Migration Megathread

MrFresh

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Racists and white supremacist / far right radicals are a hell of a lot smaller population than muslims in most of these countries, if the ‘far right’ can cause such a marked rise then all arguments about there are not being enough muslims to cause a problem for the lgbt/jewish/female community have to be thrown out.

If that was true we would see a reflection of it in political representation.

Sand wrote: »

There is no evidence for or claim that that Muslims are responsible for all antisemitism.

Most then.

Danzy wrote: »

The 2 leading groups in Europe for anti semitism in modern Europe are Islamists and then the Left.

According to an EU Agency study.

It's customary to link the study.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

Which empires fell apart because of ethnic
strife?

Roman Empire
Sasanian Empire (religious rather than ethnic)
Byzantine Empire (if you count invasion)
Hapsburg Empire (religious as well as ethnic)
Austrian Empire
French Empire (pick one)
Ottoman Empire
British Empire (if you count colonial bids for independence)
USSR (if you consider it to be an empire)

This is just off the top of my head.

Brian? wrote: »

Europe has always had mass immigration.

No it hasn't. The Sahara and Mediterranean are huge obstacles for migration from sub-Saharan Africa. This is no longer the case due to well established smuggler routes. Although in the middle east the Syrian and Arabian deserts, and mountainous regions of Turkey would have been significant barriers to migration, more important would have been large empires that have habitually encompassed this region until the first half of the 20th century.

keane2097

RandomName2 wrote: »

Roman Empire
Sasanian Empire (religious rather than ethnic)
Byzantine Empire (if you count invasion)
Hapsburg Empire (religious as well as ethnic)
Austrian Empire
French Empire (pick one)
Ottoman Empire
British Empire (if you count colonial bids for independence)
USSR (if you consider it to be an empire)

This is just off the top of my head.

Every empire (if you count everything as ethnic strife)

RandomName2

ArthurDayne wrote: »

they should just head back to the Middle East and huddle in isolation, well away from anyone who looks, acts or prays differently?

Head back? When did they come? Jews have always been in Europe, though their numbers have always been relatively small. Due to persecution in western Europe their numbers were however disproportionate in Poland and western Russia by the 20th century, but their numbers in Europe have not fluctuated much in Europe until the 20th century. Also, again except in Poland, Jews have typically been highly integrated (if not entirely assimilated) into local populations, though persecution would likely factor into this of course.

Incidentally, the fact that Israel does not see a two state solution in Palestine as desirable is one of the reasons for continual tensions in that region.

keane2097 wrote: »

Every empire (if you count everything as ethnic strife)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I feel that this is a really lazy, inaccurate rebuttal of someone who didn't even bother to read my post, but I may be just misinterpreting what you're saying.

Danzy

MrFresh wrote: »

If that was true we would see a reflection of it in political representation.





Most then.





It's customary to link the study.

It has been provided already, few pages in, it was by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights.

It was as surprising a report as saying it was a wet day the rain came.

Podge_irl

RandomName2 wrote: »

Roman Empire
Sasanian Empire (religious rather than ethnic)
Byzantine Empire (if you count invasion)
Hapsburg Empire (religious as well as ethnic)
Austrian Empire
French Empire (pick one)
Ottoman Empire
British Empire (if you count colonial bids for independence)
USSR (if you consider it to be an empire)

This would be the Roman Empire, the majority of whose greatest emperor's outside of Augustus were not even Italian? If anything the Roman Empire's greatest strength was its multiculturalism and ability to absorb better practices (and people) from their enemies. Not to mention, invasion clearly does not fall within the bounds of "ethnic strife" originally indicated as it was referring to multi-ethnic empires falling apart.

The argument may as well be that all empires which expand outside of their cultural/ethnic homeland (so all of them) ultimately fail. Which is irrelevant because all empires ultimately fail.

RandomName2

Podge_irl wrote: »

This would be the Roman Empire, the majority of whose greatest emperor's outside of Augustus were not even Italian?

Is this relevant? I'm not even sure it's accurate. Nine of the ten emperors after Augustus were Italian, and the one who 'wasn't' was the grandson of Mark Anthony.

Podge_irl wrote: »

If anything the Roman Empire's greatest strength was its multiculturalism and ability to absorb better practices (and people) from their enemies.

It's what empires tend to do.

British Empire and its tea.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Not to mention, invasion clearly does not fall within the bounds of "ethnic strife" originally indicated as it was referring to multi-ethnic empires falling apart.

If the fallout from The Great Migration into the Western Empire does not constitute ethnic strife I don't know what does. Oh look at that thread title.

Podge_irl wrote: »

The argument may as well be that all empires which expand outside of their cultural/ethnic homeland (so all of them) ultimately fail. Which is irrelevant because all empires ultimately fail.

And the reason for the collapse is generally distinct peoples within the empire breaking away from it, or due to invasion, but generally a combination of the two. The Ottoman Empire is a good, recent example of this. The British invasion may have tipped it over the edge, but it was clearly already dying as numerous ethnic groups had already wrested independence from the empire already (Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.). The USSR was a little unusual in having no active war (except the Soviet-Afghan War) as a catalyst for collapse.

But yes, all empires eventually collapse, but the question was not 'do empires collapse' but whether any empire ever collapsed due to ethnic strife. Clearly they have.

MrFresh

Danzy wrote: »

It has been provided already, few pages in, it was by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights.

It was as surprising a report as saying it was a wet day the rain came.

Tried a number of different searches but no luck. If you could just post the source you are referring to that'd be great.

Edit: Found it on Google. It wasn't a study it was an anonymous and open survey.

Podge_irl

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is this relevant? I'm not even sure it's accurate. Nine of the ten emperors after Augustus were Italian, and the one who 'wasn't' was the grandson of Mark Anthony.

9 of the 10 emporers after Augustus were generally a bit rubbish. Trajan, Hadrian, Diocletian and Constantine weren't Italian. The latter two weren't even remotely Roman in the classical sense. The Romans completely embraced the territories they conquered ultimately extending Roman citizenship to them all. The distinction between "Romans" and non-Romans eventually became irrelevant. The Roman army, the main source of all Roman power, had essentially no Italians in it by 100AD. And yes it is relevant, as without the huge influence of many foreign people the Roman empire as we know it would never have existed.

And ultimately, while it should be unnecessary to point this out, an invasion is not the same thing as the migration we experience today. You may as well call WW2 in Europe ethnic strife by the distinctions being used here.

Midlife

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is this relevant? I'm not even sure it's accurate. Nine of the ten emperors after Augustus were Italian, and the one who 'wasn't' was the grandson of Mark Anthony.



It's what empires tend to do.

British Empire and its tea.



If the fallout from The Great Migration into the Western Empire does not constitute ethnic strife I don't know what does. Oh look at that thread title.



And the reason for the collapse is generally distinct peoples within the empire breaking away from it, or due to invasion, but generally a combination of the two. The Ottoman Empire is a good, recent example of this. The British invasion may have tipped it over the edge, but it was clearly already dying as numerous ethnic groups had already wrested independence from the empire already (Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.). The USSR was a little unusual in having no active war (except the Soviet-Afghan War) as a catalyst for collapse.

But yes, all empires eventually collapse, but the question was not 'do empires collapse' but whether any empire ever collapsed due to ethnic strife. Clearly they have.

So independence campaigns by colonised nations against the imperial centre of power is now 'ethnic strife' and this relates somehow to mulsims currently immigrating to Europe.

Impressive.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes -- I am well aware of your Canute-like views on the topic. I simply wanted to point out the fact that, if you are being consistent, you should simply be advocating that the Jews of Europe need only get the hell out and find an isolated place somewhere

Like Israel? Zionists already believe that. I am not a Zionist.

So can you be consistent and just suggest that the Jews leave Europe? Or are you just another person who can never reconcile the abstract nature of their views with what they actually entail in practical reality?

European Jews are already leaving Europe, as a result of the policies you support and you advocate for. You have to reconcile your views with what the actually entail in practical reality.

I think you're in denial if you believe that mass migration can somehow be reversed. It can be slowed, it can be halted. But not reversed. That is simply not viable. That's why you need to be cautious regarding mass migration. You cant simply undo the damage later.

When millions of illegal migrants crossed over the EU's open borders in 2015-16, it was a historic event, far more than Brexit. Those people are in Europe to stay. There are consequences to the policies open border advocates pursue - increased antisemitism is one of them and its not a serious proposition that it will be resolved by expelling one ethnic group or another.

Brian? wrote: »

Europe has always had mass immigration.

The interesting thing I find about the views of some groups is that the future is fixed, known and unchanging. It is the past that is forever changing and under revision. It permits the most awful nonsense to be uttered by advocates of open borders.

Europe has had several attempts at mass immigration, but importantly all of them were resisted. Successfully or otherwise. Marathon, Tours, Lepanto and Vienna for example. Nobody welcomed it because mass migration into their homelands was clearly understood as being bad for them.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Roman Empire
Sasanian Empire (religious rather than ethnic)
Byzantine Empire (if you count invasion)
Hapsburg Empire (religious as well as ethnic)
Austrian Empire
French Empire (pick one)
Ottoman Empire
British Empire (if you count colonial bids for independence)
USSR (if you consider it to be an empire)

This is just off the top of my head.

I honestly don’t know where to start here. None of those empires fell apart because of ethnic strife.

One glaring example is that the Roman Empire reached its zenith when the emperors ethnicity has become irrelevant. Some were Gauls etc. You’ve been at the Stefan Molyneux I assume.

No it hasn't. The Sahara and Mediterranean are huge obstacles for migration from sub-Saharan Africa. This is no longer the case due to well established smuggler routes. Although in the middle east the Syrian and Arabian deserts, and mountainous regions of Turkey would have been significant barriers to migration, more important would have been large empires that have habitually encompassed this region until the first half of the 20th century.

The history of Europe is a history of a series of mass migrations. They just happened to have relatively similar melatonin levels to people who were already here. I didn’t say mass migration from Asia and Africa which you assumed it to mean.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

The interesting thing I find about the views of some groups is that the future is fixed, known and unchanging. It is the past that is forever changing and under revision. It permits the most awful nonsense to be uttered by advocates of open borders.

Europe has had several attempts at mass immigration, but importantly all of them were resisted. Successfully or otherwise. Marathon, Tours, Lepanto and Vienna for example. Nobody welcomed it because mass migration into their homelands was clearly understood as being bad for them.

So you believe the future to be fixed, known and unchanging. Am I reading that right?

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

European Jews are already leaving Europe, as a result of the policies you support and you advocate for.

That's a really weak connection. Find data about jews leaving europe and blame mass migration for it.

As ever you've parsed random surveys and facts together to come up with a connection you were looking for all along.

Noticably, the piece you cited mentions

According to a 2015 report by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the main perpetrators of antiSemitic incidents are neo-Nazis, far-right or far-left sympathisers, Muslim fundamentalists and the younger
generation.

Forget the other four groups mentioned, it's all the muslims fault and therefore the policies that people support in terms of mass migration.

a bit of a nonsense Sand

Midlife

Just seeing as poeple here are posting this utter rubbish blaming Muslims for European anti-semitism. Literally, just read that last line again.

Experts describe a “perfect storm” for anti-Semitic attacks combining the increasing influence of far-right groups and governments; the rise of conspiracy theories about a supposed global Zionist plot (and the scale on which they circulate on social media); and a general increase in the violence of public discourse.

Although the most recent rise in anti-Semitic incidents in France began before the emergence of the anti-establishment gilets jaunes (yellow vests) movement, some have occurred during their weekly Saturday demonstrations. A recent poll suggested nearly half of yellow vest protesters believed in a “Zionist plot”.

Alternative fur Deutschland’s (AfD) Alexander Gauland described the Holocaust as a “small bird dropping in over 1,000 years of successful German history”. AfD party has been widely accused of fomenting hate against refugees, Muslims and Jews.

A large influx of mostly Muslim refugees and migrants to Germany from 2015 has also led to a rise in anti-Semitic attacks by migrants from Arab states, although figures show an overwhelming majority of violence against Jews is perpetrated by far-right supporters. “Militant rightwing extremists are now openly calling for the desecration of Jewish institutions and attacks against Jewish people,” Pau said.

Some governments, particularly in eastern Europe, stand accused of at best tolerating racism and anti-Semitism, and at worst encouraging it. Hungary’s far-right Fidesz party, led by prime minister Viktor Orban, has run vitriolic campaigns against migrants and demonising George Soros, the Hungarian-born Jewish financier.

In CNN’s recent survey, 42 per cent of Hungarians polled said they thought Jews held too much sway over the worlds of finance and international affairs. While an average of one in 10 Europeans said they personally had an “unfavourable attitude” to Jews, the figure rose to nearly 15 per cent in Poland and 19 per cent in Hungary.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/anti-semitism-rising-sharply-across-europe-latest-figures-show-1.3794934

The far right rises, antisemitism rises. The far right blames it on immigrants.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

So you believe the future to be fixed, known and unchanging. Am I reading that right?

No, you're not.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

.
The interesting thing I find about the views of some groups is that the future is fixed, known and unchanging. It is the past that is forever changing and under revision. It permits the most awful nonsense to be uttered by advocates of open borders.

Fine straw man. Who’s advocating open borders? Not I, nor anyone in this thread.

Europe has had several attempts at mass immigration, but importantly all of them were resisted. Successfully or otherwise. Marathon, Tours, Lepanto and Vienna for example. Nobody welcomed it because mass migration into their homelands was clearly understood as being bad for them.

You’re equating migration and invasion, I’ll file it under “awful nonsense” in your own parlance. Europe is not currently under threat of invasion by any foreign power. People are migrating here, not invading.

If it wasn’t for mad migration you wouldn’t have the term Anglo Saxon. Or French. Or Norman.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

No, you're not.

So you don't believe it to be fixed.

Except when you're talking about migration which ALWAYS based on history ends in the destruction of the host country or something. Then it's fixed and knowable and unchanging.

I mean you've argued that the migration that happened to the US 500 years ago brought about results that will essentially be replicated in modern migration to Europe as the outcome was fixed and unchanging.

If the future's not fixed, surely you should be advocating for policy and change rather than essentially using every random fact you can find to say Muslim's in Europe will essentially never work.

Irish Praetorian

Midlife wrote: »

Just seeing as poeple here are posting this utter rubbish blaming Muslims for European anti-semitism. Literally, just read that last line again.


The far right rises, antisemitism rises. The far right blames it on immigrants.

Well why don't we take a sober approach and see what the data indicates? This report on the experiences and perceptions of Anti-Semitism in Europe looks to be the most comprehensive in recent years. Going through the data, one can observe (from p54) that the perpetrators of 'serious' anti-Semitic harassment are more likely to be extremist Muslims or from the political left ("Anti Zionist" perhaps?) than from the political right. Of course, this is drawn from a 12 country average; if we take the example of our nearest neighbour the UK, the ranking goes from 'cannot describe' to the political left, then extremist Muslim and then far-right

Midlife

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well why don't we take a sober approach and see what the data indicates? This report on the experiences and perceptions of Anti-Semitism in Europe looks to be the most comprehensive in recent years. Going through the data, one can observe (from p54) that the perpetrators of 'serious' anti-Semitic harassment are more likely to be extremist Muslims or from the political left ("Anti Zionist" perhaps?) than from the political right. Of course, this is drawn from a 12 country average; if we take the example of our nearest neighbour the UK, the ranking goes from 'cannot describe' to the political left, then extremist Muslim and then far-right

Fairly easy to describe mulsims though. I mean, I doubt many of the 'don't knows' were brown skinned.

Anyway, apologies for singling out the far right. I should have said far right and far left rise, antisemitism rises, far right and far left blame immigrants.

Blaming Muslims for racism in europe is really dumb.

Brian?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well why don't we take a sober approach and see what the data indicates? This report on the experiences and perceptions of Anti-Semitism in Europe looks to be the most comprehensive in recent years. Going through the data, one can observe (from p54) that the perpetrators of 'serious' anti-Semitic harassment are more likely to be extremist Muslims or from the political left ("Anti Zionist" perhaps?) than from the political right. Of course, this is drawn from a 12 country average; if we take the example of our nearest neighbour the UK, the ranking goes from 'cannot describe' to the political left, then extremist Muslim and then far-right

Here’s the problem with measuring perception: you can’t.

Some people believe any and all criticism of Israel constitutes anti semitism, when it absolutely doesn’t.

The Specialist

We have a shady Muslim councilor elected in Limerick already, serious question marks over his name and votes. I don’t think foreign nationals should have any say in our votes - foreign or domestic.

Brian?

Midlife wrote: »

Fairly easy to describe mulsims though. I mean, I doubt many of the 'don't knows' were brown skinned.

Anyway, apologies for singling out the far right. I should have said far right and far left rise, antisemitism rises, far right and far left blame immigrants.

Blaming Muslims for racism in europe is really dumb.

The far left blame immigrants? I actually don’t think they do. The far left in Europe is tiny these days to be fair, so they’re hard to keep track of.

Brian?

The Specialist wrote: »

We have a shady Muslim councilor elected in Limerick already, serious question marks over his name and votes. I don’t think foreign nationals should have any say in our votes - foreign or domestic.

If he’s standing for elected office isn’t he an Irish citizen?

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

Like Israel? Zionists already believe that. I am not a Zionist.

Really? But if you are being consistent then surely you would advocate that all religions and races pursue their own version of lite-Zionism and go find their own homelands where they live in perfect homogenous peace

Sand wrote: »

European Jews are already leaving Europe, as a result of the policies you support and you advocate for. You have to reconcile your views with what the actually entail in practical reality.

I think you're in denial if you believe that mass migration can somehow be reversed. It can be slowed, it can be halted. But not reversed. That is simply not viable. That's why you need to be cautious regarding mass migration. You cant simply undo the damage later.

When millions of illegal migrants crossed over the EU's open borders in 2015-16, it was a historic event, far more than Brexit. Those people are in Europe to stay. There are consequences to the policies open border advocates pursue - increased antisemitism is one of them and its not a serious proposition that it will be resolved by expelling one ethnic group or another.

It's a rather long-winded way of saying that you aren't willing to stand by the practical reality of your views. I'm willing to stand by mine -- I know that immigration poses challenges, and that some of the effects of immigration can be damaging. That's called having the courage to understand the practical implications of your convictions . . so let's try it again :

Nobody is talking about expelling Jews. But you would surely advocate that Jews are better off just leaving Europe of their own volition and going off to live in a Jewish commune where they can live in a paradise of homogeneity.

All races and religions are better off living apart right? That's your view isn't it? That when they all mix it only causes strife -- right? So . . . could you please be consistent and advocate that all people should divide into homogenous groups and live in communities which do not overlap with eachother?

Sand wrote: »

The interesting thing I find about the views of some groups is that the future is fixed, known and unchanging. It is the past that is forever changing and under revision. It permits the most awful nonsense to be uttered by advocates of open borders.

Europe has had several attempts at mass immigration, but importantly all of them were resisted. Successfully or otherwise. Marathon, Tours, Lepanto and Vienna for example. Nobody welcomed it because mass migration into their homelands was clearly understood as being bad for them.

Yeah yeah you've tried this one before and it was one of the most ludicrous chains of argument I have ever heard . . . what was it again . . .comparing strife between Native Americans and colonial settlers with modern day immigration right?

Irish Praetorian

Midlife wrote: »

Fairly easy to describe mulsims though. I mean, I doubt many of the 'don't knows' were brown skinned.

Anyway, apologies for singling out the far right. I should have said far right and far left rise, antisemitism rises, far right and far left blame immigrants.

Blaming Muslims for racism in europe is really dumb.

I also would imagine not many were 'don't knows' were Muslim in the case of most of the countries listed, although I did find it interesting that the countries where the racial lines are probably a bit more blurry are the ones with the higher 'don't know' percentage. In any case, I'll continue my point below.

Brian? wrote: »

Here’s the problem with measuring perception: you can’t.

Some people believe any and all criticism of Israel constitutes anti semitism, when it absolutely doesn’t.

To be fair, the particular fact set I extracted from the report wasn't so much to do with perception as much as taking the most serious anti-Semitic incidents and trying to get the victim to identify the perpetrator. Now, if we take the average figures, there are facts that should worry us and facts that maybe should not surprise us. The fact that teens seem to play a role in these incidents is perhaps not too surprising to anyone; even the idea that someone on the political left or the political right commits such attacks is, if not comforting, then perhaps representative of a spectrum of political opinion that might constitute what - 35% each? However, the real issue that I think causes concern, is that one of the highest figures (specifically Islamic extremists at roughly 30%) seems to be coming from what statistically should be one of the smallest groups (perhaps no more than 5% of the population say). This discrepancy is pretty striking and I'm not sure it's surprising that people would end up observing it.

MrFresh

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well why don't we take a sober approach and see what the data indicates? This report on the experiences and perceptions of Anti-Semitism in Europe looks to be the most comprehensive in recent years. Going through the data, one can observe (from p54) that the perpetrators of 'serious' anti-Semitic harassment are more likely to be extremist Muslims or from the political left ("Anti Zionist" perhaps?) than from the political right. Of course, this is drawn from a 12 country average; if we take the example of our nearest neighbour the UK, the ranking goes from 'cannot describe' to the political left, then extremist Muslim and then far-right

From the survey faq

the results cannot be considered as representative of all Jewish people in the EU

Irish Praetorian

MrFresh wrote: »

From the survey faq

Indeed, particularly specific when the data table I referred to earlier pertained only to those who had suffered in serious anti-Semitic incidents.

More to the point, what exactly would you have me make of that disclaimer - well this is not representative of all European Jews so there is now no problem? Should I extend the same philosophy to our previous point about right-wing anti-Semitic attacks?

Sajid Javid

The Specialist wrote: »

Tell me one thing Islamic “culture” has offered the modern world. Besides blowing children up at concerts..****ing animals

Clever man trying to insulti my intelligence when you worship a ****ing pedophile you patethic fool.

Well if you relaxed a wee bit and focused you would find the answers to your question in my earlier post.

I shall rewrite it for you in a fashion you may find easier to understand.

Islamic Inventors = Coffee+Algebra+Flight+Fountain Pen+Surgical instruments=many gifts to the world from Islam.
What have YOU given the world?
Regards Sajid

Irish Praetorian

The Specialist wrote: »

Tell me one thing Islamic “culture” has offered the modern world. Besides blowing children up at concerts..****ing animals

Dude, I've got a bit of a record on here for making the argument for conservative policy when it comes to things like migration - if you want to make that argument you need to argue on the point, not get sucked into the black hole that I see so many going into, where hate becomes the argument in itself. It is possible, and dare I say it is the wisest course, to make the argument for whatever policy, without trying to get into battles of cultural or religious supremacy.