Migration Megathread

Midlife

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm saying something that is patently obvious, and that is that ethnic and cultural differences are the backbone of nationalism and a driving motivation for souverainism. It always has been and always will.

I wouldn't call something like India the periphery of the empire either.

Why is Ireland not part of the UK? Because the Irish wanted to be independent. WHY did the Irish want to be independent? Because of cultural-national differences with the English (for instance religion). If an empire loses its provinces and colonies it will cease being an empire.

You talk about your position as if it is as clear as day, yet you sound like a flat-earther.

You're saying that we are on a ball, spinning around in space, and we have been doing that for billions of years? It's laughable!

NOW you're saying something that's obvious.

Ethnicity is linked to nationalism which is linked to independence movements.

It's alink that no-one candisagree with.

PREVIOUSLY you were saying that nearly every empire ever fell because of ethnic strife.

That's nonsense.

You're looking at the irish independence movement and ignoring things like economics, landlords, representation, violence, famine and basically just blaming ethnic differences on all of it. There's a further point regarding the treatment of ireland under the british empire and how this gave rise to ideas of ethnicity and nationalism in the first place.

We don't need really to go here though as you're just flat out wrong anyway. The notion that the great era of European empires only fell because the empires involved different ethnicities is completly mad.

It's completly bonkers and in my view only being used as this kind of stupid revisionism justifies racism.

ArthurDayne

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm saying something that is patently obvious, and that is that ethnic and cultural differences are the backbone of nationalism and a driving motivation for souverainism. It always has been and always will.

I guess someone should tell the Jews that they are the backbone of anti-semitism.

fash

Midlife wrote: »

Your idea that, say the British empire flourished and grew for a few hundred years and ultimatly ended due to ethnic strife, that is it fell because the peripheries of this empire were populated by non-English people is conpletly and utterly laughable.

Interesting that you say/think that it is "laughable": the English believed that it was so important that the empire was and identified as "English" that it (for example) planted Ireland - with some limited success- and the only reason they lost (some of) Ireland was precisely because they failed to complete that exercise.
It certainly wasn't "laughable" to those centuries of English empire builders who knew what was necessary to build and maintain an empire. But hey, what did they know.
Nor is it laughable to those Muslims trying to re-establish a caliphate: A further example of where those seeking to build an empire sought and seek to establish and grow a single unifying identity (and one that opposes the concept of nationality) of the members of that empire.

EDIT: There are many examples of this phenomenon - forced or "emphasised" assimilation, christianising the heathens, etc. An interesting example relates to Canada. Upon the loss/independence of the US, a large number of those with an English identity were disenfranchised in the US and migrated up north to Canada - consolidating the (then) English identity in that country and resulting in the fact that Canada was not lost to the English for a very long time and much longer than might otherwise have been guessed.
One of the interesting ones

MrFresh

fash wrote: »

Interesting that you say/think that it is "laughable": the English believed that it was so important that the empire was and identified as "English" that it (for example) planted Ireland - with some limited success- and the only reason they lost (some of) Ireland was precisely because they failed to complete that exercise.
It certainly wasn't "laughable" to those centuries of English empire builders who knew what was necessary to build and maintain an empire. But hey, what did they know.
Nor is it laughable to those Muslims trying to re-establish a caliphate: A further example of where those seeking to build an empire sought and seek to establish and grow a single unifying identity (and one that opposes the concept of nationality) of the members of that empire.

Where did you learn Irish history?

RandomName2

Midlife wrote: »

NOW you're saying something that's obvious.

Ethnicity is linked to nationalism which is linked to independence movements.

It's alink that no-one candisagree with.

PREVIOUSLY you were saying that nearly every empire ever fell because of ethnic strife.

That's nonsense.

:mad:

The contention was that no empire ever fell due to ethnic strife. When I showed that this was patently untrue, a couple of posters attempting to pick holes in the examples I gave, including yourself, saying that ethnic strife never had anything to do with those empires collapsing. This position is demonstrably incorrect.

I never said that all empires that ever collapsed did so due to ethnic strife. I can easily name a dozen which collapsed where ethnic strife was not a major contributing factor in any way.

Midlife wrote: »

You're looking at the irish independence movement and ignoring things like economics, landlords, representation, violence, famine and basically just blaming ethnic differences on all of it. There's a further point regarding the treatment of ireland under the british empire and how this gave rise to ideas of ethnicity and nationalism in the first place.

Ethnicity, if one means genetic difference, was pretty minor, although admittedly not non-existent, in terms of Irish nationalism. Cultural differences were a far more important factor.

Focusing on economics in isolation gives no explanation. You will never, ever have an economic region which is underdeveloped, under-resourced, and poorly managed seek independence if there's no separate identity among those people.

Midlife wrote: »

We don't need really to go here though as you're just flat out wrong anyway. The notion that the great era of European empires only fell because the empires involved different ethnicities is completly mad.

Look this misquoting is getting pretty annoying. The catalyst for Austria-Hungary collapsing was WW1, the catalyst for the British Empire collapsing was WW2. Would they have collapsed had all their inhabitants felt Austrian or British respectively? Unlikely. Would they have been more inclined to feel Austrian or British if they had had Austrian or British ethnicity? That's a safe conjecture.

Midlife wrote: »

It's completly bonkers and in my view only being used as this kind of stupid revisionism justifies racism.

Thattttttttttt's racist

fash wrote: »

identified as "English"

Hm. The plantations occurred before the British Empire was formed. After the British Empire was formed the term 'British' which had formerly been associated with 'Welsh' came to mean 'anyone belonging to Britain', quite opposed to 'English', and indeed this was done to try and remove the barriers, to some extent, between the different dominions ruled within the empire (but principally within Great Britain). Immigration to Ireland from England and Scotland during the plantations was a bit different, and not really done with an aspiration of assimilating Irish. Ulster was more of a free-for-all after the flight of the earls.

ancapailldorcha

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I guess someone should tell the Jews that they are the backbone of anti-semitism.

MrFresh wrote: »

Where did you learn Irish history?

The attempts at one-upping people are not welcome here. No more please.

Blueshoe

We easily have enough space to have a population of 10 million plus. Some posters here without naming names are just racist. As a people we have a responsibility to look after others

Odhinn

RandomName2 wrote: »

.............


An example would be the British Empire.

.............

The British empire was run - deliberately and systematically - by the exploitation of sectarian, religous and ethnic conflict. By playing varying sides off against each other with crumbs from the "masters table" a relatively small number of anglo-saxon British could control vast areas and populations. Thus the Empire thrived on division and was most threatened by unity.

eg
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/08/partition-british-game-divide-rule-170808101655163.html

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

:mad:

The contention was that no empire ever fell due to ethnic strife. When I showed that this was patently untrue, a couple of posters attempting to pick holes in the examples I gave, including yourself, saying that ethnic strife never had anything to do with those empires collapsing. This position is demonstrably incorrect.

No, that wasn't the contention. Another poster listed ethnic strife as the main reason some empires failed. You weighed in with a list of empires you say fell apart because of ethnic strife.

So the onus is on you and the original proposer to prove that ethnic strife tore major empires apart.

You are incorrectly equating nationalism and self determination with ethic strife.

The Roman empire fella apart partly because of foreign invasion, partly because of corruption and partly due to nationalistic fervour in the provinces.

The Soviet union, yes it fits the bill of an empire, fell apart because of shakey economic system, a corrupt beurocracy, overspending on the arms race and many other reasons.

The Byzantine empire fella apart because it was invaded.

The ottoman empire fella apart because they allied with the wrong side in WW1 and their military was woefully outraged. Even then it didn't really die. It just turned into Turkey

And so on and so on.

I think that's that answered for now. Apologies for the delay replying.

I never said that all empires that ever collapsed did so due to ethnic strife. I can easily name a dozen which collapsed where ethnic strife was not a major contributing factor in any way.



Ethnicity, if one means genetic difference, was pretty minor, although admittedly not non-existent, in terms of Irish nationalism. Cultural differences were a far more important factor.

Focusing on economics in isolation gives no explanation. You will never, ever have an economic region which is underdeveloped, under-resourced, and poorly managed seek independence if there's no separate identity among those people.




Look this misquoting is getting pretty annoying. The catalyst for Austria-Hungary collapsing was WW1, the catalyst for the British Empire collapsing was WW2. Would they have collapsed had all their inhabitants felt Austrian or British respectively? Unlikely. Would they have been more inclined to feel Austrian or British if they had had Austrian or British ethnicity? That's a safe conjecture.



Thattttttttttt's racist



Hm. The plantations occurred before the British Empire was formed. After the British Empire was formed the term 'British' which had formerly been associated with 'Welsh' came to mean 'anyone belonging to Britain', quite opposed to 'English', and indeed this was done to try and remove the barriers, to some extent, between the different dominions ruled within the empire (but principally within Great Britain). Immigration to Ireland from England and Scotland during the plantations was a bit different, and not really done with an aspiration of assimilating Irish. Ulster was more of a free-for-all after the flight of the earls.

So, how do you think that relates to the inward migration of muslims into Europe?

sandbelter

Brian? wrote: »

The Roman empire fella apart partly because of foreign invasion, partly because of corruption and partly due to nationalistic fervour in the provinces.

Wrong, the trigger for falling apart was a immigrant invasion and specifically because it chose not to integrate the refugees. Up to that inclusive assimilation was Roman Empire policy...that's how old the idea of inclusion is.

https://qz.com/677380/1700-years-ago-the-mismanagement-of-a-migrant-crisis-cost-rome-its-empire/

Brian?

sandbelter wrote: »

Wrong, the trigger for falling apart was a immigrant invasion and specifically because it chose not to integrate the refugees. Up to that inclusive assimilation was Roman Empire policy...that's how old the idea of inclusion is.

https://qz.com/677380/1700-years-ago-the-mismanagement-of-a-migrant-crisis-cost-rome-its-empire/

That wasn’t “the trigger”, it was a contributing factor. One way down the list of factors, as I stated earlier.

When the Romans accepted the Goth refugees they treated them horribly, including demanding they sell their children into slavery in exchange for dog meat. Are you surprised the goths rebelled?

Here’s a basic list anyone can read:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/8-reasons-why-rome-fell


If the empire wasn’t a corrupt mess by the time the refugees arrived it wouldn’t have spiralled the way it did.

stefanovich

Blueshoe wrote: »

We easily have enough space to have a population of 10 million plus. Some posters here without naming names are just racist. As a people we have a responsibility to look after others

It's difficult alright. One tends towards compassion. When I see individual cases I have nothing but sympathy. And I am not talking about refugees fleeing war but rather your average economic migrant. A Pakistani doing some silly course and working 40 hours per week. I know many. Sending money home. Just trying to be successful. Wouldn't we all do the same?

On the other hand there is a point where the local population starts to be harmed. When migration overwhelms public services. When migration consists of people with low or no education, taking the entry level jobs. Depressing wages.

Do we import people to exploit them?

Do we care about preserving the Irish population in Ireland?

If a population of 10 million consisted of 6 million immigrants and 4 million native irish. Would we lose something worth saving?

Also the religious aspect. Are we importing people whose beliefs run contrary to our values.. Is that acceptable?

I think the only sane approach is to have a fair but strict immigration policy that is tightly enforced.

Brian?

stefanovich wrote: »

It's difficult alright. One tends towards compassion. When I see individual cases I have nothing but sympathy. And I am not talking about refugees fleeing war but rather your average economic migrant. A Pakistani doing some silly course and working 40 hours per week. I know many. Sending money home. Just trying to be successful. Wouldn't we all do the same?

What silly course and working 40 hours a week? It was my understanding this kind of thing was dead.

On the other hand there is a point where the local population starts to be harmed. When migration overwhelms public services. When migration consists of people with low or no education, taking the entry level jobs. Depressing wages.

Do we import people to exploit them?

Do we care about preserving the Irish population in Ireland?

If a population of 10 million consisted of 6 million immigrants and 4 million native irish. Would we lose something worth saving?

Also the religious aspect. Are we importing people whose beliefs run contrary to our values.. Is that acceptable?

I think the only sane approach is to have a fair but strict immigration policy that is tightly enforced.

I’m pretty sure Ireland has a strict immigration policy for non EU citizens. What exactly would you like to be different?

stefanovich

Brian? wrote: »

What silly course and working 40 hours a week? It was my understanding this kind of thing was dead.

Was there a recent clampdown? It was definitely commonplace in hotels and restaurants a few years ago.

Brian? wrote: »

I’m pretty sure Ireland has a strict immigration policy for non EU citizens. What exactly would you like to be different?

Pretty sure. A bit of an oxymoron?

I see a lot of immigrants working as deliveroo drivers and other minimum wage positions. 8 people living in a 2 bed flat doesn't sound like they are doing too well economically. Are we getting the right people?

Midlife

RandomName2 wrote: »

:mad:

The contention was that no empire ever fell due to ethnic strife. When I showed that this was patently untrue, a couple of posters attempting to pick holes in the examples I gave, including yourself, saying that ethnic strife never had anything to do with those empires collapsing. This position is demonstrably incorrect.

Quotes or retract please.

You are massivly shifting the goalposts here. You listed a number of empires which you said fell due to ethnic strife. That's your statement to back up.

When you try, we find the backup to be fairly nonsensicial. And now your shifting the argument to one where you're saying 'it's a factor' and claiming we said 'it's never a factor.

So quote what I'm saying that you disagree with.



You seem to be backtracking a bit and are now saying that ethnicity has been a factor in the end of some imperial projects.

Apologies but this is not what you said to kick this off.

When you state something like 'the British Empire collapsed due to cultural strife', you will be called out on it because it's wrong.

It's oversimplifying things to a rediculous degree and reinterpreting history to back up some theory you have about mixing races/cultures/ethnicity.

You already know that you can't focus on one thing in isolation because

Focusing on economics in isolation gives no explanation. You will never, ever have an economic region which is underdeveloped, under-resourced, and poorly managed seek independence if there's no separate identity among those people.

So you understand there's a multitude of reasons.

Interestingly, can you show me a region that's underdeveloped, under resourced and poorly managed that doesn't have a separate identity?

Additionally, I think this is really cart before the horse and to be honest the crux of your misinterpretation of historical events.

Identity and cultural differences will always exist. And regardless of prosperity and human rights you'll always have some a$$hole going around trying to whip people up pay more attention to them and essentially subdivide groups.

If people get treated badly enough by a group of people, economically, lack of solical mobility, lack of peace, they'll pay attenetion and you get movements which embrace identity.

If they don't, people won't care too much, except for the a$$holes.



Also, what do you mean by different identity. Cork have a different identity, would that count? Are Scots different ethnically from the English?

Are Catalans different ethnically than Spain. Also out of curosity, why is Catalonia so active about seeking independence but the Galicians and Asturians aren't? Why is this identity so important in some cases but seemingly doesn't matter in others? Why do Spain even want to hang on to Catalonia? Surely your theory would mean that recognising them as a different ethnicity (are they even) would mean they want rid of them? How has the US managed to function as a country with the mix of ethnicities and cultures?

How does Argentina work? A whole bunch of different European peoples mixing with South Americans. How has this country not torn itself apart?

How does Switzerland even work? Three/Four distinct languages and culture.

How does Italy work. You have Germanic people in the North and Greek in the South?

MrFresh

stefanovich wrote: »

Was there a recent clampdown? It was definitely commonplace in hotels and restaurants a few years ago.

Yes, they are kept a close eye on. Dept of Education has closed colleges with lax or poor attendance from students.

stefanovich wrote: »

Pretty sure. A bit of an oxymoron?

I see a lot of immigrants working as deliveroo drivers and other minimum wage positions. 8 people living in a 2 bed flat doesn't sound like they are doing too well economically. Are we getting the right people?

Doesn't sound like an immigration issue, sounds like a rental issue. Besides, plenty of people started on minimum wage in crappy digs. Many to get through college. What would you change in immigration policy though?

LillySV

What is the point of this thread? Anyone who even remotely suggests there’s something concerning or worrying about the vast influx of Muslims and non nationals into the country will be branded a racist.... regardless of facts or reason.... the leftists are the biggest Fascists out there at moment ...and they won’t listen to sense so no point in discussing this

Midlife

LillySV wrote: »

What is the point of this thread? Anyone who even remotely suggests there’s something concerning or worrying about the vast influx of Muslims and non nationals into the country will be branded a racist.... regardless of facts or reason.... the leftists are the biggest Fascists out there at moment ...and they won’t listen to sense so no point in discussing this

...They said while branding everyone else as leftists and facists.


There's plenty of sensible discussion regarding immigration to be had. my opinions have changed quite a bit and my own opinions have been influenced by threads like this, as polarised as they are.

That doesn't mean people can't call out racism when they see it.

stefanovich

MrFresh wrote: »

Doesn't sound like an immigration issue, sounds like a rental issue. Besides, plenty of people started on minimum wage in crappy digs. Many to get through college. What would you change in immigration policy though?

Yes, but should we import people who we know are going to be on minimum wage in crappy digs? Does that not exacerbate the housing issues?

LillySV

Midlife wrote: »

...They said while branding everyone else as leftists and facists.


There's plenty of sensible discussion regarding immigration to be had. my opinions have changed quite a bit and my own opinions have been influenced by threads like this, as polarised as they are.

That doesn't mean people can't call out racism when they see it.

There ya go! Haha.... I meant that the far left are at the very least, as dangerous as the far right.... didn’t think I had to explain that ....

Anyways give me a quick summary of what opinions of yours have changed , or more so what they currently are ... might influence me?

RandomName2

Midlife wrote: »

Quotes or retract please.

Um.

Midlife wrote: »

You are massivly shifting the goalposts here. You listed a number of empires which you said fell due to ethnic strife. That's your statement to back up.

Already done.

Midlife wrote: »

we find the backup to be fairly nonsensicial.

You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Midlife wrote: »

You seem to be backtracking a bit and are now saying that ethnicity has been a factor in the end of some imperial projects.

It's been the primary reason why some empires fell. It would be stupid to say the Imperial Japan primarily collapsed due to the multiple cultures and ethnicites in its empire. It collapsed entirely because of the Pacific War.

Midlife wrote: »

Apologies but this is not what you said to kick this off.

I kicked this off by giving a short list of empires to Brian? that collapsed due to ethnic strife, as he believed no empire collapsed due to ethnic strife. This was a list that both yourself and Brian? seemed to take exception to, without ever actually saying why any of the empires I listed were incorrect.

Edit: I just saw that Brian? has now said why he thinks the entries in that list are wrong.

Midlife wrote: »

When you state something like 'the British Empire collapsed due to cultural strife', you will be called out on it because it's wrong.

By 'called out' you mean that you say the position is ridiculous and then move on. I would always personally phrase it as both cultural and ethnic, and yes these were the most dominant issues as to why it collapsed, though WW1 and WW2 massively sped up the process. The fact that most of the UK's possessions were geographically distant from the UK also played a part, but was not as important.

Midlife wrote: »

It's oversimplifying things to a rediculous degree and reinterpreting history to back up some theory you have about mixing races/cultures/ethnicity.

It's not some theory. It is reality. We base countries on nationality. That is why we have separate countries. That is why we have borders. Nationality is a composite of culture and ethnicity. That includes religion by the way. That's just the way it is.

Midlife wrote: »

Interestingly, can you show me a region that's underdeveloped, under resourced and poorly managed that doesn't have a separate identity?

Tallaght.

Midlife wrote: »

If people get treated badly enough by a group of people, economically, lack of solical mobility, lack of peace, they'll pay attenetion and you get movements which embrace identity.

The Detroit independence movement is really taking off, I hear.

Midlife wrote: »

Are Catalans different ethnically than Spain. Also out of curosity, why is Catalonia so active about seeking independence but the Galicians and Asturians aren't? Why is this identity so important in some cases but seemingly doesn't matter in others? Why do Spain even want to hang on to Catalonia? Surely your theory would mean that recognising them as a different ethnicity (are they even) would mean they want rid of them? How has the US managed to function as a country with the mix of ethnicities and cultures?

I would always say ethnicity and culture, though some people take ethnicity to mean culture as well. I do know that Catalans are culturally distinct, in that they have their own language and customs. I am surprised Franco did not try and eradicate that. If he had been successful, Catalonia would not be trying to break away today in all likelihood. As for why Spain would want to hold onto it, I've already answered that.

Midlife wrote: »

How does Argentina work? A whole bunch of different European peoples mixing with South Americans. How has this country not torn itself apart?

The United States would be a better example, and the answer is to do with their shared culture, and even then there are many distinct issues that are still based on race in the United States.

Midlife wrote: »

How does Switzerland even work? Three/Four distinct languages and culture.

Switzerland is a confederacy, isn't it? I'd assume that the individual cantons have a significant amount of autonomy, and be less subject to a central authority.

Midlife

Randomname....

I note you're not actually disagreeing with me on anything here.

Additionally you won't quote what I asked you to quote and the long explanations have turned into random quip, one liners and slight clarifications.

My point is this,

Given appropriate conditions, ethnically diverse communities get along just fine.

RandomName2

Midlife wrote: »

Given appropriate conditions, ethnically diverse communities get along just fine.

Yes.

MrFresh

stefanovich wrote: »

Yes, but should we import people who we know are going to be on minimum wage in crappy digs? Does that not exacerbate the housing issues?

First of all, we aren't importing anyone. Second, immigration is not causing the housing crisis, government policy is.

Wheeliebin30

MrFresh wrote: »

First of all, we aren't importing anyone. Second, immigration is not causing the housing crisis, government policy is.

What policy?

Blueshoe

MrFresh wrote: »

First of all, we aren't importing anyone. Second, immigration is not causing the housing crisis, government policy is.

Quote the specific policy please.

If we have net migration of 30k per year but government are only building 20k houses nothing will change. Time to only allow in those with the skills to fill critical skill shortages in and then pull up the drawbridge.

MrFresh

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What policy?

Policy was probably the wrong word. Approach would be a better one.

Blueshoe wrote: »

Quote the specific policy please.

As above.

Blueshoe wrote: »

If we have net migration of 30k per year but government are only building 20k houses nothing will change. Time to only allow in those with the skills to fill critical skill shortages in and then pull up the drawbridge.

And where would we put those immigrants? do they not also need housing?

Blueshoe

MrFresh wrote: »

Policy was probably the wrong word. Approach would be a better one.





As above.




And where would we put those immigrants? do they not also need housing?

They will be working in highly skilled roles. They can rent the privately built apartment blocks.



I meet and talk to immigrants every single day of the week. The ones iv met are mostly hard workers and lovely people who do well for themselves. That doesn't mean we are bound to take in every person who wants to live here. Doesn't work like that in the Us, Canada or Australia

fash

Midlife wrote: »

My point is this,

Given appropriate conditions, ethnically diverse communities get along just fine.

I would mostly agree with that statement.
However, it raises the question of what happens when the conditions change? What happens when there is an economic crash and the state must (e.g.) retract social supports? What happens when there is an outside event which impacts on the various communities in different manners (e.g. Syrian refugee crisis impact on Lebanon)?
Some of the necessary “appropriate conditions” are not under the control of you or me and can change.

Brian?

stefanovich wrote: »

Was there a recent clampdown? It was definitely commonplace in hotels and restaurants a few years ago.

About 4 years ago the rules for people here studying English changed. They used to be able to study for 6 months and work for 6. This changed to 2 months working.

Pretty sure. A bit of an oxymoron?

I see a lot of immigrants working as deliveroo drivers and other minimum wage positions. 8 people living in a 2 bed flat doesn't sound like they are doing too well economically. Are we getting the right people?

I’m pretty sure. It’s a turn of phrase not an oxymoron.

You see a lot of immigrants? How do you know they are non Eu? How do you know they’re not breaking the law? If a lot of people are breaking the law, it’s about enforcement and not new laws.