Migration Megathread

4068ac1elhodqr

MrFresh wrote: »

No, I think the integration laws we were discussing should not be imposed.

Fair enough, you would however be in a clear significant minority,of the people in Denmark, where efforts to integrate communities is widely supported. So your own view would be largely meaningless and irrelevant anyway.

As would someone who opposes or defies the law of the land e.g. concerning the wearing of seatbelts in cars, for whatever reason.

MrFresh

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Fair enough, you would however be in a clear significant minority,of the people in Denmark, where efforts to integrate communities is widely supported. So your own view would be largely meaningless and irrelevant anyway.

As would someone who opposes or defies the law of the land e.g. concerning the wearing of seatbelts in cars, for whatever reason.

You're really determined to twist my view into some strawman. I have no objection to efforts to integrate immigrants. I have an issue with mandatory social integration classes for young children of poor people.

splashuum

Islamic migration to Europe has indeed brought an abundance of variety. Some of these include Islamic terror attacks, a child grooming gang epidemic and increased welfare lists. Are people denying reality?

MrFresh

splashuum wrote: »

Islamic migration to Europe has indeed brought an abundance of variety. Some of these include Islamic terror attacks, a child grooming gang epidemic and increased welfare lists. Are people denying reality?

No.

oscarBravo

splashuum wrote: »

Islamic migration to Europe has indeed brought an abundance of variety. Some of these include Islamic terror attacks, a child grooming gang epidemic and increased welfare lists. Are people denying reality?

Have you ever actually met a Muslim?

RandomName2

MrFresh wrote: »

No, too authoritarian for my liking. Something about forcing children to spend 30 hours a week learning how to be "good citizens" doesn't sit right.

I understand the concern, I really do, but if the curriculum is objective then in theory it shouldn't be a problem.

In Ireland we teach history, CSCP, and Geography (which includes sociological issues) as mandatory subjects up to Junior Cert (with the exception of history since the recent interference of the Labor party). These subjects can be really bad if done wrong, and just be hubs of propaganda. I see no reason to think that that is currently the case with our subjects, so a subject that teaches societal norms could, in theory, be fine too.

The handshake thing is a different (but pertinent) matter. If someone doesn't believe that a member of the opposite sex deserves the respect to have their hand shook, then they really aren't a good candidate for citizenship. To put it another way, their personal religious views are more important to them than the social morés of the society they are attempting to become a citizen of.

Sand

While it is true that mandatory social integration classes are both problematic and likely ineffective what else can countries like Denmark do? They made a grave error by permitting and encouraging mass migration into their countries. Now they have to confront the consequences of that mistake somehow. Ending further mass migration would be a good start, but only a start.

Denmark (and Europe) is going to have to deal with enduring foreign enclaves for at least several centuries. At this point Muslims represent only 5% of the population in Denmark. By 2050 they could be 16% of the population. If the Danes are struggling to address the strife now, its going to be much worse by 2050. Someone asked earlier if 'Danish values' (as meaningless as 'British values') would change after every election. They could, but they will certainly be different by 2050 if Denmark is increasingly an Islamic state. Increasingly, it may be Danish children who will be compelled to integrate.

As it is, the current targets of these mandatory social integration classes will likely resent the ham fisted effort. An hour a week with some social worker vs. every other hour that week spent in their own community is no contest. Europeans would have been best served by their politicians avoiding these predictable problems entirely, but even now European politicians are reluctant to end mass migration and myths about it being positive circulate unchallenged.

Eric Cartman

Sand wrote: »

While it is true that mandatory social integration classes are both problematic and likely ineffective what else can countries like Denmark do? They made a grave error by permitting and encouraging mass migration into their countries. Now they have to confront the consequences of that mistake somehow. Ending further mass migration would be a good start, but only a start.

Denmark (and Europe) is going to have to deal with enduring foreign enclaves for at least several centuries. At this point Muslims represent only 5% of the population in Denmark. By 2050 they could be 16% of the population. If the Danes are struggling to address the strife now, its going to be much worse by 2050. Someone asked earlier if 'Danish values' (as meaningless as 'British values') would change after every election. They could, but they will certainly be different by 2050 if Denmark is increasingly an Islamic state. Increasingly, it may be Danish children who will be compelled to integrate.

As it is, the current targets of these mandatory social integration classes will likely resent the ham fisted effort. An hour a week with some social worker vs. every other hour that week spent in their own community is no contest. Europeans would have been best served by their politicians avoiding these predictable problems entirely, but even now European politicians are reluctant to end mass migration and myths about it being positive circulate unchallenged.

Ban immigrants acting as imams, preachers etc.. as a condition of their migration. Ban faith based schools, Stricter screening of mosques etc...

The problem here is religious extremism, nothing to do with the colour of these people or what nation they came from. Its a toxic belief system that is present in their home countries but seems to be concentrated in their adoptive states.

The only reason 'integration' classes or services are needed is because of the desire of muslims to keep themselves as an insular community in their adoptive countries.

Ban the preachers, raid the pop up mosques in houses, make sure to space out the community. You cant end up with situations like tower hamlets where a group of nutters are declaring 'sharia zones' and getting asbo's on a butchers for selling pork. You can't deny somebody their faith but as the most at risk group for radicalisation , the legitimate mosques need to be monitored and promoted to keep people away from back room charlatans preaching hate.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ban immigrants acting as imams, preachers etc.. as a condition of their migration. Ban faith based schools, Stricter screening of mosques etc...

The problem here is religious extremism, nothing to do with the colour of these people or what nation they came from. Its a toxic belief system that is present in their home countries but seems to be concentrated in their adoptive states.

The only reason 'integration' classes or services are needed is because of the desire of muslims to keep themselves as an insular community in their adoptive countries.

Ban the preachers, raid the pop up mosques in houses, make sure to space out the community. You cant end up with situations like tower hamlets where a group of nutters are declaring 'sharia zones' and getting asbo's on a butchers for selling pork. You can't deny somebody their faith but as the most at risk group for radicalisation , the legitimate mosques need to be monitored and promoted to keep people away from back room charlatans preaching hate.

As much as I hate religions, that’s frighteningly authoritarian.

Odhinn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ban immigrants acting as imams, preachers etc.. as a condition of their migration. Ban faith based schools, Stricter screening of mosques etc...

It's a bit of an ask, telling people to integrate yet setting them a number of hoops to jump through that apply only to their community.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The problem here is religious extremism, nothing to do with the colour of these people or what nation they came from. Its a toxic belief system that is present in their home countries but seems to be concentrated in their adoptive states.

Generally, its not all that present outside Saudi Arabia - it being an off shoot of wahabbism.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The only reason 'integration' classes or services are needed is because of the desire of muslims to keep themselves as an insular community in their adoptive countries.

Again, there's a lot of presumption in that statement. There's a large contingent of wine drinking "secular" muslims in France for instance.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ban the preachers,

Extremists, presumably

Eric Cartman wrote: »

raid the pop up mosques in houses,

...again, I presume this is where extremist preachers are involved?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

make sure to space out the community.

...given the tendency for immigrants from any given culture/community to congregate for some period or other in certain areas you'll need luck with that one. Or you can single out muslims, which again sends the message that they're singled out.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You cant end up with situations like tower hamlets where a group of nutters are declaring 'sharia zones' and getting asbo's on a butchers for selling pork. ..........

Unfortunately it takes just two idiots making comments to lead to such a situation. I'm often of the opinion that paying them attention is more harmful than ignoring them.



A source on the ASBO'd butcher if you would.

Eric Cartman

Odhinn wrote: »

It's a bit of an ask, telling people to integrate yet setting them a number of hoops to jump through that apply only to their community.




Generally, its not all that present outside Saudi Arabia - it being an off shoot of wahabbism.




Again, there's a lot of presumption in that statement. There's a large contingent of wine drinking "secular" muslims in France for instance.




Extremists, presumably




...again, I presume this is where extremist preachers are involved?




...given the tendency for immigrants from any given culture/community to congregate for some period or other in certain areas you'll need luck with that one. Or you can single out muslims, which again sends the message that they're singled out.






Unfortunately it takes just two idiots making comments to lead to such a situation. I'm often of the opinion that paying them attention is more harmful than ignoring them.



A source on the ASBO'd butcher if you would.

cant find that, but equally ridiculous :

https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2005/03/24/Licensee-gets-ASBO-for-porking-sign

Odhinn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

cant find that, but equally ridiculous :

https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2005/03/24/Licensee-gets-ASBO-for-porking-sign

.....you might want to re-read that before judging it "ridiculous". The explanation offered by the pub owner is far from believable.

Eric Cartman

Odhinn wrote: »

.....you might want to re-read that before judging it "ridiculous". The explanation offered by the pub owner is far from believable.

but what happened was a pub owner got an asbo for a sign that said pork on it and muslims didn't like it. Doesnt matter excuses or what would cause offence or whatever....

Thats insane, it would be insane in a muslim country, but in western europe thats just insanity, it screams of a government putting islam on a pedestal in an effort not to offend.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but what happened was a pub owner got an asbo for a sign that said pork on it and muslims didn't like it. Doesnt matter excuses or what would cause offence or whatever....

Thats insane, it would be insane in a muslim country, but in western europe thats just insanity, it screams of a government putting islam on a pedestal in an effort not to offend.

Would you be ok with a pub that had a church next door putting up a pentogram or an upside down cross?

What about a pub next to a synagogue having Arbeit macht frei at the entrance to the carpark?

Odhinn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but what happened was a pub owner got an asbo for a sign that said pork on it and muslims didn't like it. Doesnt matter excuses or what would cause offence or whatever....

You seem to be determined not to mention the specific details of the case.
A pub owner - whose premises are next door to a Somali mosque - put up a sign saying "Porking Yard". His "reason" (or better, his half arsed excuse) is that the area used contain a lot of butchers. It wouldn't be acceptable if it was a synagogue, as its clearly out to get a dig in at his neighbours.

Eric Cartman

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you be ok with a pub that had a church next door putting up a pentogram or an upside down cross?

What about a pub next to a synagogue having Arbeit macht frei at the entrance to the carpark?

on the church thing - yeah , I would, but that said thats clearly an anti religious effigy , the word pork isn't

that is the worst comparison ever, like thats just lazy, the word pork being displayed near a mosque is in no way related to that at all.

Eric Cartman

Odhinn wrote: »

You seem to be determined not to mention the specific details of the case.
A pub owner - whose premises are next door to a Somali mosque - put up a sign saying "Porking Yard". His "reason" (or better, his half arsed excuse) is that the area used contain a lot of butchers. It wouldn't be acceptable if it was a synagogue, as its clearly out to get a dig in at his neighbours.

how far away from a mosque should I have to be to display the word pork ?

Odhinn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

how far away from a mosque should I have to be to display the word pork ?

I've no idea. I'd imagine if you actually had a believable reason for its display there wouldn't be a problem regardless of the distance.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

on the church thing - yeah , I would, but that said thats clearly an anti religious effigy , the word pork isn't

that is the worst comparison ever, like thats just lazy, the word pork being displayed near a mosque is in no way related to that at all.

But words are words right? If we can put any words anywhere then you wouldnt have an issue, according to your mindset words cannot be offensive.

MrFresh

Sand wrote: »

While it is true that mandatory social integration classes are both problematic and likely ineffective what else can countries like Denmark do? They made a grave error by permitting and encouraging mass migration into their countries. Now they have to confront the consequences of that mistake somehow. Ending further mass migration would be a good start, but only a start.

Denmark (and Europe) is going to have to deal with enduring foreign enclaves for at least several centuries. At this point Muslims represent only 5% of the population in Denmark. By 2050 they could be 16% of the population. If the Danes are struggling to address the strife now, its going to be much worse by 2050. Someone asked earlier if 'Danish values' (as meaningless as 'British values') would change after every election. They could, but they will certainly be different by 2050 if Denmark is increasingly an Islamic state. Increasingly, it may be Danish children who will be compelled to integrate.

As it is, the current targets of these mandatory social integration classes will likely resent the ham fisted effort. An hour a week with some social worker vs. every other hour that week spent in their own community is no contest. Europeans would have been best served by their politicians avoiding these predictable problems entirely, but even now European politicians are reluctant to end mass migration and myths about it being positive circulate unchallenged.

An hour a week with a social worker? The proposal was for 25-30 hours a week in a class from the age of 1. You ask what Denmark can do. They can go back to giving free Danish classes to immigrants instead of charging for them because since they started charging the uptake in classes has gone down, to nobody's surprise. So you might see why I have an issue with them claiming the children need these classes when they are simultaneously withdrawing funding for things that are working already.

Sand

MrFresh wrote: »

An hour a week with a social worker? The proposal was for 25-30 hours a week in a class from the age of 1. You ask what Denmark can do. They can go back to giving free Danish classes to immigrants instead of charging for them because since they started charging the uptake in classes has gone down, to nobody's surprise. So you might see why I have an issue with them claiming the children need these classes when they are simultaneously withdrawing funding for things that are working already.

Danish school kids spend 30-35 hours in class per week. Total, for all subjects. All the Danish proposal is that children from certain areas are compelled to be enrolled in daycare in a Danish language environment which runs for at least 30 hours. The Danes are in fact going one better than your demand to offer free Danish language classes, and are instead forcing parents to put their children in those Danish classes. It is an attempt, how ever effective, to ensure all children receive a Danish education.

Danish language classes continue to be free for refugees and family members who have entered Denmark in a family reunification mechanism. Immigrants are supposed to be able to support themselves. That is the myth anyway. In reality, the Danes have to pay for the immigrants too.

Your political views have inflicted this generational problem upon the Danes, those now living and those not even born yet. They are attempting to cope with these completely avoidable problems after the utopian promises of mass migration and multiculturalism have been shown to be lies. There is no magical solution, but you're not really in a position to criticise.

MrFresh

Sand wrote: »

Danish school kids spend 30-35 hours in class per week. Total, for all subjects. All the Danish proposal is that children from certain areas are compelled to be enrolled in daycare in a Danish language environment which runs for at least 30 hours. The Danes are in fact going one better than your demand to offer free Danish language classes, and are instead forcing parents to put their children in those Danish classes. It is an attempt, how ever effective, to ensure all children receive a Danish education.

How is it better? How do I integrate better when my child is learning a language I am not? Odd that you mentioned one hour a week with a social worker when you seem to know that wasn't the case.

Sand wrote: »

Danish language classes continue to be free for refugees and family members who have entered Denmark in a family reunification mechanism. Immigrants are supposed to be able to support themselves. That is the myth anyway. In reality, the Danes have to pay for the immigrants too.

You're missing the point. How is it not economically viable to provide free language classes to immigrants but it is to force their children into "daycare" for 30 hours a week.

Sand wrote: »

Your political views have inflicted this generational problem upon the Danes, those now living and those not even born yet. They are attempting to cope with these completely avoidable problems after the utopian promises of mass migration and multiculturalism have been shown to be lies. There is no magical solution, but you're not really in a position to criticise.

I'm pretty sure the powers that be in Denmark have not based their policies on my political views.

Sand

MrFresh wrote: »

How is it better? How do I integrate better when my child is learning a language I am not? Odd that you mentioned one hour a week with a social worker when you seem to know that wasn't the case.

About an hour long civics class is all it will amount too. They have to teach them other subjects as well in the total time. I'm not defending the policy as I believe it will be resented and resisted. However, you're in no position to criticise the Danes attempts to cope with the predicament your views have placed them in.

You're missing the point. How is it not economically viable to provide free language classes to immigrants but it is to force their children into "daycare" for 30 hours a week.

Immigrants are supposed to be economically self-sustaining. They immigrate into Denmark to work, or to join family who are working. To work in Denmark you either need to know Danish or you have to learn it. Immigrants who come to Denmark not knowing the language and without the means or interest in learning it are not an economic benefit to Denmark. Even where refugees are offered free Danish classes, up to 44% of those registered fail to show up.

Free or not, the reality is Denmark's problem with alienated, foreign enclaves will not be resolved by language classes or daycare. It's going to be an enduring problem that will take centuries to resolve.

I'm pretty sure the powers that be in Denmark have not based their policies on my political views.

Not anymore, but the damage is already done.

Midlife

I'd say that if you fast forward 20 or so years Sweden and Denmark will have gotten it right.

Fund and demand integration, no ghettos, sustainable numbers coming in etc.

Time will tell I guess.

There's obviously problems there stemmming from the sheer volume of people coming in but I have a feeling they'll deal with them well long term.

Midlife

MrFresh wrote: »

How is it better? How do I integrate better when my child is learning a language I am not? Odd that you mentioned one hour a week with a social worker when you seem to know that wasn't the case.

You don't really but your children do. They're the real target.

MrFresh

Sand wrote: »

About an hour long civics class is all it will amount too. They have to teach them other subjects as well in the total time. I'm not defending the policy as I believe it will be resented and resisted. However, you're in no position to criticise the Danes attempts to cope with the predicament your views have placed them in.



Immigrants are supposed to be economically self-sustaining. They immigrate into Denmark to work, or to join family who are working. To work in Denmark you either need to know Danish or you have to learn it. Immigrants who come to Denmark not knowing the language and without the means or interest in learning it are not an economic benefit to Denmark. Even where refugees are offered free Danish classes, up to 44% of those registered fail to show up.

Free or not, the reality is Denmark's problem with alienated, foreign enclaves will not be resolved by language classes or daycare. It's going to be an enduring problem that will take centuries to resolve.



Not anymore, but the damage is already done.

I think you vastly overestimate the influence I have and have had on the Danish people.

Midlife wrote: »

You don't really but your children do. They're the real target.

And targeting them in such a way is ineffectual if their parents aren't on board.

Midlife

MrFresh wrote: »

And targeting them in such a way is ineffectual if their parents aren't on board.

I'm not so sure.

Pretty much everyone I know from Ireland has parents who are far stricter in terms of their Catholicism then they are.

I mean we could talk about the most effective way to integrate but surely we can't fault the Danes for putting efforts in place. I don't know the ins and outs of it but I'd be fairly confidant these classes are not the sum-total of their efforts.

I'd imagine avoiding religioous based school and promoting secularism in everyday life is a pretty sensible approach.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Immigrants are supposed to be economically self-sustaining. They immigrate into Denmark to work, or to join family who are working. To work in Denmark you either need to know Danish or you have to learn it. Immigrants who come to Denmark not knowing the language and without the means or interest in learning it are not an economic benefit to Denmark. Even where refugees are offered free Danish classes, up to 44% of those registered fail to show up.

That's very specific.

I think people who argue this on economics are guilty of not being cynical enough.

Does anyone really think that countries like Sweden and Denmark would take people in if it wasn't in their own interest?

MrFresh

Midlife wrote: »

I'm not so sure.

Pretty much everyone I know from Ireland has parents who are far stricter in terms of their Catholicism then they are.

They didn't get that way from their education though.

Midlife wrote: »

I mean we could talk about the most effective way to integrate but surely we can't fault the Danes for putting efforts in place. I don't know the ins and outs of it but I'd be fairly confidant these classes are not the sum-total of their efforts.

I'd imagine avoiding religioous based school and promoting secularism in everyday life is a pretty sensible approach.

I aboslutely can fault them if their attempts are overly authoritarian.

Midlife

MrFresh wrote: »

They didn't get that way from their education though.

No, they got it from being exposed to a progressive society that had eclipsed their parent's stanceon many things.

Religion is backwards, secularism and education is the solution.

I agree with you that it depends on how it's imposed but I see nothing wrong at all with having mandatory educational outcomes, provided it's for everyone.