Migration Megathread

Sand

Matt Barrett wrote: »

European economies need workers and immigrant labour often fills that short fall.

Countries are never founded to be economies. Your James Connolly did not lose his life to ensure Ireland was the best little economy in the world for corporations to do business.

People need a greater sense of themselves than as workers and consumers. As it stands, the evidence shows that non-European immigration is an economic cost, not a benefit. There is no shortage of workers in Europe, as demonstrated by unemployment rates. Even in its own context, your argument falls flat.

4068ac1elhodqr

Matt Barrett wrote: »

European economies need workers and immigrant labour often fills that short fall. There's a clash of cultures to an extent but any violence stems from ignorance and those fueling it and feeding off it.

European 'countries' need 'highly skilled' and 'highly educated' workers and they have a pool of 1/2bn, already to choose from. If they do need extra, skilled visas are readily available for anyone from India, Japan, US, China etc, that meets the criteria (education, experience, health, fluency, police & character checks, and so on).

Some temporary (seasonal agricultural) visas are still available for the unskilled, but these are temporary and minor.

In the US, a new favourite for POTUS'20 is actually running his campaign for the (automation-replacement) preperation of millions of low-skilled and poorly educated, loosing their jobs, by the offering of a UBI program as a remedy to this very real problem.

Blueshoe

Ultros wrote: »

Speaking specifically about recent large scale Muslim immigration, take your pick

Denmark

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html

"Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.

Denmark’s government is introducing a new set of laws to regulate life in 25 low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves, saying that if families there do not willingly merge into the country’s mainstream, they should be compelled."

Germany

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-is-a-sham/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.999cd1184700

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's refugee policy has attracted praise from all over the world. Time magazine and the Financial Times newspaper recently named her Person of the Year, and delegates applauded her for so long at her party's convention on Monday that she had to stop them.
The speech that followed, however, may have surprised supporters of her policies: "Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, she said, before adding that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees. "The challenge is immense," she said. "We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably."


Although those remarks may seem uncharacteristic of Merkel, she probably would insist that she was not contradicting herself. In fact, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced several years ago when she said multiculturalism in Germany had "utterly failed."

England

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

"Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/09/grooming-gangs-muslim-men-failed-integrate-british-society/

The failure of certain parts of the Asian community to integrate into British society has led to gangs of British Pakistani Muslim men​ targeting white women with drink and drugs before raping and sexually abusing them, an anti-extremism think tank claims.
The report by Quilliam calls for greater support to help integrate British Pakistani people into modern British society.

It says that the gangs of mainly British-Pakistani men "have been influenced by the cultural conditions of their home country and a wider failure of British society to integrate these men into their adoptive culture".

France

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/struggling-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-france-wants-to-reform-islam/2018/04/16/b81a20c6-1d67-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.c18976e68d32


Struggling to prevent terrorist attacks, France wants to ‘reform’ Islam

Speaking alongside the flag-draped coffin of a police officer killed in a terrorist attack in southern France, President Emmanuel Macron last month laid blame on “underground Islam­ism” and those who “indoctrinate on our soil and corrupt daily.”
The attack added further urgency to a project already in the works: Macron has embarked on a controversial quest to restructure Islam in France — with the goal of integration but also the prevention of radicalization.

Sweden

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/swedish-music-festival-go-women-only-following-string-sexual/


Sweden's biggest music festival will be replaced next year by a women-only alternative after reports of a series of rapes and sexual assaults at this year's event.

Bråvalla Festival, which this year was headlined by The Killers, The Chainsmokers and Skepta, has been blighted by news of sexual crime since its inception in 2013, while last weekend saw four rapes and 23 sexual assaults reported over the course of the four-day event. In 2016, five rapes and 12 sexual assaults were reported from the event, with that year's headliners Mumford & Sons and Zara Larsson later condemning the event and refusing to return.

And so on...

Do we want that here? More importantly do we even have a choice?

RandomName2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's a clash of cultures to an extent but any violence stems from ignorance and those fueling it and feeding off it.

I mean, hasn't this always been the case?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the colonization of Australia, New Zealand, and even much of the Americas was peaceful in nature (that's not saying that it was in any way morally sound, just saying that it predominantly didn't involve violence from European settlers directed against the indigenous population). I suppose one could argue that deliberately spreading smallpox is a form of violence?

Getting into more relevant, and topical discussion though: I am honestly a little bit skeptical about labor shortfalls, at least in anything other than a seasonal phenomenon. Okay, there's a significant fertility drop across western Europe, but automation has eliminated most unskilled work, and threatens most of the min-wage jobs that remain.

For instance, the only labor industry that really remains in any shape in Ireland is the construction industry I think. Farming and manufacturing employs relatively few in this country.

Timberrrrrrrr

RandomName2 wrote: »

I mean, hasn't this always been the case?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the colonization of Austria, New Zealand, and even much of the Americas was peaceful in nature (that's not saying that it was in any way morally sound, just saying that it predominantly didn't involve violence from European settlers directed against the indigenous population).

I am honestly a little bit skeptical about labor shortfalls, at least in anything other than a seasonal phenomenon. Okay, there's a significant fertility drop across western Europe, but automation has eliminated most unskilled work, and threatens most of the min-wage jobs that remain.

For instance, the only labor industry that really remains in any shape in Ireland is the construction industry I think. Farming and manufacturing employs relatively few in this country.

You are joking right?

Blueshoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You are joking right?

History books must have all been checked out at the library

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

No, I didn't. I was attempting a parody of the outrage displayed in this thread, and others, when a crime is committed by a Muslim in a European country. I have no problem with immigration most of the time, ye see?

I'm sorry it was too high brow and you missed it.

So what was your point about Maori's then, a famously tribal warrior culture?

Odhinn

RandomName2 wrote: »

I mean, hasn't this always been the case?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the colonization of Austria, New Zealand, and even much of the Americas was peaceful in nature (that's not saying that it was in any way morally sound, just saying that it predominantly didn't involve violence from European settlers directed against the indigenous population).

Australia was hardly so

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/04/the-killing-times-the-massacres-of-aboriginal-people-australia-must-confront


Neither what is now the USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_Native_Americans

RandomName2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You are joking right?

Duh, I have to spell it out? Obviously all the settlers in Australia and Canada went to those two countries specifically to kill indigenous peoples, and that's how they now outnumber Aborigine and Inuit people, rather than the majority going to these countries predominantly because they were either forced to, or simply to build a better life. Nor is it the case that their outnumbering of indigenous people was predominantly due to the volume of immigrants, rather it was because of genocide. I also forgot that the entire series of conflicts between indigenous people of Australia over a hundred and fifty year period, resulted in millions of deaths, and not in an estimated 20,000, because the latter amount would only be about the same as a single large battle in contemporaneous figures.

So you are right. That was a joke. The settlers going to those countries were predominantly violent, and the interaction between settlers and indigenous people was predominantly violent in nature.

Sand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You are joking right?

Do you think the European colonisation of America involved an amphibious invasion like D-Day?

It began with the arrival of small, peaceful groups of refugees from European wars and religious oppression. They signed treaties with the indigenous people and lived with and amongst them.

Fast forward 400 years...

For all your willingness to decry the evils of colonialism you seem to be completely unaware of its roots.

markodaly

Mass movements of people from one area to another is always destabilising. History shows this to be true over and over again.
This is not a controversial statement.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

Do you think the European colonisation of America involved an amphibious invasion like D-Day?

It began with the arrival of small, peaceful groups of refugees from European wars and religious oppression. .................

The conquistadors hardly constitute "small, peaceful groups" by any imaginable standard.

RandomName2

Odhinn wrote: »

The conquistadors hardly constitute "small, peaceful groups" by any imaginable standard.

They were certainly small in number. Their actions resulted in military defeat (and political collapse) of the indigenous governments they attacked in the Americas, but obviously were themselves not very important in terms of immigration numbers (putting it mildly).

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

The conquistadors hardly constitute "small, peaceful groups" by any imaginable standard.

They hardly constitute European colonisation of America either. The infamous Cortes died an old man in Spain. Cortes' "invasion" was in itself an alliance with locals who objected to being human sacrifices, and he married a local woman and had children with her. A model immigrant and human rights activist one might argue.

Irish Praetorian

Odhinn wrote: »

The conquistadors hardly constitute "small, peaceful groups" by any imaginable standard.

My post got lost in the boards system but my TLDR is Pizarro had a few hunred men at his command whilst the Inca had as many as a hundred thousand; Cortez wasn't quite so badly outnumbered by his conquest was dependent on more than the two to three thousand Spaniards had brought, and he relied on local allies, most famously the Tlaxcala (with whom the Aztecs had a deep rivalry).

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

They hardly constitute European colonisation of America either. The infamous Cortes died an old man in Spain.

They certainly mark the start of the colonisation of the Americas as is well documented.


"It is estimated that during the colonial period (1492–1832), a total of 1.86 million Spaniards settled in the Americas and a further 3.5 million immigrated during the post-colonial era (1850–1950); the estimate is 250,000 in the 16th century, and most during the 18th century as immigration was encouraged by the new Bourbon Dynasty. In contrast, the indigenous population plummeted by an estimated 80% in the first century and a half following Columbus's voyages, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases"




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

RandomName2

Odhinn wrote: »

They certainly mark the start of the colonisation of the Americas as is well documented.


"It is estimated that during the colonial period (1492–1832), a total of 1.86 million Spaniards settled in the Americas and a further 3.5 million immigrated during the post-colonial era (1850–1950); the estimate is 250,000 in the 16th century, and most during the 18th century as immigration was encouraged by the new Bourbon Dynasty. In contrast, the indigenous population plummeted by an estimated 80% in the first century and a half following Columbus's voyages, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases"




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

We are going around in circles. The conquistadors were violent, but the settlers weren't. Right.

The depopulation of the indigenous populations of the Americas was predominantly, initially, due to Old World diseases, from which they never really recovered. The theft of land by foreign empires pretty much sealed the deal subsequently.

The proposition was that the settlement of the New World was predominantly violent in nature, and that is really a difficult position to defend. Was it morally reprehensible? Although there is a large degree of attributing current thought to a historic context, I do think there is strong grounds to say that it was, but that's a different discussion.

Odhinn

RandomName2 wrote: »

We are going around in circles. The conquistadors were violent, but the settlers weren't. Right.

The depopulation of the indigenous populations of the Americas was predominantly, initially, due to Old World diseases, from which they never really recovered. The theft of land by foreign empires pretty much sealed the deal subsequently.

The proposition was that the settlement of the New World was predominantly violent in nature, and that is really a difficult position to defend. Was it morally reprehensible? Although there is a large degree of attributing current thought to a historic context, I do think there is strong grounds to say that it was, but that's a different discussion.

I fail to see how it's in anyway arguable that it was anything other than violent.

RandomName2

Odhinn wrote: »

I fail to see how it's in anyway arguable that it was anything other than violent.

At this point I am going to put it to you to show that a majority of the millions of immigrants from the Spanish Empire perpetrated violence against the indigenous population of the Americas. Is it mean of me to give you a task that is impossible to achieve? No, it is your argument, after all.

That is even leaving aside that many of the immigrants into the Americas were actually slaves. Were they, too, violent? Countries like Haiti represent virtually an entire replacement of native Amerindians with a slave population. Was this the result of violent actions by immigrants upon natives?

Note that this is irrespective of moral considerations: questions of whether or not the Spanish were doing the 'right thing'. The question is whether the immigrants into the Americas (or Canada or Australia) were predominantly violent.

Ultros

I enjoy how Odhinn completely ignored my post and is now talking about events hundreds if not thousands years ago.

When the evidence is that irrefutable I don't blame him.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Yes I have. There is no example of mass migration benefiting indigenous people. It has always led to terrible outcomes for indigenous people.

I note your inclusion of the word 'mass' there. I didn't say 'mass'. Not the first time you'vedone that either. By you repeatedly including the word 'mass' I can safely assume you've come to the conclusion that you can only argue against migration on some massive scale you have a definition for and not migration in general. Very defensive posting to be honest.

Sand wrote: »

And you, like everyone else, can notice that I observe this but you're not able to present any evidence to contradict it. Because we all know mass migration *is* terrible for indigenous populations.

There's that word mass again. Un-oh. I think maybe you know you've a problem.

Sand wrote: »

That's entirely incorrect. English identity was only brought up when it was noted that the English are a minority within their own capital city. Another poster was offended, claiming everyone born in the UK was English so by default London was still and would continue to be majority English. I presented evidence that even the non-indigenous British population did not believe they were English, identifying as British but not English. Another poster claimed that non-indigenous people identifying as British meant they had integrated with the indigenous people. I pointed out that the indigenous identified as English, not British, so the different identities are not evidence of integration.

Great story. So you did say that the fact that indeginious people inentified two thirds as English was a sign that integration hadn't happened - that's whre i came in BTW.

Sand wrote: »

You've been demanding that English identity be justified in absolute or monetary terms. You identified it as a barrier for integration. And you called for a long game to be played to encourage the English to abandon their identity.

Really, did I? Can you maybe quote the paragraphs where I said this?

I'll happily own them then but again I think you're not being honest. Strawmen abounding tbh.

I'm sure you'll find some way to answer with a question or something else I 'said' though.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Countries are never founded to be economies. Your James Connolly did not lose his life to ensure Ireland was the best little economy in the world for corporations to do business.

People need a greater sense of themselves than as workers and consumers. As it stands, the evidence shows that non-European immigration is an economic cost, not a benefit. There is no shortage of workers in Europe, as demonstrated by unemployment rates. Even in its own context, your argument falls flat.

Cite evidence please.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

So what was your point about Maori's then, a famously tribal warrior culture?

There wasn't one, aside from the aforementioned parody. I thought that was fairly bloody obvious.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

I fail to see how it's in anyway arguable that it was anything other than violent.

Would you see Irish migration to the America's as violent as well?
Because that is essentially what you are saying as well.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

There wasn't one, aside from the aforementioned parody. I thought that was fairly bloody obvious.

Parody?

The point is lost on you.

Dare I say it that man who killed all those people yesterday, would have much in common with 19th-century Maori tribal warrior culture.

You tried to paint the Maori's as some nirvana peace loving utopian non-violent society, yet that is far from the truth, and when this was pointed out to you, you ignored it.

'Their (Europeans) culture is not compatible to Maori culture'.

Your words, not mine.

TDLR
You made some quick qip in an effort at 'parody', but not only was it factually wrong, it wasn't even funny.

markodaly

Ultros wrote: »

I enjoy how Odhinn completely ignored my post and is now talking about events hundreds if not thousands years ago.

When the evidence is that irrefutable I don't blame him.

If we are going to talk about the Spanish arriving in the America's can we talk about the Normans arriving in Ireland. After all, they arrived in Ireland 300 years before the Spanish arrived in the America's, which was at this stage 500 years ago.
Can we talk about the Vikings as well?

Perhaps we should expel every Fitzgerald and raise Dublin from the ground..?

OK, I kid but how far back should go before we draw a line under the sand?

Ultros

markodaly wrote: »

OK, I kid but how far back should go before we draw a line under the sand?

This is a neutral comment. I see those who suddenly push the topic or engage in discussions about past conflicts as a deflection tactic and nothing more. When the facts get brought up ( Islam in this case ) they know they can't debate them.

We should all deal in the now, we can't change what happened in the past.

Irish Praetorian

markodaly wrote: »

Would you see Irish migration to the America's as violent as well?
Because that is essentially what you are saying as well.

Well one might make the argument that it was underlined by violence - I mean no so much the arrival on the East Coast which had long since been 'settled', but its difficult to see the settlement of the Plains States as something other than a campaign of displacement and reservations. Granted this might be less so the acts of settlers themselves and more the military forces that preceded them, but on the American frontier the lines frequently blurred.


Purely academic in any case; I don't think its arrogant to suggest that the kind of migration we've been looking at in the 20th and 21st Centuries is actually a fairly novel phenomenon.

oscarBravo

markodaly wrote: »

...that man who killed all those people yesterday, would have much in common with 19th-century Maori tribal warrior culture.

I suspect he has rather more in common with people who obsess over "mass" migrations of Muslims on Internet forums and social media.

Ultros

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suspect he has rather more in common with people who obsess over "mass" migrations of Muslims on Internet forums and social media.

Do you refute the fact that Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany, has said on the record that multiculturalism has "Utterly failed" in Germany. That it's a "life lie". That it creates "parallel societies."


To add to my previous post, not only will they shift, they'll ignore questions like this. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.