening mean that British authorities are actually granting asylum to people arriving in this manner?

If they apply for asylum, and their application is accepted, then yes: the authorities are granting them asylum. Why?

4068ac1elhodqr

creeper1 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/uUI9yn8zwX0

In the above video you can see migrants just recently making a crossing from Calais to Dover on a dinghy.

I heard about these crossing at Christmas. Does the fact that they are still happening mean that British authorities are actually granting asylum to people arriving in this manner?

Also note in the video the blatant disregard the migrants have for the French coast guard.

These are mostly Iranians who are exploting a weak/unsecure Eastern EU border, to make the trek across many, many safe eu countries, and to their final destination of choice: pre-brexit-uk.

If they show up with no documentation, id or visa it's hard to refuse them application. Read somewhere only approx 10% of the 100 or so per month are returned to France.

Many, many more make it in via the back of HGVs, but that sort of thing won't make the media headlines compared to a few lads sailing into the Kent coast on an inflatable, causing considerable time and expense for the emergency services.

creeper1

Anybody who arrives at Dover by dingy should be automatically denied asylum.

One of the reasons that the deal with turkey has been moderately successful is because the incentive for taking risky trips to lesbos was nullified.

Those taking the trips are returned and replaced by migrants from refugee camps.

Also the Australians had to be really clear that no asylum was on offer to illegal boat arrivals. The Australians actually managed to force trump to take some of their migrants so committed were they to the principle that arrivals like they were having could never, ever deliver successful asylum claims.

oscarBravo

creeper1 wrote: »

Anybody who arrives at Dover by dingy should be automatically denied asylum.

Why not just shoot them? Seeing as we're denying them basic human rights, why be half-hearted about it?

MadYaker

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why not just shoot them? Seeing as we're denying them basic human rights, why be half-hearted about it?

Because that’s murder?

Denying asylum to economic migrants posing as refugees seems reasonable enough to me. France is not a war torn country. If they want to emigrate there are legal ways to do it.

oscarBravo

MadYaker wrote: »

Because that’s murder?

...and everyone knows it's murder, so you can't get away with it. But when you talk about denying people basic human rights based on a mode of transport, somehow that seems like a reasonable proposal, and people nod thoughtfully.

Denying asylum to economic migrants posing as refugees seems reasonable enough to me.

Me too. What seems bugsh*t stupid is deciding that someone can't possibly be a refugee because they're in a boat.

France is not a war torn country.

Who said it was?

If they want to emigrate there are legal ways to do it.

I'm pretty sure setting sail in a rubber dinghy is legal. I've done it a few times myself.

MadYaker

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and everyone knows it's murder, so you can't get away with it. But when you talk about denying people basic human rights based on a mode of transport, somehow that seems like a reasonable proposal, and people nod thoughtfully. Me too. What seems bugsh*t stupid is deciding that someone can't possibly be a refugee because they're in a boat. Who said it was? I'm pretty sure setting sail in a rubber dinghy is legal. I've done it a few times myself.

I didn’t decide they weren’t refugees because they were in a boat. Since were putting words in each other’s mouths why do you think France isn’t a safe country for refugees?


My basic point is that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. If they are deciding not to do this, and subsequently traveling further into Europe (illegally) to reach a country that will give them better opportunities then they are no longer refugees, they are economic migrants and as such should follow the many legal routes of immigration. If they refuse to do so then they are illegal immigrants and should be turned away. I don’t think this sounds unreasonable. Immigration has to be controlled. The toxic rise of right wing views in Europe as of late is partly due to uncontrolled illegal immigration (among other things). It’s threatening the very existence of the EU which is something I value very dearly.

oscarBravo

MadYaker wrote: »

I didn’t decide they weren’t refugees because they were in a boat.

I didn't say you did. I was replying to creeper1 who said that anyone in a rubber dinghy should be denied asylum.

My basic point is that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach.

Your basic point is wrong. There is no legal requirement for them to do so.

MadYaker

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say you did. I was replying to creeper1 who said that anyone in a rubber dinghy should be denied asylum. Your basic point is wrong. There is no legal requirement for them to do so.

I know, but there should be.

Because where there is no legal requirement to do so you end up with situation we’re in now. Where economic migrants can abuse the asylum system by posing as refugees. This makes people suspicious of refugees as a whole, they all get labeled as economic migrants thanks to those who are abusing the system and countries like us become less welcoming towards genuine refugees, governments in democratic nations curtail refugee programs because of pressure from voters and it turns into a massive mess like we have now with genuine refugees being left to suffer or sent back where they came from.

What are your views on how it should work?

oscarBravo

MadYaker wrote: »

I know, but there should be.

Because where there is no legal requirement to do so you end up with situation we’re in now. Where economic migrants can abuse the asylum system by posing as refugees.

Economic migrants can't pose as refugees. A refugee is someone who has been granted asylum.

You could argue that they're posing as asylum seekers, but that's just pre-judging their case, which is a denial of due process. A bit like the whole "you can't be a genuine asylum seeker if you're in a boat" nonsense.

The argument that asylum should be sought in the first country reached is a fairly predictable one, from people in countries that pretty much won't ever meet that description. It's just a way of saying that the Mediterranean countries should handle all asylum seekers - surely you can see why the Mediterranean countries might have a different perspective?

creeper1

Mediterranean countries are beginning to push back with the election of Salvini (one of the best politicians I have witnessed in my lifetime)

This farcical situation cannot continue. Those Iranians in the dingy are not genuine asylum seekers. They would have stopped in one of the European countries en route to Calais if they were.

Odhinn

creeper1 wrote: »

Mediterranean countries are beginning to push back with the election of Salvini (one of the best politicians I have witnessed in my lifetime)

This farcical situation cannot continue. Those Iranians in the dingy are not genuine asylum seekers. They would have stopped in one of the European countries en route to Calais if they were.

You're projecting your notion of what you think should be the situation on the actual reality. The fact is that there is no obligation to stop in the 'first safe country' so they've no onus on them to do so.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Don't dump random tweets and one-liners here please. Post deleted.

TomSweeney

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Don't dump random tweets and one-liners here please. Post deleted.

Why not ?

It was a genuine question .... wow you really are a little fascist aren't you ?