Migration Megathread

creeper1

I’m not racist by international standards.

Take the Koreans or Chinese as an example. They refer to themselves as “the Han people “. Ask one to close their eyes and imagine a “ Han person “ and you better believe it they would not picture me nor should they!

Check out how Hong Kong deals with a foreign employee who worked there for 27 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/world/asia/hong-kong-court-denies-foreign-domestic-helpers-right-to-permanent-residency.html

Again I reiterate - I am not racist by international standards.

Ireland is a ridiculous soft touch

Brian?

creeper1 wrote: »

I’m not racist by international standards.

Take the Koreans or Chinese as an example. They refer to themselves as “the Han people “. Ask one to close their eyes and imagine a “ Han person “ and you better believe it they would not picture me nor should they!

Check out how Hong Kong deals with a foreign employee who worked there for 27 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/world/asia/hong-kong-court-denies-foreign-domestic-helpers-right-to-permanent-residency.html

Again I reiterate - I am not racist by international standards.

Ireland is a ridiculous soft touch

This is actually ridiculous.

weisses

Brian? wrote: »

This is actually ridiculous.

According to international standards

Brian?

weisses wrote: »

According to international standards

Yes. Absolutely.

Ulysses Gaze

creeper1 wrote: »

I’m going to put this simply- Nigerians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and others should not be in Ireland.

Nor should they be in Europe. Stop making out we owe them something. We owe them nothing. Just as they owe us nothing.

So when these migrants commit crimes it is all the more galling because they absolutely should not be here

Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria are members of the British Commonwealth so have a right to enter the UK if they get through the VISA process.

You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

1. You “presented evidence” a couple of weeks ago I now have to go and review before I can properly respond.

I posted it back on the 19th of July, having quoted and highlighted the relevant section for you. We could have found an illiterate child and taught them how to read the report in the intervening time.

Lets just accept that I was correct when I noted that new evidence would not alter your views. Your views are not evidence based.

You know what, I find your “hit and run” style of debating extremely tiring:....2. You don’t actually acknowledge a single point I made. Just restate your previous position.....This wall of words

All this amounts to is (again) attempting to derail the discussion into an attack on my posting style. You have no points.

This wall of words amounts to: refugees shouldn’t be allowed to seek refuge. They should do it from home and be processed before they leave the country they’re attempting to flee.

Are you willing to accept the consequences of this, like genocide and people being herded into camps? You probably are, as long as they stay away from Europe.

Mass migration is not a solution to "genocide" or "being herded into camps". It does absolutely nothing to help those who cannot reach Europe, who are the vast majority of the elderly, women and children. Even where such genuine cases exist, having a tiny minority of the strongest and wealthiest fighting age males flee to Europe helps how exactly? Its a bandaid on a gunshot.

I find it telling that you are willing to accept the actual cases of human misery and death, such as Alan Kurdi, Valeria Martinez, Ebba Akerlund and the German boy to prevent imagined misery. All those children would be alive today if not for mass migration. More people will die needlessly and avoidably if the policy of mass migration is continued. Ebba Akerlund and those other children are a price you are willing to pay for an ineffective and harmful policy which is against the interest of Europeans. I disagree.

4068ac1elhodqr

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria are members of the British Commonwealth so have a right to enter the UK if they get through the VISA process.
You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

Would that imply 2.4 billion people from 53 countries, can enter the uk with great ease, simply with a primary goal, or view to 'remain' or become resident.

Of course not. There is the small matter of the VISA process you briefly mention, as if its a wait to collect ticket from a local Argos shop.

It does not grant visitors indefinite stay without considerable cost and various conditions or factors to meet - for those who simply 'fancy' a new life abroad.

You may not like that, but it's the way it is.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

I find it telling that you are willing to accept the actual cases of human misery and death, such as Alan Kurdi, Valeria Martinez, Ebba Akerlund and the German boy to prevent imagined misery. All those children would be alive today if not for mass migration. More people will die needlessly and avoidably if the policy of mass migration is continued. Ebba Akerlund and those other children are a price you are willing to pay for an ineffective and harmful policy which is against the interest of Europeans. I disagree.

An immigrant kills somebody and the cause of death is mass migration... Hmmm.. Seems like a pretty weak conclusion. I would think if you are a detective investigating this case you will look a little more deeply at the real cause. Just imagine, 'I've cracked the case, the reason behind this murder is mass migration!! Come on

And what about cases of Western immigrants ie ex pats who live in other countries and commit murder, is the cause western migration? It happens quite a lot actually, this particular story springs to mind

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4562078/british-banker-trial-guilty-rurik-jutting-murder/%3famp=true

By your logic the cause of this murder is migration, which of course its not, its because this person was abusing drugs and was a maniac. If he hadn't migrated there, yes those innocent people would have lived, but he is the cause not the the whole of migration. You are conflating causes to suit your agenda.. It's a weak arguement that you continously peddle.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

I find it telling that you are willing to accept the actual cases of human misery and death, such as Alan Kurdi, Valeria Martinez, Ebba Akerlund and the German boy to prevent imagined misery. All those children would be alive today if not for mass migration. More people will die needlessly and avoidably if the policy of mass migration is continued. Ebba Akerlund and those other children are a price you are willing to pay for an ineffective and harmful policy which is against the interest of Europeans. I disagree.

Nice job ...You managed to conclude that human beings can be pretty awful

https://nypost.com/2019/08/02/mom-sentenced-for-killing-daughters-who-got-in-way-of-sex-life/

Sand

esteve wrote: »

An immigrant kills somebody and the cause of death is mass migration... Hmmm.. Seems like a pretty weak conclusion. I would think if you are a detective investigating this case you will look a little more deeply at the real cause. Just imagine, 'I've cracked the case, the reason behind this murder is mass migration!! Come on

Oh, analogy time? I have one too. I would think if you were a fire investigator you could need to do a little more than say "Well, everyone died of smoke inhalation. Case closed". The origin and cause needs to be determined so that policies are changed and further avoidable deaths do not occur. Pretending that the only lesson to learn from a migrant shoving a boy under a train is that safety rails need to be installed is wilfully stupid.

The reality is mass migration gave the killers of Ebba Akerlund and this German boy access to their victims. Mass migration made the parents of Alan Kurdi and Valeria Martinez think it was sensible to place their children in the hands of criminal organisations and at risks that were ultimately fatal. You are willing to accept their deaths as the cost of doing business. I am not.

And what about cases of Western immigrants ie ex pats who live in other countries and commit murder, is the cause western migration? It happens quite a lot actually, this particular story springs to mind

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4562078/british-banker-trial-guilty-rurik-jutting-murder/%3famp=true

By your logic the cause of this murder is migration, which of course its not, its because this person was abusing drugs and was a maniac. If he hadn't migrated there, yes those innocent people would have lived, but he is the cause not the the whole of migration. You are conflating causes to suit your agenda.. It's a weak arguement that you continously peddle.

Why do you think a case where one migrant tortured and murdered two other migrants in Hong Kong has any bearing on my view (supported by the evidence) that mass migration is a bad policy for Europeans? I'm genuinely curious.

Its for China to determine its own migration policy. I'd note that China was 94% Han in 1953 and is 92% Han in 2010, so they have clearly chosen a very different path to Europe and the USA. British bankers in China, how ever despicable, are not comparable to the mass migration that has irreversibly harmed Europeans interests over the past 50-70 years. There is no 'home grown' insurgency waged by migrant British bankers in China.

weisses wrote: »

Nice job ...You managed to conclude that human beings can be pretty awful

https://nypost.com/2019/08/02/mom-sentenced-for-killing-daughters-who-got-in-way-of-sex-life/

There are terrible people in every society, and there is no way to prevent all crime, but that's not an argument for why European governments should pursue mass migration against the interests of Europeans.

Think about it: You could cut rapes in Sweden to less than 42% of its current rate by ending mass migration. Foreign born men are 58% of the current figure, hugely over-represented. Of course, indigenous Swedes will still commit rapes. But that's not an argument for accepting mass migration to more than double, even triple, the number of rapes that would otherwise occur.

But again, the progressive, feminist government of Sweden seems willing to accept that trade-off. So long as its not their sister or daughter. But who knows, maybe they would accept that for the greater good of mass migration.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

Oh, analogy time? I have one too. I would think if you were a fire investigator you could need to do a little more than say "Well, everyone died of smoke inhalation. Case closed". The origin and cause needs to be determined so that policies are changed and further avoidable deaths do not occur. Pretending that the only lesson to learn from a migrant shoving a boy under a train is that safety rails need to be installed is wilfully stupid.

The reality is mass migration gave the killers of Ebba Akerlund and this German boy access to their victims. Mass migration made the parents of Alan Kurdi and Valeria Martinez think it was sensible to place their children in the hands of criminal organisations and at risks that were ultimately fatal. You are willing to accept their deaths as the cost of doing business. I am not.



Why do you think a case where one migrant tortured and murdered two other migrants in Hong Kong has any bearing on my view (supported by the evidence) that mass migration is a bad policy for Europeans? I'm genuinely curious.

Its for China to determine its own migration policy. I'd note that China was 94% Han in 1953 and is 92% Han in 2010, so they have clearly chosen a very different path to Europe and the USA. British bankers in China, how ever despicable, are not comparable to the mass migration that has irreversibly harmed Europeans interests over the past 50-70 years. There is no 'home grown' insurgency waged by migrant British bankers in China.



There are terrible people in every society, and there is no way to prevent all crime, but that's not an argument for why European governments should pursue mass migration against the interests of Europeans.

Think about it: You could cut rapes in Sweden to less than 42% of its current rate by ending mass migration. Foreign born men are 58% of the current figure, hugely over-represented. Of course, indigenous Swedes will still commit rapes. But that's not an argument for accepting mass migration to more than double, even triple, the number of rapes that would otherwise occur.

But again, the progressive, feminist government of Sweden seems willing to accept that trade-off. So long as its not their sister or daughter. But who knows, maybe they would accept that for the greater good of mass migration.

In the case I highlighted why does it matter that the victims were also migrants, why do you feel the need to mention this? Law is impartial and it applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality. If you are in a country you are bound by the laws of that place. A crime is a crime regardless of your heritage. A victim is also a victim regardless of their migrant status.

If the immigrant status of the victims is important to you, then I would ask in all the cases you highlight of immigrants committing crimes, are all the victims non immigrants? Of the 40 whatever percentage of rapes committed by immigrants in Sweden (as you purport), are all the victims non immigrants? This seems important to you so I trust you know the answer.

By your own analogy the entire immigration policy should be based on the actions of specific individuals? You like to take specific examples and guilt people to agree with you ie we can accept these victims and crimes as a price worth paying for migration to continue. You then use these specific examples to generalise all migrants. Do you not see how this could be dangerous? On a lighter note its like saying you are a piss head because you are Irish. On a more serious note it can lead to far darker conversations and opinions, and eventually actions.

Again if you are against migration to Europe you must also be against migration in all its cases as people are capable of doing terrible things. By your logic migrants from anywhere will commit crimes because anybody is capable of committing a crime. As Irish people we have a
history of migration. Were all Irish immigrants saints? Of course not but the vast majority were.

I think I am understanding your thought process though. You are okay with migrants in Sweden as long as they are not rapists? Or is it that if there was no migration to Sweden rapes would fall by 40 something percent?

esteve

Sand wrote: »

Oh, analogy time? I have one too. I would think if you were a fire investigator you could need to do a little more than say "Well, everyone died of smoke inhalation. Case closed". The origin and cause needs to be determined so that policies are changed and further avoidable deaths do not occur. Pretending that the only lesson to learn from a migrant shoving a boy under a train is that safety rails need to be installed is wilfully stupid.

The reality is mass migration gave the killers of Ebba Akerlund and this German boy access to their victims. Mass migration made the parents of Alan Kurdi and Valeria Martinez think it was sensible to place their children in the hands of criminal organisations and at risks that were ultimately fatal. You are willing to accept their deaths as the cost of doing business. I am not.



Why do you think a case where one migrant tortured and murdered two other migrants in Hong Kong has any bearing on my view (supported by the evidence) that mass migration is a bad policy for Europeans? I'm genuinely curious.

Its for China to determine its own migration policy. I'd note that China was 94% Han in 1953 and is 92% Han in 2010, so they have clearly chosen a very different path to Europe and the USA. British bankers in China, how ever despicable, are not comparable to the mass migration that has irreversibly harmed Europeans interests over the past 50-70 years. There is no 'home grown' insurgency waged by migrant British bankers in China.



There are terrible people in every society, and there is no way to prevent all crime, but that's not an argument for why European governments should pursue mass migration against the interests of Europeans.

Think about it: You could cut rapes in Sweden to less than 42% of its current rate by ending mass migration. Foreign born men are 58% of the current figure, hugely over-represented. Of course, indigenous Swedes will still commit rapes. But that's not an argument for accepting mass migration to more than double, even triple, the number of rapes that would otherwise occur.

But again, the progressive, feminist government of Sweden seems willing to accept that trade-off. So long as its not their sister or daughter. But who knows, maybe they would accept that for the greater good of mass migration.

In the case I highlighted why does it matter that the victims were also migrants, why do you feel the need to mention this? Law is impartial and it applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality. If you are in a country you are bound by the laws of that place. A crime is a crime regardless of your heritage. A victim is also a victim regardless of their migrant status.

If the immigrant status of the victims is important to you, then I would ask in all the cases you highlight of immigrants committing crimes, are all the victims non immigrants? Of the 40 whatever percentage of rapes committed by immigrants in Sweden (as you purport), are all the victims non immigrants? This seems important to you so I trust you know the answer.

By your own analogy the entire immigration policy should be based on the actions of specific individuals? You like to take specific examples and guilt people to agree with you ie we can accept these victims and crimes as a price worth paying for migration to continue. You then use these specific examples to generalise all migrants. Do you not see how this could be dangerous? On a lighter note its like saying you are a piss head because you are Irish. On a more serious note it can lead to far darker conversations and opinions, and eventually actions.

Again if you are against migration to Europe you must also be against migration in all its cases as people are capable of doing terrible things. By your logic migrants from anywhere will commit crimes because anybody is capable of committing a crime. As Irish people we have a
history of migration. Were all Irish immigrants saints? Of course not but the vast majority were.

I think I am understanding your thought process though. You are okay with migrants in Sweden as long as they are not rapists? Or is it that if there was no migration to Sweden rapes would fall by 40 something percent?

Sand

esteve wrote: »

In the case I highlighted why does it matter that the victims were also migrants, why do you feel the need to mention this? Law is impartial and it applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality. If you are in a country you are bound by the laws of that place. A crime is a crime regardless of your heritage. A victim is also a victim regardless of their migrant status.

If this were true, migrants would be as invisible in crime statistics as vegetarians. They are not.

If the immigrant status of the victims is important to you, then I would ask in all the cases you highlight of immigrants committing crimes, are all the victims non immigrants? Of the 40 whatever percentage of rapes committed by immigrants in Sweden (as you purport), are all the victims non immigrants? This seems important to you so I trust you know the answer.

Its not 40% committed by immigrants. It is 58% committed by foreign born men. So, 58% of rapes in Sweden are committed by men who moved to Sweden in their own lifetime.

I just told you that in my previous post, yet you are unable to comprehend the reality of it.

By your own analogy the entire immigration policy should be based on the actions of specific individuals?

No, absolutely not. That still makes the mistake of presuming immigration policy should be based upon the actions of the immigrants. Immigration policy to Europe must be based upon the effect it has upon Europeans. The actions of individuals is just coincidental.

You like to take specific examples and guilt people to agree with you ie we can accept these victims and crimes as a price worth paying for migration to continue.

I don't imagine advocates for mass migration and open borders can feel emotions like guilt.

You then use these specific examples to generalise all migrants. Do you not see how this could be dangerous? On a lighter note its like saying you are a piss head because you are Irish. On a more serious note it can lead to far darker conversations and opinions, and eventually actions.

I don't generalise all migrants. Many migrants are fine people. But I review the evidence. The evidence shows mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans. There is no further justification required for rejecting it as a policy for European governments.

Again if you are against migration to Europe you must also be against migration in all its cases as people are capable of doing terrible things. By your logic migrants from anywhere will commit crimes because anybody is capable of committing a crime. As Irish people we have a
history of migration. Were all Irish immigrants saints? Of course not but the vast majority were.

I see migration policy as a matter for the local governments. China operates a migration policy in the interests of its own people. I don't think it is so radical to ask European governments to do the same. As for Irish people, we are absolutely not saints. When large numbers of young, fighting age males leave home, travel away from traditional supports and constraints they tend to cause trouble. It's for Australia and the US to determine if the hassle is worth it.

I think I am understanding your thought process though. You are okay with migrants in Sweden as long as they are not rapists? Or is it that if there was no migration to Sweden rapes would fall by 40 something percent?

Actually, it would fall by more than 60%. 58% of rapes are carried out by first generation migrants. Swedish crime statistics shows that second and third generation migrant communities are heavily over-represented in all crimes, including rape. So ending mass migration would cut rapes by more than 60%, all other things being equal.

If someone came up with a policy that would cut rapes in Sweden by over 60%, people would hail them as a feminist hero of our age. But when the solution is ending mass migration, the higher priorities of some people emerge.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

If this were true, migrants would be as invisible in crime statistics as vegetarians. They are not.

What?

Sand wrote: »

Its not 40% committed by immigrants. It is 58% committed by foreign born men. So, 58% of rapes in Sweden are committed by men who moved to Sweden in their own lifetime.

I just told you that in my previous post, yet you are unable to comprehend the reality of it.



No, absolutely not. That still makes the mistake of presuming immigration policy should be based upon the actions of the immigrants. Immigration policy to Europe must be based upon the effect it has upon Europeans. The actions of individuals is just coincidental.



I don't imagine advocates for mass migration and open borders can feel emotions like guilt.



I don't generalise all migrants. Many migrants are fine people. But I review the evidence. The evidence shows mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans. There is no further justification required for rejecting it as a policy for European governments.



I see migration policy as a matter for the local governments. China operates a migration policy in the interests of its own people. I don't think it is so radical to ask European governments to do the same. As for Irish people, we are absolutely not saints. When large numbers of young, fighting age males leave home, travel away from traditional supports and constraints they tend to cause trouble. It's for Australia and the US to determine if the hassle is worth it.



Actually, it would fall by more than 60%. 58% of rapes are carried out by first generation migrants. Swedish crime statistics shows that second and third generation migrant communities are heavily over-represented in all crimes, including rape. So ending mass migration would cut rapes by more than 60%, all other things being equal.

If someone came up with a policy that would cut rapes in Sweden by over 60%, people would hail them as a feminist hero of our age. But when the solution is ending mass migration, the higher priorities of some people emerge.

Strangely the victims names you list have oddly very non Germanic names. So are these victims the offspring of non crime committing immigrants?

You say stopping migration will cut rape in Sweden by 60 something percent. You can't state this with absolute certainty. You are making a direct correlation between migrants and rape when there are more factors involved. In statistics this is a super weak argument. You say you could categorically reduce rape in Sweden by one swift policy enaction and this is simply untrue while also ignoring the benefits of migration, of which there are many. Also, do you have any sources for your statistics?

You say the impact of Irish migration to the US, for example, is up to the US to decide although the US nowadays is made up of the descendants of migrants. The native population has more or less been decimated, do you not see the hypocrisy?

You say people who support migration feel no guilt.. Hmm.. Good point, well made!

I am glad you mention sweden. I was in Gdansk recently and met 3 Swedish people studying medicine. They plan to go back to sweden after their education and work as doctors, pretty damn important contribution to any society. A Uruguayan person who I also met said to me they are not real Swedish people as they are from African heritage. It didn't matter they were born and raised in Sweden. Ironically this Urugayan person is from Italian heritage, but he didn't see the irony of his opinion.

Listen Sand, you have been on boards for years and I remember discussions with you on various issues. I have openly criticised Bush, Obama, various political issues whether left or right, liberal or Conservative. How you cannot see yourself shifting further to right is alarming but not surprising as its a global issue. You never came across as a populist though

Irish Praetorian

esteve wrote: »

You say the impact of Irish migration to the US, for example, is up to the US to decide although the US nowadays is made up of the descendants of migrants. The native population has more or less been decimated, do you not see the hypocrisy?

This is bit of a pet issue of mine so I hope you'll excuse me for butting in, but there are three key issues I like to make regarding the issue of Irish migration to the US.


Firstly I would ask people to recognize the differences in the economic circumstances; Irish migrants to the US during the highpoint of that migration (mid to late nineteenth century) were key to providing highly in-demand unskilled labour, to handle everything from domestic work to cutting railway crossings. In short, they Irish in America could move, more or less pay their own way and gradually contribute. In contrast, today's mass migration typically involves the same low skill labour, which is in far less demand.


Secondly, and adjunct to this first point, it should be recalled that this migration proceeded to a country which lacked the kind of social safety net and government spending that we see today - it was much more a cost borne by the migrant themselves and their family (or some willing charities). By contrast, modern states have a far bigger burden on expenditure to ensure the provision of education, healthcare, welfare etc, and that is before we get to consider the particular costs of handling migrant needs.



Thirdly, the often unspoken aspect of Irish migration to the US which has been flagged here, is it's role in the continuing displacement and disruption of the native American population. Now this was more of a German-American thing but simply put, the mass movement of peoples involved enormous tracts of the US being cleared of natives and given over to new settlers. It is not possible to square the circle of condemning the destruction of the native way of life whilst celebrating the mass movement of people - the two were intimately linked.

Sand

esteve wrote: »

You say stopping migration will cut rape in Sweden by 60 something percent. You can't state this with absolute certainty.

Not having pursued mass migration would mean rapes in Sweden dropping by over 60%, all other things being equal. We can state this because 58% of rapes in Sweden are carried out by foreign born men.

You are making a direct correlation between migrants and rape

I'm noting that foreign born males are hugely over-represented in rapes in Sweden. I'm drawing a fairly reasonable conclusion that permitting those foreign born men into Sweden has doubled/tripled rapes in Sweden.

while also ignoring the benefits of migration, of which there are many.

A larger array of ethnic restaurants?

There are no benefits mass migration. The evidence shows mass migration is an economic burden on the indigenous population, that it leads to ethnic strife, terrorism, the growth of a NGO industry and restriction of freedoms and liberty. In no way does it benefit Europeans

Also, do you have any sources for your statistics?

I always do. It was provided earlier in the thread.

You say the impact of Irish migration to the US, for example, is up to the US to decide although the US nowadays is made up of the descendants of migrants. The native population has more or less been decimated, do you not see the hypocrisy?

Yes, mass migration of Europeans into America was a cataclysmic event for the indigenous peoples. They lost everything. Mass migration always leads to negative outcomes for the indigenous people. I already discussed this at length earlier in the thread.

The awful outcome of mass migration for native Americans is not an argument for Europeans permitting mass migration against their own interests.

You say people who support migration feel no guilt.. Hmm.. Good point, well made!

Are you saying you do feel guilt about the victims of the mass migration policy you advocate for?

I am glad you mention sweden. I was in Gdansk recently and met 3 Swedish people studying medicine. They plan to go back to sweden after their education and work as doctors, pretty damn important contribution to any society. A Uruguayan person who I also met said to me they are not real Swedish people as they are from African heritage. It didn't matter they were born and raised in Sweden. Ironically this Urugayan person is from Italian heritage, but he didn't see the irony of his opinion.

That is an interesting anecdote.

Listen Sand, you have been on boards for years and I remember discussions with you on various issues. I have openly criticised Bush, Obama, various political issues whether left or right, liberal or Conservative. How you cannot see yourself shifting further to right is alarming but not surprising as its a global issue. You never came across as a populist though

I don't see how it is controversial to follow the evidence and recognise mass migration into Europe is clearly against the interests of Europeans. Europeans have a legitimate right to expect their governments will make policy that is in their interests. If European peoples increasingly turn to 'populist' parties, its because those parties prioritise their interests. This is normal.

It's your views that are incredibly radical. There is no moral virtue to pursuing awful and unpopular policies against the interests of the people a government is supposed to represent.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

Not having pursued mass migration would mean rapes in Sweden dropping by over 60%, all other things being equal. We can state this because 58% of rapes in Sweden are carried out by foreign born men.



I'm noting that foreign born males are hugely over-represented in rapes in Sweden. I'm drawing a fairly reasonable conclusion that permitting those foreign born men into Sweden has doubled/tripled rapes in Sweden.



A larger array of ethnic restaurants?

There are no benefits mass migration. The evidence shows mass migration is an economic burden on the indigenous population, that it leads to ethnic strife, terrorism, the growth of a NGO industry and restriction of freedoms and liberty. In no way does it benefit Europeans



I always do. It was provided earlier in the thread.



Yes, mass migration of Europeans into America was a cataclysmic event for the indigenous peoples. They lost everything. Mass migration always leads to negative outcomes for the indigenous people. I already discussed this at length earlier in the thread.

The awful outcome of mass migration for native Americans is not an argument for Europeans permitting mass migration against their own interests.



Are you saying you do feel guilt about the victims of the mass migration policy you advocate for?



That is an interesting anecdote.



I don't see how it is controversial to follow the evidence and recognise mass migration into Europe is clearly against the interests of Europeans. Europeans have a legitimate right to expect their governments will make policy that is in their interests. If European peoples increasingly turn to 'populist' parties, its because those parties prioritise their interests. This is normal.

It's your views that are incredibly radical. There is no moral virtue to pursuing awful and unpopular policies against the interests of the people a government is supposed to represent.

I was going to take the time to respond but when you say that the only benefit of mass migration are ethnic restaurants... I mean come on!

The Turkish immigrants did not rebuild Germany after WW2, they just sold kebabs!

My views are radical and those of populist parties in Europe only have the populations interests at heart,okay if you say so! History will prove you wrong, just as it did with the populism policies that resulted in WW2

Sand

esteve wrote: »

I was going to take the time to respond but when you say that the only benefit of mass migration are ethnic restaurants... I mean come on!

I didn't even say it was a benefit.

The Turkish immigrants did not rebuild Germany after WW2

Correct. Germans did.

My views are radical and those of populist parties in Europe only have the populations interests at heart,okay if you say so! History will prove you wrong, just as it did with the populism policies that resulted in WW2

Your policies of mass migration have resulted in men suicide bombing children attending an Ariane Grande concert. And yet you cant accept that you are wrong. You're living back in the 1930s, when 2019 has it's own problems. Mass migration must continue at any cost. Right?

esteve

Sand wrote: »

I didn't even say it was a benefit.



Correct. Germans did.



Your policies of mass migration have resulted in men suicide bombing children attending an Ariane Grande concert. And yet you cant accept that you are wrong. You're living back in the 1930s, when 2019 has it's own problems. Mass migration must continue at any cost. Right?

And here we go full circle in your argument, muslim migration results in sucidie bombings and it seems it is a cost I am willing to pay? Slightly slanerdish at the least.

I don't have the time to discuss suicide bombings just as you don't háve time to rerefernce the staisitcs you quote, and not for the first time.

It's an overly simple argument to say mass migration results in suicide bombing when it is more complex than that, while also ignoring all the vast majority of the Muslims who deplore these actions.

Let populism continue and see where it leads us, it has to be much better than my 'radical policies'.

Sand

esteve wrote: »

And here we go full circle in your argument, muslim migration results in sucidie bombings and it seems it is a cost I am willing to pay? Slightly slanerdish at the least.

You are able to acknowledge mass migration was awful for native Americans. You're unable to contest that it is awful for Europeans. Yet you persist in calling for mass migration. If you're not willing to accept the outcomes, why do you advocate for the policy?

I don't have the time to discuss suicide bombings just as you don't háve time to rerefernce the staisitcs you quote, and not for the first time.

Just as advocates of mass migration like yourself and Brian don't have time to read the evidence I provide. I already provided the evidence - go to the top of this page. Hit Search This Thread and then Advanced Search. Set user to Sand, 58 as key word.

You're suffering from wilful ignorance. You're proclaiming on a topic you know little about and have spent no time researching. You don't want to see information that challenges your beliefs. That is your problem, not mine.

It's an overly simple argument to say mass migration results in suicide bombing when it is more complex than that, while also ignoring all the vast majority of the Muslims who deplore these actions.

Mass migration results in ethnic enclaves which result in ethnic strife. You simply cannot have an Islamic insurgency in the UK without Islamic communities to recruit from. Poland does not have an Islamic insurgency because they have not permitted mass migration to form Islamic enclaves in their country.

Let populism continue and see where it leads us, it has to be much better than my 'radical policies'.

Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

What populist party governs the interest of Europeans ?

rossie1977

Poland has smaller population than Germany or UK yet murder level similar https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180222-1

4068ac1elhodqr

rossie1977 wrote: »

Poland has smaller population than Germany or UK yet murder level similar https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180222-1

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

esteve

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

Not all Welsh people are white, so if you only look at that demographic you may the mis representation you allude to.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

You are able to acknowledge mass migration was awful for native Americans. You're unable to contest that it is awful for Europeans. Yet you persist in calling for mass migration. If you're not willing to accept the outcomes, why do you advocate for the policy?



Just as advocates of mass migration like yourself and Brian don't have time to read the evidence I provide. I already provided the evidence - go to the top of this page. Hit Search This Thread and then Advanced Search. Set user to Sand, 58 as key word.

You're suffering from wilful ignorance. You're proclaiming on a topic you know little about and have spent no time researching. You don't want to see information that challenges your beliefs. That is your problem, not mine.



Mass migration results in ethnic enclaves which result in ethnic strife. You simply cannot have an Islamic insurgency in the UK without Islamic communities to recruit from. Poland does not have an Islamic insurgency because they have not permitted mass migration to form Islamic enclaves in their country.



Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

Hold your horses. I have never been an advocate of mass immigration. You've simply made that up.

I want sensible immigration control, which includes taking in a reasonable of refugees. I don't believe in allowing people to drown in the Mediterranean is a good thing.

But somehow in your mind that adds up to me advocating for mass immigration. I think you need to be more honest here. You're not anti mass immigration, you're anti immigration. At least own your own position. You believe Europe will be better without immigrants, full stop.

I wonder sometimes if you even consider them people, you never refer to them as people.

Brian?

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

If you mean Muslim, just say it.

Sand

weisses wrote: »

What populist party governs the interest of Europeans ?

Populist is a pejorative, not a useful classification. Any party which takes policies to limit or prevent mass migration is governing in the interest of Europeans.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Poland has smaller population than Germany or UK yet murder level similar https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180222-1

If you add Islamic enclaves and resulting terrorism on top, will that make the existing problems better or worse? You might as well say it makes no difference if a novice swimmer ties a concrete block to their foot before they jump in.

Whatever existing problems European countries have, they can better face them without mass migration causing more problems.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

I don't believe in allowing people to drown in the Mediterranean is a good thing.

Neither do I. We fully agree. Rescue them back to Libya. Do not traffick them to Europe.

You're not anti mass immigration, you're anti immigration. At least own your own position. You believe Europe will be better without immigrants, full stop.

I use the term mass migration precisely because I am not opposed to immigration, where it is judged to be in the interests of Europeans. But mass migration is entirely something else.

rossie1977

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

For maybe a month. NYC has still more crime and double the amount of murder that London has.

Knife crime has increased in UK and gets lots of press coverage especially in US but you are still statistically as likely to be killed by a knife in the US as the UK. (0.48 vs.0.49

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

Proportionally white males in the UK tend to be richer and more educated than white males in say Poland, Lithuania or Latvia hence violent crime among that group in UK is lower.

There is a clear correlation between violent crime and social standing.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

Neither do I. We fully agree. Rescue them back to Libya. Do not traffick them to Europe.




I use the term mass migration precisely because I am not opposed to immigration, where it is judged to be in the interests of Europeans. But mass migration is entirely something else.

Why not reply to my whole post, this reply is a bit disengenous. Do you accept I'm not advocating for mass immigration and retract your earlier comment?